Factors influencing sexual preferences in men

1. Biological roots: genetics, prenatal hormones and brain organization

Multiple reviews conclude that biological inputs—genetic factors, prenatal hormone exposure, and neural organization—contribute to whom men become sexually attracted to, especially for sexual orientation and direction of attraction; for example, fetal hormonal effects on brain organization are proposed as an early determinant of erotic gender orientation ^{[1] [2] [6]}. These sources note partial heritability for male homosexual preference and ongoing genomic work ^{[7] [2]}. At the same time, authors emphasize complexity: genetics and hormones interact with other influences rather than providing a single cause ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Evolutionary and cross‑cultural patterns in male mate preference

Evolutionary perspectives and large surveys report stable tendencies across cultures—men typically rate physical attractiveness more highly and show greater interest in casual or short‑term sex than women—patterns linked to evolved sensitivities to fertility cues (e.g., waist‑to‑hip ratio, youth) and theories about mating strategies ^{[4] [8] [9] [5]}. Cross‑cultural work, including Iranian and multi‑sample studies, finds some invariant preferences (e.g., low WHR seen as attractive) while also documenting cultural modulation of which traits matter most ^{[10] [5]}.

3. Sexual desire versus sexual orientation: overlapping but distinct factors

Scholars distinguish sexual desire (libido, momentary interest) from sexual orientation (enduring pattern of attraction). Reviews of male sexual desire emphasize a biopsychosocial model—testosterone and neural responses matter, but psychological states, relationship dynamics and cultural gender scripts strongly influence desire levels ^{[11] [3] [12]}. By contrast, orientation research points more to early developmental biology (prenatal hormones, genetics) as explanatory for the direction of attraction while acknowledging environmental contributions too ^{[1] [13]}.

4. Psychological, relational and cultural modifiers

Empirical studies identify cognitive‑emotional predictors of men's sexual desire—restrictive sexual attitudes, shame, lack of erotic thoughts and erection concerns reduce desire—and broader culture shapes sexual scripts and what men report wanting ^{[14] [3]}. Reviews underscore that male sexual response is not purely mechanistic and that socialization, masculinity norms and relationship context alter expressed preferences and behavior ^{[3] [12]}.

5. Heterogeneity and why “preferences” vary between men

Research stresses large individual differences: while aggregate tendencies exist, many men deviate from averages. Some men value mates who have same‑sex attractions or are willing to engage in non‑monogamous arrangements—preferences linked statistically to sociosexuality and desire for sexual variety ^[15]. The literature repeatedly cautions against equating population‑level patterns with deterministic rules for individuals ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Open questions and contested explanations

Authors call out gaps: twin and genomic studies give mixed results about the strength and mechanisms of genetic effects ^{[1] [2]}; the evolutionary reasons for male homosexual preference are debated and framed as an “enigma” because of documented fertility costs and partial heritability ^[7]. Reviews urge more multidimensional, longitudinal and mechanistic work—especially integrating epigenetics and sex‑specific pathways—to move beyond correlational findings ^{[2] [3]}.

7. How to read these findings responsibly

Reporting and research can be misread as implying determinism; the sources instead present interactional models where biology sets predispositions that are shaped by development, cognition and culture ^{[1] [3] [2]}. When encountering claims that “genes decide” or “culture alone decides,” current summaries in the literature reject single‑cause explanations and call for nuance ^{[1] [3]}.

Limitations: available sources here are largely secondary reviews and population studies—experimental causal proof for many mechanisms is limited and the sources urge further research ^{[3] [2]}.