Dominance,
Submission, and Monogamy
The
Evolutionary Psychology of Reproductive Strategies

Self-rated monogamy on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the most
polygamous rating and 10 being the highest rating of monogamy
(Red=Female, Blue=Male)
The
size of the human genome consists of roughly 3.1 billion base pairs,
while the lowly amoeba contains 670 billion. Why would a complex species
like humans contain less DNA than a single-celled organism that reproduces
asexually?
Vertebrate
DNA is a bit "smarter" than invertebrate, as it is interlaced
with more "switches" that selectively turn genes on and
off, thereby timing the development and functioning of the vertebrate
body--reducing the problems of a wide variety of molecules synthesized
at the same time and interfering with each other.
The human genome contains around 25,000 genes compared to the roughly
12,000 genes of the average amoeba, which means that the amoebic genome
contains much more "junk", that is, DNA with no function.
The prolific reproductive rates of the amoeba have allowed the species
to survive the deterioration of its genome, allowing for less diligence
in the accurate replication of its DNA. It seems that the unstable
replication of DNA can allow a highly reproductive species to survive
when environments change quickly.
But
humans are not as privileged as amoebas, since they reproduce at a
much slower rate. Any significant problems with DNA replication are
more likely to wipe us out. The greater efficiency of vertebrate DNA
is also correlated with a strong bias towards sexual reproduction.
Only more primitive vertebrates can reproduce asexually, and mammalian
reproduction is exclusively sexual.
So
why this curious relationship with organism complexity and sexual
reproduction? This comes courtesy of meiosis, which subjects the genome
to a sort of "managed" chaos, creating genetic variation
without the mutation required by asexual reproduction.
This allows a species to adapt rapidly to environmental stresses without
the need for mutation. This also allows the species to support a more
complicated and lengthy process of reproduction, embryogenesis, and
ultimately organism complexity.
Reproductive
Strategies, Politics, and Religion
While
sexual reproduction has been a shortcut for the genetic variation
produced by mutation, it has unleashed a Pandora's Box of reproductive
strategies, that is, behaviors which facilitate the survival of one's
genes into future generations.
Reproductive
strategies involve, among other factors, the timing, quantity, quality,
and genetic variability of offspring. After birth, parental investment
strategies take over, providing an endless continuum of reproductive
approaches. Reproductive strategies are not usually planned, rather,
arise from behaviors selected by evolution for the simple fact that
they have provided a reproductive advantage in the past.
The
political and religious significance of reproductive strategies is
enormous, and is the common agent that links politics, religiosity,
and natural selection. As we have discussed previously, Conservatives
and Liberals anchor opposite ends of the reproductive strategy spectrum,
(see The Population
Biology of Conservatives and Liberals).
Monogamy
Life-long
monogamy as a reproductive strategy is unpopular in the animal kingdom,
and frequently arises under special circumstances, such as environments
that are resource-constrained, and favor a head-start on reproduction
and coordinated behavior among parents. This situation caters to life-long
monogamous pairs, which are better organized for copulation, resource
acquisition, and defense.
Among
humans, 80% of all societies allow some form of polygamy. However,
within these polygamous societies, 80% of the marriages are still
monogamous. Monogamy is the predominate reproductive strategy of the
human species.
However, the human grip on monogamy is tenuous, as the evolutionary
appeal of genetic variation is indeed a corrosive influence, as seen
in the graph at the top. Among the 1,817 respondents to our Sex
Survey, about 50% of all females rate themselves as a "10"
when it comes to monogamy, while about 40% of all males make that
claim, although we must note that our survey has a disproportionate
number of Liberals.
But
what does monogamy mean? Note that most of those rating themselves
a "10" had more than one sex partner in their lives, so
monogamy is in fact serial, and simply means the commitment
of resources, both reproductive and economic, to one partner at a
time.
Serial monogamy is an evolutionary compromise between the parental
investment necessary to raise slow-developing offspring and the evolutionary
benefits of combining one's genes with more than one partner. Among
humans, having sex with only one partner over one's entire lifetime
is not very common.
Only 6% of all females aged 30 and over indicated they had only one
sex partner in their entire life, while for males, this percentage
was 7%. Our Liberal-laden survey underestimates the true population
numbers, as those claiming life-long monogamy are shifted towards
religiosity and political conservatism.
Life-long
monogamy reduces the genetic variation of one's offspring, something
that sexual reproduction tries hard to create. If genetic variation
in offspring provides some sort of evolutionary advantage, then why
does life-long monogamy exist?
We have so few respondents over 30 years old and having had only one
sex-partner (males=58, females=16), that our data is far from conclusive.
However, there are some notable trends that warrant some discussion,
since they highlight some of the evolutionary advantages of both monogamy
and polygamy.
