Information

Why would a human female have a sexual display despite male biased operational sex ratio?

Why would a human female have a sexual display despite male biased operational sex ratio?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

why would a human female have a sexual display despite male-biased operational sex ratio?

In human society there is a male-biased sex ratio, due to female child rearing, which results from anisogamy. Human females sometimes expend great amounts of energy and resources performing display acts and doing things to attempt to improve their apparent quality to males. Human males tend to be eager, despite a certain level of socially imposed monogamy, and many males will mate with a low quality female. Why do human women do sexual display behaviors, when there are so many eager males to choose from?


Sexual arms race.

There is a fine and internally consistent theory that this strategy by females evolved to oppose the strategy of infanticide by males. Males of many species including primates and possibly humans can increase their own genetic fitness by killing infants that are not their own. This frees up attention and physical resources of the female to instead have the baby of the infanticidal male. Lions are famous for this. But this is in opposition to the genetic fitness interest of the female, who just invested a bunch of efforts gestating and rearing an infant who was then killed.

My favorite writer on this is Sarah Hrdy. From the Wikipedia article on this

This is where the idea of sexual counter-strategies comes into play. Hrdy theorized that by mating with as many males as possible, particularly males who are not part of the colony, mothers are able to successfully protect their young, as males were unlikely to kill an infant if there was the slightest chance that it might be their own.

This explains why women have the sexual displays referred to in the OP. Other aspects of female human biology match. Humans keep big breasts so they always look like they are lactating (compared to other animals) - to keep males guessing. There is no external sign to indicate when a human is ovulating. Females of other species are receptive and mate when they are ovulating - humans can mate any time.

A strategy of keep the guys guessing. If one time he had sex with a given female, probably he shouldn't kill the kid. Maybe it is his?

An interesting (& extremely arguable!) corollary to this is the premise that human culture in its entirety is the male countermeasure to this prehistoric female defense against infanticide: that male dominated culture is a method to ensure paternity.


Based on what is currently known, I would say that while females might find sperm readily available, it is common for human males to not only provide sperm but also help rear the offspring (e.g., provide care, financial support, food, transportation). So, they might provide sperm to a woman they're not impressed by (by "impressed," I mean convinced the woman has whatever characteristic the sexual display is supposed to exhibit), but they only offer rearing investment to offspring of a woman they are impressed by. So, basically, the woman is making a demonstration in order to garner investment from the male. I think there's more to it than that, but this answer is based on what is currently known and robustly supported in the literature.


Evolution exam #2 Ch. 11

A female's reproductive success is often limited by the number of eggs that she can produce and provision. Females with access to the most resources generally achieve the highest egg (and offspring) numbers and have the highest fitness relative to other females.

Male reproductive success is often limited by the number of eggs that he can fertilize. Males who mate with the most females generally sire the greatest number of offspring and have the highest fitness relative to other males.

Biased operational sex ratios can generate strong sexual selection because the abundant sex (typically males) must compete over access to the limiting sex (typically females).

Males often fight with each other over access to females, and this behavior can generate strong
sexual selection for large body size, weapons, and aggression.

Males compete over harems (groups of females), resources required by females, or display arenas
(leks) visited by females, depending on the species.

Sexual selection affects the sex with the greater variance in reproductive success (usually males).

Intersexual selection (often ca lled female choice) occurs when members of the limiting sex (generally
females) actively discriminate among suitors of the less limited sex (generally males).


Acknowledgements

We thank Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Caroline Uggla, Rebecca Sear and the Early Life Conditions Research group (Michael Hollingshaus, Alla Chernenko, Kelli Rasmussen and Heidi Hanson), for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Zhe (David) Yu, Alison Fraser and Diana Lane Reed for invaluable assistance in managing and preparing the data. We are also grateful to Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin for funding a platform for us to present and receive valuable feedback on our work. Lastly, we wish to thank Douglas Tharp for his SAS guidance.


Myths of Sex Determination

Myth 1: Sex is typically determined by X and Y chromosomes

Many biologists are habituated to thinking about sex determination through the familiar examples of mammals and D. melanogaster, and assume that sex determination by sex chromosomes is the norm, that males are XY and females are XX, and that sex chromosomes are a stable component of the genome. While biologists are generally aware of other modes of sex determination (such as female heterogamety in birds, temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles, or development of males from unfertilized eggs in bees), these alternatives are often viewed as strange and aberrant [8].

Myth 2: Sex is controlled by one master-switch gene

Sex determination in model species suggests that a master-switch gene (e.g. Sry in mammals, Sxl in D. melanogaster, and xol-1 in C. elegans) acts as the main control element to trigger either male or female sexual development. Changes in the sex determination pathways across taxa are assumed to involve adding a new master-switch gene to this molecular pathway (as in some fly taxa [9]), with little change to downstream elements of the sex determination pathway [10]. A few genes are thought to have the capacity to take on the role of sex determination genes, and these have been co-opted as master-switch genes independently in different lineages (for example, dmrt1 in several vertebrates [11]–[14] and tra in insects [15]–[17]).

Myth 3: Sex chromosome differentiation and degeneration is inevitable

Sex chromosomes originate from identical autosomes by acquiring a sex determination gene (for example, the origin of the Sry gene in mammals approximately 180 million years ago or Sxl in the Drosophila genus >60 million years ago). They are then thought to differentiate through an inevitable and irreversible process in which recombination between X and Y chromosomes is shut down and the Y degenerates (see Figure 1). Ultimately, Y chromosomes are fated to disappear entirely (“born to be destroyed,” [18]). Thus, sex chromosomes that are morphologically similar (homomorphic) must be evolutionarily young, and in time they too will degenerate.


