We Were Patriarchs: Male Mating Strategies and Intrasexual Competition

Enjoy DatePsychology? Consider subscribing at Patreon to support the project.

Immersion in dating discourse on the Internet will expose you to many subcultures that have very colorful ideas about the role of society in intrasexual behavior. We know from past research that mating success and failure has an effect upon political and sociocultural beliefs. For example, in a recent online dating experiment men who were rejected more often developed more negative attitudes towards casual sex (Luberti et al., 2022). This is consistent with past research in evolutionary psychology and what we should expect from Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) (Buss, 1998; Buss & Schmitt, 2021; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).

In this article I will describe male mating strategies in evolutionary psychology, how mating failure drives intrasexual competition, and how intrasexual competition manifests in interpersonal interactions. Additionally, I will explain how male mating strategies, intrasexual competition, and a failure to mate all drive sociopolitical beliefs related to romantic relationships.

The Evolutionary Psychology of Male Mating Strategies

SST proposes that men have an orientation toward both short and long term sexual relationships. Much debate occurs in our folk psychology: are we monogamous or are we polygamous? The dominant human mating pattern is serial monogamy (Schacht & Kramer, 2019). This remains true even in societies that practice polygamy. We form strong pair bonds with single partners that last for a remarkably long time compared to most mammals.

“Hoggamous, Higgamous,

Man is polygamous.

Higgamous, Hoggamous.

Woman, monogamous.”

– William James

The fact that men have a strong orientation toward long term relationships is underappreciated — even flat out denied — in much dating discourse (for example, in the red pill, or the manosphere, as well as in left-wing discourse that argues monogamy is a social construct). If they are informed by evolutionary psychology at all, as they often claim, they are getting this wrong big time.

We have strong behavioral and emotional adaptations that orient us toward long term mating. This is true for men and for women. The evolutionary origins of pair bonding suggest that pair bonding preceded biparental care (Lukas & Clutton-Block, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2015). The evolution of a monogamous orientation allowed for long gestation periods, extended infancy, and the development of large brains (Fletcher et al., 2015). We have small numbers of offspring that grow very slowly (as opposed to the litters of a dog). We invest heavily in the few offspring we have.

Contrast this with the mating strategy of a salmon. There is no parental care. The evolutionary trade off of no care is the fertilization of thousands of eggs. Most animals may not experience anything like romantic love. Yet, romantic love is universal in human beings. It is not merely a social construct. No culture or society has ever been identified where romantic love is absent (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992; Harris, 1995). The feeling of love is a powerful evolutionary adaptation that solves the “commitment problem” and cements pair bonds (Gonzaga & Haselton, 2008).

Love is, in many ways, the closest thing to a prolonged base instinct that we have. It drives people to do absurd things in ways that few emotions do. Physical adaptations reflected in the human reproductive cycle, such as high difficulty with unassisted childbirth, as well as behavioral adaptations such as jealousy and love, show that monogamy is in our genes.

And men are romantics. Men even fall in love at first sight more than women do (Buss, 2019). Anyone giving you dating advice without a serious consideration of love is missing a big part of the evolutionary picture. At best they are merely seeing the shadows on Plato’s cave wall. (For a full review of the evolution of love and monogamy in humans, see Buss, 2019; Gonzaga & Haselton, 2008.)

This may surprise you if your perception of male sexuality was a simplistic Hoggamous, Higgamous. Further, we also know from the research that men have a strong orientation toward short term mating, or uncommitted casual sex. Is this a contradiction or puzzle? Not really. SST proposes a short and long term mating strategy for men and women (Buss, 1998).

In psychology, the willingness to have sex outside of a committed relationship, or to have casual sex, is called sociosexuality. We see a large sex difference between men and women in sociosexuality. Men are less sexually restricted. In other words, men are more willing to have casual sex than women.

This remains one of the largest and most well-replicated sex differences in evolutionary psychology. Cohen’s d estimates for sex differences in sociosexuality range between .7 to .9 and are observed in every culture worldwide (Schmitt, 2005; Lippa, 2009). The heritability of sociosexual orientation is about 50% (Bailey et al., 2000). Again, sex differences in sexual behavior are not merely a social construct.

