Women Are Superficial, Too. Mostly.

[Hermit]

Evolutionary "attractiveness".

Evolutionary physical attractiveness for both sexes would include things that signal health, but also anything that signals willingness to mate, and ability to procreate.
This means very different things for males and females though. For hetero males, attractiveness of females would be tied to the effects of female hormones like oestrogen which plays a major role in female puberty. Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships.

In contrast, testosterone in males causes very different facial features including a more pronounced chin and eyebrow ridge and facial hair. IOW, puberty causes divergence in males and females faces, which means the women who look most different from the typical male (e.g., the most "feminine") will be viewed as the most attractive because their features clearly signal a post-pubescent fertile female.

Also, since female fertility ends sooner than male's, and the age of females more directly impacts health of the fetus and successful childbirth, that makes it much more relevant for males to select younger mates so long as they are post-pubescent.

Then there are things not really related to personal health but would impact attractiveness for both sexes. Facial symmetry appears to be such a factor, as does having features of a "mixed-race" person. Genetic mixing is good for evolutionary health and not passing on harmful recessive genes. Also, since some skin blemishes are a signal of poor health and disease, most skin blemishes in general would likely trigger a reduction in perceived attractiveness, even acne or scars not themselves indicative of overall health.

Some evolutionary psychology (such as job preferences, differences in spatial ability, etc.) consists of rather tenuous assumptions that only indirectly relate to reproductive success. However, the behavior of mate selection so directly determines reproductive success that it would be a downright miracle if such behaviors and the prime motivators behind them (sexual arousal) were not highly determined by evolutionary pressures. If your not having sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex, you aren't having kids. So being most attracted to those with features directly caused by the hormones that determine sexual fertility is a surefire way to optimize productive sexual activity. Perceived attractiveness of females is predicted by objective levels of such hormones and those hormones have biological effects on physical features that most differentiate fertile females from both unfertile females and fertile males. That's decent evidence attractiveness has major evolutionary influences.

That said, socialization factors would likely serve to reinforce these same proclivities. For example, social pressure to demonstrate one's "manliness" and thus heterosexuality would pressure males to show attraction to people with features that most differentiate fertile females from fertile males. And the inverse for pressure on females to prefer males with features that most differentiate fertile males from females.

Ironically, this socialization influence is itself likely a partial by-product of evolutionary pressures at the group level. Those societies that flourished were those those created cultures that reinforced the same attractiveness preferences that emphasize the same optimally fertile other sex mates that individual-level evolutionary pressures would create to begin with.

All well and good, but how much influence do evolutionary considerations have in comparison to social ones? These days, for instance, lean looks are idealised. Think Barbie doll. The slender look was epitomised by Lesley Lawson, who in the 1960s became a supermodel better known as Twiggy.



By contrast, only a couple of generations earlier people bought belts specifically designed to make your abdominal area fatter than it actually was. I can't find those any more, but I found this:



Similarly, tanned skin is very popular among Caucasians. That was not at all the case in earlier times. Troubadours performed songs in which star-crossed lovers admiringly described the hapless object of their love as having "skin as white as milk". Some women, basically among those who could afford the time and money, bleached their skin with mercury, lead, arsenic or whatever else did the job.




I'm pretty sure I don't have to describe in boring detail how these ideals of beauty arose from a social rather than an evolutionary background. I am also pretty sure that I won't need to point out that the many different criteria for attractiveness found indifferent cultures can hardly be explained on the basis of genetic evolution.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Evolutionary "attractiveness".

Evolutionary physical attractiveness for both sexes would include things that signal health, but also anything that signals willingness to mate, and ability to procreate.
This means very different things for males and females though. For hetero males, attractiveness of females would be tied to the effects of female hormones like oestrogen which plays a major role in female puberty. Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships.