Alanko, K., Santtila, P., Harlaar, N., Witting, K., Varjonen, M., Jern, P., et al. (2010). Common genetic effects of gender atypical behavior in childhood and sexual orientation in adulthood: a study of Finnish twins. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 81–92.

Allen, L. S., & Gorski, R. A. (1992). Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 7199–7202.

Apostolou, M. (2016). The evolution of female same-sex attractions: the weak selection pressures hypothesis. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10, 270–283.

Arnold, A. P. (2009). The organizational-activational hypothesis as the foundation for a unified theory of sexual differentiation of all mammalian tissues. Hormones and Behavior, 55, 570–578.

Austin, S. B., Jun, H., Jackson, B., Spiegelman, D., Rich-Edwards, J., Corliss, H. L., & Wright, R. J. (2008). Disparities in child abuse victimization in lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women in the nurses’ health study II. Journal of Women’s Health, 17, 597–606.

Baeber, T. (2008). Well-being among bisexual females: the roles of internalized biphobia, stigma consciousness, social support, and self-disclosure. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The sciences and Engineering, 69, 2616.

Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Bailey, N. W., & French, N. (2012). Same-sex sexual behaviour and mistaken identity in male field crickets, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Animal Behaviour, 84, 1031–1038.

Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: a conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43–55.

Bailey, J. M., & Zuk, M. (2009). Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 439–446.

Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217–223.

Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition. London: Chapman & Hall.

Balsam, K. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2007). Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: a comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 306–319.

Balsam, K. F., Rothblum, E. D., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2005). Victimization over the life span: a comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477–487.

Bancroft, J. H. (1989). Sexual desire and the brain. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 3, 11–27.

Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.

Beidelman, T. O. (1983). The Kaguru, a matrilineal people of East Africa. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Belyaev, D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. Journal of Heredity, 70, 301–308.

Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: a developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320–335.

Bem, D. J. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic: interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 531–548.

Benítez-Burraco, A., Di Pietro, L., Barba, M., & Lattanzi, W. (2017). Schizophrenia and human self-domestication: An evolutionary linguistics approach. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 89, 162–184.

Bennion, J. (2012). Polygamy in primetime. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press.

Benuto, L., & Meana, M. (2008). Acculturation and sexuality: investigating gender differences in erotic plasticity. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 217–224.

Besnier, N. (1993). Polynesian gender liminality. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender (pp. 285–328). New York, NY: Zone Books.

Betzig, L. (1992). Roman polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 309–349.

Betzig, L. (1995). Medieval monogamy. Journal of Family History, 20, 181–215.

Betzig, L. (2012). Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: comparative evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 309–317.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Kipp, K. (1996). Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 163–188.

Blackburn, A. G., Fowler, S. K., Mullings, J. L., & Marquart, J. W. (2011). Too close for comfort: exploring gender differences in inmate attitudes toward homosexuality in prison. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 58–72.

Blackwood, E. (1984). Sexuality and gender in certain native American tribes: the case of cross-gender females. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 10, 27–42.

Blackwood, E. (1995). Senior women, model mothers, and dutiful wives: managing gender contradictions in a Minangkabau village. In A. Ong & M. G. Peletz (Eds.), Bewitching women, pious men (pp. 124–155). Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Blount, B. G. (1990). Issues in bonobo (Pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist, 92, 702–714.

Bove, R. B., Valeggia, C. R., & Ellison, P. T. (2002). Girl helpers and time allocation of nursing women among the Toba of Argentina. Human Nature, 13, 457–472.

Bremmer, J. (1980). An enigmatic Indo-European rite: Paederasty. Arethusa, 13, 279–290.

Brown, W. M., Finn, C. J., Cooke, B. M., & Breedlove, S. M. (2002). Differences in finger length ratios between self-identified “butch” and “femme” lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 123–127.

Burley, N. (1979). The evolution of concealed ovulation. The American Naturalist, 114, 835–858.

Burri, A., Spector, T., & Rahman, Q. (2015). Common genetic factors among sexual orientation, gender nonconformity, and number of sex partners in female twins: implications for the evolution of homosexuality. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 1004–1011.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 2217–2221.

Cantarella, E. (1992). Bisexuality in the ancient world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chagnon, N. (1992). Yanomamo. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.

Chivers, M. L. (2017). The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientations: a review and ten hypotheses. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1161–1179.

Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). A sex difference in features that elicit genital response. Biological Psychology, 70, 115–120.

Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744.

Coall, D. A., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Grandparental investment: past, present, and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 1–19.

Cochran, G. M., Ewald, P. W., & Cochran, K. D. (2000). Infectious causation of disease: an evolutionary perspective. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43, 406–448.

Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming-out process. American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 469–482.

Coleman, E. M., Hoon, P. W., & Hoon, E. F. (1983). Arousability and sexual satisfaction in lesbian and heterosexual women. Journal of Sex Research, 19, 58–73.

Conway III, L. G., & Schaller, M. (2002). On the verifiability of evolutionary psychological theories: an analysis of the psychology of scientific persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 152–166.

Dank, B. (1971). Coming out in the gay world. Psychiatry, 34, 180–197.

Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: W. Clowes and Sons.