The
Evolutionary Psychology of Life-long Monogamy
Let's
take a look at some of the data from a sub-sample of respondents from
our Sex Survey. This sub-sample includes only those respondents
30 years and older. The selection of 30 and older is
arbitrary, and simply reflects our inability to collect a sufficient
sample of those aged 60 and over, which would be more reliable
in determining whether one was really monogamous over one's lifetime.
But
for those 30 and over, indicating only one sex partner their
entire lives, we still see some distinguishing characteristics when
compared to the more promiscuous, as seen in the table below.
|
Gender
|
Number of Sex Partners
|
Age at onset of Puberty
|
Age at first sexual contact
|
Self rating of attractive ness
|
Shyness
|
|
Female
|
1
|
12.7
|
18.8
|
5.9
|
3.2
|
|
Female
|
2-4
|
12.2
|
16.3
|
6.4
|
4.5
|
|
Female
|
5-9
|
12.3
|
15.1
|
6.4
|
5.2
|
|
Female
|
10-20
|
12.2
|
14.1
|
6.6
|
5.4
|
|
Female
|
21-50
|
12.2
|
13.9
|
7.3
|
5.8
|
|
Female
|
51+
|
12.5
|
12.5
|
7.0
|
6.6
|
|
Male
|
1
|
13.1
|
17.9
|
6.4
|
4.9
|
|
Male
|
2-4
|
12.5
|
15.3
|
6.0
|
4.6
|
|
Male
|
5-9
|
12.7
|
15.1
|
6.3
|
5.2
|
|
Male
|
10-20
|
12.8
|
14.0
|
6.6
|
5.4
|
|
Male
|
21-50
|
12.4
|
13.3
|
6.7
|
5.5
|
|
Male
|
51+
|
12.6
|
13.3
|
7.1
|
6.0
|
Puberty, first sexual contact, attractiveness, and shyness by gender
and number of sex partners (Ages 30 and over)
As
seen in the above table, those with one sex partner reached puberty
later than those with more. They also had their first sexual contact
(either fondling, oral sex, or intercourse) at a much later age. In
fact, age at first sexual contact was inversely correlated with number
of sex partners. So was the self-rating of one's own attractiveness.
This rating was based on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being the highest rating.
The
life-long monogamous also reported higher ratings of shyness. This
was also based on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the highest level of
shyness. Now let's take a look at some other variables in the table
below.
|
Gender
|
Number of Sex Partners
|
Number of children
|
Number of children wanted
|
Dominate current relation ship
|
Very attracted to confidence in partner
|
Ave minutes of inter course for orgasm
|
|
Female
|
1
|
1.2
|
2.5
|
6.3%
|
31.3%
|
35.8
|
|
Female
|
2-4
|
1.1
|
1.9
|
24.3%
|
40.5%
|
16.5
|
|
Female
|
5-9
|
0.9
|
1.9
|
16.1%
|
37.5%
|
28.0
|
|
Female
|
10-20
|
1.3
|
1.8
|
24.0%
|
60.0%
|
22.8
|
|
Female
|
21-50
|
1.1
|
1.7
|
26.1%
|
63.0%
|
25.3
|
|
Female
|
51+
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
23.5%
|
64.7%
|
14.4
|
|
Male
|
1
|
2.0
|
2.9
|
39.7%
|
29.3%
|
9.6
|
|
Male
|
2-4
|
1.7
|
2.5
|
32.9%
|
30.8%
|
13.0
|
|
Male
|
5-9
|
1.6
|
2.2
|
36.0%
|
28.8%
|
13.9
|
|
Male
|
10-20
|
1.3
|
2.1
|
31.8%
|
32.9%
|
13.8
|
|
Male
|
21-50
|
1.4
|
1.9
|
35.8%
|
49.3%
|
13.5
|
|
Male
|
51+
|
1.6
|
1.9
|
51.9%
|
45.6%
|
19.1
|
No. of children, children wanted, dominance, confidence, and average
minutes to orgasm by gender and number of sex partners
(Ages
30 and over)
In
the above table, both the life-long monogamous males and females (having
only one sex partner) had the greatest desire for children, while
the the life-long monogamous males had the most children. In contrast,
the females with 51 or more partners wanted the fewest children, but
had the most.
Also
note that the life-long monogamous females had the lowest propensity
to dominate their relationships, while the life-long monogamous males
were second only to the males with 51 or more partners.
Also
of note is attraction to "confident" partners, something
that the life-long monogamous are not as concerned about. The more
sex partners one has, the more they are looking for "confidence"
in their partners. This is especially true for females.
And
finally, the relationship between life-long monogamy and the ability
to orgasm during copulation deserves some discussion. It seems that
life-long monogamous females are the least likely to orgasm during
copulation, while the females with 51 or more partners take the shortest
time.
