This document summarizes current research on mate selection in humans from an evolutionary psychology perspective. It discusses that past research has largely focused on heterosexual relationships and chimpanzee behavior, ignoring factors like same-sex relationships, gender fluidity in females, environmental influences, and the role of male power in shaping mating patterns. The document argues for a more comprehensive, feminist approach to evolutionary psychology that examines diverse species like bonobos and centers females, in order to develop theories that more fully explain human mate selection behaviors.
A first blush, it probably seems easy to define what we're talking about when we talk about gender. It's just men and women, and the differences between them, right? But things are not so simple, and explaining what actually constitutes gender is surprisingly difficult.
A first blush, it probably seems easy to define what we're talking about when we talk about gender. It's just men and women, and the differences between them, right? But things are not so simple, and explaining what actually constitutes gender is surprisingly difficult.
Psychological explanations of gender development: Cognitive development theory, inc. Kohlberg and Gender schema theory.
Biological influences on gender, including hormones, evolutionary, and biosocial approach to gender dysphoria
Social influences on gender, including parents, peers, and cultural influences on gender role
Sexuality and Identity: Scientific Findings
Paul R. McHugh, MD
Aaron Kheriaty, MD
Executive Summary of “Living the Truth in Love”
An international conference and resource event to address pastoral approaches toward men and women with homosexual tendencies
October 2, 2015
Pontifical University of St. Thomas Rome, Italy
Today, terms like “homosexual persons” and “sexual orientation” are used as if they had a univocal meaning and described objective, even obvious realities existing in the world. But phrases like “homosexual persons” and “sexual orientation” can be misleading, and words like “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are ambiguous.
Insisting on language better suited to scientific and anthropological realities will help clarify the truth about our identity as human persons and the true basis of our dignity, for those within and beyond our religious communities.
Here's the question: Discuss the evolutionary explanations of aggressive behaviour. (24 marks)
The slideshare is the answer.
Got almost full marks.
A01, A02 AND A03 is separated to make life easier!
You're welcome :)
What’s Love Got To Do With ItThe Evolution of Human MatingB.pdfarishmarketing21
What’s Love Got To Do With It?
The Evolution of Human Mating
By Meredith F. Small
Reviewed By Michael S. Kimmel
When Tina Turner first bitterly asked “What’s love got to do with it?” her voice was so drenched
with pain and regret, the listener knew better than to believe her.
Not so Meredith Small. A physical anthropologist whose main research has been on primate
mating behavior, Small joins a coterie of such writers as Robert Ardrey, Desmond Morris and
Lionel Tiger, who have sought to make evolutionary biology the foundation of studies of sexual
behavior.
In “What’s Love Got To Do With It,” Small argues that we’re genetically programmed to
experience sexual pleasure; hard-wired to search for young, attractive mates; driven to copulate
“Way down deep, underneath all the love and lust, underlying the attachment and intimacy, is
DNA pushing us along”
Like those male writers, she claims that our genetic predisposition toward reproductive success is
the driving force of our sex-seeking behavior. And like them, she assumes that sex is a constant,
universal and relatively unchanging experience. But unlike them, Small places no value on
judgments on the strategies that individuals may adopt to achieve that reproductive success.
Women, she argues, are as sexual as men; homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality.
Small exposes many of her colleagues’ conclusions as based more on myth than on evolution.
Take, for example, the familiar canard that men are “naturally” predisposed toward promiscuity,
while women are “naturally” monogamous. Males’ prodigious sperm production, the argument
goes, means that it is in men’s interest to fertilize as many women as possible. But women
produce only one egg at a time, and gestation and child care take an extraordinarily long time,
which means that it is in their interest to mate with only one man for life.
Not only do such arguments assume what they are trying to explain, but their assumptions are
wrong to begin with. Sperm and eggs do not have little personalities, complete with ambitions
and motivations. What’s more, the evidence actually tilts the other way. Female humans are
among the only mammals who conceal estrus; that is, they do not go into “heat” when they are
sexually receptive. They are potentially sexually receptive all through their cycle. What’s more, a
woman has a clitoris, which “exists only to receive and give off sexual pleasure.” What could be
the evolutionary function of that?
