Effects of sexual selection on evolution through female choice.

[Angela]

[FONT=&quot]Most first marriages across recorded hunter-gatherer societies are arranged marriages where young girls (avg: ~14) r exchanged for goods or labor from older husband and/or his kin. Lot of evolutionary accounts of human mating out there that don't recognize implications of this [are missing the boat].

That's basically the conclusion of this paper. I've been saying this for years, but was never able to find a paper to support it. Now I have it.

See:
[/FONT]https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(07)00051-7/abstract

"Much of the evolutionary literature on human mating is based on the assumption of extensive female choice during the history of our species. However, ethnographic evidence from foraging societies reveals that, in societies thought to be akin to those of our ancestors, female choice is constrained by the control that parents exercise over their daughters. Data from 190 hunting and gathering societies indicate that almost all reproduction takes place while the woman is married and that the institution of marriage is regulated by parents and close kin. Parents are able to influence the mating decisions of both sons and daughters, but stronger control is exercised with regard to daughters; male parents have more say in selecting in-laws than their female counterparts. In light of the fact that parental control is the typical pattern of mate choice among extant foragers, it is likely that this pattern was also prevalent throughout human evolution. Because daughters' preferences can be expected not to fully coincide with those of their parents, research to date may thus have simultaneously overestimated the contribution of female preferences to processes of sexual selection and underestimated the contribution of parental preferences to such processes."[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[halfalp]

Most first marriages across recorded hunter-gatherer societies are arranged marriages where young girls (avg: ~14) r exchanged for goods or labor from older husband and/or his kin. Lot of evolutionary accounts of human mating out there that don't recognize implications of this [are missing the boat].

That's basically the conclusion of this paper. I've been saying this for years, but was never able to find a paper to support it. Now I have it.

See:
https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(07)00051-7/abstract

"Much of the evolutionary literature on human mating is based on the assumption of extensive female choice during the history of our species. However, ethnographic evidence from foraging societies reveals that, in societies thought to be akin to those of our ancestors, female choice is constrained by the control that parents exercise over their daughters. Data from 190 hunting and gathering societies indicate that almost all reproduction takes place while the woman is married and that the institution of marriage is regulated by parents and close kin. Parents are able to influence the mating decisions of both sons and daughters, but stronger control is exercised with regard to daughters; male parents have more say in selecting in-laws than their female counterparts. In light of the fact that parental control is the typical pattern of mate choice among extant foragers, it is likely that this pattern was also prevalent throughout human evolution. Because daughters' preferences can be expected not to fully coincide with those of their parents, research to date may thus have simultaneously overestimated the contribution of female preferences to processes of sexual selection and underestimated the contribution of parental preferences to such processes."

Well obviously PIE men destroying old Neolithic Men is almost due to Female Preferences from my view. It is even today a scared thought for a lot of men to be replaced by stranger ones because of female preferences. And this xenophobia absolutely touch all cultures. We talk a lot about Europeans Men being scared to be replaced by African Men, but African Men are also scared of it, they just have the choice to migrate in a better place ; c.f. Europe, while us European does not have it. Where would we migrate? We have one of the best economy and governement system of the world. What i have notice, is that some of those European Men want to migrate in an even better place, namely Japan and i'm always angry how those men dont think what Japanese Men are thinking of this... I think history can show us that women preferences in sexual selection, can destroy mostly an homogenous genetic and cultural entity. I'm personally the kind of man scared of this, although looking at my y-dna, my ancestors probably did replaced neolithic men from their homogenous women, wich i found sad. I'm always thinking of all those young Thai Men from Pataya that need everyday, to witness European Men with Money litterally have all the attention of 80% of the Women. I would be frustrated in a hard way.

 

[markod]

Well obviously PIE men destroying old Neolithic Men is almost due to Female Preferences from my view. It is even today a scared thought for a lot of men to be replaced by stranger ones because of female preferences. And this xenophobia absolutely touch all cultures. We talk a lot about Europeans Men being scared to be replaced by African Men, but African Men are also scared of it, they just have the choice to migrate in a better place ; c.f. Europe, while us European does not have it. Where would we migrate? We have one of the best economy and governement system of the world. What i have notice, is that some of those European Men want to migrate in an even better place, namely Japan and i'm always angry how those men dont think what Japanese Men are thinking of this... I think history can show us that women preferences in sexual selection, can destroy mostly an homogenous genetic and cultural entity. I'm personally the kind of man scared of this, although looking at my y-dna, my ancestors probably did replaced neolithic men from their homogenous women, wich i found sad. I'm always thinking of all those young Thai Men from Pataya that need everyday, to witness European Men with Money litterally have all the attention of 80% of the Women. I would be frustrated in a hard way.

