Hubbry Logo
Sexual selection in humansSexual selection in humansMain
Open search
Sexual selection in humans
Community hub
Sexual selection in humans
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sexual selection in humans
Sexual selection in humans
Sexual selection in humans
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mutation and selection

The concept of sexual selection was introduced by Charles Darwin as an element of his theory of natural selection.[1] Sexual selection is a biological way one sex chooses a mate for the best reproductive success. Most compete with others of the same sex for the best mate to contribute their genome for future generations. This has shaped human evolution for many years, but reasons why humans choose their mates are not fully understood. Sexual selection is quite different in non-human animals than humans as they feel more of the evolutionary pressures to reproduce and can easily reject a mate.[2] The role of sexual selection in human evolution has not been firmly established although neoteny has been cited as being caused by human sexual selection.[3] It has been suggested that sexual selection played a part in the evolution of the anatomically modern human brain, i.e. the structures responsible for social intelligence underwent positive selection as a sexual ornamentation to be used in courtship rather than for survival itself,[4] and that it has developed in ways outlined by Ronald Fisher in the Fisherian runaway model.[5][6][7][8][9] Fisher also stated that the development of sexual selection was "more favourable" in humans.[10]

General hypotheses

[edit]

Some hypotheses about the evolution of the human brain argue that it is a sexually selected trait, as it would not confer enough fitness in itself relative to its high maintenance costs (a fifth to a quarter of the energy and oxygen consumed by a human).[11] Current consensus about the evolutionary development of the human brain accepts sexual selection as a potential contributing factor but maintains that human intelligence and the ability to store and share cultural knowledge would have likely carried high survival value as well.[12]

Sexual selection's role in human evolution cannot be definitively established, as features may result from an equilibrium among competing selective pressures, some involving sexual selection, others natural selection, and others pleiotropy. Richard Dawkins argued that

"When you notice a characteristic of an animal and ask what its Darwinian survival value is, you may be asking the wrong question. It could be that the characteristic you have picked out is not the one that matters. It may have "come along for the ride", dragged along in evolution by some other characteristic to which it is pleiotropically linked."[13]

Darwin's sexual selection hypothesis

[edit]

Charles Darwin described sexual selection as depending on "the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species, solely in respect of reproduction".[14] Darwin noted that sexual selection is of two kinds and concluded that both kinds had operated on humans:[15] "The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally the male sex, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners."[16]

Charles Darwin conjectured that the male beard, as well as the hairlessness of humans compared to nearly all other mammals, were results of sexual selection. He reasoned that since the bodies of females are more nearly hairless, the loss of fur was due to sexual selection of females at a remote prehistoric time when males had overwhelming selective power, and that it nonetheless affected males due to genetic correlation between the sexes. He also hypothesized that contrasts in sexual selection acting along with natural selection were significant factors in the geographical differentiation in human appearance of some isolated groups, as he did not believe that natural selection alone provided a satisfactory answer. Although not explicit, his observation that in Khoisan women "the posterior part of the body projects in a most wonderful manner" (known as steatopygia)[17] implies sexual selection for this characteristic. In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin viewed many physical traits which vary around the world as being so trivial to survival[18] that he concluded some input from sexual selection was required to account for their presence. He noted that variation in these features among the various peoples of the world meant human mate-choice criteria would also have to be quite different if the focus was similar, and he himself doubted that, citing[19] reports indicating that ideals of beauty did not, in fact, vary in this way around the world.

Sexual dimorphism

[edit]
Main article: Sexual dimorphism
Further information: Sex differences in humans

The effects on the human brain formation during puberty is directly linked to hormones changes. The mismatch timing between biological puberty and age of social maturity in western society has a psychological expectation on children.[20] With puberty, men are generally hairier than women, and Darwin was of the opinion that hairlessness was related to sexual selection; however, several other explanations have been advanced to explain human hairlessness; a leading one being that loss of body hair facilitated sweating.[21] This idea closely relates to that of the suggested need for increased photoprotection and is part of the most-commonly-accepted scientific explanation for the evolution of pigmentary traits.[22]

Sexual dimorphism suggests the presence of sexual selection. The earliest homininae were highly dimorphic and that this tendency lessened over the course of human evolution, suggesting humans have become more monogamous. In contrast, gorillas living in harems exhibit a much stronger sexual dimorphism (see: homininae).[23]

Sexual anatomy

[edit]
See also: Secondary sex characteristic

The theory of sexual selection has been used to explain a number of human anatomical features. These include rounded breasts, facial hair, pubic hair and penis size. The breasts of primates are flat, yet are able to produce sufficient milk for feeding their young. The breasts of non-lactating human females are filled with fatty tissue and not milk. Thus it has been suggested the rounded female breasts are signals of fertility.[24] Richard Dawkins has speculated that the loss of the penis bone in humans, when it is present in other primates, may be due to sexual selection by females looking for a clear sign of good health in prospective mates. Since a human erection relies on a hydraulic pumping system, erection failure is a sensitive early warning of certain kinds of physical and mental ill health.[25]

Homo has a thicker penis than the other great apes, though it is on average no longer than the chimpanzee's.[26] It has been suggested the evolution of the human penis towards larger size was the result of female choice rather than sperm competition, which generally favors large testicles.[27] However, penis size may have been subject to natural selection, rather than sexual selection, due to a larger penis' efficiency in displacing the sperm of rival males during sexual intercourse. A model study showed displacement of semen was directly proportional to the depth of pelvic thrusting, as an efficient semen displacement device.[28]

Selection preferences and biological drivers

[edit]

Sexual selection in males

[edit]

Contest competition

[edit]

Contest competition is a form of sexual selection in which mating is obtained by using force or the threat of force to exclude same-sex competitors from mates.[49] Male contest competition favors large body size, which is seen in the sexual dimorphism of human males and females.[50] In all living hominid species, males are more muscular, allowing them to have more strength and power. Human males have 61% more overall muscle mass compared to females.[51] This greater muscle mass allows males to gain greater acceleration, speed, and more powerful striking movements.[52] Compared to females, human males exhibit more same-sex aggression, which peaks in young adulthood.[53][54][55][56]

Male contest competition also often favors threat displays, which allow one competitor to submit without a costly fight.[57] Low vocalization fundamental frequencies (perceived as vocal pitch) increase the perception of threat among human males.[58][59][60] Controlling for body size, lower male fundamental frequency relative to females tends to evolve in polygynous anthropoid primates, where males compete more intensely for mates.[61] Chimpanzees and humans have the greatest sexual dimorphism in fundamental frequency of all hominids.[61] Males are also more likely to engage in physical risks in front of competitors, and males who take more physical risks are perceived as being stronger.[62] Status badges such as facial hair are generally related to men being perceived as more dominant.[49] Facial hair makes the jaw appear more prominent and shows emotions like anger clearly which makes a male appear more threatening.[63][64] Dominance has been associated with increased male mating success.[65][66][67]

Often contest competition produces anatomical weapons such as antlers or large canine teeth; however, hominids lack canine weaponry typical of other primates.[49] Reduced canine size may be due to bipedalism and adaptations of the hand.[68][69] Bipedalism is not a common trait, yet many species like the great apes stand on their hind legs when fighting, which increases power behind blows.[70][49] Hominin hands are adapted for gripping tools or hurling objects like stones.[71][72][73][74] Bipedalism and utilizing handheld objects such as weapons may have aided early hominins in contest competition, reducing sexual selection pressures of maintaining large canine teeth.[68][73][75]

