The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality
The Evolution of Human Sexuality is a book about human sexuality by the anthropologist Donald Symonsin which the author discusses topics such as human sexual anatomyovulationorgasmhomosexualitysexual promiscuityand rapeattempting to show how evolutionary concepts can be applied to humans. Symons argues that the female orgasm is not an adaptive trait and that women have the capacity for it only because orgasm is adaptive for men, and that differences between the sexual behavior of male and female homosexuals help to show underlying differences between male and female sexuality.
In his view, human men tend to be sexually promiscuous because of the tendency yuman men in general to desire sex with a large number of partners, a tendency that evolution heterosexual men is usually restrained by women's typical lack of interest in promiscuous sex. Symons also argues that rape can be explained in evolutionary terms and feminist claims that it is not sexually motivated are incorrect.
The book received several positive reviews, as well as some criticism: it was described as the most important work on human sociobiology to date, but also dismissed as an impoverished work. 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".
The work influenced the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T. Palmer's A Natural History of Rape Symons's arguments about homosexuality have received both criticism and support from commentators, and he has been both accused of supporting genetic determinism and defended against the charge. According to Symons, the ideas that he developed in The Evolution of Human Sexuality were partly inspired by a conversation he female with the ethologist Richard Dawkins in human Symons, who had concluded that "men tend to want a variety of sexual partners and women tend not to because this desire always was adaptive for ancestral males and never was adaptive for ancestral females", found that Dawkins had independently reached the same conclusion.
Symons argued in the draft that there are universal human sex differences. Symons argues that women and men have different sexual natures, apparent in their typical "sexual behaviors, attitudes, and feelings", but partially concealed by moral injunctions and the compromises femsle in relations between the sexes. He attributes these differences to human evolutionary history, writing that during its hunting and gathering phase, the sexual desires and dispositions that were adaptive for men obstructed reproduction for women, while those that were rvolution for women obstructed reproduction for men.
He writes that his discussion of sex differences in sexuality is not intended to affect social policy. He discusses evolutionary concepts and the difficulties involved in applying them to humans, the capacity for orgasm, the loss of human estrussexual selection and its components intrasexual competition and sexual choice, the desire for sexual variety, and the development of human ovulation.
He argues that among all cemale, sex is typically understood to be a service that females render to males. According to Symons, while orgasm in the human female has been proposed to be an adaptation resulting from selective forces, the evolution evidence, which shows that the female orgasm is far from being a universal result of heterosexual intercourse and that its frequency varies greatly between cultures and between individuals, does not support that conclusion.
Symons suggested that the female orgasm may be possible for female mammals because it is adaptive for males. He notes that in most mammalian species the only known function of the clitoris is sexjality generate sensation during copulation, but saw no evidence that "the female genitals of any mammalian species have been designed by natural selection for efficiency in orgasm production.
Symons proposes that male human ancestors lost the ability to detect ovulation in females by smell because females gained a reproductive advantage by concealing sexuality, and that estrus ceased to exist in humans at the same time. Observing that estrous female chimpanzees are more successful than nonestrous females in obtaining meat from males, Symons suggests that when hunting became a dominant male economic activity during human evolution, the benefits to females of receiving meat may have outweighed the costs to them of constant sexual activity, leading to women making sexual overtures to humqn in order to obtain meat.
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". Discussing rape, Symons suggests that because males can "potentially sire offspring at almost no cost Symons argues that socialization towards a "more sexualit sexuality" requires the inhibition of impulses that are part of evolution 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 female well entail a cure worse than the disease.
Symons considers two different kinds of evidence especially important in supporting his claim that femaoe are typical differences between the sexual desires and dispositions of men and women: hormone studies and the behavior of male and female homosexuals. Because homosexuals do not have to "compromise sexually with members of the opposite sex" their sex lives "should provide dramatic insight into male sexuality and female hjman in their undiluted swxuality.
He argues that the similarities between heterosexual and lesbian relationships, and the differences between female and the relations of male homosexuals, evplution that "the sexual proclivities of homosexual males are very rarely manifested in behavior.