Dawson, S. J., & Chivers, M. L. (2016). Gender-specificity of initial and controlled visual attention to sexual stimuli in androphilic women and gynephilic men. PLoS One, 11, e0152785.

de Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee politics: power and sex among the apes. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Deacon, B. (1934). Malekula. London: Routledge.

Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental Psychology, 36, 241–250.

Diamond, L. M. (2007). The evolution of plasticity in female-female sexual desire. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 245–274.

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diamond, L. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2000). Explaining diversity in the development of same-sex sexuality among young women. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 297–313.

Dickson, N., Paul, C., & Herbison, P. (2003). Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1607–1615.

Draper, P. (1975). !Kung women: contrasts in sexual egalitarianism in foraging and sedentary contexts. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women (pp. 77–109). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Draper, P., & Hames, R. (2000). Birth order, sibling investment, and fertility among Ju/’Hoansi (!Kung). Human Nature, 11, 117–156.

Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 1–23.

Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: a theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233–258.

Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215–223.

Enomoto, T. (1990). Social play and sexual behavior of the bonobo (Pan paniscus) with special reference to flexibility. Primates, 31, 469–480.

Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1985). Women’s lives viewed from an evolutionary perspective. I. Sexual histories, reproductive success, and demographic characteristics of a random sample of American women. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 137–154.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1970). Sexual inversion among the Azande. American Anthropologist, 72, 1428–1434.

Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Fernandes, H., Figueredo, A. J., Woodley, M., & Vasey, P. L. (2015, July). There’s something queer about primate sociality: phenotypic and phylogenetic associations between sociality indicators and same-sex genital interactions across clades. Paper presented at the puzzle of sexual orientation meeting. Alberta: Lethbridge.

Fischer, R. B., & Nadler, R. D. (1978). Affiliative, playful, and homosexual interactions of adult female lowland gorillas. Primates, 19, 657–664.

Flinn, M. V. (1989). Household composition and female reproductive strategy in a Trinidadian village. In A. E. Rasa (Ed.), The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies (pp. 206–233). London: Chapman & Hall.

Fossey, D. (1983). Gorillas in the mist. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Frederick, D. A., St. John, H. K., Garcia, J. R., & Lloyd, E. A. (2018). Differences in orgasm frequency among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual men and women in a U.S. national sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 273–288.

Furuichi, T. (2011). Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 131–142.

Galdikas, B. M. F. (1995). Social and reproductive behavior of wild adolescent female orangutans. In R. D. Nadler, B. M. F. Galdikas, L. K. Sheeran, & N. Rosen (Eds.), The neglected ape (pp. 183–190). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Gallup Jr., G. G., & Suarez, S. D. (1983). Homosexuality as a by-product of selection for optimal heterosexual strategies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 26, 315–322.

Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? UCLA: The Williams Institute Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/09h684x2.pdf.

Gates, G. J. (2013). LGBT parenting in the United States. UCLA: The Williams Institute Retrieved from: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf.

Gavrilets, S., & Rice, W. R. (2006). Genetic models of homosexuality: Generating testable predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 273, 3031–3038.

Gay, J. (1986). “Mummies and babies” and friends and lovers in Lesotho. Journal of Homosexuality, 11, 97–116.

Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Gray, P. B. (2013). Evolution and human sexuality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 152, 94–118.

Green, B. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed traits at different relationship levels: androgynous characteristics may be desirable after all. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 244–253.

Greenberg, D. F. (1988). The construction of homosexuality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Grimbos, T., Dawood, K., Burriss, R. P., Zucker, K. J., & Puts, D. A. (2010). Sexual orientation and the second to fourth finger length ratio: a meta-analysis in men and women. Behavioral Neuroscience, 124, 278–287.

Hall, L. S., & Love, C. T. (2003). Finger-length ratios in female monozygotic twins discordant for sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 23–28.

Hallett, J. P. (1989). Female homoeroticism and the denial of Roman reality in Latin literature. The Yale Journal of Criticism, 3, 209–232.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (2010). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321–327.

Hare, B., Wobber, V., & Wrangham, R. (2012). The self-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression. Animal Behaviour, 83, 573–585.

Harrison, M. A., Hughes, S. M., Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G. (2008). The impact of prior heterosexual experiences on homosexuality in women. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 316–327.

Hart, D. V. (1968). Homosexuality and transvestism in the Philippines: the Cebuan Filipino bayot and lakin-on. Behavior Science Notes, 3, 211–248.

Heinrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 657–669.

Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46, 957–963.

Hewlett, B. S. (1988). Sexual selection and paternal investment among Aka pygmies. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behaviour (pp. 263–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hiestand, K. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2005). Butch identity development: the formation of an authentic gender. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 61–85.

Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hines, M., Brook, C., & Conway, G. S. (2004). Androgens and psychosexual development: core gender identity, sexual orientation and recalled childhood gender role behavior in women and men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 75–81.

Hiraishi, K., Sasaki, S., Shikishima, C., & Ando, J. (2012). The second to fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) in a Japanese twin sample: heritability, prenatal hormone transfer, and association with sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 711–724.

Hohmann, G., & Fruth, B. (2000). Use and function of genital contacts among female bonobos. Animal Behavior, 60, 107–120.

Holmberg, D., & Blair, K. L. (2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 57–66.

Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2002). A multidimensional approach to homosexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 1–19.

Howard, R. M., & Perilloux, C. (2017). Is mating psychology most closely tied to biological sex or preferred partner’s sex? Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 83–89.

Hrdy, S. B. (1976). Care and exploitation of non-human primate infants by conspecifics other than the mother. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 6, 101–158.

Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature. London: Chatto & Windus.