In contrast, testosterone in males causes very different facial features including a more pronounced chin and eyebrow ridge and facial hair. IOW, puberty causes divergence in males and females faces, which means the women who look most different from the typical male (e.g., the most "feminine") will be viewed as the most attractive because their features clearly signal a post-pubescent fertile female.

Also, since female fertility ends sooner than male's, and the age of females more directly impacts health of the fetus and successful childbirth, that makes it much more relevant for males to select younger mates so long as they are post-pubescent.

Then there are things not really related to personal health but would impact attractiveness for both sexes. Facial symmetry appears to be such a factor, as does having features of a "mixed-race" person. Genetic mixing is good for evolutionary health and not passing on harmful recessive genes. Also, since some skin blemishes are a signal of poor health and disease, most skin blemishes in general would likely trigger a reduction in perceived attractiveness, even acne or scars not themselves indicative of overall health.

Some evolutionary psychology (such as job preferences, differences in spatial ability, etc.) consists of rather tenuous assumptions that only indirectly relate to reproductive success. However, the behavior of mate selection so directly determines reproductive success that it would be a downright miracle if such behaviors and the prime motivators behind them (sexual arousal) were not highly determined by evolutionary pressures. If your not having sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex, you aren't having kids. So being most attracted to those with features directly caused by the hormones that determine sexual fertility is a surefire way to optimize productive sexual activity. Perceived attractiveness of females is predicted by objective levels of such hormones and those hormones have biological effects on physical features that most differentiate fertile females from both unfertile females and fertile males. That's decent evidence attractiveness has major evolutionary influences.

That said, socialization factors would likely serve to reinforce these same proclivities. For example, social pressure to demonstrate one's "manliness" and thus heterosexuality would pressure males to show attraction to people with features that most differentiate fertile females from fertile males. And the inverse for pressure on females to prefer males with features that most differentiate fertile males from females.

Ironically, this socialization influence is itself likely a partial by-product of evolutionary pressures at the group level. Those societies that flourished were those those created cultures that reinforced the same attractiveness preferences that emphasize the same optimally fertile other sex mates that individual-level evolutionary pressures would create to begin with.

You answered half my questions with good answers. For the first part: A subtle difference or not IMO is that IMO youthfulness is evolutionarily attractive but somewhat contradicts full-blown voluptuousness in women. Women even go through more changes after pregnancy and men need to be attracted to some kind of distribution across all these age groups/life point groups in order to maximize procreation--this may even apply to attractiveness to a single female who goes through physical changes, not merely multiple women.

For the second part: Don't forget that primates are a bit different with our larger brains. Pregnancy creates typically one child with big brain. Very vulnerable, pregnancy and vulnerability after are a long period of time. To ensure offspring survive, women may seek secure men who will stay with them. This may have once meant physical and mental capability, but today may include financial security as well as a protecting nature. I am looking forward to your commentary on this part as it applies the most to the op.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Evolutionary "attractiveness".

Evolutionary physical attractiveness for both sexes would include things that signal health, but also anything that signals willingness to mate, and ability to procreate.
This means very different things for males and females though. For hetero males, attractiveness of females would be tied to the effects of female hormones like oestrogen which plays a major role in female puberty. Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships.

In contrast, testosterone in males causes very different facial features including a more pronounced chin and eyebrow ridge and facial hair. IOW, puberty causes divergence in males and females faces, which means the women who look most different from the typical male (e.g., the most "feminine") will be viewed as the most attractive because their features clearly signal a post-pubescent fertile female.

Also, since female fertility ends sooner than male's, and the age of females more directly impacts health of the fetus and successful childbirth, that makes it much more relevant for males to select younger mates so long as they are post-pubescent.

Then there are things not really related to personal health but would impact attractiveness for both sexes. Facial symmetry appears to be such a factor, as does having features of a "mixed-race" person. Genetic mixing is good for evolutionary health and not passing on harmful recessive genes. Also, since some skin blemishes are a signal of poor health and disease, most skin blemishes in general would likely trigger a reduction in perceived attractiveness, even acne or scars not themselves indicative of overall health.