A standardized effect size like Cohen’s d may seem abstract if you’re not immersed in the psychological literature, so let’s look at some research that gives very straightforward unstandardized effects.

In 1979, Clark and Hatfield designed a simple experiment. Attractive men and women working with the researchers (called confederates — actors playing a role within the experiment) approached students on campus. They approached members of the opposite sex and asked: “would you go to bed with me?”

In 1978, 75% of the men agreed and 0% of the women agreed. This experiment was replicated in 1982 with a similar result; 69% of men agreed to sex with a strange woman and 0% of women agreed. Again in 1990 it was replicated with the same result; 69% agreed and 0% of women agreed.

The 1990 version also put a spin on it: the confederates called their own friends. They told their friends that they had an attractive opposite-sex friend from out of town who was staying with them. Would they be interested in having casual sex with them? 50% of men said yes, 5% of women said yes.

In 2003, a reporter for a magazine in Germany did this. Of the 100 women he approached, 6 women agreed to casual sex. In 2006, the experiment was replicated with vignettes: simple text descriptions of an attractive opposite-sex person. 40% of men said they would have casual sex with the attractive stranger and 11.6% of women. In another experiment in 2009, participants were asked to simply imagine if they would say yes to an attractive stranger. 54% of men said yes, 7.7% of women said yes.

In 2010 they replicated the original methodology: approaching people in real life. They also used confederates pre-rated for high attractiveness. 83% of men and only 3% of women agreed to have casual sex with the highly attractive stranger.

This experiment has been replicated multiple times over the decades and the result has always shown a large sex difference. The original Clark and Hatfield research showed a Cohen’s d of 3.61. This is astounding and practically never seen within psychology. It remains to this day one of the largest behavioral sex differences that has consistently replicated. A majority of men will immediately agree to sex with an attractive woman. Very few women at all will immediately agree to casual sex with an attractive man. Below is a nonexhaustive table summarizing the Clark and Hatfield replications:

I have also replicated sex differences in sociosexuality across two of my own datasets (see Top Deal-Breakers on Dating Apps and “Body Count” And Sexual Double Standards). Here are charts from the first dataset showing sex differences in openness to casual sex and a desire for monogamy:

This shows a large Cohen’s d of .84 for openness to casual sex and a small Cohen’s d of -.35 for a desire for monogamy. Women overwhelmingly expressed a low openness to casual sex. Meanwhile, men and women both expressed a strong desire for monogamy.

Hoggamus Higgamus, are men really polygamous? Not precisely. Men are monogamous and simultaneously have an openness to casual sex. How is this expressed in our mating behavior? Infidelity, for one. This is another large and well-replicated sex difference in evolutionary psychology: men cheat more.

Here is a chart listing sex differences in sexual behavior, including male infidelity. I sourced this from a Tweet by evolutionary biologist Steve Stewart-Williams and the references can also be found in this article by evolutionary psychologist David Schmitt.

Men invest heavily in long term relationships while attempting to have extradyadic sex on the side. This is what is predicted in Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory (2017), a foundational starting point for evolutionary psychology, and Buss’ Sexual Strategies Theory (1998). Long term investment in a relationship is costly, but enhances reproductive fitness by raising the survival rate of offspring. Short term mating, meanwhile, has little reproductive cost for men.

This is important and many people get this wrong in dating discourse — short term mating still has a cost. A big one. Remember, we are a long term pair bonding species. We experience jealousy and rivalry toward competitors. Infidelity can cost you a long term mate. It can cost you access to your primary offspring. In extreme cases, a jealous rival may kill your offspring, the offspring of your extra-pair lover, or even kill you. (For discussion of this, see Buss, 1998 and Buss, 2019). It is no more your “biological imperative” to cheat than it is to remain faithful.

Additionally important — polygamy is not a short term mating strategy. Polygamy is a long term mating strategy with investments in multiple mates. The term “pair bonding” is in many ways a misnomer in that it implies a dyad. Usually, it is. However, long term bonds may be formed with multiple partners. Hoggamus higgamus, men are monogamous, sometimes polygamous, and occasionally promiscuous.