Several other traits in human males may have been selected for contest competition. Males exhibit a more robust face compared to females.[49] This may have provided protection against blows to the face during contest competitions as the areas on the skull that have increased robusticity are parts that are more likely to suffer from injury.[76] Additionally, there are 23% more lefthanded males than females.[77] Although left-handedness is heritable and associated with survival disadvantages, the rarity of left-handedness may have given ancestral males a fighting advantage in competitions keeping this trait in the gene pool via negative frequency-dependent selection.[49][78][79][80] Many combat sports such as boxing have higher-than-chance frequencies of left-handed individuals among the top competitors.[81] Human males are also able to tolerate pain longer than females, especially during competition.[49][82][83] A higher pain tolerance allows for males to remain aggressive during contests along with an increased aerobic capacity.[49] Males have an oxygen capacity rate that is 25–30% higher than females.[84][85] This aerobic capacity increases during puberty when males are sexually maturing and preparing to mate.[49]

Human males engage in both within-group contest competition and coalitional aggression.[49] The latter form competition may be supported by males tending to contribute more to a group task when competing against other groups and to discriminate more strongly against outgroup members.[86][87][88][89]

Traits that evolve during contest competition, such as large body size and physical aggression, are often costly to produce and maintain.[90] These traits may therefore be indicators of male genetic quality and/or ability to provide resources and other direct benefits.[90] Consequently, human females may evolve preferences for these traits, which then comprise an additional selection pressure.  However, secondary sexual characteristics in human males do not always enhance overall attractiveness to females.[91][92][93] Some traits of human males that function in contests, such as body size, strength, and weaponry usage, may also have been selected to aid in hunting.[49] However, contest competition is observed in all great apes and thus likely preceded hunting as a selective pressure.[49]

Sexual selection in females

[edit]

Human female mating competition is complex and multifaceted and varies across cultures, societies, and individuals.[94] Females may compete for high-quality mates who possess traits that indicate underlying genetic quality, possibly including physical attractiveness and intelligence,[95] or material resources that can enhance the survival and reproductive success of the female and her offspring.[96][95]

Females may also compete for leadership and reputation in social alliances and networks that can provide support, protection, and mating opportunities.[97][98] Human females compete with other females, sometimes including co-wives, to obtain and retain investment from mates, while managing cooperative same-sex relationships.[99]

Female mate competition

[edit]

Over human evolution, the cost of aggressive and physical contests in females may have been high given that females were the primary caregivers and protectors of offspring, so a mother's death greatly impacts infant mortality.[97][98] Some behaviors from mothers competing with other females at a similar life stage over resources include self-promotion and competitor derogation.[98] However, maternal competition remains understudied. Compared to male aggression, female aggression tends to be more indirect. Females tend to engage in more subtle and indirect aggression, such as gossip, as a competitive tool to harm same-sex rivals' social opportunities[100] and partake in competitor derogation to prevent female rivals from getting male attention.[98] Gossip, derogation, and social exclusion grant the aggressor the chance to go undetected and avoid retaliation. Derogation, for example, can eliminate same-sex rivals by reducing their ability to compete; it was found that girls' suicide attempts were associated with any amount of indirect peer victimization, whereas only frequent indirect peer victimization was associated with boys' suicide attempts.[98] Furthermore, same-sex harassment in some nonhuman animals impacted females' ovulation capabilities, which suggests that human females' reproductive success could be influenced by the stress induced by indirect or direct peer victimization.[98] Males pursue both sexually attractive and faithful long-term partners, which might be the source of female mating competition greatly revolving around denigrating same-sex rivals' attractiveness and reputation through accusations of promiscuity and infidelity.[98] Competitive women are more likely to spread reputation-harming information about other women, suggesting that reputation manipulation is a form of female competition for romantic partners.[101] Women are more likely to compete for desirable mates when maternal investment levels are high, and their social groups are largely composed of mothers,[102] as more women living closer together are looking for similar resources that benefit their own survival and that of their children.[98]

Sexually selected female traits

[edit]

Competition for mates among human females may take multiple forms. Contests tend to be less frequent, aggressive, and injurious than male-male contests.[100] This leads to a difference in the traits selected. The indirect aggression in which females engage can take the form of damaging the reputation of other women (e.g., via gossip), potentially influencing their sexual behavior and opportunities.[103] Additionally, females compete with one another through male mate choice, e.g., by enhancing their own physical attractiveness.[103] Some female anatomical traits are targets of male mate choice and possibly represent female sexual ornaments shaped by selection. Femininity in the female face and voice provide cues to female reproductive hormones and reproductive potential.[104] Males tend to have lower pitched voices than females, likely due to male intrasexual competition,[105] but some evidence suggests that high female voice pitch may also be favored by male mate choice and function in intrasexual competition among females.[93]

Deposition of fat on the hips, buttocks, and breasts in human females may also be an outcome of female sexual selection, signaling the ability to support gestation and lactation for offspring in environments where resources may be low.[106][107] However, in the Western World, women with larger breasts are seen as more likely to commit infidelity and more likely to participate in intra-sexual competition with other females.[106] Greater overall body fat percentage in human females appears to be unique among primates and may function in storing resources needed to gestate and support large-brained offspring[108] as well as in sexual selection.[109] For example, higher female body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased fertility in young women, particularly those in subsistence societies.[110] Lower WHR, lower BMI, and smaller waist sizes are also associated with lower birth weights and higher infant mortality.[111] Such traits, particularly body fat distribution, may represent sexual ornamentation, which is important in mating throughout the animal kingdom, for example, in birds.[112][113] Humans also use bodily decoration, including jewelry, tattoos, scarification, and makeup to enhance appearance and desirability to potential mates.[106][114]

It has also been suggested that women who are nearing ovulation were more likely to be judged as more attractive than their counterparts who were in different stages of their cycle.[115] Facial and vocal attractiveness have been observed to change with estradiol and progesterone in pattens consistent with fertility-related increases,[116] although some data challenge this interpretation.[117] In general, ovulatory cycle changes are more subtle than in non-human primates, perhaps representing leakage of information on fertility and hormonal status rather than signals functioning to convey this information.[118]

Phenotype

[edit]

John Manning[119] suggests that where polygyny is common, there is also a higher disease burden, resulting in selection for antimicrobial resistance. In this view, the antimicrobial properties of melanin help mitigate the susceptibility to disease in sub-Saharan Africa. According to this argument, the anti-infective qualities of melanin were more important than protection from ultraviolet light in the evolution of the darkest skin types. Manning asserts that skin color is more correlated with the occurrence of polygyny – because melanin has an antimicrobial function – than the latitudinal gradient in intensity of ultraviolet radiation.[119][120]

Research seems to contradict Manning's explanation about skin color. The analysis of indigenous populations from more than 50 countries has shown that the strongest correlation with light skin is upper latitude.[121] Rogers et al. (2004) concluded that dark skin evolved as a result of the loss of body hair among the earliest primate ancestors of humans.[122][123][124] and protect from folate depletion due to the increased exposure to sunlight.[22] When humans started to migrate away from the tropics, where there is less-intense sunlight, lighter skin is able to generate more vitamin D than darker skin, so it would have represented a health benefit in reduced sunlight, leading to natural selection for lighter skin.[123][125]

Anthropologist Peter Frost has proposed that sexual selection for women with unusual hair or eye color was responsible for the evolution of pigmentary traits in European populations,[126] however this theory has since been refuted by data-based evidence from genetics and spectrophotometry,[127][128] and multiple studies have shown that women with the facial features and pigmentary characteristics of East Asian women are considered more attractive than European women.[129][130][131]