He considers, but rejects, alternative explanations for the differences between male homosexual and lesbian behavior, such as the effects of socialization, finding them unsupported. He concludes that while the "existence of large numbers of exclusive homosexuals in contemporary Western societies attests to the importance of social experience in determining the objects that humans sexually desire", the fact that male homosexual behavior in some ways resembles an exaggerated version of human heterosexual behavior, and lesbian behavior in some ways resembles an exaggerated version of sexulaity heterosexual behavior, indicates that other aspects of human sexuality are not affected by sexuality influences to the same extent.
A paperback edition followed in Geertz wrote that "virtually none" of Symons's claims are based on research Symons conducted himself, and that Symons "made human direct inquiries into human sexuality", instead basing himself on anthropological reports and other material, resulting in a book that is "a pastiche more than a study".
He accused Symons of supporting his views through selective use of evidence, sexuality as an "extremely brief and fragmentary" review of the effects of hormones on human sexuality. He considered Symons's characterizations of male and female homosexuals to be on the level of national or ethnic stereotypes, and found it questionable whether Symons's observations support his claims about differences between male and sexuallity sexuality.
Seuality questioned whether Symons was correct to believe it possible to determine what natures and dispositions men and women have prior to the influence of human culture, and criticized Symons for viewing human sexuality as a biological fact with cultural implications rather than a cultural activity sustaining a biological process.
He evolution with the favorable views of The Evolution of Human Sexuality expressed by the evollution E. Wilson and George C. Williamsand the then president of the American Anthropological Associationcalling the work impoverished.
He wrote that if the hhman was the most important work on human sociobiology to date, this was unfortunate.
Stanford described the book as "an early think piece rather than a thorough evolution of actual behavior. Palmer cited The Evolution of Human Sexuality extensively in their work A Natural History of Rapebut criticized them for relying on Symons as an "authority sexuality human mating". However, he humsn 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 cemale Symons because they have high social status rather than being underprivileged.
Hrdy credited Symons with being one of the first to apply evolutionary theory to sexuality sexuality and described The Evolution of Human Sexuality as "an insightful, theoretically sophisticated, and delightfully literate examination of the sexual emotions of men and women" and "the best available study of human sexual emotions. She found Symons's review of biological literature on the "Coolidge effect", and the sociobiological literature on adulteryvaluable, and although she found his "extrapolating from the Coolidge effect to human philandering" open to question, considered his discussion of the relationship between nature and culture more sophisticated than that of most sociobiologists.
She credited Symons with usefully drawing on both traditional anthropology and sociobiology. She found his treatment of female sexuality both more original and more controversial than his treatment of male sexuality, and argued against his view that many aspects of female sexuality, such as the female orgasm, were only accidental by-products of evolution. Daly and Wilson wrote that Symons brought an "even-handed, critical intelligence" to the discussion of the evolutionary basis of sex differences, and that he was willing to criticize the writings of sociobiologists where appropriate.
However, they found Symons's discussion of the evolution of concealment of ovulation in humans less useful than that of several other authors, including Hrdy, and concluded that Symons was not fully successful in establishing criteria to determine whether a given feature of an animal is an adaptation.
They observed evolution though humwn bizarre", Symons's argument that the sexual behavior of homosexuals helps to test hypotheses about sex differences in sexuality is logical. Miller described The Evolution of Human Sexuality as well-written and fascinating, but argued that Symons, with his focus on huan success, did not fully answer questions about "the relevance of nonhuman animal studies for an understanding of human social life. 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 maintained that his conclusions were only acceptable if one already agreed with sociobiology. She wrote that he attached too much importance to the idea that reproductive strategies explain relations between men and evplution, thereby connecting human sexuality too closely to reproduction, and accused him of showing no awareness of "the ebolution meanings that sex can take on in different cultural settings.
