According to wikipedia:

Sociosexual orientation, or sociosexuality, is the individual difference in the willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of a committed relationship. Individuals with a more restricted sociosexual orientation are less willing to engage in casual sex; they prefer greater love, commitment and emotional closeness before having sex with romantic partners. Individuals who have a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation are more willing to have casual sex and are more comfortable engaging in sex without love, commitment or closeness.

The same page suggests there are many connections with others traits. But there is no info on parenting traits.

Do individuals with less restricted sociosexual orientation on average have weaker parental instincts?

By parental instincts I mean the desire to have and grow children, the ability of being better parents, etc. This may mean that individuals who want to have more sexual partners are also more inclined to have children and are worse in doing it.

Is there any study confirming or rejecting it?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you include a motivation to the question which made you come up with this hypothesis? $\endgroup$ – Steven Jeuris Jul 12 '18 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenJeuris, at first, culture: people who prefer polyamoric relationships are somehow less suited for parenting in current society. At second, given connections already are not in favor of parenting - impulsivity, for example. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Jul 12 '18 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for clarifying (although a bit more elaboration than 'somehow' would be welcome). I did say 'include', however, not 'comment'. 😉 $\endgroup$ – Steven Jeuris Jul 12 '18 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm, it is an interesting concept you put forward, although I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the wording in the linked section of the Wikipedia page where "masculinity and eveningness in women" would imply a masculine trait for this behaviour and when women are displaying this behaviour they are masculinised or have "eveningness" which harks back to referring to prostitutes as "ladies of the night". $\endgroup$ – Chris Rogers Jul 14 '18 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisRogers, well, maybe masculinity is not a good term. But should we consider a woman in hunter-gatherers who, unlike majority of other women, goes hunting, more masculine? Regarding eveningness, it does not make sense to call those women prostitutes if they don't have sex for money. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Jul 14 '18 at 10:24

There's not much research on this, but one study I found Kruger (2017) found no significant relationship between parenting effort and the usual measure of sociosexuality (SOI):

enter image description here

  • $\begingroup$ Hm, SOI-R-B is about behaviour. Regarding attitudes I think the picture would be different, given there is positive relationship between parenting effort and LTMO and negative (but unsignificant) between parenting effort and STMO. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Sep 19 '18 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ @rus9384: those are not exact substitutes (or opposites), so be careful what you ask for. Being willing to take side-partners is not the same as not being willing to have a long-term partner. There's a reason why I included the whole table... Also, the correlation with STMO is weak and would not survive a [significance] correction for multiple comparisons. $\endgroup$ – Fizz Sep 19 '18 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ "The Parenting Effort Scale had less predictive power overall, although it explained unique variance across several constructs and was the only unique predictor of the number of long-term (serious and committed) relationships." It still makes sense to say that people with greater parenting effort are willing to prefer long term relationships. But we don't know about causal relationships... But would be great to know, because it would tell me if my anthropologic theory has predictive power. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Sep 19 '18 at 23:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What I found more interesting is table 3, which actually seems to support your claim. However, 19 year olds, hmmm. Not sure by that time people already can have enough long-term relationships. Probably could subjective value kick in, some people might consider 2-weeks-relationship short and some could consider them long. $\endgroup$ – rus9384 Sep 19 '18 at 23:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.