Geoffrey Miller hypothesis

[edit]
Homo habilis – forensic facial reconstruction

Geoffrey Miller, drawing on some of Darwin's largely neglected ideas about human behavior, has hypothesized that many human behaviors not clearly tied to survival benefits, such as humor, music, visual art, some forms of altruism, verbal creativity, or the fact that most humans have a far greater vocabulary than that which is required for survival, can nevertheless play a role.[132] Miller (2000) has proposed that this apparent redundancy is due to individuals using vocabulary to demonstrate their intelligence, and consequently their "fitness", to potential mates. This has been tested experimentally, and it appears that males do make greater use of lower-frequency (more unusual) words when in a romantic mindset compared to a non-romantic mindset, suggesting that vocabulary is likely to be used as a sexual display (Rosenberg & Tunney, 2008). All these qualities are considered courtship adaptations that have been favored through sexual selection.[133]

Miller is critical of theories that imply that human culture arose as accidents or by-products of human evolution. He believes that human culture arose through sexual selection for creative traits. In that view, many human artifacts could be considered subject to sexual selection as part of the extended phenotype, for instance clothing that enhances sexually selected traits.[2] During human evolution, on at least two occasions, hominid brain size increased rapidly over a short period of time followed by a period of stasis. The first period of brain expansion occurred 2.5 million years ago, when Homo habilis first began using stone tools. The second period occurred 500,000 years ago, with the emergence of archaic Homo sapiens. Miller argues that the rapid increases in brain size would have occurred by a positive feedback loop resulting in a Fisherian runaway selection for larger brains. Tor Nørretranders, in The Generous Man conjectures how intelligence, musicality, artistic and social skills, and language might have evolved as an example of the handicap principle, analogously with the peacock's tail, the standard example of that principle.

Opposing arguments

[edit]

The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters, such as Alfred Wallace, a believer in spiritualism and a non-material origin of the human mind, who argued that animals and birds do not choose mates based on sexual selection, and that the artistic faculties in humans belong to their spiritual nature and therefore cannot be connected to natural selection, which only affects the animal nature.[10] Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sexual selection in humans

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Mutation and selection diagram](./assets/Mutation_and_selection_diagram_22 Sexual selection in humans encompasses the evolutionary mechanisms by which traits conferring advantages in mate competition or attraction enhance reproductive success, operating alongside natural selection for survival. This process, first elaborated by Charles Darwin, accounts for human sexual dimorphism, including males' greater average height, muscularity, and upper-body strength—resulting from ancestral intrasexual contest competition—contrasted with females' adaptations for fat storage and lactation to support offspring. Empirical evidence from cross-cultural studies consistently demonstrates sex-differentiated mate preferences, with women prioritizing partners signaling resource acquisition, ambition, and social dominance, while men emphasize indicators of reproductive value such as youth, facial symmetry, and waist-to-hip ratio. These patterns, observed in over 30 societies, persist despite socioeconomic variations, underscoring a biological foundation shaped by asymmetric parental investment, where females' higher obligatory costs in gestation and nursing foster choosiness. Key manifestations include behavioral strategies like male risk-taking and status-seeking, which elevate mating opportunities, and female selectivity calibrated to ecological cues of paternal investment potential. Controversies arise from ideological resistance to innate sex differences, often amplified in academic and media sources favoring environmental explanations, yet genomic, anthropological, and psychological data affirm sexual selection's role in human divergence from less dimorphic primates. Modern shifts, such as delayed reproduction and contraceptive use, modulate but do not erase these dynamics, as evidenced by persistent preferences in speed-dating and online mating contexts. Overall, sexual selection elucidates not only physical and preferential traits but also cognitive adaptations like intelligence and creativity, potentially as costly signals of genetic quality.

Historical Foundations

Darwin's Original Hypothesis

Charles Darwin introduced the concept of sexual selection as a complement to natural selection in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, positing that it explains traits enhancing reproductive success through mate competition rather than survival advantages. Unlike natural selection, which favors adaptations for enduring environmental pressures, sexual selection operates via differential mating access, often producing exaggerated features that might hinder survival, such as elaborate ornaments in males. Darwin distinguished two mechanisms: intrasexual selection, where same-sex rivals (typically males) compete directly through combat or displays for mating opportunities, and intersexual selection, where one sex selects mates based on preferred traits, with females often exerting choosiness due to greater reproductive investment. Applying this framework to humans, Darwin argued that sexual selection accounts for observed sexual dimorphism, including males' greater average stature (approximately 8-10% taller than females globally) and muscular strength (up to 50% greater upper-body power), traits he attributed to ancestral male contests for females rather than solely foraging demands. He cited ethnographic accounts of tribal warfare and polygyny among primitive societies as evidence of ongoing intrasexual rivalry, suggesting such pressures intensified male physical prowess over evolutionary time. Secondary sexual characteristics, like male facial hair and deeper voices versus female features signaling fertility (e.g., wider hips and breast development post-puberty), were interpreted as products of intersexual choice, where preferences for symmetry, vigor, and aesthetic appeal drove their evolution. Darwin extended sexual selection to explain behavioral and cognitive differences, proposing that women's heightened aesthetic sense and parental devotion influenced mate selection, favoring males with courage, perseverance, and intellect—qualities advantageous in rivalry yet not always survival-critical. He hypothesized that interpopulation variations, including skin color and cranial features among human races, arose partly from differing mate preferences, leading to assortative mating that amplified traits over generations, independent of natural selection's role in adaptation to climates. This view positioned sexual selection as a primary driver of human divergence from ape-like ancestors, with both sexes engaging in choice but males more variably due to polygynous tendencies in early human societies.

Post-Darwin Developments and Early Evidence

Following the 1871 publication of Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which posited sexual selection as a key driver of human traits like sexual dimorphism and aesthetic preferences, the theory faced immediate scrutiny from contemporaries. Alfred Russel Wallace, co-formulator of natural selection, accepted its role in shaping human physical attributes such as male muscularity and facial hair through male competition and female choice but contended it inadequately explained the species' intellectual and moral advancements, attributing those to non-Darwinian influences beyond material causation. Wallace further argued that human mate preferences prioritized survival utility over ornamental beauty, limiting sexual selection's explanatory power relative to natural selection. Anthropological inquiries provided early empirical support by documenting mating patterns across societies. Edward Westermarck's The History of Human Marriage (1891) analyzed ethnographic records from diverse cultures, revealing consistent female selectivity for male provisioning ability and social dominance—traits indicative of intersexual selection—alongside male emphasis on female youth and fertility cues. Westermarck's evidence of innate incest aversion, inferred from low rates of inbreeding despite cultural variation, suggested an evolved mechanism facilitating broader mate choice pools and thereby amplifying sexual selection's effects on genetic variance. Physiological and sensory investigations bolstered these observations. Havelock Ellis, in Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume IV: Sexual Selection in Man (1905), compiled data on human sensory responses, demonstrating that sexual attraction arises primarily from tactile, olfactory, auditory, and visual stimuli rather than abstract aesthetics, with examples like olfactory preferences influencing mate evaluation across populations. This framed intersexual selection as rooted in proximate physical mechanisms, extending Darwin's claims with evidence from clinical and self-reported accounts. Intrasexual dynamics were evidenced by historical records of polygynous systems, where high-status males monopolized multiple partners through combat or alliance-building, yielding skewed male reproductive success as seen in chiefly lineages. Such patterns, corroborated in late-19th-century ethnographies of African and Oceanic groups, underscored competition's role in amplifying variance in male fitness.