Some evolutionary psychology (such as job preferences, differences in spatial ability, etc.) consists of rather tenuous assumptions that only indirectly relate to reproductive success. However, the behavior of mate selection so directly determines reproductive success that it would be a downright miracle if such behaviors and the prime motivators behind them (sexual arousal) were not highly determined by evolutionary pressures. If your not having sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex, you aren't having kids. So being most attracted to those with features directly caused by the hormones that determine sexual fertility is a surefire way to optimize productive sexual activity. Perceived attractiveness of females is predicted by objective levels of such hormones and those hormones have biological effects on physical features that most differentiate fertile females from both unfertile females and fertile males. That's decent evidence attractiveness has major evolutionary influences.

That said, socialization factors would likely serve to reinforce these same proclivities. For example, social pressure to demonstrate one's "manliness" and thus heterosexuality would pressure males to show attraction to people with features that most differentiate fertile females from fertile males. And the inverse for pressure on females to prefer males with features that most differentiate fertile males from females.

Ironically, this socialization influence is itself likely a partial by-product of evolutionary pressures at the group level. Those societies that flourished were those those created cultures that reinforced the same attractiveness preferences that emphasize the same optimally fertile other sex mates that individual-level evolutionary pressures would create to begin with.

All well and good, but how much influence do evolutionary considerations have in comparison to social ones? These days, for instance, lean looks are idealised. Think Barbie doll. The slender look was epitomised by Lesley Lawson, who in the 1960s became a supermodel better known as Twiggy.

View attachment 14010

By contrast, only a couple of generations earlier people bought belts specifically designed to make your abdominal area fatter than it actually was. I can't find those any more, but I found this:

View attachment 14011

Similarly, tanned skin is very popular among Caucasians. That was not at all the case in earlier times. Troubadours performed songs in which star-crossed lovers admiringly described the hapless object of their love as having "skin as white as milk". Some women, basically among those who could afford the time and money, bleached their skin with mercury, lead, arsenic or whatever else did the job.

View attachment 14012


I'm pretty sure I don't have to describe in boring detail how these ideals of beauty arose from a social rather than an evolutionary background. I am also pretty sure that I won't need to point out that the many different criteria for attractiveness found indifferent cultures can hardly be explained on the basis of genetic evolution.

This is a great post. I would add the following:
(1) scientific studies on breast size attractiveness are somewhat mixed
(2) Venus de Milo
(3) In Ancient Greece males were attracted to both sexes but in the last few centuries more females have become so. females have become a universal, cross cultural aesthetic of beauty within the last 5 centuries. additionally, are some culturalized feminine traits in men now attractive--pony tails, high cheek bones, big lips, hairless chest, back, arms, and legs?
(4) societies have become very multi-racial and multi-ethnic. What a small nose meant relatively in one isolated tribal area, now may be undefined
(5) some studies actually show that average features are attractive
(6) there could be some ancient to modern benefits of stability and protection that sticking to one's tribe provides in opposition to choosing a mate very genetically different. which has been more beneficial to offspring? or rather why can't they both be factors that lead to (5)?
(7) the hypotheses expressed make a lot of sense but how are they tested with studies? look at (1) and (5) for example.

 

[Toni]

Evolutionary "attractiveness".

Evolutionary physical attractiveness for both sexes would include things that signal health, but also anything that signals willingness to mate, and ability to procreate.
This means very different things for males and females though. For hetero males, attractiveness of females would be tied to the effects of female hormones like oestrogen which plays a major role in female puberty. Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships.

In contrast, testosterone in males causes very different facial features including a more pronounced chin and eyebrow ridge and facial hair. IOW, puberty causes divergence in males and females faces, which means the women who look most different from the typical male (e.g., the most "feminine") will be viewed as the most attractive because their features clearly signal a post-pubescent fertile female.

