It has been seen as a classic work on human sexual evolution and used as a textbook, though critics have questioned Symons's explanation of the female orgasm and his suggestion that eliminating rape "might well entail a cure worse than the disease".

[2] In the introduction, Symons argues that modern understandings of "natural selection" and "fitness" are value-free, the latter term measuring reproductive success rather than referring to human value judgments; that it is necessary to distinguish between proximate and ultimate explanations of animal behavior, the former being concerned with how animals come to develop behavior patterns, and the latter with why they develop these patterns; that while a feature of structure or behavior may benefit an animal, only features that result from natural selection should be considered functions; that the persistence of the nature–nurture controversy is partly the result of failing to distinguish between proximate and ultimate causation; that learning abilities are more often concerned with specific problems than they are the expression of general capacities; and that the secondary sex differences that exist in animals of most species are the consequences of the different reproductive behaviors of males and females.

He criticizes Elizabeth Sherfey's view that the female orgasm is an adaptation, writing that her arguments are not supported by ethnographic or biological evidence.

[4] In his discussion of "the desire for sexual variety", Symons reviews literature on the "Coolidge effect", the "phenomenon of male rearousal by a new female".

Symons argues that socialization towards a "more humane sexuality" requires the inhibition of impulses that are part of human nature because they have proved adaptive over millions of years, and concluded that while under the right rearing conditions, "males could be produced who would want only the kinds of sexual interactions that women want" this "might well entail a cure worse than the disease."

According to Symons, fundamental differences between men and women are apparent from the fact that, while there is a substantial industry producing pornography for male homosexuals, no pornography is produced for lesbians, and that lesbians, as compared to male homosexuals, have much greater interest in forming stable and monogamous relationships and having sex with loving partners.

He considers, but rejects, alternative explanations for the differences between male homosexual and lesbian behavior, such as the effects of socialization, finding them unsupported.

[8] Symons presented an early draft of the book during a 1974 seminar on primate and human sexuality he co-taught with the anthropologist Donald Brown.

[12] Subsequent discussions include those by the anthropologist Craig Stanford in American Scientist and the evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber in Psychology Today.

He accused Symons of supporting his views through selective use of evidence, such as an "extremely brief and fragmentary" review of the effects of hormones on human sexuality.

He disagreed with the favorable views of The Evolution of Human Sexuality expressed by the biologists E. O. Wilson and George C. Williams, and the then president of the American Anthropological Association, calling the work impoverished.

However, he wrote that since it was published, date rape has emerged as the most common type of sexual assault and that "College men do not fit the profile of rapists drawn by Symons because they have high social status rather than being underprivileged.

He pointed to infanticide as an example of a phenomenon that was difficult to explain in terms of reproductive success arguments, especially since "killing is generally performed by the mother."

[17] Shapiro considered Symons's thesis about human sexuality unprovable, and argued that by outlining the relevant theoretical and methodological issues carefully and clearly he showed the difficulties to be greater than he realized.

She criticized his views on subjects such as the motivations for rape, marriage, and the female orgasm, and also faulted the quality of his "cross-cultural data on erotic activity."

[19] The socialist feminist Lynne Segal argued in Psychology, Evolution & Gender that Symons mistakenly believed that women, by being "continuously copulable", cause men to desire to engage in promiscuous sexual relations with them.

She saw Symons's endorsement of the "genetic determinism" of the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer's A Natural History of Rape (2000) as following from the views he expressed in The Evolution of Human Sexuality.

He rejected Symons's view that socializing men to "want only the kinds of sexual interactions that women want...might well entail a cure worse than the disease".

[32] The philosopher Michael Ruse concluded that while Symons's explanation of male homosexual promiscuity could be correct, it depends on controversial and disputable claims.

[33] The ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt questioned Symons's argument that the absence of visible female estrus developed so that women could "offer themselves to men" for rewards of food.

[36] The anthropologist Helen Fisher criticized Symons's view that "homosexual behavior illustrates essential truths about male and female sexual natures".

[37] The psychologists Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom wrote that Symons's observation that "tribal chiefs are often both gifted orators and highly polygynous" helps to show "how linguistic skills could make a Darwinian difference.

[40] The journalist Robert Wright called the book "the first comprehensive anthropological survey of human sexual behavior from the new Darwinian perspective".

He credited Symons with showing that the tendency for men to be more interested than women in having sex with multiple sexual partners holds good across many cultures and is not restricted to western society.

[44] The anthropologist Meredith Small argued that the work of sex researchers Masters and Johnson, which shows that the female clitoris is made of the same tissue as the penis and responds sexually in a similar manner, suggests that the clitoris results from an embryonic connection with the male penis and supports Symons's view that it is not an adaptation.

He credited Symons with being "the first to articulate the theoretical foundations of a fully adaptationist view of male and female mating minds" and "the first social scientist to take the writings of George C. Williams ... to heart, applying rigorous standards for invoking the critical but challenging concept adaptation."

"[55] The anthropologists Anne Bolin and Patricia Whelehan identified as Symons one of two major participants in the debate over the reproductive role of the female orgasm, the other being Sherfey.

They observed that while Lloyd endorsed Symons's view, her work has been "severely criticized" by the psychologist David P. Barash, and the relationship between female orgasm and reproduction remains a topic of ongoing debate.

Gray and Justin R. Garcia maintained that demographic data supports an evolutionary account of human mating psychology similar to that proposed by Symons.