Core Mechanisms

Intrasexual Selection

Intrasexual selection refers to competition among members of the same sex for mating opportunities, which in humans primarily drives male-male rivalry due to asymmetries in parental investment and potential reproductive success, with males exhibiting higher variance in lifetime offspring number across societies. This form of selection favors traits enhancing competitive ability, such as physical prowess and dominance, evidenced by human sexual dimorphism where males average 10-15% greater height and approximately 50% superior upper-body strength compared to females, patterns consistent with contest competition in polygynous primates. Cross-cultural data underscore male intrasexual competition through elevated rates of male-perpetrated violence, including homicides, which disproportionately target other males and often stem from status disputes or mate guarding; for instance, in global datasets, over 80% of homicide victims are male, with perpetrators similarly skewed, a pattern stable across hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, and modern societies. Anthropological analyses, such as those of Yanomamö villages, link male lethal aggression to reproductive advantages, with killers averaging 2.5 times more wives and offspring than non-killers. Meta-analyses further correlate male muscularity and strength—key dimorphic traits—with higher mating and reproductive success, supporting intrasexual selection over purely intersexual mechanisms for these features, as robust physiques aid in physical confrontations rather than solely attracting female preference. Behavioral proxies include heightened male risk-taking and status-seeking, which experimental studies tie to intrasexual rivalry; for example, men exposed to cues of mate competition display increased aggression and dominance displays. Taller stature, a heritable trait amplified by selection, predicts greater intrasexual competitiveness in both adolescents and adults, with meta-analytic evidence linking height to dominance and resource acquisition in male hierarchies. In contrast, female intrasexual competition is less physically oriented and more indirect, involving relational aggression or self-promotion, though it intensifies post-reproduction; studies show married mothers report higher rivalry toward other females, potentially to safeguard paternal investment, but overall effects on dimorphism or violence remain minimal compared to males. Fossil and genetic evidence from hominins reinforces this dynamic, with increasing male dimorphism in early Homo species aligning with intensified contest competition amid shifting mating systems toward multimale-multifemale groups, where physical formidability conferred survival and reproductive edges. While cultural norms modulate expression, underlying selection pressures persist, as evidenced by persistent sex differences in aggression across 100+ societies in the Human Relations Area Files.

Intersexual Selection

Intersexual selection in humans manifests primarily through mate choice, where individuals select partners based on traits signaling genetic quality, reproductive potential, or resource-holding capacity. This mechanism, as proposed by Darwin, favors the evolution of exaggerated traits in the preferred sex when choosiness stems from differential parental investment, with females typically investing more in offspring due to gestation and lactation, rendering them more selective. Empirical support derives from parental investment theory, which predicts females prioritizing cues of male ability to provide resources and protection, while males emphasize indicators of female fertility and health. Cross-cultural studies confirm these patterns: in a survey of 10,047 participants across 37 cultures, women rated financial prospects, ambition, and industriousness as significantly more important in mates than men did, with effect sizes averaging d = 0.62 for earning capacity; conversely, men placed higher value on physical attractiveness (d = 1.16). These differences persisted universally, from hunter-gatherer societies like the Hadza to industrialized nations, despite variations in economic development, underscoring a biological basis over purely cultural influences. A replication across 45 countries in 2019-2020 with over 14,000 participants yielded similar results, with men preferring physically attractive and younger partners (preferred age gap of 2-3 years younger) and women favoring older, resource-secure mates. Male preferences center on fertility cues, such as a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of approximately 0.7, which correlates with estrogen levels, reproductive health, and lower risks of gynecological disorders; experimental ratings by men from diverse ethnic groups, including the U.S., Britain, and Africa, consistently favor this ratio over others, independent of overall body size. Facial symmetry and averageness, proxies for developmental stability and low parasite load, also elicit stronger male attraction, as shown in studies where symmetric faces received 20-30% higher attractiveness scores. Female choosiness extends to male traits like height (women prefer men 8-10 cm taller on average) and upper-body strength, which signal competitive ability and resource acquisition, though these are modulated by context—e.g., resource preferences weaken slightly in wealthy societies but do not reverse. Behavioral assays further substantiate intersexual selection: speed-dating experiments reveal women reject 80-90% of approaches based on initial impressions of status and ambition, while men accept based largely on looks, aligning with evolutionary predictions of asymmetric selectivity. Mate-choice copying, where individuals prefer partners endorsed by others, amplifies these preferences, with evidence from 2018 studies showing domain-general social learning enhancing perceived mate value across sexes. These dynamics have shaped human evolution, with genetic correlations between choosiness and preferred traits maintaining polymorphisms under stabilizing selection.

Morphological and Physiological Evidence

Sexual Dimorphism in Humans

Humans exhibit moderate sexual dimorphism in body size and composition, with males on average taller, heavier, and possessing greater lean mass than females. Globally, adult men average approximately 171 cm in height, while women average 159 cm, representing a dimorphic ratio of about 1.07. This height difference emerges primarily during puberty due to sex-specific growth spurts driven by gonadal hormones. Males also exhibit greater overall body mass, with adult men typically 10-15% heavier than women of comparable height, attributable to higher skeletal muscle and bone density rather than fat accumulation. Skeletal muscle mass shows pronounced dimorphism, with males possessing 65% more total muscle and 72% more arm muscle than females across diverse populations. Upper body strength in males averages twice that of females, while lower body strength exceeds it by 66%, differences persisting even after controlling for body size. These disparities arise from higher testosterone levels in males promoting myofibrillar hypertrophy and fiber type distribution favoring power output. Bone morphology reflects similar patterns: males have larger, denser skeletons with thicker cortical bone and more robust joint surfaces, enhancing load-bearing capacity. Body fat distribution is sexually divergent, with females exhibiting 1.6 times higher overall adiposity percentage and a gynoid pattern concentrating fat in gluteofemoral regions, contrasting males' android pattern favoring visceral accumulation. This female-biased fat storage supports reproductive demands like gestation and lactation. Craniofacial dimorphism includes larger male skulls with more prominent brows, broader mandibles, and pronounced nasal bridges, while female faces are relatively smaller and gracile with fuller cheeks and less robust chins. Such features correlate with androgen exposure and exhibit greater variance in males per Wainer's rule on size-dependent variability.

Reproductive and Secondary Sexual Traits

Humans exhibit sexual dimorphism in primary reproductive traits driven by anisogamy, with females producing larger, nutrient-rich ova in limited quantities alongside gestation and lactation demands, while males generate vast numbers of small, mobile sperm with minimal per-unit investment, fostering asymmetric reproductive strategies where males face higher variance in mating success due to sexual selection pressures. This dimorphism manifests in relative testes size—human males possessing testes about one-third the size of chimpanzees' when adjusted for body mass—indicating reduced sperm competition and greater emphasis on mate guarding or attraction over scramble competition. Secondary sexual traits, influenced primarily by sex hormones like testosterone and estrogen post-puberty, amplify dimorphism and show evidence of sexual selection through costly signaling and mate preference correlations. In males, these include greater average height (7-8% taller than females globally), body mass (approximately 15% heavier), and upper-body strength (up to 50-60% greater than females), traits tied to androgen levels and positively associated with number of sexual partners in non-contracepting societies, suggesting intrasexual competitive advantages. Facial hair, such as beards, develops under testosterone influence as a maturity indicator, enhancing perceptions of dominance and masculinity in both intra- and intersexual contexts, with experimental manipulations showing beards amplify facial formidability signals. Deeper voice pitch in males, another androgen-mediated trait, correlates with perceived attractiveness and fighting ability, further supporting selection for competitive signaling. In females, secondary traits emphasize fertility cues under intersexual selection. Permanent breast enlargement, unique among primates where mammary tissue swells only during lactation, likely evolved as a visual signal of sexual receptivity and residual reproductive value, with breast symmetry predicting higher fecundity and attractiveness ratings across studies. The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), averaging 0.7 in young, nulliparous women and linked to estrogen/androgen balance, serves as a reliable indicator of ovarian function and health, with cross-cultural preferences for low WHR (independent of overall body size) evidencing adaptive mate choice for reproductive potential. Females also accumulate higher subcutaneous fat stores (about 1.6 times males' body fat percentage), concentrated in gluteofemoral regions, which may store lipids for lactation without compromising mobility, aligning with selection for offspring provisioning efficiency. These traits' exaggeration beyond functional minima—evident in comparative primate data and human variation—points to sexual selection's role in their elaboration, though modulated by natural selection for viability.