What about women? We have seen women have low short term orientation and high orientation toward monogamy. Polyandry, female long term mating with multiple male partners, is quite rare (Pew, 2020). We have seen that women cheat less and that women rarely agree to casual sex with a stranger. Higgamus hoggamus, women really are, in general, monogamous.

Romantic Failure and Losses in Intrasexual Competition Drive Ideological Dating Beliefs

As mentioned in the introduction, when men are romantically rejected (for example, in online dating) they express a stronger opposition to casual sex (Luberti et al., 2022). Conversely, when men receive positive romantic feedback from women about their value as a mate their support for casual sex increases (Surbey & Brice, 2007). When opposite-sex mates appear scarce, men engage in more intrasexual competition, they become more jealous, and they express more mate-guarding behavior (Arnocky et al., 2014). When men outnumber women in an environment (an imbalanced sex ratio, as we see on dating apps), when other men are more masculine or desirable, and when men have lower mate value relative to other men, men judge female promiscuity more harshly (Gouda-Vossos et al., 2023).

These are all expressions of intrasexual competition. Men who are being outcompeted by other men in the mating market develop beliefs congruent with their rejection. Men who see themselves as more successful in short term dating are more supportive of it (Landolt et al, 1995). Your attitudes toward dating, casual sex, and long term relationships are shaped by your own successes and failures.

Some men will read this and say, “that’s not true, I have Very Rational Reasons™ for my beliefs about women, dating, and casual sex.” I know some men will have this reaction, because this is the reaction I received in the past sharing this research on social media. The implication is you suck with women, this is why you are hostile toward them, and this is why you’re really mad about women having sex with other people. 

Do you have a Very Rational Reason™ to be furious about female promiscuity? Maybe you do, maybe you do not. However, one fact about human psychology is that most people have little insight into their own motivations and beliefs. In the psychological subfield of judgment and decision-making it is well understood that emotion drives every “rational” decision (Bechara et al., 2000; Lerner et al., 2015). Further, the less aware you are of how biases derived from personal experiences shape your beliefs, the less “rational” or objective those beliefs will be. Your beliefs will be driven even more by emotion and you will be even less aware of it.

Let’s look at an example. How do we know if someone adopted conservative Christian beliefs on sexual behavior because they love Jesus and not because they gravitated toward a belief system that was congruent with negative attitudes towards promiscuity formed through failed mating?

I often see two types of Christian relationship discourse on social media. The first is single men who are extremely mad at women. They focus heavily on shaming women for promiscuity. Their focus is almost exclusively on what they see as negative female behavior.

The second are married Christians who give relationship advice. The discourse of the latter group looks quite different. It tends to be much less hostile. I see very little hatred or hostility in this group. They often focus on male and female behavior, typically relationship skills and problem solving.

Why do they look so different? The first group may have simply been driven to form beliefs based on frustrated mating experiences. The latter may be operating from a position of successful mating experiences. The two may share the same sexual strategy (a monogamous orientation). However, the former cannot actualize their sexual strategy while the latter has. Intrasexual competition drives discourse within the first group, but not the latter group.

Incels are another example. This is a community of men built around failed mating frustration. They don’t deny it — it’s part of the identity they embrace. They hold to the “blackpill,” the ideological belief that looks are the most (or only) important thing for mating success. They believe that they don’t have a necessary level of physical attractiveness. Incels are known for extreme hostility toward women. They score high in hostile sexism and interpersonal victimhood (Costello et al., 2022; Hamilton, 2022; Rousis et al., 2023). A recent analysis of 3.5 million posts on an incel forum found high levels of hostility toward women as the pervasive theme (Halpin et al., 2022). A great deal of this discourse specifically involves narratives of female promiscuity.

Incels call handsome men who are successful with women “Chads.” Ask yourself this: do we have a community of Chads on the Internet that behaves this way? It doesn’t seem like it. Where are the Chads? They’re making thirst trap TikToks for their large female fanbases. They are behaving in a way that is congruent with mating success.

