The following list of research on sex differences in mating preferences and related behavior in humans includes some (perhaps many) studies that might shock or upset a reader.

To avoid getting unnecessarily upset, take care not to fall into some well-known logical fallacies when reading these reports.   The first two pages of the first article listed below (McKibbon et al. 2008) explain these fallacies clearly ...

• the "naturalistic" fallacy ... a mistaken belief that if something does occur, then it should occur ... that nature illustrates morality ... on the contrary, just because some animal or some human does something is no justification that it is right for you, or me, or anybody else

• the "genetic determinism" fallacy ... a mistaken belief that if something evolves it is determined by genes ... on the contrary, nothing is determined (fixed) by genes ... even behavior influenced by genes is also influenced by environment (including social contexts, learning, personal decisions) ... evolved behavior is not inevitable behavior ... humans can decide what they do ... for example, even though you might have an evolved tendency to like sweet (or fatty) food, you can decide whether or not to eat dessert!

• the "understanding is temptation" fallacy ... a mistaken belief that if we understand more about something then we are inevitably drawn to approve of it ... on the contrary, although understanding sometimes leads to approval, it can also lead to effective prevention ... as McKibbin et al. (2008) note, we never worry that scientists studying cancer approve of cancer and seek to increase suffering from cancer ... instead we appreciate their efforts to reduce cancer by understanding it better ... the authors of the following papers (a mixture of men and women) presumably feel that better understanding of mate choice, infidelity, or male aggression in humans can allow you, or anybody else, to eliminate these things (or at least to take steps to reduce them)

McKibbin, W. F., T. K. Shackelford, A. T. Goetz, V. G. Starratt. 2008. Why do men rape? An evolutionary psychological perspective. Review of General Psychology 12: 86-97. [review article]

Schmitt, D. P., A. Realo, M. Voracek, J. Allik. 2008. Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94: 168-182.

Goetz, A. T., T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford, H. A. Euler, S. Hoier, D. P. Schmitt, C. W. LaMunyon. 2005. Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: a preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences 38: 749-763.

Shackelford, T. K., N. Pound, and A. T. Goetz. 2005. Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology 9: 228-248. [review article]

Shackelford, T. K., DP Schmitt, DM Buss. 2005. Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences 39: 447-458.

Schmitt, D. P., and members of the International Sexuality Description Project. 2004. Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: the effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person's partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 560-584.

Schmitt, D. P. 2003. Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 85-104.

Schmitt, D. P., DM Buss. 2001. Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80: 894-917.

Schmitt, D. P., TK Shackelford, J Duntley, W Tooke, and DM Buss. 2001. The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships 8: 425-455.

Buss, D. M. 1998. Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research 35: 19-31.

Botwin, M. D., DM Buss, TK Shackelford. 1997. Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality 65: 107-136.

Buss, D. M., TK Shackelford. 1997. From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 346-361.

Schmitt, D. P., DM Buss. 1996. Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 1185-1204.

Buss, D. M. 1995. Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist 50: 164-168. [review article]

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. 1995. Human sperm competition. London: Chapman & Hall.

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. 1993. Human sperm competition: ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation. Animal Behaviour 46: 861 885.

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. 1993. Human sperm competition: ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Animal Behaviour 46: 887 909.

Buss, D. M., DP Schmitt. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100: 204-232. [review article]

Buss, D. M., RJ Larsen, D Westen, J. 1992. Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science 3: 251-255.

Buss, D. M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 1-14.

Buss, D. M. 1988. The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 54: 616-628.

Buss, D. M. 1988. From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology 9: 191-317.

Buss, D. M., M Barnes. 1986. Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 559-570.

Buss, D. M. 1985. Human mate selection. American Naturalist 73: 47-51.