A hotly debated topic in online relationship spaces is the role of sexual history (“body count”, “notches on the bedpost”) in mate choice. And while the rise of the manosphere and rapid-fire social media seems to have accelerated the discussion, people have shown an interest in the sexual history of their potential partners for some time. In fact, one of my most popular posts was on 2013 work on this exact issue – showing that people want a mate with a bit of a past but not too much, and that there’s very little evidence of a sexual double standard, despite conventional wisdom.
So, why does this issue continue to generate curiosity and controversy? Is considering sexual history a fleeting cultural obsession that will fizzle out? Or does it serve some kind of function—a way of helping us reduce risk when making important relationship choices?
People vary in their approach to sex. Those who value sexual novelty and variety tend to pursue multiple partners, while those who believe that sex and love go exclusively hand-in-hand may not. And a mixture of evidence from anthropology, cross-cultural psychology, and historical accounts suggest that humans have always varied in their sexual behaviours.
For our ancestors, these approaches to sex would have had different benefits and risks and these have been well studied as part of sexual strategies theory. But, one step removed, knowing about someone’s approach to sex would have been useful information for reducing risk during mate choice. Ancestors who used this information to their advantage may have had better reproductive outcomes and passed on their discerning disposition to subsequent generations. But what exactly could sexual history have told them that might have been useful?
Like all animals, humans have evolved side-by-side with bacteria and viruses. Thus, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are far from a modern issue; we might have even caught HPV from Neanderthals. Some STDs are relatively harmless, while others can have serious reproductive health issues including infertility. And because the presence of STDs is not always obvious, it leaves space for heuristic “rules of thumb” to develop. Being sensitive to a prospective partner’s sexual history could have served as a rough way of avoiding these health consequences.
Then there’s what sexual history could signal about relationship commitment. Someone who seeks and seems to enjoy casual sex may be less likely to want to forgo that for a long-term relationship, or may even struggle to do so if they tried. In modern humans, those with insecure attachment styles often have a more varied sexual history than those who are more secure.
And even if one was able to get a committed relationship off the ground, those who show a propensity towards casual sex may have found themselves more tempted to slip into bad habits. There is a link between sociosexuality—the desire for sex in the absence of commitment—and infidelity. A prospective partner’s sexual history could have given insight into their ability, and willingness, to settle down.
One of the cool things we found in our research was that having a small number of past partners was preferable to none, at least in a Western sample. And so, it’s worth thinking about what this might signal as well. There has been some great evolutionary work on preferences for chastity, which varies from one country to another, and might provide a way of ensuring paternity certainty. However, a lack of previous sexual experience might be a double-edged sword.
Historically, having no past partners might also signal inexperience with relationships, which could make for a bumpy ride as someone learns about their own relationship wants and needs (and how to be a good partner) for the first time. It might also reflect a lack of desirability in the eyes of other – a clue that, for whatever reason, committing to that person might be a “bad deal” with long-term reproductive consequences.
Despite its potential utility as a risk-reducing heuristic, 'body count' is a blunt instrument that should be used with caution. This is particularly the case because the usefulness of this tool has likely waned as society and technology has changed. Because modern mating is strangely "WEIRD", it creates an environment more conducive to casual sex that might see those searching for a long-term partner fall into a pattern of unplanned one-night stands. Additionally, modern practices like regular STD testing and open communication about sexual health have mitigated many of the risks traditionally associated with casual sex, leaving us with a mating psychology that could be making a health-risk mountain out of a health-risk molehill.
Thus, while 'body count' can provide some insights into a person’s sexual and relational history, it should not be the sole criterion for determining a potential partner's suitability. Though with online discourse becoming more polarising, giving this evolved preference a modern-day reality check may be a tall order for some.
References
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(1), 1-14.
Goetz, C. D., Pillsworth, E. G., Buss, D. M., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2019). Evolutionary mismatch in mating. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 486106.
Pimenoff, V. N., de Oliveira, C. M., & Bravo, I. G. (2017). Transmission between archaic and modern human ancestors during the evolution of the oncogenic human papillomavirus 16. Molecular biology and evolution, 34(1), 4-19.
Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2017). Sociosexuality, commitment, sexual infidelity, and perceptions of infidelity: Data from the second love web site. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(2), 241-253.
Sprecher, S. (2013). Attachment style and sexual permissiveness: The moderating role of gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(4), 428-432.
Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual history and present attractiveness: People want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(9), 1097-1105.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