Also, since female fertility ends sooner than male's, and the age of females more directly impacts health of the fetus and successful childbirth, that makes it much more relevant for males to select younger mates so long as they are post-pubescent.

Then there are things not really related to personal health but would impact attractiveness for both sexes. Facial symmetry appears to be such a factor, as does having features of a "mixed-race" person. Genetic mixing is good for evolutionary health and not passing on harmful recessive genes. Also, since some skin blemishes are a signal of poor health and disease, most skin blemishes in general would likely trigger a reduction in perceived attractiveness, even acne or scars not themselves indicative of overall health.

Some evolutionary psychology (such as job preferences, differences in spatial ability, etc.) consists of rather tenuous assumptions that only indirectly relate to reproductive success. However, the behavior of mate selection so directly determines reproductive success that it would be a downright miracle if such behaviors and the prime motivators behind them (sexual arousal) were not highly determined by evolutionary pressures. If your not having sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex, you aren't having kids. So being most attracted to those with features directly caused by the hormones that determine sexual fertility is a surefire way to optimize productive sexual activity. Perceived attractiveness of females is predicted by objective levels of such hormones and those hormones have biological effects on physical features that most differentiate fertile females from both unfertile females and fertile males. That's decent evidence attractiveness has major evolutionary influences.

That said, socialization factors would likely serve to reinforce these same proclivities. For example, social pressure to demonstrate one's "manliness" and thus heterosexuality would pressure males to show attraction to people with features that most differentiate fertile females from fertile males. And the inverse for pressure on females to prefer males with features that most differentiate fertile males from females.

Ironically, this socialization influence is itself likely a partial by-product of evolutionary pressures at the group level. Those societies that flourished were those those created cultures that reinforced the same attractiveness preferences that emphasize the same optimally fertile other sex mates that individual-level evolutionary pressures would create to begin with.

All well and good, but how much influence do evolutionary considerations have in comparison to social ones? These days, for instance, lean looks are idealised. Think Barbie doll. The slender look was epitomised by Lesley Lawson, who in the 1960s became a supermodel better known as Twiggy.

View attachment 14010

By contrast, only a couple of generations earlier people bought belts specifically designed to make your abdominal area fatter than it actually was. I can't find those any more, but I found this:

View attachment 14011

Similarly, tanned skin is very popular among Caucasians. That was not at all the case in earlier times. Troubadours performed songs in which star-crossed lovers admiringly described the hapless object of their love as having "skin as white as milk". Some women, basically among those who could afford the time and money, bleached their skin with mercury, lead, arsenic or whatever else did the job.

View attachment 14012


I'm pretty sure I don't have to describe in boring detail how these ideals of beauty arose from a social rather than an evolutionary background. I am also pretty sure that I won't need to point out that the many different criteria for attractiveness found indifferent cultures can hardly be explained on the basis of genetic evolution.

This is a great post. I would add the following:
(1) scientific studies on breast size attractiveness are somewhat mixed
(2) Venus de Milo
(3) In Ancient Greece males were attracted to both sexes but in the last few centuries more females have become so. females have become a universal, cross cultural aesthetic of beauty within the last 5 centuries. additionally, are some culturalized feminine traits in men now attractive--pony tails, high cheek bones, big lips, hairless chest, back, arms, and legs?
(4) societies have become very multi-racial and multi-ethnic. What a small nose meant relatively in one isolated tribal area, now may be undefined
(5) some studies actually show that average features are attractive
(6) there could be some ancient to modern benefits of stability and protection that sticking to one's tribe provides in opposition to choosing a mate very genetically different. which has been more beneficial to offspring? or rather why can't they both be factors that lead to (5)?
(7) the hypotheses expressed make a lot of sense but how are they tested with studies? look at (1) and (5) for example.

