AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 57:94–118 (2013)
Evolution and Human Sexuality
Peter B. Gray*
Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003
KEY WORDS evolution; sexual behavior; sexual function; sexual selection; hominin;
Homo; life course; life history; genetics; neuroendocrine; polygyny
ABSTRACT The aim of this review is to put core fea-
tures of human sexuality in an evolutionary light.
Toward that end, I address five topics concerning the
evolution of human sexuality. First, I address theoretical
foundations, including recent critiques and develop-
ments. While much traces back to Darwin and his view
of sexual selection, more recent work helps refine the
theoretical bases to sex differences and life history allo-
cations to mating effort. Second, I consider central mod-
els attempting to specify the phylogenetic details
regarding how hominin sexuality might have changed,
with most of those models honing in on transitions from
a possible chimpanzee-like ancestor to the slightly polyg-
ynous and long-term bonded sociosexual partnerships
observed among most recently studied hunter-gatherers.
Third, I address recent genetic and physiological data
contributing to a refined understanding of human sex-
The aim of this review is to put core features of
human sexuality in an integrative, evolutionary light.
Given the central importance of sexuality to the evolu-
tionary imperative—reproductive success—there is
strong theoretical impetus for understanding how evo-
lution has shaped human sexuality in the past, and for
how the influence of past selective forces continue to
manifest in the present. For biological anthropologists,
interdisciplinary social and biomedical scientists, and
even wider audiences, questions about human sexual-
ity can be among the most compelling and meaningful,
another reason to try informing answers to fundamen-
tal questions of human sexuality with the most
scientifically supported and current views. An under-
standing of human sexuality is central to topics as diverse
as predicting the dynamics of a sexually transmitted infec-
tion (STI) outbreak to the reasons why people pour so
much of their time and resources into mating effort.
Human sexuality, as much as any other topical focus
within biological anthropology, warrants ongoing evolu-
tionary scrutiny.
For several reasons, this is arguably an opportune
time for providing a current overview of the evolution of
human sexuality. For one, many of the foundational the-
oretical and empirical touchstones in biological anthro-
pology that focus on the evolution of human sexuality
are dated. Darwin’s (1871) seminal contributions con-
tinue to shape our thinking regarding sexual selection,
sex differences, and evolutionary models of human mat-
ing. So too do important contributions from the 1970s
and 1980s such as Symons (1979) Evolution of Human
Sexuality and Hrdy’s (1981) The Woman that Never
Evolved. Of more recent and prominent works focused
on the evolution of human sexuality, however, many
draw heavily from evolutionary psychology, such as
Ó 2013 WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.
uality. As examples, the availability of rapidly increasing
genomic information aids comparative approaches to dis-
cern signals of selection in sexuality-related phenotypes,
and neuroendocrine studies of human responses to sex-
ual stimuli provide insight into homologous and derived
mechanisms. Fourth, I consider some of the most recent,
large, and rigorous studies of human sexuality. These
provide insights into sexual behavior across other
national samples and on the Internet. Fifth, I discuss
the relevance of a life course perspective to understand-
ing the evolution of human sexuality. Most research on
the evolution of human sexuality focuses on young
adults. Yet humans are sexual beings from gestation to
death, albeit in different ways across the life course, and
in ways that can be theoretically couched within life his-
tory theory. Am J Phys Anthropol 57:94–118,
2013. VC 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
David Buss’ (2003) The Evolution of Desire. The field
can benefit from a current overview of the evolution of
human sexuality that integrates many of the disparate
strands of work and that helps orient ongoing scholar-
ship. If the field does not do this, others will fill that
gap, leaving open the potential for best-selling but theo-
retically and empirically distorted works such as Ryan
and Jetha’s (2010) Sex at Dawn to shape how people
think human sexuality evolved.
A second reason for a review is new theoretical and
empirical work on the evolution of human sexuality. The
theoretical foundations to sex differences in mating
effort, for example, can also reflect demographic factors
that had been less appreciated in previous theoretical
formulations. New data from neuroimaging, hormonal
studies, and genetics and genomics contribute to an
enriched understanding of the mechanisms of human
sexual behavior. The availability of more recent sex sur-
vey data drawing upon large, international, and even
Internet-based content helps provide new insights into
the patterning of human mating and interest in sexual
stimuli. How these new lines of evidence fit with other
lines of evidence and evolutionary theory is worthy of
investigation. New theory and data could potentially
transform, or slightly modify, or even affirm earlier per-
spectives regarding the evolutionary foundations of
*Correspondence to: Peter B. Gray; Department of Anthropology,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455003,
Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003. E-mail: peter.gray@unlv.edu
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22394
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
human sexuality. As the lead author of a (2013) book—
Evolution and Human Sexual Behavior—that was
designed to be integrative, accessible, and current, I
bring to this review insights from that work; a major
reason why I coauthored that book was to fill a per-
ceived need for a resource that pulled together all of
these strands under one cover for teaching and wider
scholarly purposes.
In the following review, I address five topics concern-
ing the evolution of human sexuality. These are theoreti-
cal foundations, models of hominin sexuality, recent
genetic and physiological data, recent large and rigorous
studies of human sexual behavior, and the relevance of a
life course perspective to human sexuality. These topics
do not exhaust the evolutionary-informed scope of
human sexuality. However, these are areas in which
there have been updated theoretical contributions and
arguably considerable empirical advances, making this a
good time to focus on them. The present review can also
serve as a touchstone to continued interdisciplinary
debates concerning evolution and human sexuality. In
the course of this review, I also highlight hot areas for
scholarly focus; to forecast two examples, the genetic
basis to hominin shifts in sexuality remains poorly speci-
fied, and juvenile sexuality has been understudied rela-
tive to that of young nulliparous adults.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
The classics: Darwin, Bateman, Trivers, and
Clutton-Brock and Parker
Like so many aspects of evolutionary theory, we begin
the discussion of the evolutionary foundations of human
sexuality with Charles Darwin. His (1871) The Descent
of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex advanced the
concept of sexual selection, along with emphases on
intrasexual (competition within members of the same
sex) and intersexual selection (competition and coordina-
tion between the sexes). To account for traits such as the
peacock’s train, Darwin suggested that even if a trait
might have apparent survival costs, it could still be
favored by selection if it enhanced mating success. Dar-
win catalogued many examples, and emphasized roles of
male–male competition and female choice as the proc-
esses of sexual selection giving rise to many differences
between the sexes (or sexual dimorphisms), such as the
large antlers of many male deer.
Angus Bateman (1948) conducted classic experiments
with captive fruit flies. He ran a number of trials in
which he mixed multiple females and males together in
glass jars to determine patterns of mating and reproduc-
tive success. He found that males had higher variance in
reproductive success than females. He also found that
the number of mates appeared to mediate sex differences
in reproductive output. For trials 5 and 6 in his experi-
ments, females had similar reproductive success whether
they had mated with one, two, or three males, whereas
males had more offspring the more mates they had. Tri-
als 1–4 also showed, however, that females appeared to
have higher reproductive output if mating with two
males, although that finding garnered less attention.
Overall, Bateman’s observations were consistent with
the idea that the ultimate constraint on female repro-
ductive success tends to be access to sufficient resources
like food, whereas for males the ultimate constraint on
95
reproductive success tends to be access to reproductive
females. Bateman suggested the sex differences in repro-
ductive constraint originated with sex differences in
gamete size, with females having the larger, more sessile
gametes, and males more mobile and smaller gametes.
Robert Trivers (1972) suggested that relative parental
investment was a more meaningful factor than gamete
size in accounting for sex differences in reproductive
constraint. If females provide more parental investment
than males, as during gestation and lactation among
placental mammals, then females will be the reproduc-
tively limiting sex. Accordingly, females will be careful
to exert choice, and males to compete among themselves
for access to females. In sex role reversal species, by con-
trast, males providing more parental care can become
the choosier sex over whom females compete. Among
jacanas and phalaropes, for example, males provide
more parental care, and females are larger and more col-
orful (see, e.g., Reynolds, 1987).
However, Clutton-Brock and Parker (1991) pointed out
exceptions to Trivers’ framework such as mouth-
brooding frogs, in which males might provide more
parental care than females, and yet females were none-
theless the reproductively limiting sex. They also
pointed out the difficulties of measuring relative paren-
tal investment. Clutton-Brock and Parker (1991) thus
advocated for basing sex differences with respect to
potential reproductive rates: if females have slower
reproductive rates than males within a species, then
females will exert more choice, and males exhibit more
intrasexual competition. Considerable bodies of empiri-
cal work on nonhuman animals (Andersson, 1994) and
humans (Geary, 2010) lend support to general expecta-
tions of sexual selection theory. As an example, across
mammals, male traits that seem to function to enhance
intrasexual competition are more common than are such
female traits, consistent with theoretical arguments that
females tend to be the reproductive limiting sex over
which males compete.
Challenges to the classics and greater
appreciation for demographic influences
These frameworks have been subject to critique, with
most debate centering on the methods and interpreta-
tion of Bateman’s fruit fly experiments. Gowaty et al.,
(2012) critiqued Bateman’s methods on statistical
grounds, stating that assumptions of the statistical tests
used were not met; she also conducted an attempt at
replicating his findings, but did not present the data (for
related statistical reasons) to determine whether or not
she found support for his work. In review of several
recent human studies, Brown et al. (2009) found that,
consistent with Bateman’s principle (that males will
have higher variance in reproductive success than
females in species where males exhibit greater mating
competition), human males overall did have greater var-
iance in reproductive success than females. However,
Brown et al. (2009) also noted that this sex difference
was observed in polygynous but not monogamous soci-
eties. An evolutionary-guided look at the specific cases
also suggests that among hunter-gatherer societies (Aka,
!Kung, Ache, Hadza), most of which have low rates of
polygyny, males tend to have higher reproductive suc-
cess than females. In a different review of human stud-
ies, which had partial overlap with Brown et al. in the
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
96 P.B. GRAY
societies sampled, Betzig (2012) also found that males
had higher variance in reproductive success than
females. Betzig also showed that male reproductive skew
was most pronounced in socially stratified intensive agri-
cultural societies such as the Inka.
Hanna Kokko and colleagues have also deepened our
theoretical understanding of sexuality. She notes that
actual, not potential, reproductive rates are what mat-
ters. That simple observation reminds us to consider the
availability of potential mates (just because males may
gain higher reproductive success than females if having
more mates does not guarantee that mates are avail-
able). Males have lower parental certainty than females,
and fewer males tend to reproduce than females, factors
that result in males gaining fewer benefits and higher
costs to parental care than females (Kokko and Jenn-
ions, 2003, 2008a). These processes may account for the
origins of as well as positive reinforcement of sex differ-
ences in mating and parenting effort. Additionally, how-
ever, demographic factors play an important role in
specifying the gradient of sexual selection (Kokko and
Jennions, 2008b). As an example, if males are subject to
greater mortality as a result of mating competition, then
that lightens to some degree the mating competition the
fewer, surviving males face.
Such critiques have not overturned fundamental prin-
ciples of sexual selection. Kokko’s work refines our theo-
rizing (e.g., to push from sexual selection to parenting
rather than from parenting to sexual selection), but ulti-
mately anticipates sex differences in mating and paren-
tal care observed in the natural world. Additionally,
these kinds of critiques and extensions point to the
importance of socioecological context and demography in
accounting for species and population differences in sex-
ual selection pressures. In populations with more heav-
ily biased sex ratios toward females, we might expect
more female–female competition and enhanced male
choice (e.g., Guttentag and Secord, 1983). Research
shows that in many primate species, including humans,
female reproductive success is highly attuned to varia-
tion in energetic factors such as food availability. Indeed,
related theoretical models help situate socioecological
and demographic considerations: Emlen and Oring
(1977) pointed to the importance of resource distribu-
tions in accounting for variable mating dynamics, and
Mitani et al. (1996) suggested that the operational sex
ratio (ratio of breeding males:females) better represented
the gradient of sexual selection than the actual adult
sex ratio. All said, current sexual selection theory aims
to account for the evolutionary past that shaped over-
arching patterns of sexual selection among species
(including humans), as well as inform an understanding
of population variation in sexual selection pressures.
Female promiscuity, mate choice, and
female–female competition
Part of the challenge to principles of sexual selection
theory stems from data on female mating patterns.
While Darwin and other theoreticians highlighted the
relevance of female choice, how that played out in the
natural world expanded theoretical imaginations. The
advent of genetically based paternity testing among
many avian field studies revealed that a sizable and
variable fraction of offspring were sired by individuals
other than a social partner (Birkhead, 2000). Even
though over 90% of avian species tend to be socially
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
monogamous (lekking species such as peacocks and tur-
keys among those exceptions), it became clear that social
and sexual relationships were not identical. These obser-
vations may have helped raise more questions about the
traits females sought in a prospective mate, including
how this could give rise to mating with multiple part-
ners (Clutton-Brock and McAuliffe, 2009; Geary, 2010).
Across primates, current theorizing suggests female
mate choice is oriented toward protection of herself and
her offspring. Protection may be useful against would-be
predators, but also against would-be harmful males. In
species in which females mate with multiple males, such
as chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys, Hrdy (1981) has
suggested this represents paternity confusion, designed
to make all males be kinder toward the female and her
offspring. For some species with long-term sociosexual
bonds and paternal care, including primarily small-
bodied South American owl monkeys, tamarins, and
marmosets, females may benefit from male support but
evidence is lacking that females use cues of male invest-
ment (see Dixson, 2012). Females of various species may
also seek to mate with males providing complementary
(e.g., in MHC system) or “good” (e.g., beneficial alleles
against local infectious disease ecology) genes. Since few
primate species have males that provide food resources
(some callitrichid monkeys of South America exceptions)
or have a sexual division of labor, there are no strong
nonhuman primate comparisons of females choosing
males based on economic (e.g., food acquisition and pro-
visioning) criteria.
Although Darwin emphasized female choice and male–
male competition, it is recognized that female–female
competition and male choice occur (Low, 2000; Geary,
2010; Stockley and Bro-Jorgensen, 2011). Given that
female reproductive success is often closely tied to
resources such as food, models of female–female competi-
tion, and cooperation feature reproductively relevant
resources such as ripe fruits among chimpanzees or
resource-bearing males in human agricultural societies.
Studies of nonhuman primates reveal that higher-
ranking female social primates may benefit by having
more surviving offspring and offspring whose reproduc-
tive careers are accelerated; this could be due to prefer-
ential food access often available to higher-ranking
females (reviewed in Pusey, 2012). At the same time,
potential female rank-related variance in female repro-
ductive success should not be oversold; lower-ranking
females may engage in alternative foraging strategies,
resulting in no net differences in reproductive success,
as is also frequently found in primate field studies
(Pusey, 2012). In humans, much of the female–female
competition literature has highlighted competition over
acquiring and maintaining desirable mates (Campbell,
1999; Archer and Coyne, 2005; Geary, 2010). Further,
reproductive competition can lead to attempts to channel
limited resources toward one’s own rather than another
women’s children, as observed with cowife competition
(Jankowiak et al., 2005). As for male choice, even in
multimale, multifemale species such as chimpanzees or
rhesus monkeys, males may still attempt to channel
their mating effort toward more desirable females, such
as maximally fertile females; less fertile and experienced
adolescent females may be relatively shunned as mates,
for example (Manson, 2011; Muller et al., 2006). For
human resource intensive strategies, males may seek to
allocate their limited mating effort toward more desira-
ble mates; that can include preferences for younger
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
females of high reproductive value, with whom a man
might have multiple children in a long-standing socio-
sexual relationship, as well as other aspects of attrac-
tiveness indicative of health and relationship
compatibility.