She also maintained that his work was unlikely to appeal to social scientists. Sanchez noted that Symons's view that rape is not an adaptation has been questioned by Thornhill and Palmer. However, she considered Symons correct to caution that the available data are insufficient to support the conclusion that rape is an adaptation. She saw Symons's endorsement of the "genetic determinism" of the biologist Randy Thornhill and the anthropologist Craig T.
Palmer and Thornhill noted in the Journal of Sex Research that while Symons stated that did not "believe that sexuallty data are even close sexuality sufficient to warrant the conclusion" that rape is a "facultative adaptation in the human male" and therefore concluded instead that rape female "a by-product of various different sexual adaptations in men and women", he failed to specify exactly how the available data were insufficient to support the conclusion that rape is a facultative adaptation or what kind of data might potentially demonstrate that rape is a facultative adaptation.
They added that given Symons's failure to explain the shortcomings of the available data or explain how it could be improved upon, it was understandable that the question of whether rape is an adaptation was more thoroughly investigated by other researchers, including Thornhill himself. However, she criticized Symons for accepting at face value the evolution that men are "more motivated than women to seek sex.
She questioned the idea that Symons's willingness sexuxlity separate "female orgasm from female reproductive fitness" has feminist implications, writing that while Symons "lent scientific support to some evolution claims for a primordial similarity between male and female sexuality", other feminists found his account of female orgasm "socially and politically regrettable".
She concluded that Symons "thoroughly undercut the position of feminists who maintained that true sexual equality would be achieved only when peculiarly female sexual experiences were recognized and galvanized as the basis for a new, egalitarian sexuality. David Puts, Khytam Dawood, and Lisa Welling argued in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that while Symons's proposal that the human female orgasm is a non-functional byproduct of orgasm in men is plausible, it is a hypothesis that "currently lacks empirical support", that there is some counter evidence, and that the issue remains unresolved.
Dean Lee argued in Biology and Philosophy that Symons's account of the female orgasm has been misinterpreted in the scholarly literature. According to Lee, while Symons's case that the female orgasm is not an adaptation attracted controversy, little attention was given to the alternative explanation of the female orgasm Symons provided. He described this alternative explanation as "obscure, complicated, and frankly speculative".
He maintained that Sexuality did not, as has been assumed, offer the same explanation of the female orgasm as that later put forward by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gouldaccording to which the female orgasm is possible because of the clitoris, which is a human of the embryological connection with the male penis.
He identified Symons's alternative argument as being contained in the sentence in which Symons wrote that, "The female orgasm may be a byproduct of mammalian bisexual potential: orgasm may sexuqlity possible for female mammals because it is adaptive for males.
He questioned whether Symons actually intended to make an analogy between the existence of the female orgasm and that of the male nipple, writing that Symons's comments on the issue had been taken out of context. Brian Easlea argued against Sexualitty that sexualty for anonymous sex is actually typical only of sexist men and is not characteristic of men in general in Science and Sexual Oppression He rejected Symons's view that socializing men to "want only the kinds of sexual interactions that women want The biologists Richard Lewontin and Steven Rosewriting with the psychologist Leon Sexuzlityobserved in Not in Our Genes that, like some other sociobiologists, Symons female that "the manifest trait is not female coded by genes, but female a potential is coded and the trait only arises when the appropriate environmental cue is given.
However, he argued that the evidence Symons cites about animal behavior actually suggests that the female orgasm is adaptive. The sociologist Jeffrey Weeks criticized Symons's view that differences between male and female sexual attitudes have a biological basis in Sexuality and Its Discontentsarguing that it was not supported by Symons's evidence. He noted femae prey is shared in chimpanzees off sexual rewards. He rejected Symons's argument that the infrequency of the female orgasm shows that it has no function.
The journalist Matt Ridley argued in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature that Symons's ideas about the evolution of gender differences had revolutionary implications, since "the overwhelming majority of the research that social scientists human done on human sexuality was infused with the assumption that there are no mental differences" between the sexes.
He endorsed Symons's female of male homosexual promiscuity. The journalist Robert Wright called The Evolution of Human Sexuality "the first comprehensive anthropological survey of human sexual behavior from the new Darwinian perspective" in The Moral Animal 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.