Number 3 is rather suspect. Until relatively recently, longer hair in males was more mainstream, including ponytails. I'm pretty sure I never saw an illustration of the Paul Revere story without him sporting a ponytail. High cheekbones? That's supposed to be...feminine? Full lips = feminine? Really? I don't think so and apparently neither did classical artists such as Michaelangelo--or his patrons. As far as body hair goes, I think a lot of those preferences are age dependent. As a teen, I thought hairy legs, chest, etc. on men was gross. Then I grew up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is a great post. I would add the following:
(1) scientific studies on breast size attractiveness are somewhat mixed
(2) Venus de Milo
(3) In Ancient Greece males were attracted to both sexes but in the last few centuries more females have become so. females have become a universal, cross cultural aesthetic of beauty within the last 5 centuries. additionally, are some culturalized feminine traits in men now attractive--pony tails, high cheek bones, big lips, hairless chest, back, arms, and legs?
(4) societies have become very multi-racial and multi-ethnic. What a small nose meant relatively in one isolated tribal area, now may be undefined
(5) some studies actually show that average features are attractive
(6) there could be some ancient to modern benefits of stability and protection that sticking to one's tribe provides in opposition to choosing a mate very genetically different. which has been more beneficial to offspring? or rather why can't they both be factors that lead to (5)?
(7) the hypotheses expressed make a lot of sense but how are they tested with studies? look at (1) and (5) for example.

Number 3 is rather suspect. Until relatively recently, longer hair in males was more mainstream, including ponytails. I'm pretty sure I never saw an illustration of the Paul Revere story without him sporting a ponytail. High cheekbones? That's supposed to be...feminine? Full lips = feminine? Really? I don't think so and apparently neither did classical artists such as Michaelangelo--or his patrons. As far as body hair goes, I think a lot of those preferences are age dependent. As a teen, I thought hairy legs, chest, etc. on men was gross. Then I grew up.

For part of that I was responding to this portion:
"Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships. " But I added some more. I think hairy chest, back, ears is some times more of male second sex characteristic and so hairlessness except on the head became more of a cultural thing but then when women became cross-culturally the aesthetic (maybe), hairless legs, arms, chest etc has been used as attractive in men, but it also is used to show muscles so maybe that is related, too. I think the point is that there are cultural aesthetics, too, that counter or interact with evolutionary reasoning, making things not as straight forward. Just IMO.

 

[fromderinside]

F*** your MO. I want it my way or else. Wanna fight?

Now, would a woman go that route?

IMHO

 

[Coleman Smith]

The fact that being superficial is not related to gender might be better demonstrated by watching crime TV.
(InvestigationID Channel).

Example, I watched a show in which a woman was having an affair with a married man. He told her he was staying in the marriage for the sake of the children. She was Ok with that but when she found out that he was aso currently screwing other women on the side she shot him twice in the back, twice in the head and then committed suicide.

There is actually a show titled Women who Murder.

BTW: Never tell your teenage daughter that you will see that boy again over my dead body. (Not Good).

I loved the show in which a woman told an undercover on video that she was 5,000 percent sure she wanted her husband killed.

It's hard to tell the superficial women from the superficial men.

 

[J842P]

How so? I am just interested. These are as you say 'just so' stories to an extent (perhaps ultimately) and I am not claiming to be an expert, so not looking to win an argument.

Sorry, missed this earlier. Essentially, the argument is that as a female, you want male sons that have as many children as possible. But if you mate with a monogamous provider father, and your sons inherit those genes, your fitness goes *down*. In an ideal world, you'd have your cake and eat it too: a good provider mate, but sons with promiscuous genes. Well, there's nothing really saying you *can't* do that. Just get impregnated by a promiscuous man, but pair-bond with a committed man.

Again, wading more into just-so-story territory, but humans are essentially feminized, neotenized apes. Not only is sexual dimorphism lessened (especially compared to our closest ancestors, chimps and gorillas), but human fathers are much more feminine, taking on much more of a caregiver role than is common in mammals. Mammals, as a group, being defined by their extreme maternal investment into their offspring (allowing many male mammals to get away with relatively little or no investment).