Sexual conflict
One theme of the evolution of mating strategies is
that female and male strategies variably conflict (Chap-
man et al., 2003). That degree of conflict may be mini-
mized in species and contexts in which females and
males form long-term reproductive relationships. If
females and males depend upon each other to maximize
their reproductive success, then they may exhibit less
competition over allocation of resources to offspring or
over competition with other possible mates. Conversely,
when females and males have markedly different mating
strategies, then conflicts between female and male prior-
ities may be more likely. In this vein, an extreme exam-
ple of sexual conflict is sexually selected infanticide, as
observed in several species of one-male polygynous
groups such as gorillas and langur monkeys (Hausfater
and Hrdy, 1984; Van Schaik and Janson, 2000). A male
with a limited social tenure in a polygynous group may
seek to kill nursing infants of a mother to accelerate her
return to fecundity and the possibility of having off-
spring with her; for her part, a female with an infant
may actively attempt to avoid infanticide by a new male,
but if unsuccessful may mate with the new, infanticidal
male.
Sexual conflicts of interest impact other aspects of sex-
ual selection. Male sexual coercion can constrain female
choice (Smuts, 1992; Muller and Wrangham, 2009).
Whereas a female might seek to mate with a given male,
a different male may benefit by preventing her exercis-
ing choice. The empirical data concerning nonhuman
primate and human coercion have accumulated, reveal-
ing that coercive behavior is more common among male
chimpanzees than bonobos, for example. Several phylo-
genetic and adaptive considerations may also be relevant
to the context of human sexual coercion. Terrestrial pri-
mates may be more vulnerable to sexual coercion than
arboreal primates or birds; the larger body sizes of many
terrestrial primates may have been favored in contexts
of male–male contest competition (i.e., fighting), but can
incidentally or adaptively be used for coercive behavior
of females too. In this vein, it has been noted that female
assessments of human male secondary sexual character-
istics such as muscle mass or voice pitch tend to favor
less extreme phenotypes than are favored by males
(Yang et al., 2005; Puts, 2010). These data are consistent
with sexual conflicts of interest: males might favor more
extremes of muscularity in contexts of male–male com-
petition, but females prefer less extremes because male
musculature could also be used for coercion. In this vein,
it can be noted that whereas Miller (2000) has empha-
sized the relevance of ancestral female choice as the
driver of human behavioral evolution, Puts (2010) con-
tends that experimental and observational data are
more compatible with male–male competition serving as
the driver of male characteristics such as upper body
musculature (males have approximately 60% more upper
body lean muscle mass: Lassek and Gaulin, 2009), deep-
ened voices, facial hair, and same-sex physical aggres-
sion. It could be that theoretical models of female choice
borrowed from the avian world, where less sexual
97
coercion occurs in part because animals can often fly
away from would-be coercive efforts, helped lead to an
underappreciation of the importance of sexual coercion
to the evolution of human sexuality.
Sperm competition and cryptic female choice
One of the few areas of sexual science that Darwin
apparently did not anticipate was postcopulatory selec-
tion. Whereas Darwin’s discussion of sexual selection
concerned processes culminating in mating, we now rec-
ognize that semen within a female’s reproductive tract
continue a dynamic process potentially leading to fertil-
ization. Since Parker’s (1970) seminal studies on insects,
theory and empirical research on sperm competition and
cryptic female choice has progressed rapidly. From the
standpoint of cryptic female choice, the idea is that a
female’s anatomy and physiology can impact which
sperm among those introduced into her reproductive
tract successfully fertilizes her egg (Eberhard, 1996).
From the standpoint of sperm competition, if a female
mates with multiple males, then the sperm of those
males may compete within her reproductive tract to fer-
tilize her egg (Harcourt et al., 1981). Processes of cryptic
female choice and/or sperm competition can be disen-
tangled from those of precopulatory choice and competi-
tion; in practice, some primate species such as wooly
monkeys have extreme sperm competition and minimal
contest competition (Strier, 1990), whereas others such
as chimpanzees exhibit high degrees of both male–male
contest and sperm competition (Dixson, 2012). As we
shall see, the physiological and genetic evidence regard-
ing human cryptic female choice and/or sperm competi-
tion point toward low sperm competition pressures
among our recent ancestors (Dixson, 2009).
Summary
While theoretical foundations underlying the evolution
of human sexuality trace to Darwin, more recent schol-
ars such as Bateman, Trivers, Clutton-Brock and Parker,
and Kokko have all elaborated on the basis of sex differ-
ences in mating and parenting effort. Contrary to some
claims, the discovery of considerable female promiscuity
does not undermine the accuracy or relevance of contem-
porary evolutionary theory. Demographic and socioeco-
logical variation are also inherently important. While
male–male competition and female choice have gar-
nered, for good reason, primary attention, theoretical
and empirical work also focuses on female–female com-
petition and male choice. Sexual conflict is of variable
magnitude, but also of importance to mating systems.
Competition can occur after copulation, giving rise to
sperm competition and cryptic female choice.
EVOLUTIONARY SCENARIOS
In speculating on the evolutionary origins of human
sexual behavior, Charles Darwin noted, in Sexual Selec-
tion, and the Descent of Man, “Humans would probably
have lived, as already stated, as polygamists or tempo-
rarily as monogamists. Their intercourse, judging from
analogy, would not then have been promiscuous. They
would, no doubt, have defended their females to the best
of their power from enemies of all kinds, and would
probably have hunted for their subsistence, as well as
for that of their offspring. The most powerful and able
males would have succeeded best in the struggle for life
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
98 P.B. GRAY
and in obtaining attractive females.” Darwin’s observa-
tions are consistent with many aspects of contemporary
theorizing concerning the evolution of male mating
strategies; they leave out female strategies, which can
be better elaborated, as we shall see below.
In this section, I discuss evolutionary scenarios con-
cerning hominin sexual behavior. Phylogenetic insights
are drawn from great ape comparisons, specifics of the
hominin fossil and archaeological record, and insights
into recently studied human hunter-gatherer societies,
with overarching theoretical guidance provided by sex-
ual selection theory and socioecological principles. These
scenarios will also later be connected with genetic and
physiological data, contemporary international studies of
human sexual behavior, and insights drawn from a life
course perspective on human sexuality. While there is
ongoing debate about specific evolutionary models of
hominin sexuality, not surprisingly in light of the limita-
tions of available data, it is also worth underscoring that
the models are consistent with these latter bodies of evi-
dence, an indication that there is a coherent and syn-
thetic science here.
Early hominin and australopithecine sexuality
Current genetic and fossil evidence suggests that the
closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees and
bonobos (Goodman et al., 1998). Genetic data suggest
that chimpanzees and bonobos themselves had a last
common ancestor in Africa about 1 million years ago
(Prufer et al., 2012). Humans had a last common ances-
tor with chimpanzees and bonobos in Africa around 6
million years ago. What was that ancestor like, and
what can we infer about its sexual behavior? As we shall
see, there are clues to help answer these questions, but
there are also uncertainties.
The earliest putative hominin fossils indicate body
sizes comparable to today’s chimpanzees and bonobos
(Senut et al. 2001; Brunet et al., 2005; Lovejoy, 2009).
The finds are all in Africa. The locomotor anatomy sug-
gests the earliest hominins, as well as later gracile and
robust australopithecines, were semiterrestrial bipeds.
They retained both adaptations for spending time mov-
ing in trees (e.g., long finger bones, relatively long arms,
and mobile shoulder joint) and for moving bipedally.
Most models suggest they moved bipedally on the
ground (Lieberman, 2011), although it has also been sug-
gested that bipedalism emerged on tree branches during
foraging (Crompton et al., 2008). The environmental
reconstructions of early and later pre-Homo hominins
suggest they inhabited wooded environments. A few
early hominins, such as a find at Chad dated to approxi-
mately 7 million years ago, appeared to have slightly
larger canine teeth (compared with modern humans, but
less than great apes), though generally among hominins
canine teeth are reduced in size compared with extant
and presumably ancestral great apes. The shift toward
greater bipedalism may have relaxed selection on reten-
tion of larger canine teeth, particularly among males, for
use in male–male contest competition; fighting may have
relied, instead, on punching, grappling, or use of
weapons.
If early hominins were similar to extant great apes,
these early hominins likely mated primarily diurnally
(see Mitani et al., 2012). Among contemporary chimpan-
zees, most matings in the wild occur early morning or
late afternoon when chimpanzee groups are more fused
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
compared with other times across the day when they
may be more fissioned (Martin Muller, personal commu-
nication). Most sexual behavior was likely in a type of
ventral-dorsal position (e.g., males from behind),
although bonobos and orangutans are recognized to use
a wider array of sexual positions, especially compared
with other primates and mammals (Dixson, 2012). Based
on great ape comparisons, most matings likely took place
on the ground. If early hominin sexuality resembled that
of chimpanzees and bonobos, then it would have entailed
mating in multimale, multifemale groups. Further, early
hominin females might have mated with many males,
while also showing preferential mating access to a domi-
nant male around the time she was most fertile.
Females might have mated during parts of their preg-
nancy, but exhibited profound reductions in sexual
behavior when in a state of postpartum lactational
amenorrhea (i.e., not cycling, but heavily lactating and
caring for an infant). Males may have competed heavily
through alliance formation and contest competition with
other males for social rank, in turn translating higher
rank into greater mating success. At this time, it is diffi-
cult to discern whether chimpanzees, some other ape
such as gorilla, or no extant ape can serve as a strong
referential model for early hominin sexuality. Reasons
for the lack of clarity include questions whether the mul-
timale, multifemale mating system of chimpanzees and
bonobos (and related traits such as exaggerated sexual
swellings and heightened evidence of sperm competition)
is derived or shared with a common ancestor; over
reconstructions of the degree of body size sexual dimor-
phism among early hominins and australopithecines;
and a dearth of relevant genetic analyses that might be
able to address the evolutionary polarity of potential
shifts in hominin sexuality.
Most researchers suggest that australopithecines were
more polygynous than members of the genus Homo
(McHenry, 1994). Debate continues on the number of
gracile australopithecines and their phylogenetic rela-
tionship to earlier hominins and later members of Homo
(Wood and Lonergan, 2008). However, most reconstruc-
tions of the postcranial remains of gracile australopithe-
cines suggest they exhibited greater degrees of body size
sexual dimorphism compared with modern humans and
most other members of Homo, and possibly even more
dimorphism compared with chimpanzees and bonobos
(see Plavcan, 2012). The available postcranial remains
are scanty, are scattered across time and locations, and
entail inferences regarding sex in the first place. Such
considerations have led other researchers to question
whether australopithecine body size dimorphism esti-
mates were exaggerated. It has been suggested the Aust.
africanus might have been less dimorphic than Aust.
afarensis (Harmon, 2009). It has also been suggested by
Reno et al. (2003) that gracile forms were only mildly
dimorphic—comparable with modern humans. If gracile
australopithecines were highly dimorphic, the theoreti-
cal inference would suggest they mated in one-male pol-
ygynous groups, perhaps somewhat similarly to gorillas
(Geary and Flinn, 2001). If they were only mildly dimor-
phic, that suggests, instead, they were mildly polygy-
nous, and perhaps mating in somewhat human-like
ways from this earlier time. The robust australopithe-
cines, which most scholars suggest became evolutionary
side branches rather than serving as human ancestors,
appeared to be highly sexually dimorphic in body size.
Aust. robustus, from southern Africa, may have had
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
Fig. 1. Socioecological model of hominin sexuality. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
pronounced sex differences in reproductive maturation,
consistent with one-male polygyny (Lockwood et al.,
2007), and appeared to exhibit sexually dimorphic cra-
niofacial anatomy, also consistent with some degree of
polygyny (Lockwood, 1999). Attempts to draw additional
inferences concerning hominin sexuality have used the
study of digit ratios (Nelson et al., 2011) and other
aspects of craniofacial dimorphism (Schaefer et al.,
2004), but without clear inferences. It can also be noted
that the penis bone (baculum) and homologous clitoral
bone were lost during hominin evolution, a difference
consistent with evolutionary changes in our ancestors’
reproductive anatomy (Dixson, 2009).
Sexuality in the genus Homo
Most evolutionary models of sexuality in the genus
Homo suggest that grade shifts took place during early or
middle Homo evolution. The transition from a presumed
gracile australopithecine form to early Homo remains
murky in phylogenetic and archaeological detail, in part
because of a paucity of fossil material during this time
frame. Scenarios regarding body size estimates and indi-
ces of sexual dimorphism are highly contingent upon
availability of new and still-rare fossil specimens. For
example, 1990s models suggested that Homo erectus/
ergaster exhibited increases in body size, had lower
(human-like) body size sexual dimorphism, and human-
like limb proportions, with much of that inspiration drawn
from the Nariokotome boy (KNM-WT-15000) (Walker and
Leakey, 1993). More recently, a 1.5-Ma pelvis from Gona
has been used to suggest that some females at that time
were still small, and thus that body size dimorphism could
have remained high, and similar to previous scenarios of
highly dimorphic gracile australopithecines (Simpson
et al., 2008). The shift toward human-like body propor-
tions (e.g., relatively shorter arms), along with environ-
mental reconstructions, suggests that Homo inhabited a
wider array of environments than its woodlands-bound
predecessors, and had also become a committed biped (giv-
ing up perhaps sleeping in trees at night). Beginning
around 1.5 Ma, members of Homo began using new stone
tool traditions, marked by the Acheulian (Foley and Gam-
ble, 2009). Estimated brain sizes increased; however, the
limited availability of postcranial remains makes adjust-
ment for body size difficult, and probably thus leaves early
and mid Homo as less encephalized as later forms.
99
Additionally, dental microstructure studies suggest that
the pace of development was more apelike than human-
like (Dean et al., 2001), providing further impetus for see-
ing grade shifts in Homo as still showing considerable
change over time rather than being established quickly
with the earliest forms.
Estimates of both Neandertal and modern human body
size sexual dimorphism suggest about 15% differences in
height and weight (see Plavcan, 2012). This would sug-
gest modest degrees of male–male contest competition,
consistent with slight polygyny/mostly monogamy. If this
pattern held among the common ancestor of Neandertals
and modern humans, then presumably similar aspects of
sexual behavior held among archaic Homo/Homo heidel-
bergensis in Africa by about 600,000 years ago. Whether
similar patterns can be pushed back to earlier Homo
around 1.5 Ma then depends on the issues noted above
regarding early Homo/Homo erectus skeletal material.
A socioecological approach to hominin sexuality
To orient potential evolutionary models of sexuality in
the genus Homo, we can draw upon socioecological princi-
ples. See Figure 1 for graphical illustration of a basic soci-
oecological model. Such principles in turn begin with
Bateman’s observations and additional layers concerning
sex differences in reproductive constraint and reproduc-
tive strategy. As Wrangham (1979) noted, if females are
ultimately constrained by access to resources such as food,
then it makes sense in developing socioecological models
of primate social behavior to ask about how females will
distribute themselves in an environment with respect to
available food resources. Van Schaik (1983) suggests that
predation pressures may also serve as major selective
forces operating on female distributions. Applied to the
transition from a gracile australopithecine to early Homo,
the shift toward committed, terrestrial bipedal lifeways
might have exposed females to greater predation pres-
sures (in terrestrial compared with arboreal environ-
ments). That could favor enhanced female group sizes.
The formation of larger female group sizes could amplify
female foraging competition. That could fuel intensified
female extractive and processing foraging strategies, per-
haps including tools used for digging roots (and tools that,
incidentally, would not be regularly found in the fossil
record, although some microwear studies of stone tools are
also consistent with plant processing). If females are in
larger groups, then they become more difficult for a single
or several males to monopolize. From socioecological first
principles, males are expected to map on to the availability
of fertile females. With a larger number of males within
groups, consequences could be diminished male reproduc-
tive skew, and perhaps male–male egalitarian relation-
ships. The presence of multiple males in groups could
foster lower-ranking males to attempt to mate guard fer-
tile females, as is sometimes observed in chimpanzees, in
which males attempt to coerce females into short-term
liaisons removed from other group members. This kind of
male mate guarding in Homo could give rise to long-term
sociosexual relationships, but within multimale, multife-
male groups.
