What is the default pattern of human mating behaviour?

[aneeshm]

A simple and straightforward question: what is the default mating pattern of the human male and human female?

By "default", I refer to the pattern which existed during the period in which the details of human mating psychology reached their current form, without the interference of civilisation and its institutions. So we can take that period to mean the time from ~100,000 years ago till now.

We can also mean it to be the pattern we are soft-wired for, in the sense that the software we run on, if not re-programmed into some other setting by our culture, would take that pattern as the default on which to operate. Another, equivalent definition is that it is the pattern which would emerge if civilisation and its institutions collapsed tomorrow, without any catastrophe, and humans had to "find themselves" anew.

In the simplest terms - what pattern of mating behaviour is most natural to humans?

Second, this isn't a factual question in the sense of "Please Google this and give me the answer"; I am perfectly capable of doing that on my own. Instead, I want your views, at the moment, before you've done any Googling. I want to know your own "theory", or "folk psychology", of human mating behaviour; I want to know what you think is the nature, in the mating game, of human men and women.

I want sex-specific answers. That is, I want to know what pattern you think the nature of men and women falls into. If it's the same, then please specify that. If it's different, then please describe the patterns for each, and so on.

(Note that I do not include homosexuals in this discussion - only men and women. The topic of homosexuality complicates the discussion somewhat, and right now I don't want that.)

There are a few patterns I'd like to lay on the table, so that you have an idea of what exactly I mean by "pattern of mating behaviour".

There are three things I consider important in defining this pattern:
1) Number of (official) simultaneous partners: how many "recognised" or "legitimate" partners the person has at one time.
2) Deviancy: how much the person deviates from the "official" status quo, usually by mating outside the pool of "official" partners.
3) Stability: how long an "official" mating relationship lasts or how difficult it is to get out of it; this also describes the element of uncertainty inherent in that relation.

I hope an example will make this clearer. A man who is "traditionally monogamous" is one who marries only a single wife, never cheats on her, and stays married until death parts him from his wife. This applies mutatis mutandis for a "traditional woman".

Another example can be the archetypical "loose woman"; she either has multiple partners at once, without there being any "official" relationship, so the questions of deviancy and stability do not arise, or she is serially monogamous in quick succession and ends a relationship by cheating on her previous partner, which means that she has, at one time, only a single "official partner" (married or unmarried is irrelevant, it's the reality on the ground that counts), the deviancy is very high, and stability is low.

For the first parameter, the options are:
1) Monogamy
2) Polygamy
3) Undefined (there is no structure to the relation, it's a free-for-all)
4) Other (your own)

For the second, they are:
1) None
2) Low
3) Medium
4) High
5) Other (some profile which you think is more descriptive)

For the third, they are roughly the same.

So again: by these measures, what is the "default" pattern of the mating behaviour of human men and women?

[Heraclitus]

I would say that the default pattern depends on how harsh the ancestral enivironment was.


If you had humans well suited for surival you would see a greater shift towards less men reproducing since the women need little investment from the men in themselves or their offspring to survive. This is a situation where a superior male's genes benefit you more than anything the average male's investment into your children could.


If or where the climate was less ideal or the predators (or other packs of humans!) where more dangerus we would see more pair bonding and nominal monogamy with just occasional opportunistic mating of the femalese with the alpha male. Males wouldn't mind oportunisitc mating, but unless their status was much higher than the cuckolded male he would most certanly expect unpleasant consequences, like a rock hitting the back of your head and causing your biological children to die violently or malnurished.



My answer is that humans lean towards soft polygamy. I also think we can't just wish away the effect of agriculture. Its been with us for millenia, and I've read an interesting peice that claims that larger populations of the past 10,000 have accelerated evolution. This may be a good explanation for the relativley rapid global drop of human cranial capacity or perhaps the rapid expansion of the genes for light skin in the Northern Hemisphere of the planet wich have become very visible marks of ancestral origins for nearly half of humanity. (I just used these two events as an analogy of major changes that some scientist claim happened only in the last 10,000 years). Perhaps agriculture has had a noticeable effect, especially on those whose acestors have lived as farmers but avoided the genetic death traps of cities for thousands of years. This could mean anything. But I would say that even in a patriarchal society if you had just enough land to keep just one wife and no maid on the side your sons probably didn't have enough land to survive and migrated elsewhere.

I would say agriculture has perhaps leaned us [average humans with farmer ancestors] towards soft polygamy where 20-40% of the males got acces to 90% of reproductive sex. This all off course depends on ingroup competiton being relativley low. Any agricultural society that needs plenty of men who are invested to keep itself safe will not go down this road. This is why mostly isolated non-warior societies adopted maternal inheritance and low paternal investment.