Also, male humans not from the same family can live in (relative) peace and harmony in very large groups. Not something you see in chimps, where essentially any unfamiliar male is immediately and viciously set upon by the males of the group. Humans, while certainly not immune from conflict, are much more tolerant of other humans. It's a relative thing.

But perhaps the most interest aspect to humans, which I think is understated, is that female have hidden estrous (i.e., concealed ovulation). This is a game changer. Interestingly, human male semen has evolved to contain hormones that stimulate ovulation in females, which certainly looks like it would have evolved in response to hidden estrous ("Ha! You may not be fertile now, but wait until I'm done with you!").

So, again more just-so-stories, but an ideal situation for a woman with male offspring is for that offspring to be as fecund as possible (that *is* fitness). However, that woman would like a reliable, committed male as a partner. Now, an interesting result from many studies is that women's preference in mates changes with relation to her ovulation. So:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394562/#__sec6title

The interesting tidbit:

Whereas fertile-phase women were particularly sexually attracted to men perceived as arrogant, intrasexually confrontative, muscular and physically attractive, no cycle shifts were observed in women's attraction to men seen to be successful financially, intelligent or kind and warm. Men who appeared to be sexually faithful were less sexually attractive to fertile-phase women; put otherwise, fertile women are particularly attracted to men who appear that they would not be faithful (probably because they possess features women find attractive in sex partners).

So, it seems that while the attractiveness of a committed male doesn't go down, that attractiveness of a male with "alpha-male" (I hate that term, but let's use it for a lack of a better one) traits goes up *particularly* at the time of peak fertility.

Of course, men have their own conflicting set of desires. Being alive ain't easy for anyone.

 

[bigfield]

Again, wading more into just-so-story territory, but humans are essentially feminized, neotenized apes. Not only is sexual dimorphism lessened (especially compared to our closest ancestors, chimps and gorillas),

We aren't descended from either of those; they are merely our closest (extant) relatives. We can't point to those species and say that's what we evolved from.

Also, male humans not from the same family can live in (relative) peace and harmony in very large groups. Not something you see in chimps, where essentially any unfamiliar male is immediately and viciously set upon by the males of the group. Humans, while certainly not immune from conflict, are much more tolerant of other humans. It's a relative thing.

Humans are more peaceful than chimps, but more conflict-prone than bonobos, our other close relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related common chimpanzee communities are hostile to males from outside the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the neighboring males that might be traveling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them. This does not appear to be the behavior of bonobo males or females, which seem to prefer sexual contact over violent confrontation with outsiders. In fact, the Japanese scientists who have spent the most time working with wild bonobos describe the species as extraordinarily peaceful, and de Waal has documented how bonobos may often resolve conflicts with sexual contact (hence the "make love, not war" characterization for the species). Between groups, social mingling may occur, in which members of different communities have sex and groom each other, behavior which is unheard of among common chimpanzees. Conflict is still possible between rival groups of bonobos, but no official scientific reports of it exist.

It's also worth noting that human peaceful coexistence in large groups is enabled by complex social structures that control us rather than a more peaceful temperament. Such structures are a recent development, before which humans lived in small, related groups.

 

[rousseau]

How so? I am just interested. These are as you say 'just so' stories to an extent (perhaps ultimately) and I am not claiming to be an expert, so not looking to win an argument.

Sorry, missed this earlier. Essentially, the argument is that as a female, you want male sons that have as many children as possible. But if you mate with a monogamous provider father, and your sons inherit those genes, your fitness goes *down*. In an ideal world, you'd have your cake and eat it too: a good provider mate, but sons with promiscuous genes. Well, there's nothing really saying you *can't* do that. Just get impregnated by a promiscuous man, but pair-bond with a committed man.