One aspect of such modeling is that evolutionary shifts
in hominin sexuality are theorized from principles
applied to other primates. This is different from empha-
sizing human-specific arguments. Another aspect of this
approach is that it sees social behavioral changes rooted
in female foraging and male mate-seeking as the
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
100 P.B. GRAY
TABLE 1. Models of the evolution of sexuality in the genus Homo

Model Female perspective Male perspective Timing and relevance

Mate guarding No benefit; constrained Aids paternity certainty Some relevance across Homo;
(Hawkes, 2004) choice may have been the original
basis of long-term Homo socio-
sexual partnerships, since in a
wider phylogenetic scope male
mate guarding is one of the
best predictors of social
monogamy (Lukas and
Clutton-Brock, 2013); female
hunter-gatherers favor specific
mates and often seek to main-
tain a bond
Hired Gun (Mesnick, Reduced predation and/or Benefit from sexual access in Some relevance across Homo;
1997) coercion by others of self exchange for offering while male partners tend to
and offspring protection be the most coercive of female
partners, those same male
partners may also deter addi-
tional coercion by other males
and have helped reduce preda-
tion upon females and their
offspring
Infanticide avoidance Reduced risk of infanticide if May benefit from sexual access Some relevance if early homi-
(van Schaik and bonded to a protective and higher offspring survival nins or Australopithecus lived
Dunbar, 1990) male in one-male groups, in which
infanticide risk tends to be
higher; little evidence of
infanticide risk by unrelated
males among hunter-
gatherers
Food-for-sex (Fisher, Benefit from food Benefit from sexual access May be part of the sex-specific
1982) resource exchange within
long-term unions and within a
sexual division of labor
Male provisioning Gain from food resources in Gain from mating access with a Relevance to recently studied
(Kaplan et al., 2000) a sexual division of labor long-term partner within a hunter-gatherers, but unlikely
sexual division of labor to be the starting point of
Homo shifts to long-term soci-
osexual bonds
Cooking hypothesis Benefit from reduced theft of Gain mating access in exchange Evidence of regular use of fire/
(Wrangham et al., cooked foods for protection cooking aligns best with
1999) archaic Homo/Homo heidel-
bergensis; evidence for hunter-
gatherer concern over food
theft is lacking; could be con-
sistent with other protective
services
Exchange of mates Expands social ties and pro- Gains expanded social ties and a Relevant to recently studied
under parental con- vides a mate, but with mate, but with some potential hunter-gatherers; unlikely to
trol (Apostolou, 2007; potential parent-offspring for parent-offspring conflict project beyond modern
Chapais, 2008) conflict humans given cognitive and
demographic constraints
underlying mate exchange

foundation, with subsequent layers of hominin economic
and social behavior building on these. For example, a
pronounced hunter-gatherer sexual division of labor is
viewed as a more recent derivative of the preceding
shifts in sexuality. Table 1 illustrates some leading mod-
els concerning the evolutionary foundations of Homo
sexuality, featuring female perspectives, male perspec-
tives, and commentary concerning the possible timing
and relevance of each (see also Quinlan, 2008).
Hunter-gatherer sexuality
As another source of insight into the evolution of
human sexuality, we can draw upon patterns observed
among recently studied hunter-gatherers (Berndt and
Berndt, 1951; Shoskak, 1981; Hewlett and Hewlett,
2010; Marlowe 2010; Walker et al., 2011). Because the
socioecology of hunter-gatherers is thought to resemble
in some respects (e.g., small group sizes, family relation-
ships) that in which earlier forms of Homo sexuality
evolved, hunter-gatherers can serve as analogies for
more distant patterns. Of course, recently studied
hunter-gatherers are not living fossils; they have differ-
ent foraging tools than more distant ancestors (e.g.,
Marlowe, 2005), among other differences. Yet observa-
tions and patterns among foragers offer insights that
otherwise are not accessible.
From recently studied hunter-gatherers, the most
common marital system is slight polygyny (Marlowe,
2005; Walker et al., 2011). That is, among foragers, most

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
societies allow polygyny, but typically only a few men
are married polygynously, with the vast majority of men
monogamously partnered. The regional exception is
among Australian aborigines, where higher rates of pol-
ygynous marriage were observed, but that may be in
part due to cultural transmission from New Guinea (see
O’Connell and James 2007). Across hunter-gatherers,
the men most likely to have two wives tend to have
higher status, achieved through hunting success or from
shamanic activities (Smith, 2004). Divorce is variably
common, especially among younger couples (Blurton
Jones et al., 2000; Winking et al., 2007). Marriages,
especially first marriages, are often arranged by older
family members, although the married partners may
have influence on whether those arrangements proceed
(Apostolou, 2007). While polyandrous mating systems
tend to be rare in mammals generally, including
humans, it is occasionally observed among hunter-
gatherers, and typically when there is a shortage of men
(Starkweather and Hames, 2012). Affairs also occur,
with love triangles (e.g., men competing over a woman)
a regular context of competition among foraging societies
such as the !Kung and Hadza (Gat, 2006).
What other aspects of hunter-gatherer sexuality stand
out? A sexual division of labor is observed, whereby
females tend to undertake subsistence activities yielding
reliable food availability and in ways compatible with
having young children (Bliege Bird, 1999; Marlowe,
2007). Males tend to undertake riskier subsistence activ-
ities, including foraging for more difficult-to-acquire but
highly relished foods such as larger game animals and
honey. Foods may be shared between partners, with a
female’s provision of reliable resources helping make
possible a male’s riskier undertakings. Resources males
acquire appear designed to serve multiple ends: partly
as provisioning family members, but with the acquisition
and sharing of large game also enhancing male status in
ways that may yield political benefits or mating opportu-
nities (Marlowe, 2010). It has also been suggested that
male resources are most useful during a “critical period”
of provisioning a partner who has a young nursling
(Marlowe, 2003).
Also among hunter-gatherers, females spend the bulk
of their reproductive years pregnant or in a state of lac-
tational amenorrhea, meaning that they are nursing but
not cycling (Short, 1976; Ellison, 2001). This latter
observation has dramatic impacts on the evolutionary
foundations of human sexuality: it is comparatively rare
for a woman to be cycling, and the true female baseline
is one of fluctuations in sexuality across reproductive
states. Among foragers, there are also few unattached
and fertile females. Individuals are familiar, and fre-
quently off-limits as potential mates because they are
close family members or circumscribed for other reasons
that may be designed to extend coalitions (e.g., wife
exchange). One of the distinguishing features of hunter-
gatherer sexuality (and among humans more generally)
compared with other primates is that sex is typically
covert. While in some other primates surreptitious mat-
ings may take place to reduce same-sex conflict or coer-
cion (e.g., baboons: Smuts 1985), this is a much greater
human concern. Ethnographic descriptions include cases
of couples having sex at night near a fire, within short
distance of children and other campmates (but the poor
light providing some cover); in other cases, a couple may
seek to have sex during the day away from camp. One
interpretation of the pattern of seeking to shield sexual
101
behavior from the eyes of others is that it may reduce
sexual jealousy and mating competition. The unusual
human mating pattern of forming long-term sociosexual
bonds within multimale, multifemale groups is vulnera-
ble to such competition. This privacy-seeking also con-
trasts with the sexual behavior of other apes, in which
group members often have abilities to witness the sexual
behavior of group-mates. Additionally, same-sex sexual
behavior has been observed among some, but not all,
hunter-gatherer societies (Hewlett and Hewlett, 2010).
Few details of forager sexuality across the life course are
available: sex play has been reported in several foraging
societies, including the !Kung, Hadza, and Aka, while
among the Aka older couples have sex less frequently
(Hewlett and Hewlett, 2010).
Summary
Evidence from other primates, the hominin fossil and
archaeological record, and studies of human hunter-
gatherers can be combined with socioecological princi-
ples to depict the evolution of hominin sexuality. There
are a range of theoretical models to draw upon in this
effort, such as models emphasizing the benefits of male
protection or care to long-term bond formation. Some
reconstructions of early hominin sexuality draw upon
comparisons with chimpanzees because they and bono-
bos are our closest living relatives and the body sizes of
early hominins are chimpanzee-sized. However, debate
continues whether features of the multimale, multife-
male mating system of chimpanzees are derived or
shared with an early hominin. Many reconstructions of
gracile australopithecine sexuality feature pronounced
body size sexual dimorphism, which could be consistent
with gorilla-like one-male polygyny; other reconstruc-
tions emphasize more modest dimorphism. Most scenar-
ios suggest that body size dimorphism decreased in early
or mid Homo evolution, with the inference that these
hominins experienced lower male–male contest competi-
tion and more socially monogamous long-term bonds.
The transition toward slightly polygynous/more monoga-
mous Homo may have originated with changes in female
foraging and possibly increased group sizes, attended by
male mate guarding. During later Homo, male care, in
particularly provisioning, may have arisen, reinforcing
benefits such as higher female lifetime reproductive suc-
cess and male sexual access to forming long-term bonds.
Among modern humans, older adults may have taken on
greater and evolutionarily novel roles in mate exchange.
Across the existence of long-term hominin sociosexual
bonds, male protection against harassment by other
males may have been relevant, although aspects of the
infanticide and cooking models are less supported. Key
features of human sexuality thus arose in a mosaic fash-
ion during hominin evolution, with different selective
scenarios having relevance at different times.
RECENT GENETIC, GENOMIC AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA
An explosion of recent data from genetics, genomics,
and physiology can inform an understanding of human
sexuality. These sources of data can provide tests of
evolutionary-based understandings of human sexuality.
For example, human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes
have diverged rapidly, likely in part due to species differ-
ences in mating systems (Hughes et al., 2010). Equally
important, an evolutionary perspective can help account
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
102 P.B. GRAY
for the patterning of genetic data and how proximate
mechanisms underpinning romantic and sexual behavior
are expressed. Many of the recent physiological data on
human sexuality have been generated without explicit
evolutionary theorizing and interpretation, even though
an understanding of proximate mechanisms and adapt-
ive function are complementary ways to investigate the
system (Tinbergen, 1963).
Recent genetic and genomic data
related to the evolution of
human sexuality
From the standpoint of genetics and genomics, several
approaches guide the application of new data to evolu-
tionary questions. One is a candidate gene approach, in
which tests for signatures of selection are undertaken to
determine whether a specific gene thought to be impli-
cated in some aspect of human sexuality shows evidence
of this. As an example, the vasopressin 1a receptor
(AVPR1a) has been implicated in vertebrate male spe-
cies- and individual differences in mating and paternal
behavior; one report noted that humans and bonobos
had a distinct AVPR1a compared with chimpanzees,
raising the prospect of this genetic difference serving as
a possible contributor to species differences in male
social behavior (Hammock and Young, 2005). However,
subsequent comparative genomic work has not impli-
cated selection upon this gene during hominin or homi-
nid evolution. Another approach is to study genetic
information from other forms, such as herpes or HIV, to
infer possible evolutionary-related scenarios regarding
sexually transmitted disease. Still another is to draw
comparisons of genomic sequences (or even entire
genomes rather than a single or several genes) between
humans and other species, between human populations,
or within individuals of a human population in order to
identify genetic differences that might be related to sex-
ually relevant phenotypic differences. In a related vein,
quantification of sex-specific genetic contributions to a
population can inform an understanding of mating
dynamics (e.g., specifying the relative variance in male
and female reproductive success: Heyer et al., 2012). As
an example, relatively less male genetic variation was
found among the Yoruba in Nigeria compared with a
Chinese sample, consistent with recognized differences
in marital behavior (Labuda et al., 2010).
The availability of a draft human genome in 2003, and
of the chimpanzee in 2005, has helped fuel interest in
the growing field of comparative genomics (Chimpanzee
Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005). The avail-
ability of orangutan, gorilla, and bonobo genomes now
means that the genomes of all great ape species can be
compared to discern similarities and differences, and in
turn raise questions about the genetic bases to species
differences in sexuality. The publication of draft genomes
from Neandertal and Denisova extends the comparisons
to two extinct and closely related hominins (Disotell,
2012). Given that Neandertals and Denisovans are appa-
rently sister groups, and that modern humans, apart
from a small degree of population-specific interbreeding
with them, last shared common ancestry with Neander-
tals and Denisovans around 600,000 years ago, compari-
sons with these extinct hominins can help shed light on
the phylogenetic structure of hominin sexuality. What
insights have emerged thus far in such comparisons
(O’Bleness et al., 2012)?
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Genetically based insights into the evolution of
human sexuality
One of the most rapidly evolving regions of the human
and these other hominids’ genomes involves male repro-
ductive genes (Clark and Swanson, 2005). Given that
the bottom line of evolution is reproductive success, it is
not surprising that genes involved in spermatogenesis or
semen parameters might be rapidly evolving. As an
example, the SEMG1 and SEMG2 genes, thought to aid
the coagulation of semen, appear to have undergone a
loss of function in gorillas and gibbons (which have low
sperm competition pressures), while being subject to
adaptive evolution in chimpanzees (which have high
sperm competition pressures); “Interestingly, the obser-
vation that humans are in a sense intermediate in their
rates of seminal protein evolution between chimpanzees
and gorillas parallels that of anatomical and physiologi-
cal correlates of mating systems.” (Carnahan and
Jensen-Seamen 2008: 946). However, a wider compari-
son of the ejaculate components across humans, chim-
panzees, bonobos, and gorillas found that effective
population size rather than sperm competition pressure
appeared to best explain overall species differences in
genes expressed in ejaculate (Good et al., 2013). When
related analyses compared subsets of genes involved in
different ejaculate functions, there was some evidence of
enhanced selection on genes involved in immune
responses and protease, suggesting different components
of the semen may evolve at different rates. Good et al.
(2013) also note that the genetic bases underlying spe-
cies differences in human and African ape male repro-
ductive function may rely more on gene expression than
protein differences and that gamete differences may be
more important than semen components.
Differences between human androgen receptor and
that of primates have also been noted (Mubiru et al.,
2012). Humans have more CAG repeats in the androgen
receptor promoter region than other primates although
it is not clear whether the pattern represents phyloge-
netic inertia or lineage-specific selective effects. A 2011
paper noted a deletion upstream of the human androgen
receptor after comparison with other primates including
chimpanzee (McLean et al., 2011). In vivo work suggests
that the genetic deletion results in loss of penile spines
situated on the glans penis. Further, Neandertal has the
same version as humans (Hawks, 2011), suggesting this
deletion may have occurred among a common ancestor,
possibly in association with some derived aspect of homi-
nin mating. As to other genetic insights into hominin
sexuality, Gentry et al. (1988) note that oral and genital
herpes strains have separated long ago and remained
that way, suggesting that oral sex may not have
occurred regularly among our ancestors (since those
strains of herpes would have merged rather than
remained distinct).
From a candidate gene approach, some work has
investigated potential human between- and within-
population genetic differences related to sexually rele-
vant phenotypic differences. Population differences in
dopamine receptor (DRD4) genetic polymorphisms exist,
with possible explanations advanced to account for those
differences including genetic drift, adaptive migration,
and mating behavior (Harpending and Cochran, 2002).
A U.S. study found that polymorphisms in this same
system were associated with differences in sexual prom-
iscuity in a university sample (Garcia et al., 2010).
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
Individual differences in the oxytocin system, including
the oxytocin receptor, have been observed (Prichard
et al., 2007). However, these have not been clearly linked
with sexuality related phenotypic differences. A Swedish
study of AVPR1a polymorphisms identified small differ-
ences in male partnering behavior (Walum et al., 2008).
Overall, the cases suggesting genetic polymorphisms
associated with differences in partnering or sexual
behavior have small effect sizes, and as of yet have
failed to identify candidate genes playing large potential
roles in accounting for the hominin evolutionary shifts
in sexuality reconstructed from comparative, fossil,
archaeological, and other lines of evidence. Although
human mating is expected to entail the expression of
many genes, it remains a puzzle why so few genes of
even small effect sizes have not been identified as con-
tributing to such behavior.
