Review ArticleBeauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans
Introduction
Viewing human mating in a developed nation, one surmises that success in heterosexual competition for mates entails attracting members of the opposite sex. Beauty, fashion, and physical fitness are so important in places like the United States that they have become multi-billion dollar industries. Men and women have virtual autonomy to choose their mates. These conditions are so pervasive that it is tempting to think that they have characterized our evolution—that humans evolved in a context where, in the mating arena, the preferences of the opposite sex were the primary forces shaping our phenotypes.
With notable exceptions (e.g., Apostolou, 2007, Archer, 2009, Buss and Dedden, 1990, Buss and Duntley, 2006, Buss and Shackelford, 1997, Daly and Wilson, 1988, Lassek and Gaulin, 2009, Sell et al., 2009), the recent literature in evolutionary psychology reinforces this impression. The vast majority of research on sexual selection in Homo sapiens focuses on mate choice. Of papers on human sexual selection, more than 75% (55 of 73) published from 1997 to 2007 in the journals Evolution and Human Behavior and Human Nature mainly concern mate choice (categorized by the present author and a trained research assistant into “mate choice,” “dominance and status competition,” and “other,” according to the hypotheses tested in the paper). According to an influential researcher, in sexual species, “all genes must propagate through the gateway of sex, and mate choice is the guardian of that gateway. For this reason, sexual courtship was probably central in human evolution and remains central in modern human life” (Miller, 1998, p. 119). According to another leading researcher, “the desires of one sex establish the critical dimensions along which members of the opposite sex compete” (Buss, 1996, p. 307). The extensive evidence leaves little doubt that the preferences of each sex have been important selection pressures on the other.
But has mate choice been the primary mechanism of human sexual selection, as the literature might suggest? I argue here that it has not. Rather, contest competition—in which force or threats of force are used to exclude same-sex rivals from mating opportunities—has been the main form of mating competition in men, whereas male mate choice has predominated as a mechanism of sexual selection operating on women. This argument will be built on theory developed from cross-species comparison and subsequently tested by examining evidence of apparent design in humans.
Section snippets
Sexual selection
Darwin, 1859, Darwin, 1871) proposed sexual selection to explain traits that seemed harmful to survival—the hooked jaw of the male salmon, the stag's antlers, the cock's spurs, and the “gorgeous plumage” and “strange antics” (1859, p. 137) of the male rock-thrush and bird of paradise, for example. Although these traits might impair survival, Darwin postulated that they could nevertheless promote their own passage into the next generation by helping their bearers win mating opportunities: They
Sexual selection in humans
Women invest more in offspring than men do through gestation and nursing for up to several years in foraging societies (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989) and through providing more parental care on average in all known societies (Hewlett, 1992). Greater investment slows women's reproductive rates, skewing the operational sex ratio so that there are more males than females available for mating. Across species, these conditions foster mating competition in the more rapidly-reproducing sex. Evidence suggests
Summary
The ancestral human mating system may have comprised groups of (often related) males cooperating in female defense. Between-group aggression, female cooperation, and the ability to inflict lethal injuries with weapons likely enabled some males to monopolize multiple females. At the same time, female defense was imperfect, promoting moderate sperm competition and female choice of both long-term mates and extra-pair sex partners. Monopolization of females was probably related to social skills and
Conclusions
Human mating is complicated. It is the stuff of operas and soap operas, full of manipulation and deception, aggression and solicitude, cooperation and selfishness. It is the culmination of multiple individual interests, sometimes overlapping, often opposing. Human mating is perhaps even more complicated than it appears in contemporary industrial societies, where men and women choose their mates largely beyond the authority of kin, women do not rely economically on men, and men are prohibited by
Acknowledgments
I thank Drew Bailey, Mike Bailey, David Buss, Khytam Dawood, Steve Gaulin, Martie Haselton, Jeffrey Kurland, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on previous drafts; and Eric Seemiller and Lauren Catalano for their assistance with literature review.
References (270)
- et al.
An analysis of mandibular fractures in Dundee, Scotland (1977 to 1985)
British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
(1990) - et al.
Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa high school students
Evolution and Human Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers I: Reports from Albuquerque men
Evolution and Human Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Confidence of paternity, divorce, and investment in children by Albuquerque men
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2007) Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2007)The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1995)- et al.
Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
(1996) - et al.
Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2006) - et al.
Bateman's principles and human sex roles
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
(2009) - et al.
Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective
Clinical Psychology Review
(1997)