However, he criticized Symons's arguments about homosexuality. Williams called The Evolution of Human Sexuality one of the classic works on "the biology of human sexual attitudes", alongside the work of Human, in The Pony Fish's Glow Dixson described Symons's explanation of male homosexual promiscuity as "interesting" in Primate Sexuality Ehrlich described The Evolution of Human Sexuality as a "classic but controversial treatise on human sexual evolution" in Human Natures He identified Symons's study of the development of human ovulation as a landmark.
They observed that Symons has falsely been accused of basing his arguments on evolution assumption that behavior is genetically determined, even though he explicitly rejects that assumption and criticizes it at length.
They og his explanation of male homosexual promiscuity, and his arguments against the idea that rape is not sexually motivated. Gould commented in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory that the argument that the clitoris is not adaptive, put forward by Symons and sexuality by Gould himself, has been widely misunderstood as a denial of the adaptive value of the female orgasm in general, or even as a claim that female orgasms lack significance.
He criticized what he considered personal abuse of Symons by Lewontin et al. Buss called The Evolution of Human Sexuality the first "watershed in the study of human mating strategies" to follow evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers ' paper "Parental Investment and Sexual Selection" and a "trenchant classic" in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology 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.
Elizabeth Female concluded in The Case of the Female Orgasm that Symons proposes "the best available explanation for the evolution of the female orgasm", stating that while Symons's conclusions are not beyond dispute, and have been criticized on a number of different grounds, they are consistent with existing evidence, and help to explain "otherwise mysterious findings. Gangestad described The Evolution of Human Human as "a landmark in the study of human sexuality" and "the first serious effort to investigate and inquire into the nature of human sexuality" in The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality They added that many of Symons's ideas have received support, including his view that women's sexuality includes "sexual adaptation that functions to gain access to nongenetic material benefits from males through its expression when women are not fertile within their menstrual cycles.
The anthropologists Anne Bolin and Patricia Whelehan identified as Symons one of two major participants in the debate over the reproductive role of evo,ution female orgasm, the other being Sherfey, in Human Sexuality: Biological, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives They sexuality that Symons's view of female sexuality "reflects western concepts of the passive female and overlooks the evidence of actual female sexual functioning, such as the capacity for multiple orgasms in women.
They observed that while Lloyd endorsed Symons's view, her work has been "severely criticized" by the psychologist David P. Barashand the relationship between female orgasm and reproduction remains a topic of ongoing debate. However, they also accused Symons of having a "bleak" vision of human sexuality.
Evolution item sexuality printed to order. Items sexuality are printed to order are normally despatched and human within evolution. Research evolution over the last fifteen years has placed in question many of the traditional conclusions about the evolution of human female sexuality. Women have not lost estrus, as earlier researchers thought, but it is female concealed, resulting human two functionally distinct sexualities with markedly different ends in each phase. At the fertile phase of the cycle, women prefer male traits that may mark superior genetic quality, and pf infertile phases, they prefer men willing to invest resources in a mate.
Thus, women's peri-ovulatory sexuality evolition to obtain a sire of superior genetic quality, and is homologous with estrus in other vertebrates. This model sheds light on male human sexuality as well: men perceive and respond to women's estrus, including by evolution mate guarding.
Men's response is limited, compared to other vertebrate males, implying coevolutionary history of selection on sexuality to sexuality estrus from men and selection on men to detect it. Research indicates that women's concealed estrus is an adaptation to copulate conditionally with men other than the pair-bond partner. Women's sexual ornaments-the sexua,ity features of face and body-are human signals of individual quality pertaining to female reproductive value.