Neuroendocrine bases of human
partnering and sexual behavior
How do scholars gain insight into potential physiologi-
cal contributions to an evolutionary understanding of
human sexuality? Much of the inspiration stems from a
rapidly growing body of research on the neuroendocrine
bases of human partnering and sexual behavior. This
body of work, in turn, represents a cross-fertilization
with comparative and animal model research. Through
recent developments in brain imaging, identification of
increased brain activity associated with specific mating
stimuli helps reveal brain processes involved in human
sociosexuality. The measurement of baseline or reactive
hormone concentrations in relation to partnering or sex-
ual behavior also sheds light on the endocrine bases to
human sociosexuality. The neuroendocrine system takes
in, integrates, and puts out information that helps orient
an individual’s anatomy, physiology, and behavior. The
way its mechanisms work both constrain and reflect age-
, sex-, individual-, and context-specific variation in ways
that may enhance reproductive success. As an example,
pubertal increases in male testosterone levels are bound
by tissue-specific androgen receptor in ways that may
enhance an individual’s motivation to engage in same-
sex competition and courtship behavior.
Imaging romance and sex
With respect to brain imaging, foundational studies on
partnering have been conducted by Bartels and Zeki
(2000) and Aron et al. (2005) using fMRI. These kinds of
studies typically rely on assessing brain activity in
response to subjects looking at photos of, for example, a
romantic partner, subtracting out brain activity from
control stimuli in order to reveal brain areas of height-
ened activity. Bartels and Zeki’s (2000) study revealed
increased activity in the hypothalamus and ventral teg-
mental area. Activation of the hypothalamus is of note
because of the linkage to potential peripheral hormone
release (e.g., release of hormones to reach the pituitary,
and in turn throughout the body). These are areas
known to be rich in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors
and involved in reward pathways, suggesting linkages
with these other systems and the positively reinforcing
experience of reflecting upon a romantic partner. Fur-
thermore, decreases in brain activity associated with
social judgment and negative emotion were also noted.
Aron et al.’s (2005) study of romantic love showed both
similarities and differences with Bartels and Zeki’s find-
103
ings, with differences potentially due to Aron et al.’s sub-
jects reporting higher levels of passionate love for their
partners and overall shorter relationship durations com-
pared with the earlier study. The ventral tegmental area
also showed heightened activity. Among subjects in
longer-term relationships, some areas such as the ante-
rior cingulate cortex were more highly activated. This
could suggest development of connections between more
emotional and higher cognitive associations with longer-
term relationships. In a related study of the brain activ-
ity of rejected participants, many of the same brain
areas such as the ventral tegmental area were activated
as in those subjects in love. However, a few areas were
differentially activated too, including parts of the fore-
brain that have been implicated in drug-use addiction
(Fisher et al., 2006). Additionally, Zeki and Romaya
(2010) found that patterns of brain activity of subjects in
love did not differ depending on sexual orientation,
either for males or females.
Brain imaging studies relying upon fMRI or PET scan-
ning have also been conducted on women and men
engaged in sexual behavior. Such studies typically sit-
uate an individual inside of a brain scanner, asking the
individual or a partner to stimulate to orgasm. As an
example, Beverly Whipple and colleagues have investi-
gated the responses of women with spinal cord injuries
to cervical self-stimulation, showing both brain activity
associated with the behavior while also implicating the
vagus nerve in transmitting genital information to the
brain (see Komisaruk and Whipple, 2005). In a PET
study enabling direct comparisons between women and
men’s brain responses to genital stimulation (by mastur-
bation) and orgasm, Georgiadis et al. (2009) found dis-
tinct sex differences during the stimulation phase of the
sexual response but similarities between the sexes dur-
ing the experience of orgasm. As examples, during geni-
tal stimulation, men experienced greater deactivation of
the right amygdala, greater activation of the right mid-
dle temporal gyrus, and women experienced greater acti-
vation of the right inferior parietal lobe. During orgasm,
by contrast, men and women shared an array of deacti-
vated brain areas such as the left inferior frontal gyrus,
while among the few differences women showed more
pronounced activity in the right insula. The observation
that many brain areas were deactivated during orgasm
is itself notable, marking an experience in which individ-
uals are less aware of their wider surroundings. Another
observation from such imaging studies is that the brain
mechanisms of sexual behavior are distinct from those
activated while imagining a romantic partner. This dis-
tinction is consistent with other findings that romantic
love and sexual behavior can be behaviorally separated
too; while someone may both experience romantic pas-
sion and sex with the same individual, ethnographic
reports note that these can be separated (e.g., when hav-
ing sex without love, or loving someone without having
a sexual relationship: Jankowiak, 2008).
Hormonal bases of partnering and sexual
behavior
The hormonal bases of partnering have been explored
in the U.S., but also a growing number of international
settings (van Anders and Gray, 2007; Gray and Camp-
bell, 2009). Drawing upon comparative research, much
of the focus has been on oxytocin and male testosterone
with respect to partnering, although relations between
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
104 P.B. GRAY
partnering and other hormones such as cortisol have
also been investigated. In one oxytocin study of 38 cou-
ples, Grewen et al. (2005) found that blood oxytocin lev-
els were higher throughout a 10 min behavioral session
among both women and men reporting greater partner
support. In an experimental study in which women and
men were either administered intranasal oxytocin
(which is known to exert effects in the brain) or intra-
nasal placebo spray, those given oxytocin showed rela-
tively higher ratios of positive to negative partner-
directed behavior during a behavioral interaction session
(Ditzen et al., 2009). Studies of both young and older
couples’ blood cortisol levels have been conducted in
relation to marital discussion, a paradigm in which cou-
ples report to a lab and are asked to talk about topics
known to elicit conflict (such as sex or finances) (Kiecolt-
Glaser et al., 2003). As one of the main findings from
these studies, women in more positive marital relation-
ships had rapidly reduced cortisol profiles during the
discussion compared with women in less positive marital
relationships (Robles et al., 2006).
Among studies investigating male testosterone levels
and partnering, nearly all conducted in North America
have found that men involved in committed, romantic
relationships have lower testosterone levels than their
unpartnered counterparts (Gray and Campbell, 2009). A
longitudinal study of U.S. military veterans showed that
men’s testosterone levels increased after divorce, provid-
ing evidence that changes in relationships can precede
changes in men’s testosterone levels (Mazur and Micha-
lek, 1998). However, international studies have been less
consistent in findings linking men’s testosterone and
relationship status. In most international studies,
becoming a father in a social context in which men pro-
vide paternal care is associated with lower testosterone
levels, but a number of studies found no difference in
the testosterone levels between partnered and unpart-
nered childless men. As an example, in a sample of 126
men aged 21–38 in Beijing, fathers had lower testoster-
one levels than both partnered childless men and single
men, with the testosterone levels of partnered men with
and without children similar (Gray et al., 2006). A longi-
tudinal study of several hundred men in Cebu City, Phil-
ippines, revealed that becoming a father, particularly of
infants and associated with greater paternal care,
caused men’s testosterone levels to decrease (Gettler
et al., 2011). Four studies have also investigated men’s
testosterone levels with respect to polygynous marriage.
In the first of these, conducted among Swahili men in
Kenya, men married to two wives had higher testoster-
one levels than other men, whether monogamously mar-
ried or unmarried (Gray, 2003). The interpretation of
these and the several other studies suggest that age and
social context matter, and it is also difficult to disentan-
gle potential confounding influences such as develop-
mental impacts of diet and physical activity.
A growing number of studies have investigated hormo-
nal responses to sexual behavior, with emphasis upon
intercourse or solitary masturbation culminating in
orgasm. Some of these studies have become more techni-
cally feasible with the use of minimally invasive mea-
surement of hormone concentrations from saliva,
whereas assessments of peptides typically rely upon
blood draws. Some of the effects appear sex-specific,
whereas others, involving peptide release, appear simi-
lar between females and males. Among males, a consid-
erable literature has tested whether men’s testosterone
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
levels acutely increase in response to sexual stimuli
(reviewed in Archer, 2006; Van Anders and Watson,
2006). In studies of solitary masturbation, men’s testos-
terone levels do not consistently change, whereas expo-
sure of men to audiovisual sexual stimuli more reliably
increases testosterone levels. In a naturalistic study of
men’s testosterone responses conducted at an adult club,
men’s testosterone levels increased more when engaging
in rather than observing sexual behavior (Escasa et al.,
2011). In other studies, among men who masturbated,
prolactin levels did not change (Kruger et al., 2003),
whereas in men and women who engaged in partnered
intercourse their prolactin levels showed acute increases
(reviewed in Bancroft, 2005). In both men and women,
oxytocin levels tend to increase during sexual behavior;
it may be that oxytocin is involved in smooth muscle
contraction associated with orgasm as well as the
rewarding experience of sexual behavior (Carmichael
et al., 1987). Studies have typically found no changes in
women’s estradiol, but in some cases increases in wom-
en’s testosterone levels during sexual behavior (see Van
Anders et al., 2009). Summarizing much of this litera-
ture on hormonal responses to sexual behavior, major
features of the system are homologous across a wide
phylogenetic scope, and both sex similarities and differ-
ences have been recognized.
Human reproductive physiology and anatomy in
comparative context
Closing out this section on physiological data, several
recent syntheses warrant attention. One is Alan Dixson’s
(2009) compilation of human reproductive physiology
and anatomy placed within an explicitly comparative
perspective, and the conclusion from multiple lines of
evidence that humans bear signatures of low sperm com-
petition pressures. While classic comparative research
on relative primate testis size reached a similar conclu-
sion (Harcourt et al., 1981), the earlier work had a
human sample size of four individuals from which tes-
ticle size was measured in contrast to over 7,000 men in
more recent analyses. Dixson summarizes data indicat-
ing humans have low sperm quality, ejaculate volume,
sperm reserves, modestly sized seminal vesicles, and
prostate gland, and relatively small sperm midpiece vol-
ume. Human females also have relatively short oviduct
length (i.e., Fallopian tube), consistent with relatively
low sperm competition pressures. This conclusion is at
odds with views espoused in Baker and Bellis (1994) or
Ryan and Jetha (2010). The evolutionary significance of
population and individual human variation in these and
related reproductive physiological and anatomical
parameters, however, remains unclear. As examples, dif-
ferences in human sperm counts (Dixson, 2009) and
female vaginal flora (Ravel et al., 2011) have been noted.
That variation helps provide a basis on which selection
can act, but it is not clear if observed population differ-
ences in, for example, testis size can be traced to
population-specific selective pressures rather than other
evolutionary or developmental processes.
The way in which genital responses align (or not) with
subjective sexual arousal tends to differ between males
and females. Through measurement of vaginal blood
flow or penile tumescence in response to exposure to
audiovisual stimuli, meta-analysis reveals that women’s
responses less consistently align (r 5.26) with subjective
reports of arousal compared with men’s responses
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
(r 5.66) (Chivers et al., 2010). As one extreme illustra-
tion, women showed vaginal blood flow responses when
watching video of bonobos having sex, even though
women reported not being aroused. How can these pat-
terns be situated within larger evolutionary concepts?
One interpretation is that a low threshold of female sex-
ual response, particularly vaginal lubrication, can be
adaptive because it avoids injuries during coerced or
unarousing sex. Another interpretation recognizes that
female sexual desire is highly contextualized, helping
inform how subjective and objective measures of
response can be separated. Still another interpretation
could recognize that males tend to have a more procep-
tive, and females a more receptive sexuality, with the
result that it makes more sense for male subjective and
objective responses to align to best facilitate the motiva-
tion and capacity to engage in sexual behavior, while
females can respond sexually even to a sexual encounter
in which they have little motivation to initiate. As such
interpretations indicate, new physiological data continue
to call for interpretation in light of an overarching evolu-
tionary perspective. There are also potential prospects to
expand the comparative and human socioecological scope
(e.g., investigating brain activity in polygynous contexts)
of such work.
Summary
New genetic, genomic, and physiological data concern-
ing human sexuality are available and need to be inte-
grated with contemporary evolutionary theory and
models depicting the evolution of hominin sexuality. The
heritable basis underlying shifts toward human long-
term slightly polygynous bonding can be investigated
from candidate gene or comparative genomic
approaches, but to date has been unsuccessful. While
multiple lines of evidence converge in indicating that
humans are adapted for low sperm competition pres-
sures, the genetically based attempts (e.g., SEMG1 and
other genes expressed in semen) to specify the evolution-
ary origins and trajectory of this pattern in hominins
also remain murky. Evolutionary theory tells us that
reproductively relevant genes should be hotspots of
selective action; that expectation is partly born out,
although subject to caveats such as whether gene regu-
lation or protein coding is more important.
Brain imaging and hormonal studies help elucidate
the shared and derived mechanisms by which long-term
human bonding and sexual behavior occur. The brain
imaging data, in particular, derive from a very narrow
cultural scope. Nonetheless, various brain processes in
humans show homology with mechanisms from other
long-term bonded species such as prairie voles. There
are some distinct brain processes implicated in romantic
bonding from sexual behavior, as would be expected
from other lines of evidence (e.g., in other species that
engage in sexual behavior without long-term bonds, or
in humans the ability to separate sex from love). Brain
imaging and hormonal studies of romantic bonding show
evidence of sex-similarities (e.g., in involvement of oxyto-
cin in both sexes); that is expected since the mechanisms
of long-term sociosexual bonds may in part piggyback on
those related to mammalian maternal behavior. At the
same time, evidence of lower male testosterone levels
within contexts of long-term intimate family relation-
ships speaks to processes that appear more sex-specific
(i.e., males decreasing the hormonally based investment
105
in mating effort). The data on sex differences in the coin-
cidence of objective and subjective measures of sexual
arousal indicates that—as Darwin and other theorists
would anticipate—sex differences exist. One overarching
interpretation is that males have been equipped with a
more proceptive sexuality and females a more receptive
sexuality.
RECENT AND LARGE DATA SETS ON AMERICAN
AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN SEXUALITY
Alfred Kinsey’s interview-based studies of U.S. human
sexuality were foundational contributions. The data he
and collaborators collected and published in the mid-
20th century provided quantitative insight into the sex
lives of approximately 12,000 Americans (Kinsey et al.,
1948, 1953). He found, for example, that premarital and
extramarital sex was common, and that more men than
women reported same-sex sexual behaviors. As impor-
tant as these works were, however, others criticized the
findings on methodological grounds. The sample was
nonrandom, including an inordinate number of men in
prisons, and short on members of groups (e.g., from
churches) who less often agreed to participate in the
research (factors that could have overestimated the fre-
quency of certain sexual behaviors). It was not until the
1990s that a nationally representative probability sam-
ple of U.S. adult sexual behavior was conducted (Lau-
mann et al., 1994). In the first part of this section, we
consider what this 1994 publication, along with several
other large and rigorous, U.S. data sets on sexuality
have found, effectively updating Kinsey’s insights with
more current and arguably better-designed studies.
These studies are important to an evolutionary perspec-
tive on human sexuality for several reasons. One is that
they enable rigorous tests of expectations derived from
relevant theory, such as whether males report higher
sexual desire than females, as would be expected if
females are the reproductively limiting sex. These data
can serve as the basis for productive, empirically
grounded discussions concerning the patterning of
human sexuality, a contrast to choosing a single study
suiting one’s preferred interpretation or ignoring alto-
gether data on the subject. Another reason is that an
evolutionary perspective can be brought to bear on such
rich data sets, something which is lacking in the major-
ity of the original publications describing these large
human sexuality studies.
Before presenting findings from U.S. and international
sexuality data, it is important to comment on methodo-
logical constraints inherent to the study of human sex-
ual behavior. The study of human sexual behavior is one
of the most emotionally, politically, and socially charged
domains of human experience, complicating its study.