Again, wading more into just-so-story territory, but humans are essentially feminized, neotenized apes. Not only is sexual dimorphism lessened (especially compared to our closest ancestors, chimps and gorillas), but human fathers are much more feminine, taking on much more of a caregiver role than is common in mammals. Mammals, as a group, being defined by their extreme maternal investment into their offspring (allowing many male mammals to get away with relatively little or no investment).

Also, male humans not from the same family can live in (relative) peace and harmony in very large groups. Not something you see in chimps, where essentially any unfamiliar male is immediately and viciously set upon by the males of the group. Humans, while certainly not immune from conflict, are much more tolerant of other humans. It's a relative thing.

But perhaps the most interest aspect to humans, which I think is understated, is that female have hidden estrous (i.e., concealed ovulation). This is a game changer. Interestingly, human male semen has evolved to contain hormones that stimulate ovulation in females, which certainly looks like it would have evolved in response to hidden estrous ("Ha! You may not be fertile now, but wait until I'm done with you!").

So, again more just-so-stories, but an ideal situation for a woman with male offspring is for that offspring to be as fecund as possible (that *is* fitness). However, that woman would like a reliable, committed male as a partner. Now, an interesting result from many studies is that women's preference in mates changes with relation to her ovulation. So:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394562/#__sec6title

The interesting tidbit:

Whereas fertile-phase women were particularly sexually attracted to men perceived as arrogant, intrasexually confrontative, muscular and physically attractive, no cycle shifts were observed in women's attraction to men seen to be successful financially, intelligent or kind and warm. Men who appeared to be sexually faithful were less sexually attractive to fertile-phase women; put otherwise, fertile women are particularly attracted to men who appear that they would not be faithful (probably because they possess features women find attractive in sex partners).

So, it seems that while the attractiveness of a committed male doesn't go down, that attractiveness of a male with "alpha-male" (I hate that term, but let's use it for a lack of a better one) traits goes up *particularly* at the time of peak fertility.

Of course, men have their own conflicting set of desires. Being alive ain't easy for anyone.

IIRC, Dawkins addressed this strategy in The Selfish Gene and I believe the main issue with it is that it doesn't result in equilibrium if it becomes the core strategy. Whereas women waiting for a committed man, and men committing, results in a long-term and stable equilibrium. (I can't remember the exact argument behind this and would have to dig it out)

That's not to say that the above can't or doesn't happen, just that it's more of a secondary mechanism outside of monogamy. Generally, there are guys that want a lot of partners, and guys that want one partner, and over time it's the latter who've become the most desirable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Speaking of equilibrium, on the opposite side of a promiscuity benefit is disease, to include diseases that centuries ago would have caused undesirability, death, or impacted health in bad ways. Even right now in some places in the world...

 

[J842P]

We aren't descended from either of those; they are merely our closest (extant) relatives. We can't point to those species and say that's what we evolved from.

You're absolutely right, I misspoke, thank you for the correction.

Humans are more peaceful than chimps, but more conflict-prone than bonobos, our other close relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related common chimpanzee communities are hostile to males from outside the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the neighboring males that might be traveling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them. This does not appear to be the behavior of bonobo males or females, which seem to prefer sexual contact over violent confrontation with outsiders. In fact, the Japanese scientists who have spent the most time working with wild bonobos describe the species as extraordinarily peaceful, and de Waal has documented how bonobos may often resolve conflicts with sexual contact (hence the "make love, not war" characterization for the species). Between groups, social mingling may occur, in which members of different communities have sex and groom each other, behavior which is unheard of among common chimpanzees. Conflict is still possible between rival groups of bonobos, but no official scientific reports of it exist.

It's also worth noting that human peaceful coexistence in large groups is enabled by complex social structures that control us rather than a more peaceful temperament. Such structures are a recent development, before which humans lived in small, related groups.

Yes, Bonobos are more peaceful, however, I think relatively peacefulness is a derived trait in both bonobos and humans.