It is very unlikely that the women had much choice in the matter. We have reliable records of the nature of tribal conflicts in the metal ages in the Old Testament or the Islamic hadiths. These leave no doubt that the poor women and children of conquered tribes were sadly usually considered to be war booty.

 

[halfalp]

It is very unlikely that the women had much choice in the matter. We have reliable records of the nature of tribal conflicts in the metal ages in the Old Testament or the Islamic hadiths. These leave no doubt that the poor women and children of conquered tribes were sadly usually considered to be war booty.

It is also a reality, but it doesn't change the fact that " we " always have the choice, and Women are likely to make choice going away from related Men. Men are Romantic, Women are Universal. You can see this everywhere.

 

[LeBrok]

It is very unlikely that the women had much choice in the matter. We have reliable records of the nature of tribal conflicts in the metal ages in the Old Testament or the Islamic hadiths. These leave no doubt that the poor women and children of conquered tribes were sadly usually considered to be war booty.

These are farmer societies from Old Testament. The research is about hunter gatherers.
I would say however that the arranged by parents marriages are very recent development. Otherwise the strong propensity in women for romantic love would have been breeded out as a useless thing already.

 

[Angela]

Ethnographic studies tell us about hunter-gatherer patterns. The Old Testament tells us how it was in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the Near East. Women had NO choice. The choice was made by their fathers and brothers. How could anyone think that Solomon's wives CHOSE to join his harem? Allies, would be allies, conquered tribes etc. sent him women. The story of Ruth and Boaz is also informative. She was given to her Hebrew husband. After his death she was free but chose to follow her mother in law to Israel. Once there, Boaz chose her, leading to, of course, King David. Canaanite villages, when attacked, were the scene of wholesale slaughter of the men and the dividing up of the women among the conquerors, when they didn't kill every man, woman, and child, of course.

Greek and Roman women certainly had no choice and we can be sure of that because we know a lot about their marriage practices. The paterfamilias controlled all.

For the last 1000-1500 or so years we have manorial records for serfs, and chronicles for more propertied people, including aristocrats. Again, there is NO evidence for female choice which I have ever seen. No one has read Romeo and Juliet lately? The characters were copied from an Italian tale, but the situation was quite common. You see a farcical exploration of it in French theater, with the stock character of the rich old fool who in effect buys a beautiful young wife.

Women CHOOSING their mates is the novelty, probably about 100 or so years old in the west, depending on the area. In my conservative area of Italy you still had problems as late as 40 years ago if you went against your parents' wishes. In the 1800s and before they locked you in your room and starved you until you married the person of their choice unless you had the rare very indulgent parents. Even in my day, the older people tried very hard to influence you. My paternal grandfather used to tell me stories of how Sicilians and Calabresi would scar the faces of their women if they caught men looking at them. That was meant to turn me away from any idea of marrying one of them. It didn't dissuade me in terms of dating, and he died before I married, but if he had lived it would have been very unpleasant.

From the divorce rates women don't seem to be doing all that great a job. Of course, I'm sure most of those arranged marriages were also miserable, not to mention, as Markod pointed out, the fact that during raids and times of war women were just "war booty" or slaves if they weren't just raped and killed afterwards. I guess a lot of people haven't read The Old Testament or the Middle Eastern chronicles and legal compendiums.

Men didn't always have much choice either, at least not as far as marriage was concerned. A lot of young boys were married off to older and ill favored women according to Medieval historians. Of course, as long as he did his duty and tried to produce legitimate heirs, he could within reason take any attractive woman of his choice outside of marriage. At times, they even chose to abduct nuns, for which they had to seek forgiveness and make reparation of some sort.

Women, alas, had none of this freedom. If she strayed but was from a rich family, a place might be purchased for her in a nunnery. If they were poor the parents most often just turned her out to starve. Usually, prostitution was the only, if temporary, answer. If you were a married woman, your husband could kill you with impunity or take your children from you or lock you up in a room.

The low percentages for NPEs don't surprise me in the least.

 

[halfalp]

I think this is missleading. Yes women didn't have choice, but it still necessary for that to have a strong family. Take an exemple, prostitution, there was always prostituion, so some women with low family link ( wich father would allow her girl to become a prostitute )? A lot, if not the majority of humans after the HG's, didn't leave in those strict rules, roman plebeians leaving in Insula, didn't have those rules. It's always the highest social class that had strong internal rules. And this is the same today, a woman coming from a rich family will never marry a poor african migrant, but likely marry someone from her social class, while a woman growing in a nuclear type family, with little rules over her, can let her mind float where she wants, and those people always existed.