Mate Choice Preferences

Preferences in Females

Women prioritize traits in male mates that signal the ability to provide resources, protection, and high genetic quality, reflecting the higher parental investment females make in reproduction. These preferences manifest in emphases on financial prospects, social status, physical formidability, and behavioral indicators of reliability and cognitive fitness. Empirical data from large-scale surveys and experiments consistently reveal sex differences, with females exhibiting greater selectivity than males across diverse contexts. Cross-cultural investigations, including a study of over 10,000 participants from 37 cultures and subsequent analyses across 45 countries, indicate that women rank a potential mate's earning capacity, ambition, and social status higher than men do, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large. These preferences persist despite economic development levels, suggesting an evolved adaptation to paternal investment rather than solely cultural variation. In long-term mating contexts, women also value dependability and emotional stability as cues to committed provisioning. For physical traits signaling genetic quality, women prefer men taller than themselves, with an average desired height differential of approximately 20-25 cm in some populations, associating greater height with dominance and health. Upper body strength, often indexed by muscularity and shoulder-to-hip ratio, accounts for the majority of variance in male bodily attractiveness ratings by women, independent of overall size. Women also prefer slightly larger-than-average erect penis size, around 6.3–6.4 inches in length, with diminishing returns beyond that point. These traits interact, with penis size exerting greater influence on attractiveness for taller men or those with more masculine body shapes characterized by higher shoulder-to-hip ratios. Facial symmetry, a marker of developmental stability and low parasite load, enhances perceived attractiveness, particularly when combined with moderate masculinity. Preferences for masculine facial features strengthen in short-term mating scenarios or among women self-reporting higher attractiveness. Non-physical traits like intelligence and humor production are also prioritized, as they may signal cognitive abilities beneficial for problem-solving and offspring success. Women rate kind, dependable men higher for long-term partnerships, valuing these over physical traits alone in committed contexts. Humor ability, more pronounced as a male sexually selected trait, correlates with mating success and is preferred by women as an indicator of creativity and social intelligence. Although the ovulatory shift hypothesis posits cyclic changes toward emphasizing genetic indicators like masculinity during fertile phases, meta-analyses of over 50 studies reveal weak or inconsistent evidence for such preference shifts, with robust effects limited to heightened sexual desire rather than altered trait valuation. These patterns align with sexual selection theory, where female choosiness maximizes offspring viability amid anisogamy-driven costs.

Preferences in Males

Males in human mate choice prioritize physical cues signaling , , and , which align with maximizing through selection of partners with high reproductive value. Empirical studies consistently show that men value physical attractiveness more than women do, with this manifesting in ratings of and bodily features that correlate with estrogen-mediated traits and genetic . Cross-cultural research underscores the universality of these preferences. In a landmark study of 10,047 participants across 37 cultures, men ranked physical attractiveness as their second-most important criterion for mate selection, far exceeding women's emphasis on the trait, while preferring partners younger by an average of 2.66 years to capitalize on peak fertility windows. This pattern holds despite cultural variations in socioeconomic conditions, suggesting an evolved adaptation rather than a product of modern environments. Bodily proportions play a central role, particularly the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). Men preferentially select women with a low WHR of around 0.7, which indicates optimal fat distribution linked to higher levels, better childbearing capacity, and lower risk of reproductive disorders. Eye-tracking experiments confirm that men fixate longer on figures with this hourglass shape, independent of breast size variations. Remarkably, congenitally blind men exhibit the same WHR preference when assessing tactile models, evidencing an innate, non-visual component. Facial attractiveness further refines , with preferences for , , and neotenous features signaling and low mutation load. These traits predict higher ratings of desirability in speed-dating and contexts, where stated preferences translate to actual selections. While short-term mating amplifies emphasis on immediate physical signals, long-term preferences retain a attractiveness component, moderated but not eliminated by resource considerations. Meta-analytic affirms that such preferences drive behavioral outcomes like attraction and pair formation, countering claims of .

Shared or Biparental Preferences

Both sexes consistently prioritize traits indicative of emotional stability, , and dependability in long-term mates, as these facilitate biparental essential for in humans' prolonged dependency period. Cross-cultural surveys reveal high convergence on such preferences; for example, in a study of over participants from 37 diverse societies spanning , , , , and , both males and females ranked "kind and understanding" among the top three desired qualities, following mutual attraction and dependable character. These shared valuations exceed cultural variation, with coefficients for sex-specific rankings on and dependability averaging r = 0.92 across cultures, suggesting an evolved basis tied to mutual provisioning and parenting reliability rather than sex-specific reproductive asymmetries. Intelligence and education also emerge as biparental priorities, valued by both sexes for their utility in resource acquisition, problem-solving in child-rearing, and genetic benefits to progeny. In the same 37-culture dataset, intelligence ranked fifth for both sexes overall, with minimal sex differences (d < 0.20), and experimental manipulations confirm that perceived intelligence boosts attraction equally across genders in long-term contexts. Health cues, such as vitality and absence of disease indicators, similarly attract both sexes, as they signal reproductive viability and parenting endurance; meta-analytic evidence from speed-dating paradigms shows symmetric preferences for healthy appearances, with effect sizes comparable to those for shared personality traits (d ≈ 0.5). These preferences align with biparental care models, where mutual selection for robust, cooperative partners mitigates risks in human alloparenting systems, evidenced by lower divorce rates correlating with spousal similarity in these traits. Biparental-oriented preferences extend to indicators of parenting potential, including desire for home/children and good health, which both sexes rate highly in surveys of mate ideals. For instance, across 33 nations involving 7,341 participants, both prioritized "desires children" and "good health" equivalently (rank differences < 1 position), supporting causal links to extended human juvenility requiring dual investment. Longitudinal data reinforce this, showing that couples matched on these shared traits exhibit higher fertility and offspring outcomes, with heritability estimates for such preferences ranging 20-40% from twin studies, indicating partial genetic underpinnings shaped by selection for pair-bond stability. While sex differences persist in emphasis on physical attractiveness (males) or financial prospects (females), the overlap in biparental traits underscores a convergent evolutionary strategy for human monogamy-like bonding, distinct from polygynous alternatives in other primates.

