Sexual Conflict

“NOVELS, SONGS, SOAP operas, and tabloids tell us about battles between men and women and the pain they inflict on each other. Wives bemoan their husbands’ neglect; husbands are bewildered by their wives’ moodiness. “Men are emotionally constricted,” say women. “Women are emotional powder kegs,” say men. Men want sex too soon, too fast; women impose frustrating delays. Are these just stereotypes?”

Drama is commonly perceived as an essential element of life and of relationships between the sexes.

“Conflict between the sexes is best understood in the broader context of social conflict. Social conflict occurs whenever one person interferes with the achievement of the goal of another person. Interference can take various forms. Among men, for example, conflict occurs when they compete for precisely the same resources, such as position in a status hierarchy or access to a desirable sex partner. Because young, attractive women are in scarcer supply than men who seek them, some men get shut out. One man’s gain becomes other men’s loss. Similarly, two women who desire the same responsible, kind, or high-achieving man come into conflict; if one woman gets what she wants, the other woman does without.”

Having outlined conflict within the sexes, the analysis now turns to conflict between the sexes:

“Conflict also erupts between men and women whenever one sex interferes with the goals and desires of the other sex. In the sexual arena, for example, a man who seeks sex without investing in his partner short-circuits a mating goal of many women, who want greater emotional commitment and higher investment. The interference runs both ways. A woman who requires a long courtship and heavy investment interferes with a man’s short-term sexual strategy.

Conflict per se serves no evolutionary purpose, and it is generally not adaptive at all for individuals to get into struggles with the other sex. On the contrary, conflict is typically costly. Sexual conflict is an undesirable outcome of the fact that people’s sexual strategies interfere with each other. We have inherited from our ancestors, however, psychological solutions to problems of conflict management.”

How do people respond when another party interferes with their mating goals?

“The emotions of anger, distress, and upset are key psychological solutions that have evolved in part to alert people to interference with their mating goals. These emotions serve several related functions. They draw our attention to the problematic events, focusing attention on them and momentarily screening out less relevant events. They mark those events for storage in memory and easy retrieval from memory. Emotions also lead to action, causing people to strive to eliminate the source of the problem or to head off future battles.

Because men and women have different sexual strategies, they differ in which events activate negative emotions. Men who seek casual sex without commitment or involvement, for example, often upset women, whereas women who lead men to invest for a period of time and then withhold sex that was enticingly implied will cause men to get angry.”

Sexual Accessibility and Conflict over Perceived Mate Value

“Disagreements about sexual access or availability may be the most common sources of conflict between men and women. When 121 college students kept daily diaries of their dating activities for four weeks, 47 percent reported having one or more disagreements about the desired level of sexual intimacy.² Men sometimes seek sex with a minimum of investment. Men guard their resources and are extraordinarily choosy about whom they invest in. They are “resource coy” in order to preserve their investments for a long-term mate or for multiple casual sex partners, sometimes serially and sometimes in rotation. Because women’s long-term sexual strategies loom large in their repertoire, they often seek signals of investment before agreeing to sex. The investment that women covet is precisely the investment that men most selectively allocate. The sexual access that men seek is precisely the resource that women are so selective about apportioning.”

In addition, conflict can arise from disagreements over perceived desirability:

“Conflict over perceived desirability, where one person feels resentment because the other ignores him or her as a potential mate, is often where the first battle line is drawn in the mating market. People with higher desirability have more resources to offer and so can attract a mate with a higher value. Those with a low value must settle for less. Sometimes, however, a person may feel worthy of consideration and yet the other person disagrees.”

Some women do not welcome romantic attention from men they perceive as having lower mate value.

“This point is illustrated by a female colleague who frequents country-and-western bars. She reports that she is sometimes approached by a beer-drinking, T-shirted, baseball-capped, stubble-faced blue-collar worker who asks her to dance. When she declines, men like this sometimes get verbally abusive, saying, for example, “What’s the matter, bitch, I’m not good enough for you?” Although she simply turns her back, that is precisely what she thinks: they are not good enough for her. Her unspoken message is that she can obtain someone better, and this message angers rebuffed men. The rock star Jim Morrison of The Doors once noted that women seem wicked when one is unwanted. Differences between people’s perceptions of mate value cause conflict.”

Cognitive Biases in Sexual Mind Reading

“Humans live in an uncertain mating world. We must make inferences about others’ intentions and emotional states. How attracted is he to her? How committed is she to him? Does that smile signal sexual interest or mere friendliness? Some psychological states, such as smoldering passion for another person, are intentionally concealed, rendering uncertainty greater and speculation more tortuous. We are forced to make inferences about hidden intentions and concealed deeds using a collage of cues that are only probabilistically related to their actual existence. An unexplained scent on one’s romantic partner, for example, could signal sexual betrayal, or it could be an innocuous aroma acquired during a casual conversation or a walk through a shopping mall.”

Why might women employ sexual withholding as a mating strategy?