Hrdy, S. B. (2007). Evolutionary context of human development: the cooperative breeding model. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Family relationships (pp. 39–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hrdy, S. B. (2008). Cooperative breeding and the paradox of facultative fathering. In R. Bridges (Ed.), The neurobiology of the parental brain (pp. 407–416). New York: Academic Press.

Huneke, S. C. (2017). The duplicity of tolerance: lesbian experiences in Nazi berlin. Journal of Contemporary History. Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022009417690596.

Ivey, P. K. (2000). Cooperative reproduction in Ituri forest hunter-gatherers: who cares for Efe infants. Current Anthropology, 41, 856–866.

Janssen, E., Everaerd, W., Spiering, M., & Janssen, J. (2000). Automatic processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: toward an information processing model of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8–23.

Kanazawa, S. (2016). Possible evolutionary origins of human female sexual fluidity. Biological Reviews. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12278.

Karmin, M., Saag, L., Vicente, M., Wilson Sayres, M. A., Järve, M., Talas, U. G., et al. (2015). A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture. Genome Research, 25, 459–466.

Keller, M. C., & Miller, G. (2006). Resolving the paradox of common, harmful, heritable mental disorders: which evolutionary genetic models work best? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 385–452.

King, M., Green, J., Osborn, D. P. J., Arkell, J., Hetherton, J., & Pereira, E. (2005). Family size in white gay and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 117–122.

Kirsch, J. A., & Rodman, J. E. (1982). Selection and sexuality: the Darwinian view of homosexuality. In W. Paul & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality (pp. 183–195). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Knott, C. D. (2015). Orangutans. In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of human sexuality (pp. 831–860). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Knott, C. D., Thompson, M. E., Stumpf, R. M., & McIntyre, M. H. (2010). Female reproductive strategies in orangutans, evidence for female choice and counterstrategies to infanticide in a species with frequent sexual coercion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277, 105–113.

Konner, M. (2005). Hunter-gatherer infancy and childhood: The !Kung and others. In B. S. Hewlett & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer childhoods (pp. 19–64). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1922). Psychopathia Sexualis: a medico-forensic study, with special reference to the antipathic sexual instinct. Brooklyn, NY: Physicians and Surgeons Book Company.

Kuhle, B. X., & Radtke, S. (2013). Born both ways: the alloparenting hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 304–323.

Långström, N., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 75–80.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034–1037.

Levitt, H. M., & Horne, S. G. (2002). Explorations of lesbian-queer genders: Butch, femme, androgynous or “other.” Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 25–39.

Lippa, R. A. R. (2002). Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 83–98.

Lippa, R. A. R. (2006). Is high sex drive associated with increased sexual attraction to both sexes? It depends on whether you are male or female. Psychological Science, 17, 46–52.

Lippa, R. A. R. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: an examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208.

Loulan, J. (1990). The lesbian erotic dance. Minneapolis, MN: Spinsters Ink.

Macchiano, A., Razik, I., & Sagot, M. (2018). Same-sex courtship behaviors in male-biased populations: evidence for the mistaken identity hypothesis. Acta ethologica. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-018-0293-8.

MacFarlane, G. R., Blomberg, S. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2010). Homosexual behaviour in birds: Frequency of expression is related to parental care disparity between the sexes. Animal Behaviour, 80, 375–390.

MacKinnon, J. (1974). The behavior and ecology of wild orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Animal Behavior, 22, 3–74.

Marlowe, F. W. (2003). The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 37, 282–306.

Marlowe, F. W. (2005). Hunters-gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 14, 54–67.

Martin, R. D. (1990). Primate origins and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McFadden, D., & Pasanen, E. G. (1998). Comparison of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 2709–2713.

McFadden, D., & Pasanen, E. G. (1999). Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 2403–2413.

McFadden, D., & Schubel, E. (2002). Relative lengths of fingers and toes in human males and females. Hormones & Behavior, 42, 492–500.

Meehan, C. L. (2009). Maternal time allocation in two cooperative childrearing societies. Human Nature, 20, 375.

Mercer, C. H., Bailey, J. V., Johnson, A. M., Erens, B., Wellings, K., Fenton, K. A., & Copas, A. J. (2007). Women who report having sex with women: British national probability data on prevalence, sexual behaviors, and health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1126–1133.

Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (1979). Sex hormones and female homosexuality: a critical examination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 8, 101–119.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Dolezal, C., Baker, S. W., & New, M. I. (2008). Sexual orientation in women with classical or non-classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia as a function of degree of prenatal androgen excess. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 85–99.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Ehrhardt, A. A., Rosen, L. R., Gruen, R. S., Veridiano, N. P., Vann, F. H., & Neuwalder, H. F. (1995). Prenatal estrogens and the development of homosexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31, 12–21.

Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual orientation identity over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 641–648.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man and woman. Boy and girl. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., Schwartz, M., & Lewis, V. G. (1984). Adult erotosexual status and fetal hormonal masculinization and demasculinization: 46XX congenital virilizing adrenal hyperplasia and 46XX androgen-insensitivity syndrome compared. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 9, 405–414.

Morgan, R., & Wieringa, S. (2005). Tommy boys, lesbian men and ancestral wives. Johannesburg, South Africa: Jacana Media.

Morin, S. F. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male homosexuality. American Psychologist, 32, 629–637.

Morris, J. F., Balsam, K. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual mothers and nonmothers: demographics and the coming-out process. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 144–156.

Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., & Sager, C. L. (2004). Does body satisfaction differ between gay men and lesbian women and heterosexual men and women?: a meta-analytic review. Body Image, 1, 127–138.

Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murray, S. O. (2000). Homosexualities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Mustanski, B. S., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2002). A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 8, 89–140.

Nguyen, A. (2008). Patriarchy, power, and female masculinity. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 665–683.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence new findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159.

Nishida, T. (1997). Sexual behavior of adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale mountains national park, Tanzania. Primates, 38, 379–398.

Norris, A. L., Marcus, D. K., & Green, B. A. (2015). Homosexuality as a discrete class. Psychological Science, 26, 1843–1853.

Owen, B. A. (1998). In the mix: struggle and survival in a women's prison. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Palagi, E. (2006). Social play in bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): implications for natural social systems and interindividual relationships. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 129, 418–426.

Parish, A. R. (1996). Female relationships in bonobos (Pan paniscus): evidence for bonding, cooperation, and female dominance in a male-philopatric species. Human Nature, 7, 61–96.

Pattatucci, A. M. L., & Hamer, D. H. (1995). Development and familiality of sexual orientation in females. Behavior Genetics, 25, 407–420.

Pearcey, S. M., Docherty, K. J., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1996). Testosterone and sex role identification in lesbian couples. Physiology & Behavior, 60, 1033–1035.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The development of play during childhood: forms and possible functions. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3, 51–57.

Peplau, L. A., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 7–27.

Peplau, L. A., Garnets, L. D., Spalding, L. R., Conley, T. D., & Veniegas, R. C. (1998). A critique of Bem’s “exotic becomes erotic” theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 105, 387–394.

Perkins, M. W. (1981). Female homosexuality and body build. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, 337–345.

Pillard, R., & Bailey, J. M. (1998). Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. Human Biology, 70, 347–365.

Pillard, R., & Weinrich, J. (1986). Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 808–812.

Poeppl, T. B., Langguth, B., Rupprecht, R., Laird, A. R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2016). A neural circuit encoding sexual preference in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 530–536.

Poiani, A. (2010). Animal homosexuality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ponse, B. (1978). Identities in the lesbian world. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Ponseti, J., Siebner, H. R., Kloeppel, S., Wolff, S., Granert, O., Jansen, O., et al. (2007). Homosexual women have less grey matter in perirhinal cortex than heterosexual women. PLoS One, 8, e762.

Puts, D. A., & Dawood, K. (2006). The evolution of female orgasm: adaptation or byproduct? Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9, 467–472.

Rahman, Q. (2005). The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 1057–1066.

Rahman, Q., Collins, A., Morrison, M., Orrells, J. C., Cadinouche, K., Greenfield, S., & Begum, S. (2008). Maternal inheritance and familial fecundity factors in male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 962–989.

Rahman, Q., & Wilson, G. (2003). Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger length ratio: evidence for organising effects of sex hormones or developmental instability? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 288–303.

Reinisch, J. M., Mortensen, E. L., & Sanders, S. A. (2017). Prenatal exposure to progesterone affects sexual orientation in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1239–1249.

Rice, W. R., Friberg, U., & Gavrilets, S. (2012). Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 87, 343–368.

Robertson, C. E. (1989). The Mahu of Hawai’i (an art essay). Feminist Studies, 15, 313–326.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Levy-Warren, A. (2009). The coming-out process of young lesbian and bisexual women: are there butch/femme differences in sexual identity development? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 34–49.

Rosenthal, A. M., Sylva, D., Safron, A., & Bailey, J. M. (2011). Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual men revisited. Biological Psychology, 88, 112–115.

Ross, C. A., & Durkin, V. (2005). Childhood trauma, dissociation and alcohol/other drug abuse among lesbian women. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 23, 99–105.

Rust, P. C. R. (1993). Coming out in the age of social constructionism: sexual identity formation among lesbians and bisexual women. Gender and Society, 7, 50–77.

Sakheim, D. K., Barlow, D. H., Beck, J. G., & Abrahamson, D. J. (1985). A comparison of male heterosexual and male homosexual patterns of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 21, 183–198.

Sankar, A. (1986). Sisters and brothers, lovers and enemies: marriage resistance in southern Kwangtung. In E. Blackwood (Ed.), The many faces of homosexuality (pp. 69–81). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Savic, I., & Lindstrom, P. (2008). PET and MIR show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9403–9408.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2007). Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 385–394.

Scamvougeras, A., Witelson, S. F., Bronskill, M., Stanchev, P., Black, S., Cheung, G., et al. (1994). Sexual orientation and anatomy of the corpus callosum. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 20, 1425.

Scharf, I., & Martin, O. Y. (2013). Same-sex sexual behavior in insects and arachnids: prevalence, causes, and consequences. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67, 1719–1730.

Scheer, S., Parks, C. A., McFarland, W., Page-Shafer, K., Delgado, V., Ruiz, J. D., et al. (2002). Self-reported sexual identity, sexual behaviors and health risks: examples from a population-based survey of young women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 69–83.

Schmitt, D. P. (2015). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Schuppli, C., Isler, K., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2012). How to explain the unusually late age at skill competence among humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 63, 843–850.

Schwartz, M. F., & Money, J. (1983). Dating, romance, and sexuality in young adult adrenogenital females. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 5, 132.

Schwartz, G., Kim, R. M., Kolundzija, A. B., Rieger, G., & Sanders, A. R. (2010). Biodemographic and physical correlates of sexual orientation in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 93–109.

