Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans

A recent paper from David Puts (pdf):
David A. Puts. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 3. (May 2010), pp. 157-175.

Literature in evolutionary psychology suggests that mate choice has been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in humans, but this conclusion conforms neither to theoretical predictions nor available evidence. Contests override other mechanisms of sexual selection; that is, when individuals can exclude their competitors by force or threat of force, mate choice, sperm competition, and other mechanisms are impossible. Mates are easier to monopolize in two dimensional mating environments, such as land, than in three-dimensional environments, such as air, water, and trees. Thus, two-dimensional mating environments may tend to favor the evolution of contests. The two-dimensionality of the human mating environment, along with phylogeny, the spatial and temporal clustering of mates and competitors, and anatomical considerations, predict that contest competition should have been the primary mechanism of sexual selection in men. A functional analysis supports this prediction. Men's traits are better designed for contest competition than for other sexual selection mechanisms; size, muscularity, strength, aggression, and the manufacture and use of weapons probably helped ancestral males win contests directly, and deep voices and facial hair signal dominance more effectively than they increase attractiveness. However, male monopolization of females was imperfect, and female mate choice, sperm competition, and sexual coercion also likely shaped men's traits. In contrast, male mate choice was probably central in women's mating competition because ancestral females could not constrain the choices of larger and more aggressive males through force, and attractive women could obtain greater male investment. Neotenous female features and body fat deposition on the breasts and hips appear to have been shaped by male mate choice.
A common refrain from certain non-whites and Southern Europeans is that if a Northern European man looks askance at the pursuit of Northern European women by non-Northern Europeans, it means he is "insecure" or afraid of competing with non-Northern European men. In reality, one competes by competing, and that starts (in a healthy society) with excluding men from other groups from access to women of one's own group.
3.2.2.1. Male coalitions and between-group competition.
The tendency of males to form alliances may have evolved in the common ancestor of humans and our closest living relatives, Pan, as a means of cooperative female capture and defense (Fig. 3), although coalitions may also have evolved independently in these lineages for this purpose (Geary & Flinn, 2001; Wrangham, 1999). Male coalitions are rare among primates but common in humans and Pan, especially common chimpanzees (P. troglodytes), and are strengthened by kinship (Nishida & Hiraiwa- Hasegawa, 1987). The capture of women was a primary objective of early warfare (Darwin, 1871; Hrdy, 1997; Lerner, 1986; Spencer, 1885), and among foragers, groups of men commonly raid other villages and abscond with women (e.g., Chagnon, 1988). Such raids may also function in mate defense by deterring future attacks. These behaviors would tend to favor not only aggression and physical prowess, but also social intelligence for negotiating alliances (e.g., Alexander, 1989; Geary & Flinn, 2002; Mueller & Mazur, 1996; Wrangham, 1999).

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Indeed, races and subraces formed because of geographic separation, isolated breeding groups.

It is no more absurd to separate Nords from non-Nords than it is to separate Whites from non-Whites. At the very least we should limit the former to a very small percentage, the latter must be completely banned.

Besides this isn't just about controlling women, it's controlling men as well. Asian women in particular have the highest intermarriage rate, the majority with White men.

Anonymous said...

*At the very least we should limit miscegenation with the former to a very small percentage, the latter must be completely banned.

chris said...

"A common refrain from certain non-whites and Southern Europeans is that if a Northern European man looks askance at the pursuit of Northern European women by non-Northern Europeans, it means he is "insecure" or afraid of competing with non-Northern European men. In reality, one competes by competing, and that starts (in a healthy society) with excluding men from other groups from access to women of one's own group. "

I know this is an old thread but this post here (http://www.rooshv.com/black-men-who-date-white-women) makes the exact same argument that you made above.

I get a feeling that people are going to be coming out of the woodwork making many unverified assertions about this topic. You may want to peruse the post and school such people in the truth.

I commented on that post under this name.

Naturally, I support the view you expressed in the above quotation.

If you ask why I even bother commenting on such posts, well, I think 'game' and 'PUA' can be a very useful means to awaken white men to their true interests. It did for me.

Anonymous said...

If you ask why I even bother commenting on such posts, well, I think 'game' and 'PUA' can be a very useful means to awaken white men to their true interests. It did for me.

Only if it results in white babies being born which it almost never does.

Most practitioners of 'game' are in it to satisfy their base desires, not to advance some racial interest.

chris said...

"Most practitioners of 'game' are in it to satisfy their base desires, not to advance some racial interest."

I would agree that those who started 'game' in the 90's were exactly that, but today things can and are changing.

White American illegitimacy rates are at 25- 30%. Most White American homes have the internet and White American youths are more and more getting their entertainment from their internet and computer than through TV.

Those who will be searching 'how to attract girls' or 'what do girls like in guys' are increasingly young white teens who will be getting their source of information about the world through their computer and internet connection rather than through mainstream sources, (due to the reasons listed above).

'Game' teaches evo-psych/evo-bio. These theories lay the foundation for a world-view amenable to ethnic nationalism.

There is a reason the left fears evo-psych/evo-bio applied to humans and this is it. It lays down the foundational world view for nationalism.

Everything I've listed above is what happened to me. At 17 I typed into google 'what attracts girls'. This lead me to game, which lead me to evo-psych/evo-bio, which eventually lead me to nationalism.

Once again, there's a reason the left fears it. And this is it.

Anonymous said...

I would agree that those who started 'game' in the 90's were exactly that, but today things can and are changing.

Do you have any examples? The game-o-sphere, which has overlap with the hbd-sphere, are all pretty much in lock step. Roissy for example.

They are not teaching how to attract quality women or how to lay a foundation for a quality family life. All of them are talking about how marriage is terrible and how only pathetic "beta males" get married. They teach you how to find the type of women who are looking for one night stands.

'Game' teaches evo-psych/evo-bio. These theories lay the foundation for a world-view amenable to ethnic nationalism.

I think this is disputable, honestly. While I think game does exploit valid aspects of evolutionary biology, I think a lot of it just "playing along" with certian societal memes. Game is aimed at picking up low-class women that most whites should be avoiding. Much of it is demonstrably psuedoscience (the alpha/beta dichotomy, for example, is based off of debunked studies of wolves).

There is a reason the left fears evo-psych/evo-bio applied to humans and this is it. It lays down the foundational world view for nationalism.

I do think that a reproductive strategy should be integral to a nationalist cultural platform; I don't think nationalists take this topic too seriously (for most, nationalism is just a hobby horse to ride on the Internet, but that's another topic).

There are certianly leftist intellectuals who are opposed to too much research into biological determinism, genetics, and group preferences.

But I don't think game is very high on their radar screen. Game is not bringing in lots of people into the nationalist fold. If anyone is opposed to it, it is the feminists, because if nothing else, it's making a lot of men (albeit often pathetic men) confident about their approaches to sexuality and robbing women of some of their social power.

Everything I've listed above is what happened to me. At 17 I typed into google 'what attracts girls'. This lead me to game, which lead me to evo-psych/evo-bio, which eventually lead me to nationalism.

Once again, there's a reason the left fears it. And this is it.


Look, I'll give you a pass since your heart seems to be in the right place, but the world doesn't revolve around you. You happening to find some nationalist blogs who happen to have some tangential association with a game blog doesn't mean it's happening everywhere.

Most of us got here for reasons relating to racial politics rather than game blogs.

The vast majority of the gamer types are, at best, HBD types who are more than happy to copulate with non-whites and see nothing wrong with non-white immigration so long as it provides them a source of exotic women.