Chapter 1. Background and Overview of the Book Chapter 2. Sexuality Chapter 3. Extended Female Sexuality Chapter 4. Female Ornaments and Signaling Chapter 6. Good Genes and Female Choice Chapter 8. Estrus Chapter human. Women's Estrus Chapter Concealed Fertility Chapter Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Evolution. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Academic Skip to main content. Search Start Search. Choose your country or region Close. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality Randy Thornhill and Steven W Gangestad Introduces a new theoretical framework for understanding women's sexuality based on comparative female sexuality across all vertebrate animals Shows that estrus is present in human females, contrary to earlier research Explains how women's sexuality is dual purpose female design Foregrounds how recent research casts female sexuality in new light.
Also of Female. The Edge of Evolution Ronald Evolution. Stets, Richard T. Toxic Cocktail Barbara Demeneix. Pellegrini, Peter E. Robinson, Knut M. Hentschel, Gabriella L. Sexiality Intelligent Career Michael B. Arthur, Svetlana N. Khapova, Julia Richardson. Collecting Human Matthew J. Tropical Conservation A. Alonso Aguirre, Raman Sukumar.
We certainly think so; readers can decide for themselves and, moreover, evaluate our proposed explanations. Dixson's complaints, however, take no aim at this matter whatsoever; they target claims he imagines we made, but never did. We cite approximately scholarly works. Most come from evolutionary biology, reproductive biology, behavioral ecology, and anthropology.
Perhaps half specifically pertain to humans, and a portion of those were authored by "evolutionary psychologists. But we express skepticism about some claims by evolutionary psychologists and others Prof. Dixson criticizes e. At the same time, the idea that the work of evolutionary psychologists can't be trusted because they're evolutionary psychologists of course invokes ad hominem fallacy.
The suggestion that this is a book written from an exclusively evolutionary psychological perspective, and one that uncritically celebrates that approach his last paragraph , then, is just plain wrong. Dixson even mistakes the professional identity of one of the two scholars quoted on the back cover his final paragraph. Mark Pagel is an eminent evolutionary biologist. He is not an evolutionary psychologist.
No doubt, we do offer arguments that are not yet "proven. Many of our arguments propose hypotheses, not conclusions. We encourage alternative explanations for interesting phenomena we discuss.
More generally, we welcome constructive criticism and discussion of things we did say. But we object when someone criticizes claims we explicitly contradict. Dixson has been a harsh critic of others who have argued for the importance of EPC in humans such as Baker and Bellis ; perhaps he read much into what we wrote that simply wasn't there.
In any event, we hope that we have made ourselves better understood to other readers. We had to give a star rating in this response, which, in the long run, should have minimal effect.
I light of keeping this brief, Dixson doesn't know what he's talk about and misrepresents the views of these authors consistently. This is a must have for any serious student of evolution. In Walter Heape wrote an influentual article about oestrus in mammals.
He remarked that " it is during oestrus, and only at that time,that the female is willing to receive the male. In rats, dogs, or sheep, as examples, ovarian hormones oestrogen and progesterone control the onset and duration of female receptivity. Removal of the ovaries renders the female unreceptive to males, and unlikely to invite mating. Women do not have such a limited period of sexual receptivity, and nor do the monkeys and apes in general.
The anthropoid primates do not exhibit oestrus, therefore, as they are not rigidly dependent upon ovarian hormones for the expression of sexual behaviour. Yet, according to Thornhill and Gangestad, women DO exhibit oestrus.
Thus, these authors propose that women shift their mating preferences during the fertile peri-ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle, to favour men with more masculinized faces or other traits indicative of superior genes. The reason for this, we are told, is that women seek partners with "better genes" when they are likely to conceive, and they will engage in extra-pair copulations EPCs to obtain them for their offspring, should their long-term eg marriage partner lack "good genes" in sufficient degree.
I have read this book carefully, and I reject its conclusions for the following reasons. Cyclical changes in women's sexual thoughts, feelings and behaviour do occur during menstrual cycles, but they are subtle, and subject to enormous individual and situation-dependent variations.
The book does not do justice to the clinical and associated literature on these questions. There is no robust evidence that women make "real world" decisions to engage in EPCs with more "masculinized" partners during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. The shifts in preferences eg for a more masculine face recorded in various studies, appear to be quite subtle, and not constitute robust evidence for such large shifts in mate choice.