Sear, R., Steele, F., McGregor, I. A., & Mace, R. (2002). The effects of kin on child mortality in rural Gambia. Demography, 39, 43–63.

Sell, R. L. (1997). Defining and measuring sexual orientation: a review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 643–658.

Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zabarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M. (1999). Lesbian erotic role identification: behavioral, morphological and hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1035–1049.

Snowden, R. J., & Gray, N. S. (2013). Implicit sexual associations in heterosexual and homosexual women and men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 475–485.

Sommer, V., & Vasey, P. L. (Eds.). (2006). Homosexual behaviour in animals. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Studd, J., & Schwenkhagen, A. (2009). The historical response to female sexuality. Maturitas, 63, 107–111.

Stumpf, R. M., & Boesch, C. (2005). Does promiscuous mating preclude female choice? Female sexual strategies in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) of the Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 57, 511–524.

Sullivan, G., & Jackson, P. A. (2001). Gay and lesbian Asia. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Sun, C., Wosnitzer, R., Bridges, A., Scharrer, E., & Liberman, R. (2010). Harder and harder: the content of popular pornographic movies. In M. A. Paludi & F. Denmark (Eds.), Victims of sexual assault and abuse (pp. 335–362). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Swaab, D. F., & Hofman, M. A. (1990). An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research, 537, 141–148.

Symons, D. (1990). Adaptiveness and adaptation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 427–444.

Tripp, C. A. (1975). The homosexual matrix. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Turke, P. (1988). Helpers-at-the-nest: childcare networks on Ifaluk. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior (pp. 173–188). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Udry, J. R., Kovenock, J., Morris, N. M., & Vandenberg, B. J. (1995). Childhood precursors of age at first intercourse for females. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 329–337.

van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1212.

Vance, B. K., & Green, V. (1984). Lesbian identities: an examination of sexual behavior and sex role acquisition as related to age of initial same-sex encounter. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 293–307.

Vitzthum, V. J. (2003). A number no greater than the sum of its parts: the use and abuse of heritability. Human Biology, 75, 539–558.

Voracek, M., & Dressler, S. G. (2007). Digit ratio (2D:4D) in twins: heritability estimates and evidence for a masculinized trait expression in women from opposite-sex pairs. Psychological Reports, 100, 115–126.

Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 85–101.

Walker, J. J., Golub, S. A., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons, J. T. (2012). Butch bottom-femme top? An exploration of lesbian stereotypes. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16, 90–107.

Weber, J. C. (1996). Social class as a correlate of gender identity among lesbian women. Sex Roles, 35, 271–280.

Williams, T. J., Pepitone, M. E., Christensen, S. E., Cooke, B. M., Huberman, A. D., Breedlove, N. J., Breedlove, T. J., Jordan, C. L., Breedlove, S. M. (2000). Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature, 404, 455-456.

Wrangham, R. W. (1993). The evolution of sexuality in chimpanzees and bonobos. Human Nature, 4, 47–79.

Zietsch, B., Morley, K., Shekar, S., Verweij, K., Keller, M., Macgregor, S., et al. (2008). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 424–433.

Zucker, K. (1999). Intersexuality and gender identity differentiation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 10, 1–69.


Access options

Get full journal access for 1 year

All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

All prices are NET prices.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study species

The common lizard is a ground-dwelling ovoviviparous lizard (adult snout–vent length [SVL]: 50–70 mm, SVL at hatching: 15–25 mm) that inhabits moist habitats across Eurasia. Individuals start hibernating in late September. Males become active from February/March and mating may occur one month later when females emerge. In our study area, individuals can reproduce once per year from the age of one year. Maximum female and male life span in natural populations are 11 and 7 years, respectively. Clutch size ranges from 1 to 12 eggs, depending partly on body size ( Boudjemadi et al. 1999). Hatchlings are independent at birth with no parental care after birth ( Massot et al. 1992). No nuptial gifts are provided ( Heulin 1988), and sperm has little effect on the nutrition of the young ( Depeiges et al. 1987).

Age affects individual performance by influencing current reproductive value and survival ( Ronce et al. 1998 Richard et al. 2005). Hereafter, we will use the term “adults” for individuals of at least 2 years of age and the term “yearlings” for 1-year-old individuals. Females display a period of senescence for annual survival, which decreases from about 50% to 30% at the age of 4 years. The fecundity of both sexes and the probability of survival for their offspring also increase until the age of 4 years and decrease thereafter. In females, annual fecundity is highest in 3- and 4-year-old individuals, whereas the 2- and 3-year-old individuals have the highest survival rates ( Ronce et al. 1998 Richard et al. 2005). Middle-aged individuals (between the ages of 2 and 4 years) thus have the highest level of performance, whereas yearlings and old individuals (5 years and older) perform less well.

Populations studied

The lizards used in this study originated from natural populations from the Cévennes area (1400–1600 m in altitude, lat 44°30′N, long 3°45′E) and had been kept for 3 years in seminatural conditions at the Ecological Research Station at Foljuif (60 m in altitude, lat 48°17′N, long 2°4′E). As these individuals were part of a long-term study, all were individually marked by toe clipping and the year of birth was known for most individuals. Previous studies have shown that confined populations have similar life-history traits and mating patterns to natural populations in terms of age at first reproduction, clutch size, and proportion of multiply sired clutches ( Boudjemadi et al. 1999 Laloi et al. 2004 Lecomte et al. 2004).