Oddly
enough, this is reversed among males, where the life-long monogamous
males are the quickest to orgasm, while males with 51 or more partners
take the longest.
Discussion
What
are we to make of all this data? The fact that shyness is correlated
with life-long monogamy certainly hints at a sort of profiling
of diverse psychological traits. That is, diverse psychological traits
seem to be more likely to occur together due to the fact that they
combine to produce a positive impact on reproduction.
This is seen with shyness and the strong desire for children.
These two traits combine to produce a stable monogamous pair that
better supports the parental investment required by a large family,
and further, eliminates the problems that shyness creates in finding
new sex partners.
This
is also seen in those having a large number of sex partners,
but having a lower desire for children. This combination of
desire for a large number of sex partners seems to produce children
without the commensurate desire for them. Those with lots of sex partners
(51 or more) are the most effective at realizing their desire for
children, that is, their ratio of number of actual children divided
by the number of children wanted was the highest of any cohort.
Also,
our data implies that greater male dominance produces more offspring,
something observed in other species. The curious sexual roleplay of
dominance-submission seems to be an echo of the evolutionary
game of reproductive advantage. Further, it seems that higher
male dominance and greater female submissiveness increases relationship
duration, which supports the parental investment required for a large
number of children with the same partner.
The
curious ability of life-long monogamous males to orgasm quickly certainly
implicates something in their sexual arousal systems that is rather
unique among males. We can only speculate that the dopamine system,
which facilitates monogamous bonding, also seems to be assisting in
the sexual performance of males. It is certainly interesting that
the quicker that males orgasm with the same female, the more likely
they will be monogamous.
The life-long monogamous seem to be adapting olfactory and somatosensory
cues more than those with many sex partners, which are more likely
to be aroused by auditory and visual cues. Also interesting was that
the life-long monogamous were both more educated and more introverted.
This
is an indicator that their inhibition of polygamous tendencies is
facilitated by the prefrontal cortex, and the left prefrontal cortex
in particular. This certainly ties in well with their higher levels
of religiosity and political conservatism.
Also
interesting was that the life-long monogamous females reported a very
high utilization rate of estrogen (50%), although their sample size
(n=16) is too small to make too much of this.
But
human reproductive strategies will be hard to account for by any simple
theory, and seem to be combining diverse sets of traits that interact
to produce a reproductive profile, or phenotype. The
diversity of reproductive phenotypes is enormous, is heavily modulated
by social cues, and further, indicates that reproductive effectiveness
is heavily dependent on genes located on the autosomes, that is, the
non-sex chromosomes.
_____________________________________________________________
Sexual Arousal, Reproductive Output, and Aberrant Sexual Behavior
The
categorization of nouns into masculine and feminine classes is popular
characteristic of most languages. In German, "die Bibliothek"
means "the library", as the article die denotes
that Bibliothek is a feminine noun. "Der Hund"
means "the dog", as the article der denotes
that Hund is a masculine noun.
What
function does assigning Bibliothek a feminine article have?
After all, languages such as English have dropped grammatical gender
to a large degree. Certain
languages even create separate noun classes for animate and inanimate
objects, edible plants, and large and small objects.
But
gender classification is the most ubiquitous method for languages
to categorize nouns, as it seems the human brain is unusually predisposed
to assign a gender valence to objects that have no gender. But why?
The
brain organizes the storage of nouns and verbs into different regions
of the brain, and further, seems to organize them into "subclasses",
that is, nouns for objects that share "common" attributes,
such as living and non-living, are located differently.
But
the assignment of gender to nouns seems to be an evolutionary echo
of the strong influence that reproduction has had on the organization
of the brain. Reproductive capacity is under extreme selective pressure,
and phylogenetically ancient species have overloaded their nervous
systems with reproductive tasks, such as assigning a reproductive
valence to the storage and processing of a large variety of diverse
information.
While
grammatical gender implicates a substantial bias of the brain for
organizing both reproductive and non-reproductive information in a
common fashion, it also implies a substantial overlap of the arousal
systems: hunger, thirst, pain, fear, and sex. Further, it points to
a general arousal mechanism that works independently of these more
specific arousal systems.
This general arousal system, which has been documented in mice, indicates
that arousal for sex, hunger, thirst, pain, and fear share common
neural substrates, and might explain the curious adoption of food,
pain, and fear into certain sexual practices.
This general arousal system facilitates both the arousal triage
performed by the brain when two competing desires, such as hunger
and thirst, must be prioritized to direct a single behavior. It also
supports a basal arousal level that defaults to hunger or sexual desire
(and possibly thirst, pain, fear) in the absence of competing stimuli.