 

[markod]

I think this is missleading. Yes women didn't have choice, but it still necessary for that to have a strong family. Take an exemple, prostitution, there was always prostituion, so some women with low family link ( wich father would allow her girl to become a prostitute )? A lot, if not the majority of humans after the HG's, didn't leave in those strict rules, roman plebeians leaving in Insula, didn't have those rules. It's always the highest social class that had strong internal rules. And this is the same today, a woman coming from a rich family will never marry a poor african migrant, but likely marry someone from her social class, while a woman g rowing in a nuclear type family, with little rules over her, can let her mind float where she wants, and those people always existed.

I haven't researched this well, but aren't for instance white women less likely to be with someone non-European than white men? Anecdotally, I have heard women express strong in-group preference when it comes to dating, while men usually don't seem to care as much.

In forager and agricultural societies it's the parents who would give their daughters away for economic or political reasons and thus force them to leave their homes. Remember the study that found such high mobility in Corded Ware women?

 

[halfalp]

I haven't researched this well, but aren't for instance white women less likely to be with someone non-European than white men? Anecdotally, I have heard women express strong in-group preference when it comes to dating, while men usually don't seem to care as much.

In forager and agricultural societies it's the parents who would give their daughters away for economic or political reasons and thus force them to leave their homes. Remember the study that found such high mobility in Corded Ware women?

I dont know, but it feels wrong for me. It might be wrong because of migration bias, 90% of the recent mass migration in Europe are Men, so obviously we gonna see more White Women with Foreign Men. Like Indo-Europeans in there time, the actual mass migration in europe is mostly male biased so we see an inequality in multiracial relationships with local women and foreign men being way over the opposite.

 

[Angela]

White women have the highest preference for in group mating of any group. White men are more likely not to care. Black women are the least chosen.

See:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673129?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"In this article, the authors examine how race, gender, and education jointly shape interaction among heterosexual Internet daters. They find that racial homophily dominates mate-searching behavior for both men and women. A racial hierarchy emerges in the reciprocating process. Women respond only to men of similar or more dominant racial status, while nonblack men respond to all but black women. Significantly, the authors find that education does not mediate the observed racial preferences among white men and white women. White men and white women with a college degree are more likely to contact and to respond to white daters without a college degree than they are to black daters with a college degree."

Of course, male mediated migrations might make things look different superficially. Not every white woman finds it repugnant. If a woman has few choices that might impact things as well.

Then, in terms of a comparison to Europe, while most Moroccans and Egyptians might be classified as "black" here, a Turk or Chechian or even a Levantine man would probably be classified as "white" for these purposes.

 

[Ailchu]

I haven't researched this well, but aren't for instance white women less likely to be with someone non-European than white men? Anecdotally, I have heard women express strong in-group preference when it comes to dating, while men usually don't seem to care as much.

In forager and agricultural societies it's the parents who would give their daughters away for economic or political reasons and thus force them to leave their homes. Remember the study that found such high mobility in Corded Ware women?

i think in france women are more likely to be with non-EU citizens. but as already said could be because of migration bias. the men are not the ones that get pregnant and they were the ones that conquered new land so it would makes sense that men care less on average.

 

[Angela]

^^To some degree women still get status from their men. So, they're going to be more likely to choose someone of equal or superior status, as the link I posted above shows.

Of course, these are relative percentages. It just says they're MORE likely than white men to prefer white male mates.

To LeBroc's point, even though they've in most cases had no choice, it doesn't mean they don't prefer romance.

One can see the operation of that in the rituals and poetry of "Courtly Love", which interestingly was probably first born in the Near East, a place of female repression even in the Middle Ages, and was then exported to Provencal poets, and from them to the rest of Europe.

Courtly Love=a highly conventionalized medieval tradition of love between a knight and a married noblewoman, first developed by the troubadours of Southern France and extensively employed in European literature of the time. The love of the knight for his lady was regarded as an ennobling passion and the relationship was typically unconsummated.