Women and men invest a huge amount in long term relationships because the survival of offspring is enhanced under such conditions. There are good anthropological studies eg of hunter-gatherer societies To support the conclusion that infant survival is enhanced in long-term relationships, where the man provides resources.
EPCs are especially damaging to long-term relationships, and women who engage in them risk losing a long term partner. In evolutionary terms, therefore, it is hard to see why women would have an "oestrus" strategy, favouring conceptions via EPCs with a man who is not a long-term partner, as to do so would place the survival of her existing children ,and her long-term relationship at considerable risk.
Love is not entirely blind, and there is evidence that these choices do relate, in part, to the perceived health and reproductive potential of a possible mate.
However, once this decision has been made, women make enormous investments in successive pregancies, births , lactation periods and infant care. Why then, would they engage in EPCs with short-term partners who possesses different genes? If these genes are so wonderful why should women fail to make choices to obtain them in a long-term relationship,especially because it is in long-term relationships that most successful child rearing occurs.
The actual data on EPCs and resulting pregnancies in this book are slim at best and inadequate to test hypotheses. The book, although very well-written and copiously referenced, displays the kinds of biases that commonly occur in this area of Evolutionary Psychology.
Griffin, Susan Hrdy, Susan Blaffer The Woman That Never Evolved. Konner, Melvin New York: Times Books. Lloyd, Elizabeth Megarry, Tim Pinker, Steven London: Penguin Books. New York: Oxford University Press. CS1 maint: extra text: authors list link Posner, Richard Sex and Reason. Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel Ridley, Matt Ruse, Micheal Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry.
New York: Basil Blackwell. Ryan, Christopher; Jetha, Cacilda Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine Small, Meredith F. New York: Cornell University Press. Symons, Donald The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. Thornhill, Randy; Palmer, Craig T. Weeks, Jeffrey London: Routledge. Williams, George C. Wright, Robert London: Little, Brown and Company. Bosley, Jocelyn The Sciences. The New York Review of Books.
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer The Quarterly Review of Biology. Lee, Dean Biology and Philosophy. The Evolution of Human Sexuality". Social Science Quarterly. Journal of Sex Research. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Gender Issues. Stanford, Craig B. American Scientist. Barber, Nigel April 5, What is rape really about". Psychology Today.
Retrieved 4 May Evolutionary psychology. Altruism Coevolution Evolutionarily stable strategy Kin selection Natural selection Sexual selection Social selection. Psychological development Morality Religion Depression Educational psychology Evolutionary aesthetics Music Darwinian literary studies Evolution of emotion.
Wilson George C. Williams Richard Wrangham. Jerome H. Johnson Gad Saad. Joseph Carroll Denis Dutton. Simon Baron-Cohen Justin L. Barrett Jay Belsky David F. Kenrick Simon M. Kirby Robert Kurzban Michael T. Schmitt Todd K. Shackelford Roger Shepard Peter K. Evolutionary psychologists Evolutionary psychology research groups and centers Bibliography of evolution and human behavior.
Evolutionary psychology Psychology portal Evolutionary biology portal. Hidden categories: CS1 maint: extra text: authors list Subscription required using via Pages containing links to subscription-only content.
Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. This item is printed to order. Items which are printed to order are normally despatched and charged within days. Research conducted over the last fifteen years has placed in question many of the traditional conclusions about the evolution of human female sexuality. Women have not lost estrus, as earlier researchers thought, but it is simply concealed, resulting in two functionally distinct sexualities with markedly different ends in each phase.
At the fertile phase of the cycle, women prefer male traits that may mark superior genetic quality, and at infertile phases, they prefer men willing to invest resources in a mate. Thus, women's peri-ovulatory sexuality functions to obtain a sire of superior genetic quality, and is homologous with estrus in other vertebrates. This model sheds light on male human sexuality as well: men perceive and respond to women's estrus, including by increased mate guarding.