It is interesting to note that religiosity seems to be integrated
with the inhibition of this general arousal system.
Eliminate
thirst, fear, and pain from the arousal queue, and sex or hunger (and
possibly religiosity) moves to the top. Cueless sexual arousal,
or arousal that arises without any external sexual stimuli, is
a reproductive advantage.
But
it also seems to be a source of aberrant sexual behavior. A excellent
example of this phenomenon is seen during arousal states created by
extreme hunger, when the number of acceptable foods one will eat increases
dramatically. Sexual arousal has the same dynamic, as the number and
variety of sexual practices that one will engage in increases during
high levels of arousal.
This
phenomenon is evident in our Sex Survey, where we asked the
1,817 respondents to rate their average level of sexual arousal, on
a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest. We also asked their reactions
to a variety of erotic themes and stimuli, such as bondage, group
sex, and anal sex.
|
Gender
|
General Sexual Arousal
|
Bond age
|
Group Sex
|
Anal Sex
|
% with a homosexual experience
|
Mastur- bation per week
|
Number of Children
|
|
Female
|
1-3
|
3.6
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
30.4%
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
|
Female
|
4-5
|
4.4
|
4.4
|
3.3
|
21.7%
|
1.0
|
0.9
|
|
Female
|
6-7
|
4.8
|
5.0
|
4.3
|
26.0%
|
1.8
|
0.6
|
|
Female
|
8-9
|
5.9
|
5.7
|
5.3
|
30.1%
|
3.1
|
0.8
|
|
Female
|
10
|
6.9
|
7.4
|
6.9
|
38.1%
|
4.3
|
1.8
|
|
Male
|
1-3
|
3.9
|
4.9
|
4.7
|
16.0%
|
2.9
|
0.8
|
|
Male
|
4-5
|
4.2
|
4.7
|
5.3
|
21.3%
|
3.1
|
0.9
|
|
Male
|
6-7
|
4.3
|
5.4
|
5.6
|
21.7%
|
3.7
|
0.9
|
|
Male
|
8-9
|
4.7
|
6.3
|
6.2
|
20.4%
|
4.3
|
1.0
|
|
Male
|
10
|
4.9
|
6.6
|
6.9
|
21.7%
|
4.5
|
1.1
|
Arousal for specific erotic themes by gender and level of
sexual arousal
(1-3=never or rarely aroused, 4-5=little arousal,
6-7=sometimes aroused,
8-9=often aroused, 10=always
aroused)
In
the above table, we grouped our arousal scores into five different
"arousal" cohorts. We also asked them to rate, on a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest level of erotic stimulation,
their attitudes about bondage, group sex, and anal sex. We further
asked if they ever had a homosexual experience, how many times they
masturbated, and how many children they have.
Self-rated
sexual arousal is highly correlated with arousal to diverse
sexual stimuli, such as bondage, group sex, and anal sex. These three
erotic themes have little in common, but the higher the level of general
sexual arousal, the more likely one will be more stimulated by all
of these sexual themes.
Inconsistent
Heterosexuality and Reproductive Advantage
In
last month's edition,
we noted a curious correlation between the number of offspring one
has and those having had at least one homosexual experience in their
life. We refer to this as inconsistent heterosexuality, which
is a more accurate way to describe human sexual behavior, as it accounts
for the variance in heterosexual and homosexual behavior that can
occur over the human lifespan.
As can be seen in the above table, the number of children one has
correlates with one's average level of sexual arousal. Further, it
correlates positively with the probability of having at least one
homosexual experience. Thus the curious relationship between inconsistent
heterosexuality and the number of children.
While
engaging in homosexual behavior does not by itself improve reproductive
rates, it seems to correlate with the general level of sexual arousal,
which does. That is, strong sexual arousal states increase both the
probability one will engage in homosexual behavior, along with simultaneously
increasing the probability for heterosexual behavior, and ultimately
reproductive yield.
Bondage:
Gender-Specific Sexual Arousal?
In
the table above, it is interesting to note that females reported similar
erotic ratings for bondage, group sex, and anal sex. On the other
hand, males reported similar ratings for group sex and anal sex, but
were much less stimulated by bondage.
This appears to be an example of gender-specific sexual arousal, that
is, the erotic stimuli has a different impact on males and females.
Female submissiveness is positively correlated with reproductive output,
and this may explain the curious arousal impact of bondage, and why
females tend to take the submissive role in the erotic roleplay theme
of dominance-submission.
This
same female-male asymmetry holds with rape fantasies, presenting an
interesting enigma in male and female sexual arousal. The asymmetries
we see between males and females to various erotic stimuli are numerous,
and have evolutionary overtones. However, we will hold this discussion
for later.
______________________________________________________________
625