I suppose one could see it as an outlet for emotions which women could not otherwise indulge.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love
The practice of courtly love was developed in the castle life of four regions: Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, from around the time of the First Crusade (1099). Eleanor of Aquitaine brought ideals of courtly love from Aquitaine first to the court of France, then to England, where she was queen to two kings. Her daughter Marie, Countess of Champagne brought courtly behavior to the Count of Champagne's court. Courtly love found its expression in the lyric poems written by troubadours, such as William IX, Duke of Aquitaine (1071–1126), one of the first troubadour poets.
Poets adopted the terminology of feudalism, declaring themselves the vassal of the lady and addressing her as midons (my lord), which had the dual benefits of both allowing the poet to use a code name (so as to avoid having to reveal the lady's name) and at the same time be flattering by addressing her as his lord. The troubadour's model of the ideal lady was the wife of his employer or lord, a lady of higher status, usually the rich and powerful female head of the castle. When her husband was away on Crusade or other business she dominated the household and cultural affairs; sometimes this was the case even when the husband was at home. The lady was rich and powerful and the poet gave voice to the aspirations of the courtier class, for only those who were noble could engage in courtly love. This new kind of love saw nobility not based on wealth and family history, but on character and actions; thus appealing to poorer knights who saw an avenue for advancement.

Since at the time some marriages among nobility had little to do with modern perspectives of what constitutes love,^[11]courtly love was also a way for nobles to express the love not found in their marriage.^[12] "Lovers" in the context of courtly love need not refer to sex, but rather the act of emotional loving. These "lovers" had short trysts in secret, which escalated mentally, but might not physically.^[13]

 

[bicicleur 2]

[FONT="][SIZE=3][FONT=arial]Most first marriages across recorded hunter-gatherer societies are arranged marriages where young girls (avg: ~14) r exchanged for goods or labor from older husband and/or his kin. Lot of evolutionary accounts of human mating out there that don't recognize implications of this [are missing the boat].

That's basically the conclusion of this paper. I've been saying this for years, but was never able to find a paper to support it. Now I have it.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
See:
[/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(07)00051-7/abstract

[SIZE=3][FONT=arial][COLOR=#14171A]"[/COLOR][COLOR=#333333]Much of the evolutionary literature on human mating is based on the assumption of extensive female choice during the history of our species. However, ethnographic evidence from foraging societies reveals that, in societies thought to be akin to those of our ancestors, female choice is constrained by the control that parents exercise over their daughters. Data from 190 hunting and gathering societies indicate that almost all reproduction takes place while the woman is married and that the institution of marriage is regulated by parents and close kin. Parents are able to influence the mating decisions of both sons and daughters, but stronger control is exercised with regard to daughters; male parents have more say in selecting in-laws than their female counterparts. In light of the fact that parental control is the typical pattern of mate choice among extant foragers, it is likely that this pattern was also prevalent throughout human evolution. Because daughters' preferences can be expected not to fully coincide with those of their parents, research to date may thus have simultaneously overestimated the contribution of female preferences to processes of sexual selection and underestimated the contribution of parental preferences to such processes."[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][COLOR=#14171A][FONT="]


[/FONT]

my understanding is that there are no aranged marriages in the Andaman HG societies and that there is free choice of partners

 

[Angela]

my understanding is that there are no aranged marriages in the Andaman HG societies and that there is free choice of partners

Yes, I think that's correct. There are also a few societies which are matriarchies. I think the paper is addressing the situation in the vast majority of societies.

I'll take this opportunity to also point out that there were isolated situations in Medieval Europe where women did have some choice. The widow of a guild member could, if she didn't want to try to continue the business on her own, choose a husband for herself.

Widowhood in the middle classes, if the husband had been well to do, could be advantageous for a women. Well, if she hadn't been emotionally attached to her husband. Chaucer's "The Widow of Bath" is a very funny example. She happily married a number of times, to younger men. This was the exception that proved the rule. Aristocratic widows had no such choice. Their marriages were too important politically.

"While Chaucer's Wife of Bath is clearly familiar with the many ancient and medieval views on proper female behavior, she also boldly questions their validity. Her repeated acts of remarriage, for instance, are an example of how she mocks "clerical teaching concerning the remarriage of widows".^[13] Furthermore, she adds, "a rich widow was considered to be a match equal to, or more desirable than, a match with a virgin of property",^[13] illustrating this point by elaborating at length concerning her ability to remarry four times, and attract a much younger man.While she gleefully confesses to the many ways in which she falls short of conventional ideals for women, she also points out that it is men who constructed those ideals in the first place.
Who painted the lion, tell me who?
By God, if women had written stories,
As clerks have within their studies,
They would have written of men more wickedness
Than all the male sex could set right.<sup>[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wife_of_Bath's_Tale</sup>

 

[Tomenable]

(...)

This book is interesting:

http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/F. ... The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization.pdf

 

[Tomenable]

my understanding is that there are no aranged marriages in the Andaman HG societies and that there is free choice of partners

But the Sentinelese are no SJWs, they don't support open borders, it seems.