Direct observations of human sexual behavior are rarely
possible. While a primatologist can observe nonhuman
primates in the wild or captivity engaging in various
sexual behaviors (Dixson, 2012), few humans will toler-
ate the same intrusions into their sex lives. Accordingly,
the vast amount of information on human sexual behav-
ior derives from questionnaire responses and interviews.
Individuals may be asked to complete a survey, some-
times anonymously and confidentially, on a paper-and-
pencil version, or perhaps via a computer interface. Col-
lecting data by these means raises questions of validity.
How do we know whether individuals are accurately
describing their sexual behavior, especially when there
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
106 P.B. GRAY

may be temptations to downplay (e.g., affairs) or exag- TABLE 2. Frequency of sex in the past year from early 1990s
gerate (in the attempt to impress others) claims? Some U.S. national sex survey
cross-checks are feasible, such as aligning data between
A few 4 or more
partners or the sexes (e.g., regarding coital frequency Age Not times A few times 2–3 times times
within partnerships) or other sources of clinical or com- group at all per year per month per week a week
mercial information (e.g., patterns of STIs and knowl-
edge of contraception use should be consistent with Men
reports of sexual behaviors). The appropriate caution is 18–24 15 21 24 28 12
thus warranted when evaluating data on human sexual 25–29 7 15 31 36 10
30–39 8 15 37 23 6
behavior. 40–49 9 18 40 27 5
50–59 11 22 43 20 2
Sex in large U.S. surveys Women
18–24 11 16 32 9 12
From Ed Laumann and colleagues’ (1994) study of 25–29 5 10 38 37 10
U.S. sexuality, approximately 5,000 individuals aged 18– 30–39 9 16 36 33 6
59 years participated in in-person interviews. Outcomes 40–49 15 16 44 20 5
included frequency and types of various sexual behav- 50–59 30 22 35 12 2
iors, and were provided with respect to sociodemographic
variables including age group, sex, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, and educational attainment. Data on the fre- across the sample; age-related patterning in sexual
quency of sexual behavior the past year are presented behaviors showed that masturbation was relatively more
with respect to age group and sex in Table 2. As shown common early and late in adult life, while vaginal sex
in this table, the percentage of women and men report- relatively more common during the prime reproductive
ing having sex four or more times the past year tends to years; and for both men and women partnered sexual
diminish with age, while the percentage of women and behaviors declined in frequency in the 50s onward,
men not having sex the past year is highest among showing even steeper declines around the 70s.
young and old age groups.
This same U.S. survey provided a quantitative snap- A quantitative cross-cultural approach
shop of other features of adult sexuality. Across all age to human sexuality
groups, men engage in more frequent masturbation than
do women. As an example, at ages 18–24, 29% of men Apart from U.S. studies, we also want to know about
and 9% of women reported masturbating at least once a the wider cultural record of human sexuality. What can
week. Masturbation rates also declined with age, with be said about the sexual behavior of people around the
10% of men and 2% of women aged 55–59 reporting world? Charles Darwin himself tried to collect as much
weekly masturbation. Men reported more often thinking information on mate preferences and other features of
about sex and using autoerotic material such as watch- sexuality as he could by compiling the observations of
ing erotic videos; for example, 54% of men and 19% of travelers and others with international experience.
women reported thinking about sex at least daily. Extra- Those cross-cultural anecdotes are included in his 1871
marital affairs were noted among a minority of respond- book. As far as more rigorous cross-cultural study of
ents: “Over 90 percent of the women and over 75 percent human sexuality, the standard bearer has been Ford
of the men in every cohort report fidelity within their and Beach’s (1951) Patterns of Sexual Behavior. This is a
marriage, over its entirety.” (Laumann et al., 1994: 214). compilation of cross-cultural accounts drawn from the
Men reported a higher frequency over various time human relations area files (HRAF). In Ford and Beach’s
frames engaging in same-sex sexual behavior than did book, sections are devoted to a variety of sexual prac-
women with, for example, 2.0% of men and 0.8% of tices, from subadult sexuality to adolescence, and adult
women specifying having sex with same-sex partners sexual behaviors ranging from intercourse positions to
over the past five years. With respect to sexual identity, extramarital affairs. Variation is recognized and in some
2.8% of men and 1.4% of women reported either bisexual cases patterned; for example, longer taboos against post-
or homosexual identity. Women (22%) were much more partum female sexual behavior are found in polygynous
likely to report being forced to have sex than were men societies, consistent with the idea that a wife with cow-
(1%), with most of women’s forced sex occurring with ives can abstain longer from sex after having had a baby
known individuals such as someone with whom the when there is another sexual partner available to her
woman was in love or someone she knew well. husband. Additionally, Ford and Beach concluded that
More recently, a nationally representative probability cross-cultural standards of attractiveness varied,
sample of U.S. sexuality was conducted in 2009 by schol- although female appearance garnered more attention
ars based at Indiana University, thus continuing Kin- than male appearance, and male social success often
sey’s legacy of work there. This study relied upon mattered more than attractiveness in determining male
computer-aided survey. A sample of 5,865 men and marital and reproductive success. In this section, we
women aged 14–94 participated. Findings from the sur- move beyond Ford and Beach’s book to present more
vey were published in a special edition of the Journal of recent international studies of human sexual behavior.
Sexual Medicine in 2010. The study presented data on Some of these more recently published studies are deriv-
various sexual practices such as intercourse, masturba- atives of the HRAF data set, while others rely on nation-
tion, and oral sex with respect to age, sex, and a host of ally representative probability samples of sexual
social variables including sexual orientation, ethnicity, behavior from various countries around the world.
education, income, and geographical region. Among The most widely used quantitative measures of cross-
some of the take-home findings from the study, males cultural sexuality tend to rely upon marital patterns.
engaged in higher rates of masturbation than females Societies are variously described as monogamous, with

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
mild polygyny, generalized polygyny, and occasionally
polyandry based on the most prevalent patterns of mar-
riage. As noted in the more than 1,200 societies compris-
ing the HRAF, approximately 85% have some degree of
polygyny (Murdock, 1949). A related sample, restricted to
the so-called standard cross-cultural sample (Murdock
and White, 1969), viewed as a more representative (with
respect to linguistic and geographic distribution) cross-
cultural sample of 186 societies, shows similarly that
mild polygyny is the most common marital pattern, with
around 15% of societies classified as monogamous. The
use of marital patterns as a proxy for aspects of sexuality
has its pluses and minuses. On the favorable side, this
measure is more readily available in the literature, most
of partnered human sexual behavior occurs within long-
term relationships such as marriage, and the relations
between marital and other quantifiable variables such as
paternal involvement enables testing for links between
sexuality and other factors. On the downside, use of
societal-level marital patterns ignores premarital and
extramarital sex, reliance upon prostitution, and ignores
within-societal variation in sexuality as well as that aris-
ing in other contexts such as across the full life course.
Evolutionary psychologists led by David Buss and
David Schmitt have conducted some of the largest inter-
national surveys related to human sexuality. These
efforts relied upon survey administration to samples in
various countries of the world, frequently relying upon
international university student samples but in other
cases also including community samples. These samples
thus lack the small-scale hunter-gatherer, horticultural,
agricultural and pastoralist emphases of the cross-
cultural anthropological surveys drawing upon the
HRAF or SCCS. That said, these studies have yielded
rich findings that speak to sex, age-related, and other
aspects of human sexuality.
From the effort led by David Buss (1989, 2003), mate
preferences were surveyed among 37 societies around
the world. Among his findings, love, emotional stability
or maturity, and a dependable character were ranked
the highest among traits preferred in a mate by both
men and women around the globe. These preferred traits
accord with what one would expect for maintenance of a
successful long-term sexual and reproductive relation-
ship. Buss also found sex differences in mate choice.
Men valued female attractiveness more than women did,
whereas women valued status and resources in a part-
ner more than did men. Men preferred younger part-
ners, whereas women preferred older partners. Variation
across societies also emerged. Chastity in a mate was
highly valued in some countries such as India and Indo-
nesia, but not in other countries such as the Nether-
lands and France.
David Schmitt spearheaded an international project
focused on questionnaire-based investigation of human
sociosexuality through the International Sexuality
Description Project (Schmitt, 2003, 2005). This sample
drew upon approximately 16,000 participants from 52
countries. Among the central findings were that men
consistently expressed more interest in having multiple
sexual partners than women, and across variable
lengths of time (e.g., over the next month to next 30
years). Similarly, men consistently had higher sociosex-
uality scores (e.g., expressing more open rather than
restricted sexual views) than did women across the sam-
ple. Yet in both desired number of sexual partners and
sociosexuality there was considerable international vari-
107
ation observed. In East Asian samples, 17.9% of men
and 2.6% of women said they wanted more than one sex-
ual partner over the next month, whereas in South
America 35.0% of men and 6.1% of women wanted more
than one sexual partner over the next month. Across
countries, several variables were correlated with socio-
sexuality scores. The operational sex ratio (OSR) was
correlated with sociosexuality scores, whereby societies
with a relatively higher proportion of women tended to
have less restricted sociosexuality. Fertility rates were
inversely related to sociosexuality, such that societies
with higher rates of fertility had more restricted socio-
sexuality. Further, scores on the Human Development
Index (a measure of societal quality of life) were posi-
tively associated with more open sociosexuality.
An increasing number of countries, apart from the
U.S., have conducted nationally representative probabil-
ity samples of sexual behavior. To illustrate, the first
probability sample of sexual behavior in China was con-
ducted in 1999–2000 (Parish et al., 2007). This Chinese
study included more than 3,700 adults aged 20–64 who
reported to a secure neighborhood location to complete
an interview and items on a laptop computer. As an
illustration of the findings, approximately 70% of men
and 30% of women under the age of 30 reported mastur-
bating, rates that were higher than previous reports in
China based on smaller samples, and consistent with
recent changes in sexual behavior. Additionally, approxi-
mately 50% of men and 30% of women in the late 1990s
reported engaging in premarital sex, rates that were
markedly higher than data from previous decades, espe-
cially the 1950s. Rates of same-sex sexual behavior were
higher for men than women, a pattern also found cross-
culturally (Kirkpatrick, 2000; Poiani, 2010).
The largest compilation of international sexual behav-
ior data yet was published by Kaye Wellings and col-
leagues in 2006. They drew upon data from 59
countries, from Kenya to Ghana, Bangladesh to Turkey.
All studies were published between 1995 and 2005,
included some longitudinal analyses, and featured
nationally representative samples. The compilation was
facilitated by the availability of Demographic and Health
Surveys from many developing countries, conducted in
order to provide baseline data informing reproductive
health agendas but also providing an unprecedented
availability of quantitative, international data.
A number of take-home points emerge from the analy-
sis, showing both patterns observed across all samples
as well as variation that itself invites explanation. In all
countries, married men and women report a higher like-
lihood of engaging in sexual behavior in the past four
weeks compared with unmarried respondents. This pat-
tern reinforces the context of most human sexual behav-
ior, occurring within the context of a long-term
relationship such as marriage. Across samples, men typi-
cally report more often having had multiple sex partners
the past year than do women. This sex difference
appears across an array of contexts, including premari-
tal, extramarital or marital (as in polygynous marriages)
sexual behavior. The countries in which a higher preva-
lence of women report multiple sex partners the past
year tend to be in Europe or North America, and largely
reflect premarital behavior. Age discrepancies in mar-
riages reveal that husbands tend to be older than wives,
although the age difference is lowest in countries such
as the U.S. (2.2 years) and Australia (1.9 years), and
highest in African countries such as Burkina Faso (14.7
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
108 P.B. GRAY
years) and Mali (13.2 years). The age of first intercourse
varies globally. In some countries, women have an ear-
lier sexual debut and higher intercourse rates compared
with men; examples include a number of west African
countries and Bangladesh, in which women marry at
younger ages and the pattern reflects having sex within
marriages. The prevalence of premarital sex among
women is highest among countries such as the U.S. and
in Europe, but quite low in other countries such as Mali,
Nepal, and Indonesia. In the latter cases, less than 25%
of women report engaging in intercourse before mar-
riage. In other countries, such as Brazil, men tend to
have younger ages of sexual debut than women, with
this reflecting higher rates of male premarital sex,
including in some cases with prostitutes. Data compiled
by Wellings and colleagues only tabulate use of prosti-
tutes by men, a recognition that prostitution is largely
an industry servicing men; most male prostitutes service
other men rather than women. Yet the percentage of
men who say they paid for sex in the past year—a mea-
sure of use of prostitutes—varies around the globe.
Higher rates are found in China and East and West
Africa (around 10%) than in Latin America, North Amer-
ica, Europe, and North Africa (less than 3%).
Sex on the Internet
New sources of data on human sexuality continue to
arise. The Internet is one opening novel avenues by
which measures of human sexuality can be obtained and
interpreted. This is reflected in multiple ways, including
the diversification of websites catering to all kinds of sex-
ual and romantic interest groups. Online dating has
become a burgeoning industry and an increasingly com-
mon means by which partners in countries such as the
U.S. meet. The quantitative analysis of search contents
has also opened up fresh ways to explore human sexual
expression. The most ambitious and current account to
quantitatively explore sexuality related Internet search
contents was published in Ogas and Gaddam’s (2011) A
Billion Wicked Thoughts. They report the results of over
400 million web searches from more than 2 million users,
primarily from the U.S., but also other countries such as
the U.K., India, Nigeria, and Canada. They analyzed
search data from 2009–2010 as well as a supplementary
AOL search database on more than 650,000 users. Much
of their effort honed in on potential differences in search
content according to sex and sexual orientation.
Summarizing what they found, “On the Web, men pre-
fer images. Women prefer stories. Men prefer graphic
sex. Women prefer relationships and romance. This is
also reflected in the divergent responses of men and
women when asked about what sexual activities they per-
form on the Internet.” (p. 19) Men were much more likely
(37%) than women (6%) to list viewing erotic images and
movies as preferred Internet sex-related activities. Con-
versely, women (21%) were more likely than men (8%) to
report sex-related activities on the Internet involving
attempts to maintain contact with love or sex partners.
Of other patterns in Internet sex searches, younger
women (age 16–18) draw the most interest, consistent
with male orientation toward cues of high reproductive
value and pursuit of a long-term mate.
Summary
A variety of large U.S. and international quantitative
sexuality data are available. These data reveal patterns
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
with respect to sex (male/female), sexual orientation and
age, among other factors, while also providing a window
into cross-cultural variation. Sex differences in behav-
ioral measures of desire such as masturbation or use of
prostitution are quite robust across these samples, con-
sistent with theory that males have evolved a more pro-
ceptive sexuality. Males engage in higher rates of same-
sex sexual behavior than females in these large U.S. and
international data sets. Age-related declines in various
measures of sexual behavior, such as coital frequency,
also conform to waning selective pressures to maintain
sexual function, a topic we will also turn to in the next
section on human life course variation in sexuality. Most
sexual behavior occurs within the context of long-term
bonds, even when humans today face an unprecedented
array of novel potential mating partners compared to
hunter-gatherer forebears. Yet the international data
also indicate that, at the societal level, slight polygyny is
a better descriptor of human marital patterns than
monogamy. The international data also underscore the
importance of contextual variables such as fertility rate
and OSR. As an example, the societies with higher fertil-
ity rates tend to have more restrictive attitudes toward
female sexuality. The Internet provides a new window
into human sexuality, showing that some of the long-
standing patterns such as sex differences in sexual
desire manifest in this new arena. The collective weight
of this body of evidence argues for the continued rele-
vance of evolutionary theory to understanding human
sexuality today, and presents a standard against which
competing explanations are challenged to explain.
LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE ON HUMAN
SEXUALITY
The vast amount of theoretical and empirical attention
to human sexuality from an evolutionary perspective
has focused on prime adult years. A large literature
investigating and adaptively interpreting sex differences
in mating strategies has, for example, tended to empha-
size young adults who do not have children. In this sec-
tion, a life course perspective is applied to human
sexuality. This is important for a number of reasons: sex
differentiation of brains and genitals begins before birth;
juveniles learn and practice sociosexual behaviors (in
addition to economic and social skills emphasized by evo-
lutionary thinkers) that may be suited to their context
and future reproductive success; puberty and adoles-
cence transition individuals into the raised stakes of
potential reproduction; features of human sexuality fluc-
tuate across the prime adult years, including across peri-
partum transitions; and features of human sexuality
change with age in ways that can be understood with
respect to evolutionary-based models of reproductive
senescence.
Life history theory provides a theoretical and empiri-
cal toolkit to make sense of the patterning of human sex-
uality across the life course (Stearns, 1992; Geary, 2002;
Hawkes and Paine, 2006; Muehlenbein, 2010). Individu-
als have limited time and energy to devote to competing
allocations of growth, maintenance, and reproduction.
The specific allocations to these agendas can exhibit age-
, sex-, and context-specific variation in ways that may
make adaptive sense. There may also be tradeoffs across
these allocations, meaning that allocation to one out-
come comes at expense to another. To illustrate, based
on the theory reviewed above, female mammals tend to
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY 109
TABLE 3. Life course perspective on human sexuality

Life course stage
Perinatal
Early Childhood
Middle Childhood
Puberty and Adolescence
Adulthood
Senescence
Key adaptive and physiological processes
Early organizing effects on brain and
differentiation of primary reproductive
characteristics
Dependency on mothers and other
caregivers for social and energetic
support
Greater independence and interaction with
other adults and juveniles
A second phase of organizing effects of
steroid hormones on the brain, and
development of secondary sexual
characteristics
Age-related changes in reproductive
physiology
Subtle physiological changes across the
ovulatory cycle and dramatic changes
across the reproductive cycle
Age-related declines in reproductive
function, including decreases in sex
steroids
Key patterns of sexuality
Sex-specific developmental trajectories begin
to unfold
Sex-specific and plastic mechanisms orient
toward social stimuli to enhance survival
Interest in own and others’ genitals, includ-
ing auto-stimulation
Some degree of sex differentiation in social
behavior
Expanded distinctions in sex differentiation,
with females more oriented toward care-
giving contexts and males more oriented
toward physical play
Increasing frequency of sex play, especially
for males, in same-sex and between-sex
pair-bonding contexts
Shift into potential reproductive realm
Females tend to be 1–2 years ahead of males
Marking transition toward social, economic,
and political activities conducive to repro-
ductive success, with female transitions
highlighting aspects of fertility and male
transitions highlight social achievement
Increased frequency of intercourse, but also
quite variable by individual, sex,
population
Age-related changes in sexuality during
adulthood can be related to reproductive
partnerships
Cyclical female shifts across the ovarian
cycle have at best subtle influences on
sexuality, whereas shifts across pregnancy
and postpartum phases have pronounced
impacts on female sexuality
Male sexuality is typically intertwined with
that of a long-term partner, although sex
differences in desire are amplified during
late pregnancy and early postpartum
The menopausal transition in women is
associated with some declines in sexual
function
Measures of sexual behavior decline with
advancing age in both women and men,
although in sex- and context-specific ways

devote more of their reproductive effort to parenting
effort, whereas male mammals tend to devote more of
their reproductive effort to mating effort. The shifts
from growth to reproductive effort at puberty entail
development of secondary sexual characteristics; by
waiting until puberty to develop these characteristics,
organisms delay the potential social and energetic costs
of their maintenance. Peripartum shifts in female socio-
sexuality, which can also impact the sexuality of a long-
term partner, can be viewed from the standpoint of life
history tradeoffs between investment in current and
future reproduction.
The early development of human sexuality
As an unusual anecdotal insight into the development
of human sexuality, an ultrasound taken of a male fetus
appeared to show him engaging in autostimulation (mas-
turbation), an indication that sexuality can precede birth
(Meizner, 1987). Female infants are capable of vaginal
lubrication, and male infants of erections. Infants of
both sexes are capable of orgasm, though without ejacu-
lation. These observations indicate that even young
children have a limited sexual capacity, but a capacity
that can foster engaging in the kinds of sociosexual play
that may eventually attune their sex- and context-
specific reproductive investment. To help capture some
of the key processes and patterns of human sexuality
across the life course, from the perinatal period onwards,
these are summarized in Table 3. I consider some of
these major processes and patterns from early to late in
the life course, touching on some of the most common
changes in sociosexual behavior, underlying physiologi-
cal processes, and with some reference to life history
theory.
Rigorous, quantitative studies of childhood sexuality
are fraught with ethical and methodological challenges,
even more than research on adults. Thus, the available
data are quite limited, and the studies conducted by
Alfred Kinsey and colleagues in the mid-20th century
still stand as pillars in the field. What Kinsey et al.
learned, primarily through interviews conducted with
adults who recalled their childhood sexual experiences,
was that children’s sexual behavior was patterned with
respect to age and sex. By around age 5, approximately
10% of girls and boys reported having engaged in any

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

110 P.B. GRAY
sex play. Across aged 5 through 13, however, that fre-
quency remained comparable for girls, but increased
steadily to around 35% for boys aged 11–13. A fraction
of these experiences were same-sex: while 8% of girls
aged 5–7 and 3% of girls aged 11 reported engaging in
homosexual play, 5% of boys aged 5–7 and about 30% of
boys aged 11 reported in homosexual play. More recent
quantitative studies of children’s sexuality have been
conducted in the U.S. and Europe, but typically rely on
parent or doctor reports rather than reports by children
or adult retrospective reports. These latter studies
underestimate frequencies of childhood sexual behaviors
that children intentionally shield from adult view, but
nonetheless can offer some useful insights. For example,
one study found that masturbation frequencies in the
U.S. increased from around 10% by age 7 to around 80%
by age 13 (Mallants and Casteels, 2008).
As a complement to quantitative studies, ethnographic
reports of childhood sociosexuality provide insight into
age-, sex-, and context-specific patterns. Eleanor Mac-
coby (1998) summarizes research on U.S. children’s sex-
uality, noting that by around ages 7–9 children begin to
conceptualize cross-sex interactions with romantic or
sexual overtones. Herdt and McClintock (2000) suggest
that the timing in the U.S., New Guinea, and elsewhere
of children developing sexual attractions to same- and
other-sex partners around age 10 may be related to ris-
ing concentrations of adrenal androgens as part of adre-
narche. Ford and Beach (1951) parse cross-cultural
variation in childhood sexuality into three broad catego-
ries: restrictive, semirestrictive, and permissive societies.
They note that the varied degree of proscriptions guiding
childhood sexuality tend to be aligned with adult sexual-
ity; in other words, children are variably granted sexual
latitude or constraint in ways consistent with the adult
sex lives they will later have. Several hunter-gatherer
ethnographic anecdotes recognize that sex play also
occurs, as among the Hadza of Tanzania in which Frank
Marlowe (2010) noted boys and girls “playing house” and
engaging in sex play by around age 7–8.
Puberty and adolescence
As childhood wanes, puberty and adolescence begin
(Bogin, 1999; Weisfeld, 1999). This is a time of shifting
life history priorities. Investment in growth wanes and
maintenance efforts can be compromised as allocations
to reproductive effort increase. Females typically under-
take the pubertal transition 1–2 years before males, a
sex difference consistent with slight polygyny (Dixson,
2012). Sex steroids exert a second stage of organizational
effects on the brain, serving as physiological mecha-
nisms shaping these shifting priorities. Sex steroids also
regulate the expression of secondary sexual characteris-
tics. Effectively, the increased estrogen released by the
ovary and androgen by the testis shape various anatomi-
cal and physiological characteristics in ways that
enhance reproductive success in sex-specific ways. As
examples, females develop greater gluteofemoral fat,
which can serve as a metabolic reservoir on which to
draw during gestation and lactation, and males put on
more upper body musculature, thought to aid ancestral
male success in mating competition.
The impacts of the pubertal transition on human sex-
uality are context-specific. Returning to Ford and Beach
(1951), their scheme recognized restrictive, semirestric-
tive, and permissive societies. Among permissive
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
societies, women and men had similar regulations gov-
erning sexual behavior, whereas among more restrictive
societies men’s sexual activities were sometimes less con-
strained than women’s. This yields a sexual double
standard among some societies. A variety of factors
underlie cross-cultural differences in these aspects of
adolescent sexuality (Schlegel and Barry, 1991). Some of
the most important factors are residence (matrilocality
associated with more permissiveness, patrilocality with
less) and inheritance and descent (greater permissive-
ness associated with bilateral descent and little inheri-
tance, but more restriction in patrilineal descent).
Schlegel and Barry (1991) also discuss cross-cultural
patterns of same-sex adolescent sexual behavior. If
restrictions govern same-sex sexual behavior of one sex,
those are often found in the other sex too. If adolescent
males are subject to same-sex sexual restriction, they
are often subject to similar restrictions through adult-
hood. While a fraction of men hold lifelong same-sex pri-
mary attractions, adolescent male same-sex sexual
behavior is often a life history phase resulting from a
lack of mating access to females.
Quantitative studies of adolescent sexuality are avail-
able for the U.S. and many other countries, complement-
ing the qualitative cross-cultural compilations. In the
U.S., about 50% of secondary school students report hav-
ing engaged in intercourse, with no notable sex differen-
ces, although frequencies vary across reported ethnicity.
Approximately 25% of these students also report more
than one sexual partner. To gain insight into quantita-
tive international adolescent sexual behavior, we can
return to the Wellings et al. (2006) review previously
noted. From this review, one of the central findings is
that in countries with young age of female marriage,
females typically engage in earlier sexual intercourse
than males, often within marriage. As another pattern,
in developing countries the duration between sexual ini-
tiation and marriage is shorter among females than in
males, meaning that female sexual debuts tend to be
more closely tied to marriage than are male sexual
debuts. However, this is not the case in developed coun-
tries such as the U.S. or Australia, in which both males
and females tend to engage in premarital sex that is not
closely tied to marriage.
From an evolutionary perspective, some of the most
profound impacts on adolescent sexuality entail a
lengthened duration of adolescence, especially for
females. Among hunter-gatherer societies, females tend
to experience menarche around age 15–16, with mar-
riage and reproduction following a few years later (Kelly,
1995; Ellison, 2001; Howell, 2010). The brief phase of
adolescence among female foragers entails infertility or
subfecundity as ovarian cycles are less regular and often
nonovulatory, helping make possible sexual experimen-
tation (if not socially proscribed) (Montague, 1946). For
hunter-gatherer males, pubertal milestones are more dif-
ficult to measure (such as “nocturnal emissions” or
changes in testis and penis size), although male pubertal
transitions (like in other societies) typically begin later
and extend considerably longer. Males must demonstrate
their social and foraging prowess, perhaps through bride
service, to show they are worthy of marriage. A conse-
quence is that in foraging societies males are commonly
in their mid-20s before marrying and becoming fathers.
Against a hunter-gatherer backdrop, however, in
many contemporary contexts females and males are
undergoing earlier puberty and postponing the
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
formation of long-term partnerships (such as marriage)
and having children. In some countries, such as Singa-
pore and China (Parrish et al., 2007), a majority of
women and men are postponing having intercourse into
the 20s despite earlier ages of puberty and later ages of
reproduction. In other countries, such as the U.S., pre-
marital sex at younger ages is the norm. The spawning
of a “hook up” culture, in which adolescents deliberately
seek to engage in sex but avoid long-term commitment,
has also fallen into this growing adolescent gap (Garcia
et al., 2012). In university samples, female-biased sex
ratios may also be contributing to hook up culture by
granting more political leverage to male mating
preferences. For females, the duration of adolescence
can now thus extend for decades rather than a few years
among ancestors, and the social contexts during
adolescence often include many similarly aged females,
creating evolutionarily novel contexts for female–female
competition and cooperation. For females and males
alike, contemporary social contexts (like on a university
campus) offer a number and variety of fellow adolescent
prospective mates that has no evolutionary precursor.
Patterns of adult sexuality
As the life course proceeds, humans move from adoles-
cence into adulthood, a time during which females and
males are at their reproductive prime (Hrdy, 1999, 2009;
Gray and Anderson, 2010). From a life history perspec-
tive, sex differences across the adult years can be antici-
pated in features of sexuality, including subtle effects
across the ovulatory cycle and more pronounced effects
across the reproductive cycle (cycle of pregnancy, post-
partum, and eventually resumption of cycling). Because
most of human sexual behavior takes place within the
context of long-term bonds, adult male sexuality is often
hitched in its patterning to that of females. Still, the
variable social context of adult sexuality allows for dif-
ferent degrees of acceptance of partner numbers, same-
sex sexuality, and other features. Given that sexual
desire is a primary motivator to engage in sexual behav-
ior, even if desire can serve other ends such as bonding,
a response to boredom, or for pleasure itself, it makes
life history sense that various features of adult sexuality
appear to favor reproductive success in sex-, condition-,
and context-specific ways.
In the earlier section addressing large quantitative
studies of human sexuality, we saw some of the key pat-
terns with respect to adult sexual behavior. These pat-
terns include sex differences in some measures of sexual
behavior such as males engaging in higher rates of mas-
turbation and same-sex sexual behavior than females.
These patterns also include cross-cultural and interna-
tional variation in sexuality, such as the variable degree
to which polygynous marriages are allowed, even if these
are generally much more common than polyandrous
partnerships. Here, we consider some of the primary
patterns of sexuality during the primary adult years.
One of the primary aspects of adult sexuality is age
itself. For women, fecundability (likelihood of conceiving
for a given act of intercourse) is at its peak during the
early to mid 20s to mid 30s (Ellison, 2001; Vitzhum,
2009). This is true across populations, including in the
U.S. Associated with declining fecundability in women
are age-related decreases in fertility: in hunter-gatherer
societies, women’s last age of reproduction tends to be in
the late 30s to early 40s, well in advance of the complete
111
cessation of cycling. For men, various measures of repro-
ductive function begin to decline as early as the 30s,
although as we shall see more pronounced effects tend
to be observed in the 50s, 60s, and later. To the degree
sexual behavior motivates reproduction, life history
theory suggests that adults will be highly motivated to
have sex, more than during juvenile ages or in later life.
As one quantitative contribution to this point, Herbenick
et al.’s (2010) probability-based survey of U.S. sexuality
showed age- and sex-related patterns of sexual behavior
among individuals aged 14–94. Among the relevant find-
ings, rates at which males masturbated alone the previ-
ous month were higher among males aged 18–39 than
younger or older males, and rates of vaginal intercourse
the previous month were highest among males aged 25–
39. Additionally, among women, rates of masturbation
alone and rates of vaginal intercourse the past month
were both at their highest among women aged 25–29
years.
Concealed ovulation?
From an evolutionary perspective, one of the topics
that has garnered considerable attention is whether
humans have concealed ovulation, or a lack of overt indi-
cation of the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle. Some
theorists have suggested that humans evolved concealed
ovulation to adaptively retain a male partner across the
cycle, also facilitating maintenance of a long-term socio-
sexual relationship and paternal care (e.g., Strassman,
1981). More recently, some scholars have sought to chal-
lenge such a view by investigating cycle-related shifts in
female proceptivity (actively seeking sex), receptivity
(accepting another’s sexual advance), and attractiveness
(stimulus value to potential partners) (Beach, 1976). In
a review of many of these studies, Gangestad and
Thornhill (2008) found that female facial attractiveness
is often more highly rated during the fertile phase of the
cycle. Moreover, women during their fertile phase tend
to express higher preferences for masculine traits such
as broad shoulders or robust jaws. Several other studies
found cycle-related differences in behaviors such as how
revealing women’s clothes are, women’s gait, and wom-
en’s acceptances of men’s courtship invitations (e.g.,
Durante et al., 2008; Gueguen, 2009), findings compati-
ble with enhanced female sociosexuality during the fer-
tile phase. Some of these psychological and behavioral
differences disappeared among women on monthly based
hormonal contraception (e.g., the Pill), implicating a role
of fluctuating (or not) sex steroids in any such effects
(Alvergne and Lumma, 2010).