In June 2004, we captured individuals in holding enclosures. These individuals were then released to create 16 seminatural populations containing a mean of 50.6 ± 14.6 (mean ±standard deviation [SD]) individuals, including 25.2 ± 7.8 adults. Each seminatural population created was housed in an outdoor enclosure, 10 × 10 m in size. Enclosure size corresponded to adult individuals’ home range under natural conditions. As home ranges overlap to a great extent in this species, 30 adult individuals can share an area of similar size in natural conditions ( Massot et al. 1992 Boudjemadi et al. 1999 Lecomte et al. 2004). Thus, the densities of adults created in our experiment were similar to those observed in natural populations ( Lecomte and Clobert 1996). The sex ratio of the created populations (adult sex ratio [ASR], the proportion of adults that were male) was biased toward females (mean: 0.38 ± 0.04SD). This is generally the case in natural populations, although substantial spatial and temporal variations are observed (from 0.15 to 0.65, Le Galliard, Fitze, Cote, et al. 2005). The age structures of experimental populations were similar to those of natural populations, with a mean of 46% yearlings (range 0.38–0.57), a proportion similar to that found in several natural populations from the Cévennes area (43–65%, Massot et al. 1992 Meylan et al. 2007).

In early June 2005, all the surviving lizards were captured. Due to demographic stochasticity, survival rates from release to capture differed between populations, creating a continuous distribution of population density and sex ratio ( Table 1). Density (total number of individuals within an enclosure) and sex ratio in the 16 populations were indeed continuous and not correlated (Kendall correlation, tau-b = −0.02, P > 0.8 Table 1). This distribution provided us with an opportunity to analyze the correlations between both population density and sex ratio with reproductive output. Population density and sex ratio in May 2005 were thus used as independent continuous covariates in the analyses. During the breeding period studied, in May 2005, populations contained 198 females and 164 males. At the first capture of June 2005, we recorded body length (SVL) and body mass for all individuals. An index of body condition was calculated for males and females as the residual of the regression between body mass and body length. Individual body condition in June 2005 was not significantly related to age, population density, sex ratio, or any other second-order interaction, including age squared, density squared, or ASR squared (linear mixed models—see statistical analyses section for methods—with male and female body conditions as dependent variables and population as a random effect, all P values > 0.05). Age structure was similar between populations, with the proportion of each age class unrelated to density, sex ratio, or second-order interactions (linear mixed models with the proportions of each age class treated as dependent variables, all P values > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS

The spatial distribution of individuals has been proposed as a means to quantify sexual selection ( Emlen and Oring 1977 Shuster and Wade 2003). Here we investigated whether 2 methods of measuring spatial distribution reflect mating competition, a major force in the evolution of mating systems. Our study shows that the spatial distribution only partly reflects sexual selection in the form of mating competition. We found that mean crowding behaved according to predictions in relation to increased mating competition (more female-biased OSR) for the most competitive sex. However, mean crowding did not reflect the predicted level of mating competition in males. Our measure of spatial association between the sexes (X), behaved in a predicted fashion to the manipulations of density and sex ratio, and even if this measure has not (to the best of our knowledge) been used in studies of animal behavior, it might be a useful measure of between-sex interactions on the population level. In general, we conclude that extensive knowledge about the behavioral ecology of the species is critical to interpret the mechanisms behind spatial patterns. Based on our findings, we recommend caution with the application of measures of spatial distribution in studies of sexual selection because we demonstrate that the spatial distribution of males and females does not necessarily reflect the predicted direction and strength of mating competition in all situations.


Essential Reads


Sexual Selection and Mate Choice

A subscription to J o VE is required to view this content.
You will only be able to see the first 20 seconds.

The JoVE video player is compatible with HTML5 and Adobe Flash. Older browsers that do not support HTML5 and the H.264 video codec will still use a Flash-based video player. We recommend downloading the newest version of Flash here, but we support all versions 10 and above.

If that doesn't help, please let us know.

Herbert Spencer first coined the phrase survival of the fittest in 1864, to describe Darwin's observations of natural selection. One way to quantify the fitness of an individual is in the number of offspring that it can contribute to the next generation - so an organism can improve its fitness by producing more offspring that are then able to successfully reproduce themselves. Reproduction is a critical element of fitness, and sexually-reproducing organisms must mate in order to pass their genes on to the next generation. This means that for sexually-reproducing organisms, competing for mates becomes a key part of fitness.

This pressure to find a mate leads to a phenomenon known as sexual selection - a type of selection that acts upon traits associated with mating and courtship. Typically, sexual selection is more intense for the sex that invests the least amount of energy in reproduction. Since sperm is energetically inexpensive to produce, males generally bear the brunt of sexual selection pressures. Conversely, eggs are energetically expensive to produce and then gestate. This means that females are expected to be more selective when choosing mates, and males must invest substantial resources in attracting females. This observation is related to the operational sex ratio, or the OSR - which is the ratio of sexually-mature males to fertile females. Often the OSR is male-biased, due to their longer reproductive lifespans.

Due to the often-intense sexual selection pressures males face, many species of animals display extravagant ornamentation that distinguishes males from females. When males and females of the same species appear phenotypically different, we call this sexual dimorphism. Sexual selection, however, isn't limited to only male ornamentation. There are two types of sexual selection, intersexual and intrasexual. In intersexual selection, one sex, typically the males, will display a certain trait or behavior with the goal of attracting and mating with the opposite sex. Intrasexual selection, on the other hand, occurs between members of the same sex. For example, male sea lions compete for dominance over rookeries of females. Here, intrasexual selection acts on the physiology of the sea lion, to make it large enough to compete with other males for a group of females. But with attributes like vibrant colors and larger size come costs. Like increased visibility to predators, or decreased immunity due to the overproduction of androgens. This means that natural selection and sexual selection are often at odds with each other, pulling traits in opposite directions. Because of this, individuals with exceptionally high- or low-quality scores are rare. Instead, individuals of average quality are expected to make up the majority of a population.