[Heraclitus]

ancestral scenario A:

1) Monogamy
2) Low to Medium
3) High (the relationship existed and sexual contact probably condinued even when cheating had happened)

Some sort of commitment for a 12+ period untill the child was an adult. Considering the average lifespan was ~40 years I would say at least two thirds of fruitfull relationships lasted "a lifetime" regardless of cultural baggage.


ancestral scenario B:

1)Polygamy or undefined
2)High to Very High
3)Low

Women raise the children and are capable of ensuring their surival. The relationship lasts as long as sexual enfatuation and affinity (but not responsiblity) for children carry it. I am sure some long term relationships exist but for the most part women get to have children with several different males and the vast majority of males only have infrequent short term affairs.



I'm afraid my opinion may seem cliche. Scenario A sounds like a Hollywood version of the 1950's and scenario B sounds like the under 25 section of Slovenians that bother to breed.


I think the global mix today is probably 20%A and 60%B with the rest falling into other categories. I would also say that on average women are more in B than A since the overall tactic of survival changes only slightly, while the male's entire skill set needs to be changed to swap strategies.

[Maniac]

This may be a good explanation for the relativley rapid global drop of human cranial capacity

Where did you hear that? I remember reading somewhere that there is indeed an increased speed of evolution since the rise of agriculture, but that it is mostly/all increased resistance against all kinds of new diseases born from our close proximity to domesticated animals.

[Heraclitus]

Where did you hear that? I remember reading somewhere that there is indeed an increased speed of evolution since the rise of agriculture, but that it is mostly/all increased resistance against all kinds of new diseases born from our close proximity to domesticated animals.

Yes indeed, biochemical selection has been rapid but for some reason people don't consider that "real" change (just look at the creationists blind spot on antibiotics and the imaginary line between micro and macro evolution), I wanted a different example.


I specifically wrote that I only picked two examples of well known genotypical changes of humanity which have taken place rapidly in the last 10,000 years just to ilustrate they exist not to nesecarily imply causation. That's why I said may. I will admit however the idea seems plausible to me especially since the domestic dogs brain is 30% smaller than a wolf's brain. It sure feels like we humans have domesticated ourselves.

[Jon Miller]

Average lifespan does not mean that people were old at 40. It means that due to war/disease/etc many people died young.

Many others lived to 60+.

JM

[Maniac]

I'm not wondering about the causation - I'm wondering where you read that brain size has decreased in the last 10000 years. Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, states that brain size increased in the last 100000 years. It doesn't mention a decrease in the last 10000 years.

[Ben Kenobi]

Average lifespan does not mean that people were old at 40. It means that due to war/disease/etc many people died young.

All it means is that infant mortality was high. Average age is a profoundly misleading statistic.

[rah]

All it means is that infant mortality was high. Average age is a profoundly misleading statistic.

Hmmm since average age is (the sum of all ages)/number of people. It's quite specific and not misleading at all. Maybe you meant a different term.

[onodera]

Median age of death would probably be a better one.

[MRT144]

No no no, we need distribution graphs!

[Heraclitus]

Average lifespan does not mean that people were old at 40. It means that due to war/disease/etc many people died young.

Many others lived to 60+.

JM

I never said otherwise.


It would be cool if someone responded to the OP, but if I'm the only attraction this dying forum has I can live with that too.

[Dry]

Ok, without google-ing, thus.

I would go for the chimpanzee tribe pattern that is consistent with some human patterns as the mafia, feudal Europe or street gangs.

- One alpha male, mafia boss, lord or leader-of-the-pack, having potential access to all the females of the tribe/pack/family. Practically, he might not mate with all of them, but because of his position, he may freely chose inside the whole pack which and how many he wants.
- Unlike lions with only one male allowed to mate, the ape alpha male would associate with other, lesser males, allowing the tribe, family to compete and rival with other tribes, families. Those other males, in the case of chimps, may only mate when the alpha male is far enough. In the case of humans, I think it would be more feudal or streetgang-like: they have access to 'the rest' of the females, and probably in a more subtle way, where mutual attraction (seems to be the case for chimps) or the hierarchical position of the lesser male inside the tribe are playing a role (not the case for chimps).
- For females, the strategy would be to chose between trying to seduce the alpha-male and thus be one partner among others of the most powerful male, or being the special one(s) of a lesser male. Lesser males high in the tribal hierarchy might also have more than one female.

This seems coherent to me, with human history of Kings and captains, mafia bosses and lieutenants.

So to answer your question:
- Alpha males:
1)Polygamy. Probably a favorite or two.
2) High
3) There will be a very few (one?) official female mates, mother of the children of the alpha male. This female(s) would be very absolute exclusive, to guarantee paternity: high stability for this one. Other females, without offspring might be very exchangeable, maybe given (back) to lesser males.

- Other males:
1) Monogamy.
2) Low deviation, depending on power position, maybe to simulate a close-to alpha male status.
3) High

In case of civilization collapse, I think this pattern will emerge. It is coherent with what we can discern in society today, it is coherent with happened more clearly in history on civilization collapses and it is coherent enough with chimpanzee organization.

My 2 cents, out-of-my-ass opinion.

[Heraclitus]

Your writing on the matter is much better than mine. I must say I endorse your view.

[C0ckney]

What is the default pattern of human mating behaviour?

missionary, but some of us prefer to spice it up a bit.