مقایسه ترجیحات همسر دگرجنسگرا و همجنسگرا در اعلانات شخصی

Human heterosexual mating preferences have been shown to conform to predictions drawn from evolutionary theory, with men and women adopting broadly distinct strategies. Attempts to reconcile sexual selection theory with homosexual behavior have been less consistent, however, and have largely focussed on addressing two alternative perspectives: (i) that gay men and lesbians display phenotypic traits in common with opposite sex heterosexual individuals or (ii) that homosexual individuals display sex-typical, or exaggerated sex-typical phenotypes. Testing these hypotheses is complicated by sampling issues involved in the study of human sexual orientation, since obtaining standardized and comparable samples of heterosexual and non-heterosexual mating preferences is a prerequisite to analysis. Here we present a comparison of homosexual and heterosexual mating strategies in men and women using a sample of 1733 personal (‘lonely hearts’) adverts gathered from a single source. We used principal components analysis in order to expose underlying structure of the advertisements, and identify three components involving relative emphasis placed on resources, physical attractiveness and personality when offering or seeking mate characteristics. While homosexual individuals are shown to resemble their own-sex heterosexual counterparts in terms of emphasis placed on partner physical attractiveness relative to partner personality, no clear pattern emerges in other aspects of advertisement strategy. Nevertheless, there we find no evidence in support of the hypothesis that homosexual men and women are intrinsically opposite-sex typical in terms of mate preferences.

Predictions concerning mate preferences in humans have often been drawn from evolutionary theory under the reasonable assumption that mating behavior, being inextricably linked to reproductive success, will have undergone selection. Human mating strategy has been shown to conform to predictions drawn from evolutionary theory, with men and women adopting broadly distinct strategies as displayed by their interest in casual sex and physical attractiveness (Buss, 1995 and Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). Theories seeking to reconcile the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior in humans have, in general, emphasized the possibility that there is an aspect of homosexuality (or bisexuality) that gives an advantage to direct or indirect fitness (Camperio-Ciani et al., 2004, Dewar, 2003, Kirby, 2003, Kirkpatrick, 2000 and McKnight, 1997). Empirical testing of these ideas has, however, failed to provide unequivocal support for any particular hypothesis regarding the evolution of homosexual behavior in humans (Kirkpatrick, 2000 and Rieger and Savin-Williams, 2012).