Human females are generally reserved in their sexuality, in keeping with their heavy investment in reproduction. Males tend to be less reserved. Relative to males, however, females demonstrate more variability in sexuality and are more likely to inhibit or express high levels of sexuality. The heightened variability may in part originate with genetic mechanisms that predispose females toward greater variability. Menarche, menstrual cycles, menopause, food reactions, responses to living conditions, reactions to cultural factors, and responses to sexual stimuli and potential (...) mates are unique to or are more variable among females than males. There is a correlation between the variation expressed and female reproductive potential—females tend to shift dramatically from sexual inhibition to sexual expression. Females apparently track the quality of the environment and link their sexuality to reproductive opportunities. Successful male reproduction depends less on quality environments and more on the availability of females. In short, females track the environment; males track the females. (shrink)

Extending Campbell's (1999) staying alive theory (SAT) beyond aggression, we reviewed evidence that females are more self-protective than males. Many commentators provided additional supporting data. Sex differences in life-history adaptations, in the optimal relation between survival and reproduction, and in the mechanisms underlying trade-offs involved with self-protection remain important topics with numerous opportunities for improved understanding.

Many male traits are well explained by sexual selection theory as adaptations to mating competition and mate choice, whereas no unifying theory explains traits expressed more in females. Anne Campbell's “staying alive” theory proposed that human females produce stronger self-protective reactions than males to aggressive threats because self-protection tends to have higher fitness value for females than males. We examined whether Campbell's theory has more general applicability by considering whether human females respond with greater self-protectiveness than males to other threats (...) beyond aggression. We searched the literature for physiological, behavioral, and emotional responses to major physical and social threats, and found consistent support for females' responding with greater self-protectiveness than males. Females mount stronger immune responses to many pathogens; experience a lower threshold to detect, and lesser tolerance of, pain; awaken more frequently at night; express greater concern about physically dangerous stimuli; exert more effort to avoid social conflicts; exhibit a personality style more focused on life's dangers; react to threats with greater fear, disgust, and sadness; and develop more threat-based clinical conditions than males. Our findings suggest that in relation to threat, human females have relatively heightened protective reactions compared to males. The pervasiveness of this result across multiple domains suggests that general mechanisms might exist underlying females' unique adaptations. An understanding of such processes would enhance knowledge of female health and well-being. (shrink)