Behavioral and Social Dynamics

Male Competition and Status-Seeking

Male intrasexual competition in humans manifests primarily through contests for social dominance and status, which enhance access to mates by signaling resource acquisition potential and genetic quality. Empirical studies identify tactics such as resource display, reputation manipulation, and derogation of rivals as evolved strategies in male mate competition. In nonindustrial societies across 33 cultures, higher male social status—measured by hunting success, leadership roles, and wealth—correlates positively with reproductive success, including number of surviving offspring, supporting the adaptive value of status-seeking behaviors. This association holds across subsistence types and marriage systems, indicating a robust link between status attainment and fitness payoffs that motivates male ambition and risk-taking. Violence represents a direct form of male-male competition tied to sexual selection, with homicide rates peaking among young adult males during peak reproductive years. Globally, over 90% of homicides involve male perpetrators and victims, often stemming from status disputes, mate guarding, or rivalry over sexual access rather than purely economic motives. In small-scale societies like the Yanomami, men who engage in lethal raids against rivals achieve higher status and reproductive success, with killers averaging 2.5 times more wives than non-killers. Such patterns align with the "young male syndrome," where risk-prone aggression increases during mate competition phases, as evidenced by elevated violence in polygynous contexts with high male variance in mating success. Female mate preferences reinforce male status-seeking, as women cross-culturally prioritize male earning capacity and ambition—proxies for resource provision—over physical traits alone. In a study of 37 cultures encompassing over 10,000 participants, women rated "good financial prospects" higher than men did, with this preference universal across industrialized and nonindustrialized groups. Recent analyses confirm that intrasexual competition among males exerts stronger selective pressure on traits like muscularity and height than intersexual choice in some cases, yet status remains a key mediator of mating outcomes. These dynamics suggest that male-driven hierarchies and prestige pursuits evolved to resolve reproductive skew, where high-status individuals monopolize mates while low-status males face exclusion. This dominance orientation extends to relationships, where men may feel powerful with submissive women through innate subcortical brain circuits for dominance—such as those involving the amygdala and striatum—that provide gratification via asserting control, combined with evolutionary drives linked to higher testosterone levels promoting dominance for reproductive success and mate/offspring protection.

Female Competition and Selected Traits

In humans, female intrasexual competition manifests primarily through indirect and relational aggression rather than physical confrontation, reflecting adaptations to higher parental investment and the risks of injury during reproductive years. Women compete for high-quality mates by derogating rivals' sexual fidelity, appearance, and reputation, as evidenced by cross-cultural studies where participants from 37 cultures rated such tactics as effective for mate retention and attraction. This competition intensifies during fertile phases, with ovulating women more likely to dehumanize attractive rivals and select revealing clothing to enhance mate value signals. Self-promotion strategies, such as grooming, makeup use, and stylish attire, align closely with male preferences for cues of youth and fertility, driving selection for behavioral flexibility in appearance enhancement. Experimental data show women judge these tactics—e.g., wearing sexy clothes (rated 4.45/5 effectiveness)—as superior to direct approaches, supporting their role in outcompeting rivals for male attention. Derogation targets rival mate value precisely, with women criticizing others' promiscuity or looks to lower perceived desirability, a pattern consistent across diverse samples including undergraduates and non-Western populations. These competitive dynamics have selected for psychological and behavioral traits favoring covert manipulation and social intelligence, enabling women to form alliances, spread gossip, and engage in mate switching without escalating to costly physical risks. Hormonal cues, like elevated estrogen during ovulation, amplify competitive behaviors such as rival scrutiny, suggesting evolved proximate mechanisms tuned to maximize reproductive access. While morphological dimorphism in aggression weaponry is minimal in females compared to males, selection pressures may have refined traits like facial averageness or body proportions that resist derogation and signal genetic quality, as superior competitors achieve higher mating success in resource-scarce environments. Empirical support includes observational data from male-biased sex ratios, where heightened rivalry correlates with increased indirect aggression and reproductive variance among women.

Cognitive and Cultural Evolution

The Mating Mind Hypothesis

The Mating Mind hypothesis, advanced by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller in his 2000 book The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, argues that sexual selection via mate choice was the primary driver of human cognitive evolution, rather than natural selection for survival tasks alone. Miller posits that the human brain's expansion—reaching approximately 1,350 cubic centimeters in modern Homo sapiens by around 200,000 years ago—produced traits like advanced intelligence, language, humor, music, art, and moral reasoning primarily as elaborate courtship displays to signal genetic quality and heritable fitness to potential mates. These mental capacities, he contends, function analogously to sexually selected ornaments in other species, such as the peacock's train, imposing high metabolic and developmental costs (e.g., the brain consumes 20% of the body's energy despite comprising 2% of its mass) that only individuals of superior genetic quality could afford without compromising survival. Central to the hypothesis are three mechanisms of sexual selection: Fisherian runaway selection, where arbitrary preferences for traits amplify through generations via positive feedback; sensory exploitation, leveraging pre-existing perceptual biases; and the handicap principle of costly signaling, where displays honestly advertise underlying fitness because they are too resource-intensive for low-quality individuals to fake. Miller applies these to human cognition by viewing language as a medium for verbal wit and storytelling in courtship, music and dance as rhythmic indicators of coordination and health, and creativity as demonstrations of problem-solving prowess irrelevant to foraging but attractive in social displays. For instance, he highlights archaeological evidence of symbolic art and musical instruments dating to 40,000–50,000 years ago in Europe, predating or paralleling advanced hunting tools, suggesting these emerged for reproductive rather than utilitarian purposes. The hypothesis also accounts for sex differences, such as greater male variance in creative output and risk-taking in displays, attributed to historically stronger female choosiness due to higher parental investment in offspring. Supporting arguments draw from comparative biology, where sexually selected traits in birds and fish often exceed survival optima, and from human mate preference studies showing consistent valuation of intelligence and creativity across cultures—e.g., women rating humor and verbal fluency highly in short-term mates in experiments involving personal ads. Miller contrasts this with adaptationist views emphasizing tool-making or social cooperation, arguing that the mind's generality (e.g., applying chess-like reasoning to poetry) better fits a selection pressure for versatile, entertaining displays than narrow ecological problem-solving. While the hypothesis revives Charles Darwin's 1871 suggestion in The Descent of Man that female choice shaped human mental faculties, it extends it by integrating modern signaling theory, proposing that sexual selection explains the "luxury" excess of human cognition beyond what Pleistocene environments demanded for survival.

Sexual Selection for Intelligence and Creativity

Sexual selection may have favored intelligence in humans as a heritable indicator of biological fitness, with cognitive abilities serving as costly signals that both sexes evaluate in potential mates. Developing a large brain, which accounts for roughly 2% of body mass but consumes 20% of basal metabolic rate, imposes significant energetic demands, making high intelligence an honest advertisement of genetic quality and developmental stability under the handicap principle. Geoffrey Miller argues that during human evolution, particularly from the Pleistocene onward, mate preferences increasingly targeted intelligence over physical traits, as evidenced by the rapid expansion of brain size relative to survival pressures alone. Cross-cultural mate preference data reinforce this, with intelligence consistently ranked among the most desired qualities in long-term partners. In a 1989 study by David Buss involving 10,047 participants from 37 cultures, both men and women rated intelligence highly—typically third or fourth in importance—though women placed greater emphasis on it as a proxy for resource-provisioning capacity linked to problem-solving and adaptability. This preference persists even in resource-scarce environments, suggesting an evolved bias toward cognitive fitness indicators rather than mere cultural artifacts. Creativity extends this dynamic, functioning as a domain-general display of intelligent improvisation and novelty-generation, akin to elaborate animal courtship signals. Proponents contend that traits like artistic production, musicality, and humor evolved primarily for mate attraction, not foraging or tool-making, given their minimal direct survival utility but high heritability (around 0.5 for creative achievement). Empirical patterns show marked sex differences: men produce 8–10 times more cultural artifacts, such as paintings, books, and jazz albums, with output peaking between ages 30–50 during prime reproductive years, aligning with intrasexual competition for mates rather than lifetime productivity norms. Direct links between creativity and reproductive outcomes further support sexual selection. Among 425 British poets, visual artists, and mathematicians, schizotypal personality facets tied to creative ideation positively correlated with lifetime sexual partners (r ≈ 0.2–0.3), independent of age or output quality. Humor production, a creative subdomain, similarly predicts mating success and correlates with general intelligence (g-factor loadings up to 0.4), serving as a low-cost proxy for cognitive fitness in social interactions. In Swedish military conscripts (n > 30,000), higher IQ scores associated with increased (up to 10–15% more for top deciles), implying positive selection pressure in pre-modern contexts despite modern dysgenic trends.