Small argues that it is just as likely that women may be designed to maximize their reproductive
chances by promiscuity. If they have sex with a large number of male partners, they can ensure
that their offspring will have a significant number of men who believe that they are the father,
and who will, therefore, protect the baby and provide it with food.
“The ability to move from male to male certainly improves a female’s chance of finding the best
genes for her future offspring,” Small writes.
Males, by contrast, wo.
This essay supports a few posts in the Reimagined Mahabharata blog (http://reimaginedmahabharata.blogspot.com/) in which I assert that South Asia had three matriarchal cultures in 4000 BCE that participated in a great revolution around 2000BCE that is the source of the Mahabharata.
Psychological explanations of gender development: Cognitive development theory, inc. Kohlberg and Gender schema theory.
Biological influences on gender, including hormones, evolutionary, and biosocial approach to gender dysphoria
Social influences on gender, including parents, peers, and cultural influences on gender role
Sexuality and Identity: Scientific Findings
Paul R. McHugh, MD
Aaron Kheriaty, MD
Executive Summary of “Living the Truth in Love”
An international conference and resource event to address pastoral approaches toward men and women with homosexual tendencies
October 2, 2015
Pontifical University of St. Thomas Rome, Italy
Today, terms like “homosexual persons” and “sexual orientation” are used as if they had a univocal meaning and described objective, even obvious realities existing in the world. But phrases like “homosexual persons” and “sexual orientation” can be misleading, and words like “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are ambiguous.
Insisting on language better suited to scientific and anthropological realities will help clarify the truth about our identity as human persons and the true basis of our dignity, for those within and beyond our religious communities.
Here's the question: Discuss the evolutionary explanations of aggressive behaviour. (24 marks)
The slideshare is the answer.
Got almost full marks.
A01, A02 AND A03 is separated to make life easier!
You're welcome :)
What’s Love Got To Do With ItThe Evolution of Human MatingB.pdfarishmarketing21
What’s Love Got To Do With It?
The Evolution of Human Mating
By Meredith F. Small
Reviewed By Michael S. Kimmel
When Tina Turner first bitterly asked “What’s love got to do with it?” her voice was so drenched
with pain and regret, the listener knew better than to believe her.
Not so Meredith Small. A physical anthropologist whose main research has been on primate
mating behavior, Small joins a coterie of such writers as Robert Ardrey, Desmond Morris and
Lionel Tiger, who have sought to make evolutionary biology the foundation of studies of sexual
behavior.
In “What’s Love Got To Do With It,” Small argues that we’re genetically programmed to
experience sexual pleasure; hard-wired to search for young, attractive mates; driven to copulate
“Way down deep, underneath all the love and lust, underlying the attachment and intimacy, is
DNA pushing us along”
Like those male writers, she claims that our genetic predisposition toward reproductive success is
the driving force of our sex-seeking behavior. And like them, she assumes that sex is a constant,
universal and relatively unchanging experience. But unlike them, Small places no value on
judgments on the strategies that individuals may adopt to achieve that reproductive success.
Women, she argues, are as sexual as men; homosexuality is as “normal” as heterosexuality.
Small exposes many of her colleagues’ conclusions as based more on myth than on evolution.
Take, for example, the familiar canard that men are “naturally” predisposed toward promiscuity,
while women are “naturally” monogamous. Males’ prodigious sperm production, the argument
goes, means that it is in men’s interest to fertilize as many women as possible. But women
produce only one egg at a time, and gestation and child care take an extraordinarily long time,
which means that it is in their interest to mate with only one man for life.
Not only do such arguments assume what they are trying to explain, but their assumptions are
wrong to begin with. Sperm and eggs do not have little personalities, complete with ambitions
and motivations. What’s more, the evidence actually tilts the other way. Female humans are
among the only mammals who conceal estrus; that is, they do not go into “heat” when they are
sexually receptive. They are potentially sexually receptive all through their cycle. What’s more, a
woman has a clitoris, which “exists only to receive and give off sexual pleasure.” What could be
the evolutionary function of that?
