Mutual mate choice models as the red pill in evolutionary psychology: long delayed, much needed, ideologically challenging, and hard to swallow

Abstract

Comments on an article by Steve Stewart-Williams and Andrew G. Thomas (see record [rid]2013-31861-001[/rid]). This comment agrees with Stewart-Williams and Thomas (SWT) at most of the points but won’t repeat SWT’s compelling case for switching from the males-compete/females-choose (MCFC) model to the mutual mate choice (MMC) model as the main framework that it should be used for understanding human sexual evolution. As SWT emphasized repeatedly, the field’s leading mating theorist—David Buss—has been using a fruitful combination of MCFC and MMC for more than 25 years. Thus, MMC models imply that individuals differ substantially in the “good genes,” “good resources,” “good parent,” and/or “good partner” benefits that they can bring to a relationship—and that these inequalities have persisted for thousands of generations, sustaining the incentives for mate choice. The MMC view’s descriptive accuracy may count against it in the domains of pop psychology and college pedagogy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)