Empirical Support and Genetic Foundations

Cross-Cultural and Experimental Evidence

Cross-cultural investigations provide robust evidence for evolved sex differences in mate preferences consistent with sexual selection theory. In the International Mate Selection Project, data from 10,047 individuals across 37 cultures spanning six continents revealed that women placed significantly higher value on a potential mate's financial prospects and ambition—traits signaling resource acquisition—compared to men, who prioritized physical attractiveness and indicators of reproductive value such as youthfulness. These patterns held in 36 of 37 cultures for resource preferences and universally for attractiveness, with effect sizes indicating moderate to large sex differences despite variations in economic development and gender equality. A replication across 45 countries involving over 14,000 participants in 2020 confirmed these findings, showing women's stronger emphasis on earning capacity (d = 0.70) and men's on good looks (d = 0.50), even as cultural factors like pathogen prevalence modulated but did not eliminate the disparities. This cross-cultural consistency, observed in diverse societies from hunter-gatherers to industrial economies, aligns with parental investment theory, where women's greater obligatory investment in offspring favors selection for provisioning cues, while men's favors fertility signals. Experimental paradigms further substantiate these preferences by linking them to actual choice behaviors and perceptual cues of mate quality. In speed-dating studies with over 400 participants, men's "yes" decisions were predominantly driven by women's physical attractiveness (β = 0.20), whereas women's choices weighted men's , ambition, and socioeconomic status more heavily (β = 0.15 for ), mirroring stated preferences and demonstrating their predictive validity in real-time mating contexts. Preferences for , a of developmental stability and genetic under pressures, have been isolated in controlled manipulations: participants consistently rated symmetric faces as more attractive than asymmetric , with this persisting after equating for and appearing stronger in raters of female faces. Cross-culturally validated experiments, including among the Hadza forager group and UK samples, confirmed symmetry preferences for opposite-sex faces regardless of rater sex or face type, suggesting an innate mechanism for detecting heritable fitness. Additionally, hormonal manipulations reveal context-sensitive shifts; fertile-phase women exhibit heightened preferences for masculine, symmetric traits signaling good genes, as shown in double-blind studies tracking ovulatory cycles. These findings, derived from quantifiable responses in lab settings, indicate that mate preferences operate via specialized cognitive processes attuned to sexually selected traits, rather than generalized heuristics.

Heritability and Genomic Insights

Twin studies have provided evidence for moderate genetic influence on human mate preferences, which are central to sexual selection processes. In a sample of over 4,000 primarily female twins, preferences for 13 mate quality cues, including financial prospects, intelligence, and physical traits, exhibited approximately 20% heritability in both sexes, with the remainder attributable to non-shared environmental factors. Similarly, preferences for partner height show genetic variation, with heritability estimates of 14% in females and 52% in males after controlling for the rater's own height, indicating that self-similarity in preferences may partly reflect heritable components. These findings suggest that while cultural and experiential factors play roles, genetic predispositions contribute to variation in what individuals prioritize in mates, potentially amplifying sexually selected traits across generations. Sexually selected traits themselves, such as , demonstrate higher , underscoring a genetic foundation for features under pressure. Facial attractiveness has been estimated at around 60% heritable based on twin and data, with similar figures for facial masculinity-femininity, traits linked to perceived mate quality. Body symmetry and , indicators of developmental stability often favored in mate selection, also show substantial genetic components, as deviations from symmetry correlate with lower attractiveness ratings and are influenced by multiple loci. This implies that preferences for such traits can lead to , favoring alleles that enhance through increased opportunities. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and polygenic analyses reveal that sexually selected traits and related behaviors are highly polygenic, involving thousands of variants with small effects, consistent with ongoing sexual selection dynamics. Polygenic scores derived from ancient and modern genomes detect sex-differential selection signals affecting survival and reproductive fitness, including traits like height and adiposity that influence attractiveness and mate value. Recent analyses indicate pervasive sexually antagonistic selection across the human genome, where alleles beneficial in one sex may be deleterious in the other, contributing to sexual dimorphism in traits under selection, such as those tied to fecundity and viability. These genomic patterns, including negative correlations between selection on viability and fecundity, support the role of sexual selection in shaping polygenic architectures, though environmental interactions complicate direct inference of causality.

Controversies and Counterarguments

Challenges from Natural Selection Primacy

Critics of prominent roles for in contend that for and ecological exerts primacy, often overriding or constraining mate- pressures that might otherwise favor non-adaptive traits. Empirical studies in model organisms demonstrate this dynamic, where viability selection reverses sexually selected phenotypes; for instance, in broad-horned beetles, predation targeting males with exaggerated mandibles (favored by ) reduced such traits over generations, enhancing reproductive output by approximately % through alleviation of genetic conflicts between sexes. This tension implies that in like humans, where demands are multifaceted—including , , and offspring rearing— limits driven solely by , as sexually selected traits must not viability. In human , such primacy manifests in explanations prioritizing ecological pressures over intrasexual or choosiness. Male-biased dimorphism in stature and upper-body strength, averaging 10-15% greater in s across populations, aligns with for task-specific adaptations like and defense in ancestral environments, rather than purely agonistic contests for mates; ethnographic from societies, such as the Hiwi and Ache, show men's caloric returns from exceed those from gathering, supporting provisioning for kin . Similarly, female-specific traits like elevated body (1.55-1.66 times levels) and wider pelves evolved via selection for gestational and lactational demands, evidenced by correlations between maternal and reduced neonatal mortality risks (e.g., 3.2% lower emergency C-section rates per cm of in U.S. ). These patterns suggest dimorphism arises from sex-differentiated on viability, with secondary or conflated, as resource acquisition inherently boosts both and prospects without invoking costly signals. Such challenges underscore that apparent sexually selected traits in humans, like behavioral dispositions for status-seeking, may proxy for survival fitness indicators (e.g., resource control amid scarcity), diluting distinct sexual effects; genomic and cross-population analyses reinforce this by linking dimorphic variants to metabolic and locomotor efficiencies rather than isolated fertility gains. While sexual selection operates, its independence is contested where natural selection's domain—encompassing predation avoidance, nutritional stress, and cooperative foraging—dominates evolutionary outcomes, as unsubstantiated primacy of mate choice risks overlooking verifiable ecological causations.