Small argues that it is just as likely that women may be designed to maximize their reproductive
chances by promiscuity. If they have sex with a large number of male partners, they can ensure
that their offspring will have a significant number of men who believe that they are the father,
and who will, therefore, protect the baby and provide it with food.
“The ability to move from male to male certainly improves a female’s chance of finding the best
genes for her future offspring,” Small writes.
Males, by contrast, wo.
This essay supports a few posts in the Reimagined Mahabharata blog (http://reimaginedmahabharata.blogspot.com/) in which I assert that South Asia had three matriarchal cultures in 4000 BCE that participated in a great revolution around 2000BCE that is the source of the Mahabharata.
Welcome Our dating Group.
Hey! If You Are Looking for a real life partner💏
You Can Add Our Dating Group Free Here.💏
5.3 Million Girls & Boys are Waiting For You.
Visit Link: https://tinyurl.com/3s5xhhjt
Support Contact : https://tinyurl.com/24ne5n9y
Welcome Our dating Group.
Hey! If You Are Looking for a real life partner💏
You Can Add Our Dating Group Free Here.💏
5.3 Million Girls & Boys are Waiting For You.
Visit Link: https://tinyurl.com/3s5xhhjt
Support Contact : https://tinyurl.com/24ne5n9y
Nature VS NurtureResearch writing 310Joi Tucker.docxgemaherd
Nature VS Nurture
Research writing 310
Joi Tucker
Wilmington University
Nature VS Nurture
Abstract
Nature vs Nurture is one of the oldest arguments known to the Psychology genre. For those who do not know; simply put, the underlying question is, can behaviors be inherited? Initially, upon answering the question without any regard to the actual research and experiments done in this field a conclusion was drawn that Nature outweighs Nurture and that the behaviors of men are innate in that they are inherited genes that have influence over our behaviors. Upon further investigation and deeper insight, it is of my belief that the behaviors of men are based not solely on the behavior of their parents and their genetic makeup but also, by socioeconomic, traditional, educational, religious, and many other external factors. This paper will demonstrate the multiple schools of thought and their perspective on behaviorism, specifically when it comes to the argument of Nature vs Nurture. These perspectives will be used in order to justify the position that was previously stated, that the behaviors of men are influenced not only by their biology but also by their upbringing and multiple external factors.
Nature versus Nurture is one of the oldest debates within Psychology. It is concerned with the extent to which aspects of behavior are a product of either inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., learned) characteristics. Previous to delving into this topic I took the stance that Nature outweighed Nurture and that human behaviors were innate in that they were solely influenced by one’s genetic makeup. After vigorous research on the topic an attempt to take the stance that aspects of behavior are a product of inherited characteristics. Most people no matter what their upbringing and socioeconomical positions are prone to specific types of behaviors due to their genetic makeup. Within this argumentative essay, the attempt to write about Nature vs Nurture taking the perspective that human behaviors are derived from a combination of the two. The plan is to investigate multiple schools of thought in regards to the topic in order to prove the theory which was previously stated; human behaviors are a product of both genetic and environmental influences.
Within the world of biology, it is widely known that physical characteristics as well as one’s vulnerability to certain illnesses are because of one’s genetic makeup. It is of no surprise that one may share the color their mother’s eyes while inheriting their father’s diabetes. If you are a male, you may be prone to balding in your early 30’s just as your father did and women whose mother suffered from Breast Cancer have a higher likelihood of acquiring the same illness. Understanding how genetics works and now knowing how its functioning contributes to physical attributes as well as biological ailments, the question of whethe.
Nature VS NurtureResearch writing 310Joi Tucker.docx
PSYC482 Paper 2
1. Running head: CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 1
Current Research on Mate Selection in Humans
Brittany Wellman
Ferris State University
2. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 2
Current Research on Mate Selection in Humans
Since the time before Helen Bradford Thompson Woolley, psychologists have been
arguing over sex differences. Evolutionary theory, as proposed by Darwinian thinking, is no
different. There have been numerous studies related to finding sex differences in mating
processes in humans and animals, specifically chimpanzees. However, the studies that have been
conducted so far have not taken into account same sex relationships and male power as an
environmental factor dominating mating patterns (Silverstein, 1998 and Radtke, 2013).