Appropriate caveats are warranted, however. One is
that these effects tend to be subtle rather than pro-
nounced; human females do not exhibit cyclical traits
akin to a chimpanzee or bonobo female’s sexual swelling
(Dixson, 2009, 2012). These psychological and behavioral
fluctuations across women’s cycles do not have dramatic
impacts on sexual behavior either. In some of the best
designed studies, slight increases in sexual behavior
during the fertile phase among partnered women have
been found (e.g., Wilcox et al., 2004). However, a large
study from 13 countries of partnered women’s sexuality
during the previous month did not show any differences
in sexual behavior during the fertile phase (Brewis and
Meyer, 2005a). The one phase of the cycle in which
female sexual behavior is commonly and dramatically
lower is during menstruation, a finding that has been
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
112 P.B. GRAY
documented cross-culturally (e.g., Ford and Beach, 1951)
and in many other studies. A parsimonious comparative
interpretation of these cycle-related patterns in human
female sexuality is that they are consistent with the lack
of selection on female multimale mating (unlike chimpan-
zees, for example: Nunn, 1999), while also providing sup-
port for subtle increases in female proceptivity, receptivity
and attractivity when fertilization is most likely.
Peripartum fluctuations in human sexuality
Any ovulatory cycle-related changes in female sexual-
ity pale in comparison to those occurring across the
reproductive cycle, or transition from life history states
of cycling to pregnancy to postpartum amenorrhea (not
menstruating) and eventually cycling. From the stand-
point of life history theory, women’s changes in sexuality
across the reproductive cycle can be viewed as tradeoffs
between current and future reproduction (Escasa-Dorne
et al., 2013). Sexual behavior may be high during times
cycling, possibly leading to conception and successful
reproduction. Sexual behavior may occur at variable
rates across pregnancy, and for functions such as rela-
tionship maintenance (to recruit an investing partner
such as a child’s father) or as a byproduct of physiologi-
cal shifts arising during pregnancy (such as elevated
estrogen concentrations). Sexual behavior tends to
diminish after having had a child, as a mother focuses
her reproductive investment on keeping alive and aiding
the current reproductive product (baby) rather than
attempts to beget the next one. Because of the typical
links between male and female sexuality in long-term
partnerships, many of the shifts in female sociosexuality
across the reproductive cycle impact male sexuality too.
Cross-cultural attitudinal and international quantita-
tive studies reveal that many women report being sexu-
ally active during pregnancy, but with additional
patterns across pregnancy and social context. In Ford
and Beach’s (1951) cross-cultural survey, they found that
among small-scale societies 70% approved of female sex-
ual behavior during early pregnancy, but that those
rates of approval diminished across gestation. A primary
reason for disapproving of pregnant women’s engaging
in sex, especially during late gestation, was concern over
the well-being of the fetus. Among more polygynous soci-
eties, sex during pregnancy was disapproved of earlier
in gestation; this is consistent with the sexual availabil-
ity of an alternative sexual outlet (cowife) to a husband
and would-be father, also lessening any pressures for
pregnant women to engage in sex for a relationship
maintenance function. In Brewis and Meyer’s (2005b)
compilation of recent sexual data from more than 90,000
women from 19 countries such as Bolivia and Cameroon,
they found that pregnancy impacted sexuality:
“Pregnancy has a negative effect for the most part on
sexual frequencies. . .[G]enerally, coital frequencies are
significantly lower in pregnancy compared with the non-
pregnant state. . .[O]verall. . .sexual frequencies decline in
the first trimester, decrease further in the second, and
still further in the third.” (p. 508) Similar patterns were
observed in a meta-analysis of 59 sexuality studies
largely conducted in North America or Europe, with
measures of sexual frequency initially little different the
first trimester from a nonpregnant state, but decreasing
across gestation (von Sydow, 1999).
Many studies find that measures of women’s postpar-
tum sexuality are diminished. Cross-cultural taboos gov-
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
erning women’s sexual behavior vary in length; in one
compilation, taboos lasting 1–5 months were typical in
Eurasia and the Mediterranean region, but taboos
around 2 years in length more common across many
sub-Saharan African societies. A key factor in variable
postpartum female sexual taboo lengths is whether a
mother’s partner—typically the infant’s father—has
another sexual outlet. In polygynous societies, the father
of an infant may have another partner (e.g. a mother’s
cowife), allowing for longer taboos. In the same kinds of
demographic reports on women’s recent sexual behavior,
Brewis and Meyer (2005b) summarized the data across
19 countries such as the Philippines and Kenya, showing
dramatically lower frequencies of female intercourse
during the early postpartum phase. Similarly, Von
Sydow (1999) observed, in the same review as noted
above for gestational sex, that, “Compared with the pre-
pregnancy period, coital frequency is reduced in most
couples during the first year after birth.” (p. 36) In this
same review, a fraction of men’s sexual desire remained
lower during the postpartum period, though postpartum
paternal sexuality has been poorly studied relative to
that of postpartum women.
From an evolutionary and life history perspective, it is
during late pregnancy and the early postpartum phase
when sex differences in sexual desire are at their maxi-
mum during the reproductive years. That is an impor-
tant consideration because it is rarely considered in
discussions of sex differences in sexuality, including sex-
ual desire (see Baumeister et al., 2001). It is also an
important contributor to potential sexual conflicts of
interest, whereby mothers may be adaptively shifting
life history investments toward a current reproductive
bout (infant), but fathers’ investments represent a
greater mixture of parenting and mating effort. Other
considerations can be at play too during this postpartum
period: the duration of female lactational amenorrhea
varies considerably across and within populations, and
in relation to central energetic influences; that variation
can impact a women’s physiology in relation to orienting
toward investment in current or future reproduction
(e.g., shorter durations of amenorrhea and more rapid
resumption of ultimately functional cycles can promote
female sexuality). The availability of a partner and other
allocaregivers can also be important; mothers without a
desirable partner may be motivated to more rapidly shift
toward enhanced mating effort. Above all, from an evo-
lutionary perspective, studies of nonhuman primates
and human hunter-gatherers recognize that the bulk of
female reproductive years were spent pregnant or in a
state of lactational amenorrhea. The reproductive cycle
shifts in female (and male) sexuality summarized here
can be viewed as central to ancestral adult sexuality in
addition to being of relevance to society today. In other
words, the sexual lives of our recent ancestors were
likely characterized by shifts across pregnancy and post-
partum phases throughout the primary adult reproduc-
tive years.
Aging and human sexuality
Human reproductive senescence proceeds, marking
the last major stage from a life course perspective in
which to situate human sexuality. While considerable
attention has been given to the evolution of human
senescence (loss of function with age) (e.g., Williams,
1957), with discussions regarding grandmothering
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
frequently featured (Hawkes et al., 1998), it is striking
how rarely those evolutionary-informed discussions of
senescence explicitly address changes in sexual behavior
with age. Yet many of the same insights from the evolu-
tionary literature on senescence inform expectations
regarding past and present aspects of sexuality among
individuals of advancing age.
The evolutionary puzzle remains why humans live
beyond reproductive capacities. That extended discus-
sion lies outside the scope of the present review. Of more
immediate relevance, however, is the fact that the exis-
tence of older and often postreproductive humans ena-
bles evolutionary- and life history theory-informed
insight into their sexuality. In this vein, theory would
suggest that postreproductive individuals should exhibit
age-related declines in the physiological support of sex-
ual behavior as well as of sexual behaviors themselves
(Gray and Garcia, 2013). With older ages, selection on
the maintenance of reproductive function diminishes.
Any age-related decreases in mating effort can also allow
life history reallocation toward parenting (and grand-
parenting) effort. A postreproductive woman who has
reduced investment in an ongoing sexual partnership
has more time and effort that can be devoted to descend-
ant kin. Indeed, the cross-cultural literature highlights
both expanded social freedoms of postreproductive
women and their prominent roles in providing resources
to offspring and grandoffspring (Frayser, 1985; Kerns
and Brown, 1992). Additionally, patterns of age-related
sexuality can unfold in sex- and context-specific ways.
As examples, the fact that women tend to outlive men
results in demographic skew whereby fewer older
females have potential mates of similar ages, although
they can also take as mates considerably younger men
(Winn and Newton, 1982).
Age-related declines in measures of human sexual
behavior such as intercourse or masturbation frequency
have been found in large, quantitative sexuality surveys,
including in the U.S. The findings of these studies are
generally consistent with life history expectations of
reduced maintenance of reproductive function with
advancing age. As an example, Lindau et al. (2007) con-
ducted a nationally representative probability U.S. study
of sexuality based on interviews with approximately
3000 adults aged 57–84 years of age. Both women and
men reported declining frequency of sex with advancing
age, with those frequencies lower at all ages for women
than men. Masturbation rates, which can serve as a
behavioral measure of sexual desire, also showed age-
related declines, and were also lower among women at
all ages than among men. As frequency of sexual behav-
iors decreases, the prevalence of sexual problems
increases. A higher percentage of women reported low
sexual desire than men. Men reported increased age-
related problems maintaining erections, and women
with vaginal lubrication. Age-related decreases in erec-
tile function have been found in various contexts, includ-
ing among Ariaal agropastoralists of northern Kenya
(Gray and Campbell, 2005). Returning to a different
probability sample of U.S. sexuality, Herbenick et al.
(2010) found (across a sample aged 14–94 years) declines
in sexual behaviors and increases in sexual problems
with advancing ages. As an example, during the past 12
months, 51% of women age 55–59 and 22% of women
aged 70 and older reported engaging in vaginal inter-
course. Further, 54% of women in their 50s and 33% of
women in their 70s reported masturbating alone during
113
the past 12 months, whereas 72% of men in their 50s
and 46% of men in their 70s reported masturbating
alone, a sex difference consistent with findings from ear-
lier in the life course and with the broader point that
males tend to have higher sexual desire than females.
One of the best-studied aspects of aging and human
sexuality has been across the menopausal transition.
While aging along may negatively impact sexual capaci-
ties (e.g., increased frailty, regardless of sexual desire), a
relevant question is whether the physiological transition
of menopause itself influences female sexuality. Review-
ing approximately 15 studies, both cross-sectional and
longitudinal designs, Dennerstein et al. (2003) found
that the best of these (studies of longer duration, those
measuring hormones) consistently documented an influ-
ence of the menopausal transition on measures of sex-
uality such as elevated dyspareunia (pain during
intercourse) and reduced sexual desire, with effects
linked to declining estrogen. As an example, in one of
the best U.S. studies of this type, the Study of Women’s
Health across the Nation study, involving more than
3,000 women aged 42–52 years of age, increases in dys-
pareunia and decreases in sexual desire were observed
among women, although there were no effects on inter-
course frequency (Avis et al., 2009).
Summary
Human sexuality shows age-, sex-, and socioecologi-
cally contextualized patterns, with those patterns inter-
pretable in light of life history theory. One take home
lesson is that human sexuality begins before puberty, a
point that receives less attention than it should in the
literature. Sex differences occur not just during adoles-
cence or adult reproductive years, but across the entire
life course, with even juvenile boys and postreproductive
males showing, for example, higher masturbation rates
than females. A major life history mismatch today is an
extended adolescent gap, especially for females. While
evolutionary scholars have long appreciated that ovarian
cycling is relatively rare in ancestral environments, that
insight has not been prominently applied to models of
sexuality. When put in direct focus, peripartum shifts in
female sexuality are dramatic, more so than those occur-
ring across the ovarian cycle, and should be viewed as
evolutionarily normative. Declines in various aspects of
sexuality, including coital and masturbation frequency
as well as erectile function or vaginal lubrication, can be
viewed as a consequence of diminished selective pres-
sures on maintenance of reproductive function.
CONCLUSIONS
Having reached the end of the life course, we also
wrap up this overview of human sexuality within evolu-
tionary perspective. Multiple lines of evidence recognize
human sex differences in sexuality, such as in sexual
desire, masturbation rates, and accessing services of
prostitutes. Those sex differences are consistent with
theory noting that females tend to be the reproductively
limiting sex over which males compete. Multiple lines of
evidence also point to the importance of long-term
slightly polygynous sociosexual bonds as the typical con-
text in which humans have sex. These lines of evidence
include cross-cultural marital data, including among
recent hunter-gatherers, as well as neuroendocrine
mechanisms of romantic love and anatomical and physi-
ological data indicating low sperm competition
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
114 P.B. GRAY
pressures. The phylogenetic origins of these long-term
bonds, by most accounts, appear to trace to the genus
Homo, with ongoing debate about the most likely timing
of shifts with earlier Homo vs. Homo heidelbergensis vs.
Homo sapiens. At the same time, the expression of
human sexuality exhibits considerable within- and
between-population variation. Rates of polygynous mar-
riage, affairs, masturbation and other features of sexual-
ity vary, which underscores the point that sexuality
needs to be placed within its social context. Such an
observation argues against any simplistic and determin-
istic view of the interaction between the heritable basis
of sexuality and socioecological context. Furthermore, a
life course perspective recognizes that age-related
aspects of human sexuality have a structure to them
that can be understood with respect to life history
theory. Human sexuality has a course ranging from juve-
nile sex play to diminished rates of sexual behavior with
advanced age.
The world of human sexuality continues to spawn new
questions and new insights. Although an evolutionary
perspective has previously been brought to bear on
human sexuality, in both past and present contexts, the
scholarship on this subject itself has been evolving. As
we saw in theoretical discussions, some foundational
concepts have been subject to scrutiny, even as a refined
understanding emerges. Important features of demogra-
phy and social context influence the details of sexual
behavior in humans, just as in other species. New
genetic, genomic, and physiological data have added to
our understanding of human sexuality in a variety of
ways, and will continue to enrich some of the most
cutting-edge of understandings in the field. One of the
most exciting areas will be to clarify the timing of evolu-
tionary shifts in hominin sexual behavior through
genetic research. Another exciting avenue will be to
specify the heritable basis to human long-term sociosex-
ual bonds. New fossil and archaeological finds will pro-
vide greater comparative, functional, and phylogenetic
insight into the evolution of human sexual behavior too.
Neuroendocrine mechanisms constraining and regulat-
ing human sexuality represent a growing avenue of
research, with new findings regularly revealed from
brain imaging and hormonal studies. However, the cul-
tural scope of this work, especially brain imaging stud-
ies, has been quite narrow.
The availability of large, quantitative studies offers
unprecedented insights into patterns of human sexuality
in the U.S. and internationally. Many of these studies
rely upon randomized, probability studies of populations
from various countries. Differences in human sexuality
have been noted with respect to sex, sexual orientation,
and age, among other central variables. The Internet
also serves as a growing resource into the evolutionary-
inspired investigation into human sexuality, revealing
that patterns of accessing sexual content in this techno-
logically new domain draw upon long-evolved mecha-
nisms. Additionally, claims regarding sex differences or
societal-specific patterns of sexuality can ideally be situ-
ated within a life course perspective and life history
theory. Patterns of human sexuality exhibit sex-, age-,
and context-specific differences that contribute to the
richest and most integrative understanding of human
sexuality. That said, there is a decided shortage of well-
designed studies investigating specific features of human
sexuality in particular small-scale socioecological con-
texts. That is one reason why much older data on, for
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
example, postpartum women’s sex taboos, may still be
drawn upon. Biological anthropologists are well-suited to
conceptualizing specific facets or cases of human sexual-
ity within evolutionary and life history theory. Just as
Charles Darwin long-ago showed us, the most integra-
tive and robust understanding of human sexuality is
rooted in an evolutionary perspective.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For comments on an earlier draft, I thank Kali Bertel-
sen, Bill Jankowiak, Matthew Martinez, Timothy McHale,
Michael Moncrieff, David Puts, Shelly Volsche, and Sharon
Young.