Critiques of Biological Determinism

Critics of in human sexual selection contend that evolutionary explanations, such as those emphasizing mate preferences for traits like physical symmetry or status, unduly prioritize innate genetic mechanisms over learned cultural norms and . These arguments, often advanced in of biology, posit that attributing sex differences in mating behaviors—such as greater male interest in or female selectivity for resources—to sexual selection risks essentializing roles and overlooking how societies construct preferences through . For instance, scholars like Ruth Bleier have critiqued Darwinian accounts of , including , as reinforcing deterministic views that downplay environmental plasticity in traits like or choosiness. A recurrent charge is that such biological frameworks foster genetic essentialism, where DNA is seen as dictating behavioral outcomes rigidly, leading to stereotypes in mate choice; this perspective has been linked to broader resistance against evolutionary psychology's application to human sexuality. In analyses of sex and gender textbooks, evolutionary psychology is frequently misrepresented as endorsing a "biological determinism" fallacy, conflating adaptive psychological mechanisms with inflexible genetic programming that ignores gene-environment interactions in sexual selection processes. Critics argue this determinism undermines efforts to address inequalities, as biological accounts of dimorphic preferences—e.g., men's evolved valuation of fertility cues—may be invoked to naturalize disparities in partner selection without sufficient evidence of universality across cultures. However, these critiques often stem from misunderstandings, as evolutionary models of sexual selection incorporate facultative responses to ecological and social cues rather than strict determinism; for example, mate preferences for status or health are heritable yet modulated by context, with twin studies indicating genetic influences on human pair-bonding traits accounting for 20-50% of variance. Empirical data from cross-cultural surveys, such as those pooling over participants across 37 societies, reveal consistent sex differences in criteria like financial prospects (preferred more by women) and physical appeal (by men), challenging pure cultural relativism while affirming evolved predispositions shaped by selection pressures over millennia. Sources advancing strong anti-determinist positions, particularly in social sciences, exhibit patterns of ideological bias, frequently straw-manning biological hypotheses to prioritize nurture without engaging heritability estimates from behavioral genetics, which demonstrate that sexual selection's legacy persists amid cultural overlays.

Debunking Cultural Relativism Claims

Cultural relativism posits that variations in human mating preferences arise solely from learned cultural norms, implying no underlying biological universals shaped by sexual selection. This view suggests that traits like preferences for physical symmetry, youthfulness in women, or resource-holding capacity in men are arbitrary social constructs without cross-cultural consistency. However, empirical data from large-scale studies refute this by revealing persistent universals that constrain cultural influence. David Buss's 1989 study across 37 cultures, involving over participants, found universal sex differences: men consistently prioritized and (indicators of ) in mates, while women valued earning capacity and ambition (indicators of provision), with these patterns holding regardless of or cultural . A 2020 replication across 45 , encompassing diverse societies from hunter-gatherers to industrialized nations, confirmed these universals, showing men rated attractiveness 2.5 times higher than women on , and women rated resources higher, with effect sizes despite variations in indices. Such consistency across disparate environments—spanning , , , and the —indicates evolved preferences overriding cultural . Preferences for specific morphological cues further undermine relativist claims. Men in non-Western societies, including the Hadza hunter-gatherers of unexposed to global media, prefer women with a waist-to-hip (WHR) of approximately 0.7, a signal of reproductive and levels, mirroring findings in industrialized groups. experiments manipulating WHR in stimuli elicited similar attractiveness ratings among participants from the , , and the Shuar of , demonstrating perceptual universals not attributable to shared cultural exposure. Genetic reinforces biological over pure . Twin studies estimate broad-sense of mate preferences at around % in women and marginally significant in men for traits like , , and physical , indicating a heritable component independent of shared environment. These findings suggest that while can modulate expression—e.g., emphasizing more in conservative societies—core preferences reflect species-typical adaptations from , not infinite . Relativist interpretations often overlook this , potentially to ideological biases favoring nurture over in social sciences.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8528540/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156798/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X1500189X
  4. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/10/buss-1989-sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences.pdf
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219729/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3462896/
  7. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2017.1320
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5013152_A_Review_of_Sexual_Selection_and_Human_Evolution_How_Mate_Choice_shaped_Human_Nature
  9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217889/full
  10. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300
  11. https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection
  12. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/evolution/sexual-selection
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068314001493
  14. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008194118
  15. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-darwins-descent-man-holds-150-years-after-publication-180977091/
  16. https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-darwins-the-descent-of-man-150-years-on-sex-race-and-our-lowly-ape-ancestry-155305
  17. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.786868/full
  18. https://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/nature-society/password-protect/nature-society-pdfs/gould-darwinVwallace
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069109003059
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862385/full
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513825000960
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10358401/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38446269/
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378772341_Havelock_Ellis_Sexology_and_Sexual_Selection_in_Post-Darwinian_Evolutionary_Biology
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9106334/
  26. https://elifesciences.org/articles/65031
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326543282_Intrasexual_Violence_and_Aggression
  28. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-58325-013
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-evolutionary-perspectives-on-sexual-psychology/mens-intrasexual-competition/871A1DD2346E23602B64501C05B78548
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480860/
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31816-0
  32. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-58325-014
  33. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-025-09498-6
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123808585000095
  35. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences-evolutionary-hypotheses-tested-in-37-cultures/0E112ACEB2E7BC877805E3AC11ABC889
  36. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2020/03/Sex-Differences-in-Mate-Preferences-Across-45-Nations-2020.pdf
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4050298/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886999001154
  39. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19770-8
  41. https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7394004/
  43. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859931/full
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17875489/
  45. https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24626
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10501953/
  47. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/27/2/512/2196612
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229486895_Evolutionary_Perspectives_on_Permanent_Breast_Enlargement_in_Human_Females
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000023
  50. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-45219-001
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000889
  52. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022022190211001
  53. https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/what-do-men-and-women-want-mate
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5745404/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1087598/
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39350-8
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4558040/
  59. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003595
  60. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219361110
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10481040/
  62. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1754073914523073
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33385373/
  64. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2019/03/mate-preferences-and-their-behavioral-manifestations-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2019.pdf
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000370
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19688590/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809001093
  68. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/09/pretty_face_2010.pdf
  69. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2018/09/Schmitt-Buss2018_ReferenceWorkEntry_SexDifferencesInLong-TermMatin.pdf
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3367282/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5047206/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3107626/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230958590041X
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286309304_Evolutionary_Perspectives_on_Male-Male_Competition_Violence_and_Homicide
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5922783/
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29871054_International_Preferences_in_Selecting_Mates_A_Study_of_37_Cultures
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4469834/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11176219/
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208001322
  80. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/09/evolution_intrasexual_competition_1988_jpsp.pdf
  81. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2023/04/The-Sexual-Selection-of-Human-Mating-Strategies-2023.pdf
  82. http://ishe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/HEB_2015_30_1_53-70.pdf
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3826202/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3199163/
  85. https://bec.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/108/archive/papers/miller_mating_mind.htm
  86. https://www.edge.org/conversation/geoffrey_miller-sexual-selection-and-the-mind
  87. https://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/mating-mind.htm
  88. https://ontherapyaspse.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/geoffrey-miller-the-mating-mind.pdf
  89. https://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?mating-mind.5
  90. https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/22/3/447/267371
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11276907/
  92. https://geoffrey-miller-y5jr.squarespace.com/s/1999-sexual-selection-cultural-displays.pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1560060/
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289611000523
  95. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359
  96. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/673/1884033
  97. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8FB585Z
  98. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03208842
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2293939/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3210674/
  101. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1533220100
  102. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01546.x
  103. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049294
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4096150/
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6448827/
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9481184/
  107. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2412315121
  108. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23804-7
  109. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011876108
  110. https://doi.org/10.1086/595620
  111. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20708
  112. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3394457/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480807/
  115. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/gender-and-mathematical-ability-the-toll-of-biological-determinism/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480854/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4227469/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3013476/
  119. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01786-001
  120. https://www.academia.edu/15496685/Cross_cultural_consensus_for_waist_hip_ratio_and_womens_attractiveness
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22671545/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.