In this lab, you will perform simulations of mating scenarios in which females and males can select their mates based on varying amounts of information on their potential mate's quality.

Choosing Mates

Evolutionary fitness is largely determined by the ability of an organism to survive and successfully produce offspring. Critical to this process is sexual selection, which plays a large role in the determination of mating pairs, and thus which genes are passed on to the next generation. Often, intense competition for mates within a population places selective pressure on traits related to courtship and copulation. Natural selection that results from these pressures is called sexual selection. Sexually selected traits include characteristics like ornamentation or coloration for the sole purpose of attracting mates. These traits can also serve to enhance the distinction between males and females within a species, termed sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism and other sexually selected traits help individuals of a species determine the fitness of potential mates and select an appropriate breeding partner. This type of selection occurs in most species, from insects to humans and countless others.

Inter- and Intra-sexual Selection

The two basic types of sexual selection are intersexual (between-sex) and intrasexual (within-sex) selection. Intersexual selection occurs as a result of interactions between males and females of a species. One sex, typically males, will develop and display traits or behavior patterns to attract the opposite sex. Examples of such traits include plumage on birds, the mating calls of frogs, and courtship displays in fish. In contrast, intrasexual selection occurs between members of the same sex. Competition between males is common, as with deer or horned beetles, which fight for dominance and the ability mate with nearby females. In such cases, sexual selection acts on traits that facilitate competition among individuals of the same sex. For example, the strength and size of the “horn” of horned beetles or antler size in deer. Both intersexual and intrasexual selection influence the development of sexually selected traits in numerous species.

Signaling Fitness and the Operational Sex Ratio (OSR)

The display of sexually-selected traits can be important signals of individual fitness to potential mates. Such signals are often energetically costly, and thus indicate the health, genetics, and nutrition status of an individual. Often, though not always, these traits are displayed by males to attract females. This is the result of the difference in energetic investment into offspring production and rearing. Female eggs are produced in fewer numbers and at a higher energetic cost than male sperm, prompting females to be more selective in mate choice. The level of competition for mates can be quantified by the operational sex ratio (OSR). The OSR is based on the ratio of sexually mature males to females in a population, and is often male-biased in groups that contain more males or for populations in which males mate with multiple females. However, the OSR can be skewed by several factors, including the relative investment by each sex into parental care, mate bonding processes, and the overall rate of reproduction 1-2 .

Because ORS is often male skewed, males of a species tend to experience stronger inter- and intra-sexual selective pressures. In this context, natural selection has favored the development of traits to attract females or compete with other males, even when these traits come at a significant energetic or fitness cost. Traits to attract females, for instance, are often colorful or flashy, making individuals more easily seen by predators. These traits may require significant energy to produce and can reduce immune function in individuals. Furthermore, males put themselves at risk when competing with other males. Battles between males, mating dances, vocalizations, and displays are often not only physically demanding, but may also be loud, flashy and distracting, reducing awareness to predators and potentially injuring individuals. Because of this, natural selection and sexual selection are often in conflict, seemingly pulling such traits in opposite directions. The influence of natural selection prevents sexually selected traits from becoming too extravagant. As a result, sexually associated traits that significantly reduce an individual’s ability to survive long enough to mate will be selected against. This balance between natural and sexual selection causes most individuals within a population to exhibit fitness and sexual traits of average or intermediate quality to maximize reproductive success and survival.

Trading Off: Sexual Selection Versus Natural Selection

However, under unique circumstances, sexually selected traits may not be constrained by survival pressures. For instance, birds within the “bird-of-paradise” family include a variety of species that occupy remote areas lacking natural predators. As a result, males have developed extravagant colorations and mating displays that would normally be selected against due to predation. Such “runaway selection” can produce beautiful and highly ornamented species. Unfortunately, due to human activity, the introduction of new predators like cats threatens the survival of these endangered species.

Understanding sexual selection influences the way we view animal traits, behaviors, and mate choice, including humans 3 . There is often more to sexual selection than visual cues, with many species relying solely on smell or sound to find mates. In humans, the influence of smell was demonstrated in an experiment by Wedekind et al, which showed a female preference for the smell of males who were more different, genetically 4 . Enhanced genetic diversity, especially as it relates to immune function, may provide offspring with greater fitness. In this and other ways, sexual selection has influenced the way humans and organisms of all types evolve, behave, select mates, and reproduce.

Further Reading:

  1. Verdade, L. M. (1996). 'The influence of hunting pressure on the social behavior of vertebrates.' Rev Bras Biol 56(1): 1-13.
  2. Lifshitz, N. and C. C. St Clair (2016). 'Coloured ornamental traits could be effective and non-invasive indicators of pollution exposure for wildlife.' Conserv Physiol 4(1): cow028.
  3. Stanyon, R. and F. Bigoni (2014). 'Sexual selection and the evolution of behavior, morphology, neuroanatomy and genes in humans and other primates.' Neurosci Biobehav Rev 46P4: 579-590.
  4. Wedekind, C. and S. Furi (1997). 'Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity?' Proc Biol Sci 264(1387): 1471-1479.