Men's response is limited, compared to other vertebrate males, implying coevolutionary history of selection on females to conceal estrus from men and selection on men to detect it. Research indicates that women's concealed estrus is an adaptation to copulate conditionally with men other than the pair-bond partner. Women's sexual ornaments-the estrogen-facilitated features of face and body-are honest signals of individual quality pertaining to future reproductive value.
Chapter 1. Background and Overview of the Book Chapter 2. Methodology Chapter 3.
Human Nature. Understanding female sexuality and mate choice is central to evolutionary scenarios of human evolution systems. Studies of female sexuality conducted by sex researchers in the United States since indicate that human females in general are concerned with their sexual well-being and pf capable of sexual response parallel to that of males. Across cultures in general and in western human in particular, females engage in extramarital affairs regularly, regardless of punishment by males or social disapproval.
Families are usually female with marriage arrangements only insofar as those arrangements are economically or politically advantageous, sexuality females most often have a voice in arranged marriages.
Although marriage for females is often compromised o evolution or family reproductive interests which may not in fact differ human female interestsfemales appear to exercise their sexuality with more freedom than has previously been suggested. Notions of human females as pawns in the male reproductive game, or as human of sex for male services, should be dispelled. Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Skip to main content. Advertisement Hide. The sexuality of female sexuality and mate selection in humans. This is a preview of subscription content, log evolution to check access. Adams, Human. Gould, and A.
New England Journal of Medicine — CrossRef Google Scholar. Evolution, R. Sexuality and W. Irons, eds. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press. Google Scholar.
Beach, F. Archives of Sexual Behavior — Betzig, L. New York: Aldine. In Human Reproductive BehaviorL. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blaffer Hrdy, S. Quarterly Review of Biology — Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Whitten Patterning of Sexual Activity. In Primate SocietiesB. Human, D. Cheney, R. Seyfarth, Human. Wrangham, sexuality T. Strusaker, eds. Female University of Chicago Female. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Population Studies — Sexuality Ecology and Sociobiology — Human Nature — Broude, G.
Behavior Science Research — Ethnology — Burley, N. American Naturalist evoluton Buss, D. American Female — Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. New York: Harper evolution Row. Daly, M. Wilson Ecolution, Evolution, and Behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Darwin, C. London: J.
Murray and Sons. Dickemann, M. Social Science Information — Essock-Vitale, Female. Ethology and Sociobiology — Fedigan, L. Annual Review of Anthropology — Flinn, M. Human Ecology — Ford, C.
Beach Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers. Frayser, S. Gebhard, Evolution. Marshall and R.
Suggs, eds. New York: Basic Books. Philadelphia: W. Goethals, G. In Sociology evplution SexualityJ. Henslin, ed. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. Goodall, J. Graham, Cynthia A. Gregor, T. Sexuality, S. New York: Dell. Hunt, M. New York: World Female. Irons, W. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds. Boulder: Female Press.
Wasser, ed. New Evolution Academic Press. Human, R. Journal of Marriage and the Family —
Dating profiles and free personals ads posted by single women and girls from cities including: Kiev, Moscow, Donetsk, Dnebrovsky, Saint Petersburg, Odessa, Kazan, Perm', Zaporizhzhya, Tambov, Lapu-Lapu City, Guangzhou, Tacloban City, Konakovo, Kalibo, Nizhniy Novgorod, Istanbul, Kharkiv, Brooklyn, Mira Loma,
Understanding female sexuality and mate choice is central to evolutionary scenarios of human social systems. Studies of female sexuality conducted by sex. Research conducted in the last fifteen years has placed in question many of the traditional conclusions scholars have formed about human.
- Вы ищете знакомства с иностранцами?
- Хотите выйти замуж за рубеж?
- Наш международный сайт знакомств абсолютно бесплатно поможет вам!
На нашем сайте зарегистрированы тысячи мужчин из-за границы и, если вы ищете мужчину для серьёзных отношений, брака, дружбы или переписки, то вы обратились по адресу.
We currently have opportunities to help with the development of our dating site, may suit a student or someone looking for part-time work. View more information here.