Evolutionary psychology is being used as a framework for explaining complex social
behaviors, such as mating. The idea of natural selection often overemphasizes biological factors
and undermines environmental ones (Silverstein, 1998). While some traits can be biologically
adaptive, it is the environment that allows such traits to be expressed. Natural selection has
always favored flexibility over fixity, an idea that is not often expressed in evolutionary
psychology. Most research conducted has focused on heterosexual reproductive relationships
through an examination of chimpanzees. Bonobos, on the other hand, have been left out of
research despite their biological closeness to humans (Radtke, 2013). These primates are in the
same class as chimpanzees, but have features that are slimmer and live in different environments.
Because bonobos exhibit vastly different environments than do chimpanzees, they exhibit
different mating rituals and social structures (Silverstein, 1998). Their female-female
relationships have also been left out of much research conducted on mate selection.
All of the data left out of evolutionary psychology research helps to emphasize the status
quo. By avoiding bonobos and female centered research, evolutionary psychologists privilege
heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures (Silverstein, 1998). Feminists argue
females should be at the center of more evolutionary research, along with more research on
3. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 3
lesbian mate selection. A large body of research suggests mate selection is different for each
gender. Males invest less in children and therefore are able to seek out multiple partners.
Because of their lack of investment, they often seek out physical characteristics specific to
reproductive potential, such as bigger hips for childbearing or any inclination of genetic fitness.
Their genetic fitness is served by impregnating multiple females with good genes who can
successfully have their children. Females, on the other hand, invest a lot of time and energy into
child rearing. This, as suggested by most evolutionary psychologists, is why they seek out
partners with resources to help them successfully take care of a child. However, this idea has
many flaws that feminists want to utilize to expand research.
First, this idea has not been a good predictor of male involvement with infants in many
primate species (Silverstein, 1998). The theory ignores social variables, such as access to
economic resources and political power, and instead focuses on biology based principles.
Second, this idea does not hold up when examining primate species. Females should be
interested in mate quality instead of quantity. However, in certain parts of their reproductive
cycle, female chimpanzees will mate with almost every male in her group. This idea is even
more distinct in bonobo females, who have been witnessed mating over 100 times with different
males over the course of a week. Male adult chimpanzees are often very discriminating in their
choice of partner, something not explained by evolutionary psychology. When Jane Goodall did
research with chimpanzees, she found many patterns that are not explained through typical
evolutionary theory. She found females who mated with a large number of males, monogamous
relationships between adult male and females, and differing patterns depending on the abundance
of food, the number of females in the reproductive stage of their sexual cycle, and the number of
males and total number of chimpanzees in the group. This idea helps demonstrate how
4. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 4
evolutionary theory cannot leave out environmental factors, as they change how behavior occurs.
Overall, it is better to predict chimpanzee and possibly human mating behavior through
biological sex, the availability of resources, age, social contexts, and reproductive cycles.
The availability of resources is another factor that affects mating preferences. For
example, chimpanzees share their environment with gorillas, whereas bonobos do not. The
competition for resources may help shape chimpanzee cultures into one where males dominate,
whereas the abundancy of resources in bonobo societies may help with the egalitarian
relationship the sexes maintain. Just like in bonobo culture, Tahiti has a prevalence of resources
and tends to be less male dominated and have fewer gender differences. Women in the United
States, however, still keep a majority of lower paying jobs, get paid less for the same work, and
overall have fewer resources to achieve economic security. While men do not necessarily have
economic security, they have more direct access to resources than do women. If women were not
dependent on men for economic security, they may be more likely to exhibit a more ‘male’
pattern of sexual behaviors, with multiple partners and casual sex.