“For women, sexual withholding fulfills several possible functions. One is to preserve their ability to choose men of high mate value—those who are willing to commit emotionally, to invest materially, or to contribute high-quality genes, or ideally all three. Women withhold sex from certain men and selectively allocate it to others of their own choosing. Moreover, by withholding sex, women increase its value and render it a scarce resource. Scarcity ratchets up the price that men are willing to pay for it. If the only way men can gain sexual access is by heavy investment, then they will make that investment. Under conditions of sexual scarcity, men who fail to invest fail to mate. This creates another conflict between a man and a woman, since her withholding interferes with his strategy of gaining sex sooner and with fewer emotional strings attached.

Another function of sexual withholding is to manipulate a man’s perception of a woman’s value as a mate. Because highly desirable women are less sexually accessible to the average man by definition, a woman may influence a man’s perception of her desirability by withholding sexual access. Highly desirable women are, in fact, hard to get, so men interpret the difficulty of gaining sexual access to a woman as a cue to her mate value. Finally, sexual withholding, at least initially, may encourage a man to evaluate a woman as a long-term mate rather than a sexual fling. Granting sexual access early often causes a man to see a woman as a casual mate.

By withholding sex, women create challenges for men. They circumvent the component of men’s mating strategy that involves seeking low-cost sex. Certainly, women have a right to choose when, where, and with whom they want to have sex. But the exercise of that choice interferes with one of men’s deep-seated sexual strategies and is therefore experienced by men as bothersome or upsetting; hence, it is one of the key sources of conflict between the sexes.”

Emotional Commitment

“In the most abstract sense, people solve adaptive problems by one of two means—by their own labor or by securing the labor of others. In principle, people who can successfully obtain the effort of others with a minimal investment can be more successful in solving life’s adaptive problems. It is often in a woman’s best interest, for example, to have a man so devoted to her that all of his energies are channeled to her and her children. It is often in a man’s best interest, however, to allocate only a portion of his resources to one woman, reserving the rest for additional adaptive problems, such as seeking additional mating opportunities or achieving higher social status. Hence, individual women and men are often at odds over each other’s commitments.”

Is men’s emotional restraint a source of conflict in long-term relationships?

“A key sign of conflict over commitment centers on the irritation women express about men’s tendency not to express their feelings openly. One of the most frequent complaints women have about men is that they are emotionally constricted. Among newlyweds, for example, 45 percent of women, in contrast to only 24 percent of men, complain that their mates fail to express their true feelings. During the dating phase, roughly 25 percent of women complain that their partners ignore their feelings; this increases to 30 percent in the first year of marriage. By the fourth year of marriage, 59 percent of women complain that their husbands ignore their feelings. In contrast, only 12 percent of newlywed men and 32 percent of men in their fourth year of marriage make this complaint.”

Why is emotional expressiveness in a mate particularly important from a woman’s perspective?

“From a woman’s vantage point, what are the benefits she gains by getting a man to express his emotions, and what are the costs she incurs if he fails to express them? From a man’s vantage point, are there benefits to withholding the expression of emotions and costs to expressing them? One source of this gender difference stems from the fact that men’s reproductive resources are more easily divided than women’s. Within any one-year period, for example, a woman can only get pregnant by one man, and so the bulk of her reproductive resources cannot be easily partitioned. Within that same year, a man can divide his resources by investing in two or more women.”

In addition, men’s emotional restraint can be understood as a strategic form of information concealment.

“One reason men fail to express their emotions is that investing less emotionally in a relationship frees up resources that can be channeled toward other women or other goals. As in many negotiable exchanges, it is often in a man’s best interest not to reveal how strong his desires are or how intensely he is willing to commit. Turkish rug dealers wear dark glasses to conceal their interest. Gamblers strive for a poker face to disguise telltale emotions that give away their hands. Emotions often betray the degree of investment. If emotions are concealed, one’s sexual strategies remain concealed as well. The lack of information causes women to agonize, to sift through the available signs trying to discern where men really stand. College women, far more than college men, report spending time recalling and dissecting with friends conversations and activities they experienced with the people they are dating. They try to analyze their partner’s “real” inner states, intentions, emotions, and motivations. Conflict over commitment resides at the core of complaints about men’s emotional constrictedness.“

If women criticize men for emotional constriction, men often voice the opposite complaint—excessive emotionality:

“While women complain that men are emotionally constricted, men commonly complain that women are too moody and emotional. Roughly 30 percent of dating men, in contrast to 19 percent of dating women, complain about their partner’s moodiness. These figures increase to 34 percent of men during the first year of marriage and jump to 49 percent of men by the fourth year of marriage, in contrast with married women, of whom only 25 percent make these complaints.”

Why do men tend to dislike moodiness in their partners?