Human beings are a highly social and verbal species. We have developed complex language abilities. Further, we are highly cooperative and less physically aggressive than most primates. This is reflected in our physiology, which is substantially less robust, and indicates an evolutionary history with diminished physical conflict. Congruent with this, most intrasexual competition is verbal. It is comparatively rare that we engage in physical fights over mates.

What is more common? We use our words. The derogation of competitors is a feature of intrasexual competition (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Fisher, 2022). Insults may not always reflect intrasexual competition. For example, as men we bond through insults (Curry, 1991; McDiarmid, 2017). However, it is often clear when they are employed as intrasexual competition. Further, the nature of the insults we use reflects evolutionary roots in intrasexual competition. We derogate the very things that are associated with mate value: physical attractiveness, sexual purity, physical strength, and status cues (Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Harrison & Hughes, 2022).

Intrasexual competition need not reflect competition for a mate, although this is one function. Intrasexual competition may simply be a within-sex competition for status. Men low in status may derogate high status men. Men who are high in status, but feel threatened by a rising competitor, may try to prevent their rise. This is reflected in bullying behavior, which interpreted through an evolutionary lens reflects intrasexual competition for position in a male dominance hierarchy (Volk et al., 2012). 

Derogation of rivals as intrasexual competition for mates may be less effective depending on one’s own mate value. For example, Greengross and Miller (2008) found that “punching down” made men who were high in attractiveness seem less attractive to women. For men low in attractiveness it had no effect. This may be because derogation is associated with lower mate value and status. Men lower in mate value were also more likely to use derogation as a cost-inflicting mate retention strategy. In other words, low value men insult women so that they do not leave.

This raises another function of derogation in intrasexual competition. Insults may be used to raise one’s own status and lower the status of a male competitor, but they are also used to lower the status of a potential mate (Cox & Fisher, 2008). Reducing the value of a potential mate works in three ways: it may lower their value (aligning them with your mate value if you begin with low mate value), it may stop them from seeking alternative mates, and it may make them seem undesirable to male competitors. Here again we see asymmetry in who benefits more from derogation and the use of insults in intrasexual competition: it is men of lower value.

In a recent Species podcast with evolutionary psychologist Macken Murphy we discuss the role of derogation in dating discourse as intrasexual competition. Why does dating discourse in the manosphere resemble intrasexual competition so closely? Well, it probably is. This does not mean those who engage in it are consciously aware of it. As I wrote, we know across psychology as a broad principle that people have little insight into their own motives. This may be especially true for patterns of behavior rooted in our past. But what do we see? The extreme derogation of women. Narratives intended to make relationships seem undesirable for young men (reducing the perceived value of potential female mates to potential male competitors). The derogation of high status men in relationships (“Jeff Bezos is a cuck”).

A recent paper by Peter DeScioli (2023) published in Evolution and Human Behavior explored the evolution of social norms and laws. Laws are rooted in moral judgments. Differences in moral judgments sort people into competing teams. Further, what team you self-sort onto (and what beliefs you form) is derived from what is beneficial to you. As DeSicoli put it: morals and laws are for choosing sides.

DeSicoli discussed the evolution of norms and laws regarding sexual behavior. Driving these is intrasexual competition for a limited pool of mates. For example, laws against adultery function to prevent mate poaching (“stealing yo’ girl”). Who would benefit from laws like this? Men who have a mate to be poached. More specifically, men who are lower in mate value and are at higher risk from a mate poacher. Additionally, men who cannot engage in short term mating themselves, be it within a long term relationship (expressed as infidelity) or outside of it (expressed as casual sex), will also be more supportive of social structures that help them to retain a mate.

“The battle over the laws of sex is perpetual, for reasons that are not widely appreciated. The root of the conflict is that humans have different mating strategies, ranging from monogamy to promiscuity,” DeSicoli writes. Who then sorts themselves onto one side or the other in this battle? Men who are single, sexually successful, or oriented toward short term mating (promiscuity) will tend to side with sexual freedom. Indeed, this is supported by the experimental research at the beginning of this section (Landolt et al, 1995; Surbey & Brice, 2007). 