Finally, evolutionary theory is missing the idea of male power in society (Silverstein,
1998). When looking at sex differences, a number of studies have claimed males prefer casual
sex and mate with more partners than females. It has been noted that when men have the
opportunity for sex with little or no cost, they are likely to engage in it with many different
partners. However, it is difficult to use this same idea in regards to females, since there are no
areas where females would have little to no cost for casual sex. Indeed, most if not all human
cultures are patriarchal, where men have power over women. One of the characteristics of these
cultures is a male control over female sexuality, which can be institutionalized. Given women’s
costs for sexual encounters, it is no surprise that they favor monogamy.
5. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 5
This idea is expressed in bonobo culture. Bonobos are unique because males and females
are co-dominant (Silverstein, 1998). Many times, females band together in groups and attack
males who abuse their power. This system of checks and balances keeps one group from gaining
too much control in their culture. The sexual behaviors they exhibit are also more diverse than
those of chimpanzees, including female-female clitoral stimulation (GG rubbing), male-male
rubbing, and three or more partners in a single sexual interaction. Sex is used for purposes other
than reproduction, such as for making friends, getting food, calming an individual, or
forgiveness.
Bonobos are especially distinctive in their same-sex behavior and can help explore the
area in evolutionary psychology. Often, female same-sex behavior is examined in direct
comparison to male same-sex behavior, if studied at all (Radtke, 2013). Many of the theories
about why same-sex behavior exists through an evolutionary perspective have been focused on
males. Homosexuality is especially problematic in evolutionary psychology because of
reproduction; homosexual individuals cannot reproduce. In evolutionary theories, male
homosexual behavior is often attributed to genes. Female same-sex behavior is more likely to be
attributed to a defective environment, such as abuse by a male or lack of males. These arguments
are very rarely used in discussing male same-sex behavior.
There has been recent consideration for research on gender fluidity as a potentially
adaptive trait for females, which is vastly different than the ideas set forth about male same-sex
behavior (Radtke, 2013). Gender fluidity is the idea of flexible sexuality, where depending on
the situation, one can be attracted to men or women, regardless of their overall sexual
orientation. It has been argued that sexual fluidity is an adaptive trait women express when the
environment triggers it, but possess even before being expressed. It could be adaptive from the
6. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 6
usefulness in forming strong pair bonds between women to increase survival, like the bonobos
do with GG rubbing to form female coalitions. This claim has been backed up by some genital
response patterns measured when examining female and male participants being shown an erotic
film. Females tend to get aroused by both female and male sexual stimuli, according to genital
recordings, but only report arousal to the sex they prefer. Men, on the other hand, tend to be
more physiologically aroused by the gender they report to prefer.
The idea of gender fluidity can be adaptive in cases of allomothering (Radtke, 2013).
Allomothering is when someone other than the biological mother helps in taking care of
offspring, whether related or unrelated to the mother. When females use same-sex behavior to
form closer bonds, such as in the bonobo societies, allomothering may occur and help the
offspring’s chance of survival. This adaptive reasoning can be theorized to account for the
sexual fluidity in females.
The traditional views of evolutionary psychology are dangerous for creating the
impression that the status quo is justified (Silverstein, 1998). The ideas presented keep oppressed
groups oppressed while providing reasons for privileged groups to maintain power. These
theories present the idea that behavior is fixed and innate, not something acted on by the
environment and therefore inevitable. Also, disregarding female same-sex relationships is
hurting evolutionary psychology in terms of whose behavior they can predict. Avoiding a group
of people all together shows that their theories have not yet been substantiated to predict lesbian
behavior. Using more female-centered approaches, examining the bonobo species in comparative
studies to chimpanzees, and focusing on female sexuality under the influence of patriarchal ideas
can help bring a more feminist perspective to evolutionary psychology.
7. CURRENT RESEARCH ON MATE SELECTION IN HUMANS 7
References
Radtke, S. (2013). Sexual fluidity in women: How feminist research influenced evolutionary
studies of same-sex behavior.Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural
Psychology, 7(4), 336-343. doi:10.1037/h0099185
Silverstein, L. B. (1998, August). New directions for evolutionary psychology. Feminism and
Psychology, 8(3), 375-382. doi:10.1177/0959353598083009