Male Choice Hypothesis: Shortcomings, Inconsistencies, and Proposed Alternatives

The male choice hypothesis proposes that same-sex attractions among heterosexual women evolved primarily for male benefit, reducing the risk of extra-pair paternity and providing additional mating opportunities. However, this theory contains significant flaws. This article critically evaluates the male choice hypothesis, showing that it rests on assumptions about male fitness benefits that are inconsistent with established principles of evolutionary psychology and sexual selection and that it further suffers from internal contradictions and conflicts with the empirical evidence. Analysis shows that support for the hypothesis was inflated by a methodological error in which the unlabeled midpoint of their Likert-type scales was repeatedly treated as an affirmative response. Correction of this error in a reanalysis of the published data demonstrates that the authors' own findings fail to support the hypothesis. Taken together, these issues demonstrate that the male choice hypothesis is not supported by either theoretical reasoning or the empirical evidence presented in its favor, and thus is unlikely to constitute a viable evolutionary explanation for same-sex attractions among heterosexual women. Finally, alternative evolutionary hypotheses are presented that provide more plausible explanations for same-sex attractions among heterosexual women.