However, single men may also support restrictive norms if they believe those norms will facilitate their sexual strategy. Restrictions on both polygamy and promiscuity may be in the interest of single men who find themselves outcompeted in the mating market (Demetriou, 2022). This is also consistent with the research indicating that men who are rejected develop negative attitudes towards casual sex (Luberti et al., 2022).

“We Were Patriarchs”

What do we know from evolutionary research so far? We have seen that beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are shaped by mating successes and failures. Intrasexual competition is expressed not only interpersonally, but at scale across society. Sexual laws in society are implemented to protect or facilitate relationships. Individuals who benefit more from a given law will show more support for that law. If they benefit from the law is determined by how it facilitates or impedes their sexual strategy.

We have also seen that intrasexual competition is a tell. The way that men compete gives you a good idea of how successful they are in their own romantic lives. It gives you an indication of their position in a male dominance hierarchy. Do they elevate others (costly signaling; high value and status) or do they rely heavily on derogation of potential mates and competitors (low value and status) (Greengross & Miller 2008; Cox & Fisher, 2008). Do they require (and thus support) social structures in society that would aide them in acquiring and retaining mates, or are they doing just fine.

In the introduction I wrote that some online subcultures involved in dating discourse have some very colorful views. Examples of distinct, but overlapping beliefs: revoking the right of women to vote, prohibiting women from attending school, criminalizing adultery, banning Tinder, ending voluntary divorce, or a return to some form of idealized traditional patriarchy (Biblical patriarchy or Greek patriarchy). There are many creative and fanciful suggestions for laws to address “gynocentrism” and give men an edge in dating (or in society more broadly, such as not having to compete with women in the workplace).

Much of this discourse is an expression of frustrated access to women. You won’t want to ban Tinder if you’re a single man going on many Tinder dates. You might want to ban Tinder if you get no matches and feel like Tinder is funneling women away from you. A narrative belief in these communities is the “80/20 rule” and “soft polygamy.” Essentially, it is the belief that a small percentage of men are given access to most of the women. Meanwhile, the rest of the men are excluded. 

Is this true? The How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) survey, often cited because it gives a high estimate of couples meeting online, found only 10% met via dating apps (the rest meeting via social media). A recent Pew report found 9%, Morning Consult 10%, a YouGov survey of 17 countries 8%, and the Singles in America survey 16.7%. A good thread summarizing this data with sources can be found here by Twitter user @nuance_enjoyer. In other words, it’s probably not the case that dating apps are the reason you’re single.

The point, however, is that your beliefs about Tinder will change depending on if you are in the top or the bottom in mating success. If Tinder represents mating failure to you then it will seem terrible. If Tinder represents mating success then it will seem like a blast. Further, if you perceive Tinder to be the source of all of your dating woes, a vacuum that sucks up available women who would have otherwise dated you, how can that not evoke a backlash rooted in intrasexual competition?

The perception of social forces, or the very structure of society, limiting access to mates drives the proposals for social change I listed at the beginning of this section. The more self-aware men, the ones who have not fooled themselves into thinking they are rational calculating machines, will admit it: “I struggle to attract a mate and I would prefer a social structure that makes it easier for me to get one.” Appeals to social stability, the greater good of society, or the fertility rate aren’t fooling anybody. True motives are overwhelmingly individual and interpersonal. You don’t want a social revolution, you want a girlfriend.

I will close this out with a curveball and a bit of a blackpill for the would-be traditional patriarchs. In ancient Greece, approximately 25% of the population were slaves (Hunt, 2017). In the Sokoto Caliphate the percentage of slaves was between 20% and 50% (Lenski, 2018). The percentage of slaves in ancient Rome was between 20% and 30% (Scheidel, 2005). You see the sculpture of the Farnese Hercules and identify with it — why? If you had the physique and behavior of a Greek athlete today you would not be single. If you don’t have it now, why do you identify with the aristocracy of the ancients and not the castrated slaves?

