Nature, culture, and explanations for erotic plasticity: Reply to Andersen, Cyranowski, and Aarestad (2000) and Hyde and Durik (2000)

R. F. Baumeister's (2000) article on erotic plasticity was criticized by B. L. Andersen, J. M. Cyranowski, and S. Aarestad (2000) for not being biolog ical enough and by J. S, Hyde and A. M. Durik (2000) for being too biologic al. Both critiques were based on drawing a polarized caricature of R. F. Ba umeister's actual view, although the two caricatures are opposites. Actuall y, neither commentary questioned the gender difference R. F. Baumeister doc umented; rather, the dispute is about how to explain it, which is indeed a challenge remaining for further work. Although both commentaries provided v aluable suggestions about how to approach an explanation, neither approach can provide a coherent account until various theoretical problems are resol ved and seemingly contrary empirical findings are addressed.