“Moody partners absorb time and psychological energy. Appeasing responses, such as efforts to get the partner out of the bad mood and putting one’s own plans aside temporarily, take up energy at the expense of other goals. Women impose these costs on men as a tactic for eliciting commitment. A moody woman may be saying: “You had better increase your commitment to me, or else I will burdon you with my emotional volatility.” It is one tactic in women’s repertoire for eliciting male commitment. Men dislike it because it requires that they expend effort that could be allocated to solving other adaptive challenges.“

Moodiness can also function as a test of relationship strength:

“Moodiness also functions as an assessment device to test the strength of the bond. Women use moodiness to impose small costs on their mates and then use men’s reactions to the costs as a gauge of their degree of commitment. If a man is unwilling to tolerate these costs, it is a cue that his commitment is low. Men’s willingness to tolerate the costs and to be responsive to the increasing demands for investment signals a greater level of commitment. Either way, the woman gains valuable information about the strength of the bond.“

Resource Investment

“In addition to emotional commitment, couples also skirmish over the investment of time, energy, and resources. Neglect and unreliability are manifestations of commitment conflicts. More than one-third of all dating and married women complain that their partners neglect them, reject them, and subject them to unreliable treatment. Among their common complaints are that men do not spend enough time with them, fail to call when they say they will, show up late, and cancel arrangements at the last minute. Roughly twice as many women as men complain about these events. Approximately 38 percent of dating women, for example—but only 12 percent of dating men—complain that their partners sometimes fail to call them when they say they will.”

Why are neglect and unreliability interpreted as serious relational threats by women?

“Upset over neglect and unreliability reflects a conflict over investment of time and effort. It takes effort to be on time. Reliability requires relinquishing time and resources that could be channeled toward other goals. Neglect signals a low investment, indicating that the man lacks the depth of commitment necessary to perform acts that require even minimal cost for the woman’s benefit.”

Marriage does not resolve conflicts over investment.

“Marriage does not extinguish conflict over investments. Indeed, as the marriage progresses from the newlywed year to the fourth year, women’s complaints about neglect and unreliability increase. Roughly 41 percent of newlywed women and 45 percent of women married for four years express irritation that their partners do not spend enough time with them. The analogous figures for men are only 4 percent during the newlywed year and 12 percent during the fourth year of marriage.”

Conflicts over investment frequently center on financial resources:

“Conflicts over investment often center on money. A study of American couples found that money is one of the most frequent sources of conflict. Seventy-two percent of married couples fight about money at least once a year, with 15 percent fighting more than once a month. Interestingly, couples fight more about how the money they have is to be allocated than about how much money they have in their joint pool of resources.

American men, far more often than women, complain that their spouse spends too much money on clothes. The percentage of men who express this grievance starts at 12 percent during the newlywed year and increases to 26 percent by the fourth year of marriage. In contrast, among women, only 5 percent during the newlywed year and 7 percent during the fifth year of marriage are bothered by their husband’s spending on clothes. Both, however, complain equally that their spouse spends too much money in general. Nearly one-third of men and women by the fourth year of marriage complain about their spouse’s overexpenditure of mutual resources.“

Women are particularly likely to complain about insufficient financial investment or resource acquisition:

“More women than men complain that their spouse fails to channel the money they do earn to them, especially noting their failure to buy them gifts. By the fifth year of marriage, roughly one-third of married women voice this complaint; in contrast, only 10 percent of husbands express similar complaints. Conflict between the sexes corresponds remarkably well with the initial gender-linked preferences in a mate. Women select mates in part for their economic resources and, once married, complain more than men that those resources are not forthcoming or abundant enough.”

Concluding Remarks

“Conflicts between men and women pervade their interactions on the mating market, in the workplace, and within relationships. These range from conflicts over sexual access in dating couples to fights over commitment and investment among married couples … most sexual conflicts have their origins in men’s and women’s evolved mating strategies. The strategies pursued by members of one sex often interfere with those of the other sex as each tries to influence the other toward gender-linked mating goals.”

Under what conditions do men and women experience anger?

“Both genders have psychological adaptations, such as anger, sadness, and jealousy, that alert them to interference with their mating strategies. A woman’s anger is evoked most intensely in the specific contexts in which a man interferes with her mating strategies—for example, if he acts in condescending, abusive, controlling, or sexually coercive ways toward her, constricting her personal power or freedom of choice. A man’s anger is most intensely evoked when a woman interferes with his mating strategies, for example, by spurning his advances, refusing to have sex with him, or hooking up with another man.”

This dynamic gives rise to an evolutionary arms race between the sexes:

“For each escalating test that women impose on men to gauge the depth of their commitment, men develop increasingly more elaborate strategies to mimic or minimize commitment. This development in turn favors more refined and subtle tests by women to weed out the pretenders. And for every form of abuse inflicted by one sex on the other, the other evolves methods for circumventing the manipulations. As women evolve better and more sophisticated strategies to achieve their mating goals, men evolve increasingly sophisticated strategies to achieve theirs. Because the mating goals of the sexes interfere with each other within evolutionarily delimited domains, there is no evolutionary end to the spiral.”

When the costs imposed by a partner become too high, adaptive emotions can lead to relationship dissolution:

“Adaptive emotions such as anger and psychological pain, however, help women and men reduce the costs they incur when someone attempts to interfere with their mating strategies. In the context of dating or marriage, these emotions sometimes lead to the end of the relationship.”

Some extended sections of this chapter—specifically those addressing deception, sexual assault, and rape—were not reviewed here. Consistent with the concluding argument of the previous section, the following chapter turns to relationship dissolution and examines when leaving a relationship becomes adaptive.