A Look Into The Sexual Double-Standard
Often seen as an invention of the sexist patriarchy, the sexual double standard, the system that seems to reward men for their promiscuity while punishing women, is, contrary to popular belief, rooted in our evolution and biology. And how would that be? It begins with understanding the mating process and our biological goals.
The primary goal of any species is simply reproduction. And to achieve this reproduction, there must be a mating process. In humans, as with many other species, we see females as more selective and men as more promiscuous, attempting to impregnate as many females as possible. Given this female selectivity, if a man can succeed in their goal, and the biological goal is completed, then it only makes sense that there will be some reward. It is an evolutionary practice to encourage the development for rewards pertaining to biological goals. On the contrary, if a woman abandons their selectivity then a number of issues could arise, and there will be a societal “punishment” for the failure of pursuing one’s biological interests.
“But we’ve gone past that, we have developed such advanced societies that there is no need to concern ourselves with the biological goals of our ancient ancestors”, one might say. Failing to realize of course that first, it is impossible to rid ourselves of our evolution and second, that these consequences will linger today as they did then. Single Motherhood is far worse for the mother than for the man. A man has nothing holding them down to one particular woman in a physical sense, while a woman would be carrying a child for 9 months. So of course female selectivity would still be relevant. Although with the advent of birth control, and the increasingly “slutty” attitudes of many females, it seems as though the primary consequence of such actions have been negated, leaving only the social stigma remaining, giving rise to the negative attitudes females tend to have nowadays.
It would seem that it is this disconnect, at least in the first world, between our mind- hardwired to maintain our evolutionary tradition, and the new female liberalization, and its subsequent abandonment of institutions seen as “patriarchal”, is where our issues lie. And the previous issues that would arise, ie single motherhood and abandonment, are now fixed, not by marriage as they had been, but by pills, clinics, babysitters, and all the freedom in the world. But going so far against our own psychology and evolution is sure to have a negative effect on humans, right? Well it would seem to be the case. The cultural revolution and societal liberalization, for all the freedom it achieved, could not free itself of evolution.
It seems like, at least for a time, there was some sort of balance achieved. The struggles between female selectivity and male promiscuity were fixed with the nuclear family. Settling down seemed to solve any issues that might have arisen. Male abandonment is not an issue when the despicable social construct of marriage exists. Tied down now by society and contract, the man must now complete their biological goals with one woman.
As mentioned previously, males are rewarded in nature, and therefore by society, for reproducing. Applying darwinian concepts we see the most fit male would be the one to be chosen by the more selective females in the highest amount. With only the most desirable features continuing to be selected, and the fittest of males rising through the hierarchy, this process is conducive to repopulation in the most beneficial way, breeding a better population through natural selection. And while not as rampant, we can keep many of the benefits of such a system while negating the negatives through marriage. Now, selective females would marry the more ideal of men and they would, through contract, and hopefully by love as well, be forced into staying.
It is the rejection of this process that has led to the warping of the female mind and the confusing sentiments regarding issues of promiscuity. Hardly seen as much of a negative, females are promiscuous very often. And men, more often than not, bound by nothing, are more than willing to engage in casual sex. This sex will not lead to any child, and they both go their separate ways. Yet the female is still looked down upon despite their avoidance of any natural repercussions. It is regardless of the consequences that this will happen, because as difficult as it may be to accept, natural feelings through evolution cannot be changed in a century, and men have historically not had the limitations of women in this regard. Perhaps it is nature that is sexist.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307612482 Promoting Theory-Based Perspectives in Sexual Double Standard Research