It’s naive to think that your life would have been better in the past, that modern society is an especially difficult environment, or that a social revolution against the “gynocracy” would result in you being on top of the social hierarchy. In the patriarchal and polygamous societies we have today, sex ratios are skewed with a large population of single men. The traits that women find attractive, as well as the traits that elevate men in male social hierarchies, are similar and timeless (Buss et al., 2020). A system of arranged marriage as seen in India or Pakistan would not ensure that you find a mate who loves you or who is even attractive to you. There is really no shortcut around the fact that if you want a good relationship with a woman who loves you then you must become a desirable man.

References

Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45-64.

Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(3), 537.

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex, 10(3), 295-307.

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395-422.

Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 19-31.

Buss, D. M. (2019). The evolution of love in humans. The new psychology of love, 1, 42-63.

Buss, D. M., Durkee, P. K., Shackelford, T. K., Bowdle, B. F., Schmitt, D. P., Brase, G. L., … & Trofimova, I. (2020). Human status criteria: Sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 979.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2021). Sexual strategies theory. In Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 7509-7513). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Costello, W., Rolon, V., Thomas, A. G., & Schmitt, D. (2022). Levels of well-being among men who are incel (Involuntarily Celibate). Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8(4), 375-390.

Curry, T. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women. Sociology of sport journal, 8(2), 119-135.

Cox, A., & Fisher, M. (2008). A framework for exploring intrasexual competition. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 144.

Demetriou, D. (2022). Virgin vs. Chad: On Enforced Monogamy as a Solution to the Incel Problem.

DeScioli, P. (2023). On the origin of laws by natural selection. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Fisher, M. (2022). Female Intrasexual Competition. In T. Shackelford (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 91-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: The curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 20-36.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(4), 573-587.

Gonzaga, G. C., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). The evolution of love and long-term bonds. Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes, 10, 39.

Gouda-Vossos, A., Brooks, R., & Dixson, B. (2023, January 25). Experimentally Varying Sex Ratios and Masculine Cues Affect Attitudes Towards Promiscuity and Self-Reported Mate Value. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8tksj

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary psychology, 6(3), 147470490800600303.

Halpin, M., Richard, N., Preston, K., Gosse, M., & Maguire, F. (2022). Men who hate women: The misogyny of involuntarily celibate men. New Media & Society, 14614448231176777.

Hamilton, A. (2022). Characteristics of those who identify as ‘incels’.

Harris, H. (1995). Human nature and the nature of romantic love (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara).

Harrison, M. A., & Hughes, S. M. (2021). Ugly or weak? Insults target sex-specific cues of mate value. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.

Hunt, P. (2017). Ancient Greek and Roman Slavery. John Wiley & Sons.

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149-155.

Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3-23.

Lenski, N. (2018). Framing the question: what is a slave society?. What is a slave society, 15-57.

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 66, 799-823.

Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of sexual behavior, 38, 631-651.

Luberti, F. R., Blake, K. R., & Brooks, R. C. (2022). Changes in Positive Affect Due to Popularity in an Experimental Dating Context Influence Some of Men’s, but Not Women’s, Socio-Political Attitudes. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 8(2), 202-237.

Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526-530.

McDiarmid, E., Gill, P. R., McLachlan, A., & Ali, L. (2017). “That whole macho male persona thing”: The role of insults in young Australian male friendships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(4), 352.

Pew Research. (2020). “Polygamy is rare around the world and mostly confined to a few regions.”

Rousis, G. J., Martel, F. A., Bosson, J. K., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2023). Behind the blackpill: self-verification and identity fusion predict endorsement of violence against women among self-identified incels. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 01461672231166481.

Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L. (2019). Are we monogamous? A review of the evolution of pair-bonding in humans and its contemporary variation cross-culturally. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 230.

Scheidel, W. (2005). Human mobility in Roman Italy, II: The slave population. The Journal of Roman Studies, 95, 64-79.

Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1185.

Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain sciences, 28(2), 247-275.\

Surbey, M. K., & Brice, G. R. (2007). Enhancement of self-perceived mate value precedes a shift in men’s preferred mating strategy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 513-522.

Trivers, R. L. (2017). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Routledge.

Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation?. Aggressive behavior, 38(3), 222-238.