LITERATURE CITED
Alvergne A, Lummaa V. 2010. Does the contraceptive pill alter
mate choice in humans? TREE 25:171–179.
Andersson M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Apostolou M. 2007. Sexual selection under parental choice: The
role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evol Hum
Behav 28:403–409.
Archer J. 2006. Testosterone and human aggression: an evalua-
tion of the Challenge Hypothesis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30:
319–345.
Archer J, Coyne SM. 2005. An integrated review of indirect,
relational, and social aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 9:212–
230.
Avis NE, Brockwell S, Randolph JF Jr, Shen S, Cain VS, Ory
M, Greendale GA. 2009. Longitudinal changes in sexual func-
tioning as women transition through menopause: results from
the study of women’s health across the nation (SWAN). Meno-
pause 16:442–452.
Aron A, Fisher H, Mashek DJ, Strong G, Li H, Brown LL.
2005. Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated
with early-stage intense romantic love. J Neurophysiol 94:
327–337.
Baker RR, Bellis MA. 1994. Human sperm competition: copula-
tion, masturbation and infidelity. New York: Springer.
Bancroft J. 2005. The endocrinology of sexual arousal. J Endo-
crinol 186:411–427.
Bateman A J. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Hered-
ity 2:349–368.
Bartels A, Zeki S. 2000. The neural basis of romantic love. Neu-
roreport 11:3829–3834.
Baumeister RF, Catanese KR, Vohs KD. 2001. Is there a gender
difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, concep-
tual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Pers Soc
Psychol Rev 5:242–273.
Beach FA. 1976. Sexual attractivity, proceptivity, and receptiv-
ity. Horm Behav 7:105–138.
Berndt R, Berndt C. 1951. Sexual behavior in Arnhem land.
New York: Viking Fund.
Betzig L. 2012. Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive
success: comparative evidence. Evol Human Behav 33:309–
317.
Birkhead T. 2000. Promiscuity. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bliege Bird R. 1999. Cooperation and conflict: The behavioral
ecology of the sexual division of labor. Evol Anthropol 8:65–
75.
Blurton Jones NG, Marlowe F, Hawkes K, O’Connell JF. 2000.
Hunter-gatherer divorce rates and the paternal provisioning
theory of human monogamy. In: Cronk L, Chagnon N, Irons
W, editors. Adaptation and human behavior: an anthropologi-
cal perspective. New York: Aldine. p 65–84.
Bogin B 1999. Patterns of human growth, 2nd ed. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Brewis A, Meyer M. 2005a. Demographic evidence that human
ovulation is undetectable (at least in pair bonds). Curr
Anthropol 46:465–471.
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
Brewis A, Meyer M. 2005b. Marital coitus across the life course.
J Biosoc Sci 37:499–518.
Brown GR, Laland KN, Borgerhoff Mulder M. 2009. Bateman’s
principles and human sex roles. TREE 24:297–304.
Brunet M, Guy F, Pilbeam D, Lieberman DE, Likius A,
Mackaye HT, Ponce de Leon MS, Zollikofer CPE, Vignaud P
2005. New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper
Miocene of Chad. Nature 434:752–755.
Buss DM. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences:
evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain
Sci 12:1–49.
Buss DM. 2003. The evolution of desire: strategies of human
mating. New York: Basic Books.
Campbell A. 1999. Staying alive: evolution, culture and wom-
en’s intra-sexual selection. Behav Brain Sci 22:203–252.
Carmichael MS, Humbert R, Dixen J, Palmisano G,
Greenleaf W, Davidson JM. 1987. Plasma oxytocin
increases in the human sexual response. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 64:27–31.
Carnahan SJ, Jensen-Seaman MI. 2008. Hominoid seminal pro-
tein evolution and ancestral mating behavior. Am J Primatol
70:939–948.
Chapais B. 2008. Primeval kinship: how pair-bonding gave
birth to human society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L. 2003. Sexual con-
flict. TREE 18:41–47.
Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial
sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the
human genome. Nature 437:69–87.
Chivers ML, Seto MC, Lalumeire ML, Laan E, Grimbos T.
2010. Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sex-
ual arousal in men and women: a meta-analysis. Arch Sex
Behav 39:5–56.
Clark NL, Swanson WJ. 2005. Pervasive adaptive evolution in
primate seminal proteins. PLoS Genet 1(3):e35.
Clutton-Brock T, McAuliffe K. 2009. Female mate choice in
mammals. Q Rev Biol 84:3–27.
Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ. 1991. Sexual selection and the
potential reproductive rates of males and females. Science
351:58–60.
Crompton RH, Vereecke EE, Thorpe SKS. 2008. Locomotion
and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully
modern humans, with special reference to the last common
panin/hominin ancestor. J Anat 212:501–543.
Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation
to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dean C, Leakey MG, Reid D, Schrenk F, Schwartz GT, Stringer
C, Walker A. 2001. Growth processes in teeth distinguish
modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominins.
Nature 414:628–631.
Dennerstein L, Alexander JL, Kotz K. 2003. The menopause
and sexual functioning: a review of the population-based
studies. Annu Rev Sex Res 14:64–82.
Disotell TR. 2012. Archaic human genomics. Yearb Phys
Anthropol 55:24–39.
Ditzen B, Schaer M, Gabriel B, Bodenmann G, Ehlert U,
Heinrichs M. 2009. Intranasal oxytocin increases positive
communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple con-
flict. Biol Psychiatry 65:728–731.
Dixson AF. 2009. Sexual selection and the origins of human
mating systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dixson AF. 2012. Primate sexuality, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Durante KM, Li NP, Haselton MG. 2008. Changes in women’s
choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: naturalistic and
laboratory task-based evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:
1451–1460.
Eberhard WG. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic
female choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ellison PT. 2001. On fertile ground. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Emlen ST, Oring LW. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the
evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223.
115
Escasa MJ, Casey J, Gray PB. 2011. Salivary testosterone levels
in men at a U.S. sex club. Arch Sex Behav 40:921–926.
Escasa-Dorne MJ, Young SM, Gray PB. 2013. Now or later:
peripartum shifts in female sociosexuality. In: Fisher ML,
Garcia JR, Sokol Chang R, editors. Evolution’s empress. New
York: Cambridge University Press. p 260–277.
Fisher HE. 1982. The sex contract. New York: Quill.
Fisher HE, Aron A, Brown LL. 2006. Romantic love: a mamma-
lian brain system for mate choice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B
Biol Sci 361:2173–2186.
Foley R, Gamble C. 2009. The ecology of social transitions in
human evolution. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 364:3267–3279.
Ford CS, Beach FA 1951. Patterns of sexual behavior. New
York: Ace Books.
Frayser S. 1985. Varieties of sexual experience. New Haven,
CT: HRAF Press.
Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. 2008. Human oestrus. Proc Roy
Soc B 275:991–1000.
Gat A. 2006. War in human civilization. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Garcia JR, MacKillop J, Aller EL, Merriwether AM, Wilson DS,
Lum JK. 2010. Associations between dopamine D4 receptor
gene variation with both infidelity and sexual promiscuity.
PLoS ONE 5:e14162.
Garcia JR, Reiber C, Massey SG, Merriwether AM. 2012. Hook-
up culture: a review. Rev Gen Psychol 16:161–176.
Geary DC. 2010. Male, female: the evolution of human sex dif-
ferences, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Geary DC. 2002. Sexual selection and human life history. Adv
Child Behav Devel 30:41–101.
Geary DC, Flinn MV. 2001. Evolution of human parental behav-
ior and the human family. Parenting 1:5–61.
Gentry GA, Lowe M, Alford G, Nevins R. 1988. Sequence analy-
ses of herpesviral enzymes suggest an ancient origin for
human sexual behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 85:2658–2661.
Georgiadis JR, Reinders AA, Paans AM, Renken R, Kortekaas
R. 2009. Men versus women on sexual brain function: promi-
nent differences during tactile genital stimulation, but not
during orgasm. Hum Brain Mapp 30:3089–3101.
Gettler LT, McDade TW, Feranil AB, Kuzawa CW. 2011. Longi-
tudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in
human males. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:16194–16199.
Good JM, Wiebe V, Albert FW, Burbano HA, Kircher M, Green
RE, Halbwax M, Andre C, Atencia R, Fischer A, Paabo S.
2013. Comparative population genomics of the ejaculate in
humans and the great apes. Mol Biol Evol 30:964–976.
Goodman M, Porter CA, Czelusniak J, Page SL, Schneider H,
Shoshani J, Gunnell G, Groves CP. 1998. Toward a phyloge-
netic classification of primates based on DNA evidence com-
plemented by fossil evidence. Mol Phylogenet Evol 9:585–598.
Gowaty P, Kim Y-K, Anderson WW. 2012. No evidence of sexual
selection in a repetition of Bateman’s classic study of Dro-
sophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:11740–11745.
Gray P, Campbell B. 2005. Erectile dysfunction and its corre-
lates among the Ariaal of northern Kenya. Intl J Impot Res
17:445–449.
Gray PB. 2003. Marriage, parenting, and testosterone variation
among Kenyan Swahili men. Am J Phys Anthropol 122:279–
286.
Gray PB, Anderson KG. 2010. Fatherhood: evolution and
human paternal behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Gray PB, Campbell BC. 2009. Human male testosterone, pair
bonding and fatherhood. In: Ellison PT, Gray PB, editors.
Endocrinology of social relationships. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Gray PB, Garcia JR. 2012. Aging and human sexual behavior.
Gerontol 58:446–452.
Gray PB, Garcia JR. 2013. Evolution and human sexual behav-
ior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gray PB, Yang CF, Pope HG Jr. 2006. Fathers have lower sali-
vary testosterone levels than unmarried men and married
non-fathers in Beijing, China. Proc Biol Sci 273:333–339.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
116 P.B. GRAY
Grewen KM, Girdler SS, Amico J, Light KC. 2005. Effects of
partner support on resting oxytocin, cortisol, norepinephrine,
and blood pressure before and after warm partner contact.
Psychosom Med 67:531–538.
Gueguen N. 2009. Menstrual cycle phases and female receptiv-
ity to a courtship solicitation: an evaluation in a nightclub.
Evol Hum Behav 30:351–355.
Guttentag M, Secord PF. 1983. Too many women? The sex ratio
question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammock EAD, Young LJ. 2005. Microsatellite instability gen-
erates diversity in brain and sociobehavioral traits. Science
308:1630–1634.
Harcourt AH, Harvey PH, Larson SG, Short RV. 1981. Testis
weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature
293:55–57.
Harmon E. 2009. Size and shape variation in the proximal
femur of Australopithecus. J Hum Evol 56:551–559.
Harpending H, Cochran G. 2002. In our genes. Proc Natl Acad
Sci 99:10–2.
Hausfater G, Hrdy SB. 1984. Infanticide: comparative and evo-
lutionary perspectives. New York: Aldine.
Hawkes K. 2004. Mating, parenting, and the evolution of
human pair bonds. In: Chapais B, Berman CM, editors. Kin-
ship and behavior in primates. New York: Oxford University
Press. p 443–473.
Hawkes K, O’Connell JF, Blurton Jones NG, Charnov EL,
Alvarez H. 1998. Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolu-
tion of human life histories. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:1336–
1339.
Hawkes K, Paine R, editors. 2006. The evolution of human life
history. New Mexico: School of American Research.
Hawks, 2011. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/
neandertal_dna/penis-spines-mclean-2011.html.
Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA, Dodge B,
Fortenberry JD. 2010. Sexual behavior in the United States:
results from a national probability sample of men and women
ages 14–94. J Sex Med 7:255–265.
Herdt G, McClintock M. 2000. The magical age of 10. Arch Sex
Behav 29:587–606.
Hewlett BS, Hewlett BL. 2010. Sex and searching for children
among Aka foragers and Ngandu farmers of Central Africa.
Afr Study Monographs 31:107–125.
Heyer ER, Chaix R, Pavard S, Austerlitz F. 2012. Sex-specific
demographic behaviours that shape human genomic varia-
tion. Mol Ecol 21:597–612.
Howell N. 2010. Life histories of the Dobe !Kung. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hrdy SB. 1981. The woman that never evolved. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Hrdy SB. 1999. Mother nature: a natural history of mothers,
infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon.
Hrdy SB. 2009. Mothers and others: the evolutionary origins of
mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Hughes JF, Skaletsky H, Pyntikova T, Graves TA, van Daalen
SKM, et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes
are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content.
Nature 463:536–539.
Jankowiak W, editor. 2008. Intimacies: love and sex across cul-
tures. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jankowiak W, Sudakov M, Wilreker BC. 2005. Co-wife conflict
and co-operation. Ethnology 44:81–98.
Kaplan H, Hill K, Lancaster J, Hurtado AM. 2000. A theory of
human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity.
Evol Anthropol 9:156–185.
Kelly R. 1995. The foraging spectrum. Washington, D.C.: Smith-
sonian Press.
Kerns V, Brown JK, editors. 1992. In her prime: new views of
middle-aged women, 2nd ed. Urbana and Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.
Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Bane C, Glaser M, Malarkey WB. 2003.
Love, marriage, and divorce: newlyweds’ stress hormones
foreshadow relationship changes. J Consult Clin Psychol 71:
176–188.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Kinsey A, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE. 1948. Sexual behavior in
the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kinsey A, Pomeroy W, Martin C, Gebhard P. 1953. Sexual
behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kirkpatrick RC. 2000. The evolution of human homosexual
behavior. Curr Anthropol 41:385–413.
Kokko H, Jennions M. 2003. It takes two to tango. Trends Ecol
Evol 18:103–104.
Kokko H, Jennions MD. 2008a. Parental investment, sexual
selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948.
Kokko H, Jennions MD. 2008b. Sexual conflict: battle of the
sexes reversed. Curr Biol 18:R121–R123.
Komisaruk BR, Whipple B. 2005. Functional MRI of the brain
during orgasm in women. Annu Rev Sex Res 16:62–86.
Kruger THC, Haake P, Chereath D, Knapp W, Janssen OE,
Exton MS, Schedlowski M, Hartmann U. 2003. Specificity of
the neuroendocrine response to orgasm during sexual arousal
in men. J Endocrinol 177:57–64.
Labuda D, Lefebre J-F, Nadeau P, Roy-Gagnon M-H. 2010.
Female-to-male breeding ratio in modern humans—an analy-
sis based on historical recombinations. Am J Hum Genet 86:
353–363.
Lassek WD, Gaulin JC. 2009. Costs and benefits of fat-free
muscle mass in men: relationship to mating success, dietary
requirements, and native immunity. Evol Hum Behav 30:
322–328.
Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. 1994. The
social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United
States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lieberman DE. 2011. The evolution of the human head. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindau ST, Schumm LP, Laumann EO et al. 2007. A study of
sexuality and health among older adults in the United States.
N Engl J Med 357:762–774.
Lockwood CA. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in the face of Australo-
pithecus africanus. Am J Phys Anthropol 108:97–127.
Lockwood CA, Menter CG, Moggi-Cecchi J, Keyser AW. 2007.
Extended male growth in a fossil hominin species. Science
318:1443–1446.
Lovejoy CO. 2009. Reexamining human origins in light of Ardi-
pithecus. Science 326:74e1–7.
Low BS. 2000. Why sex matters. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Lukas D, Clutton-Brock TH. 2013. The evolution of social
monogamy in mammals. Science 341:526–530.
Maccoby EE. 1998. The two sexes: growing up apart, coming
together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mallants C, Casteels K. 2008. Practical approach to childhood
masturbation—a review. Eur J Pediatr 167:1111–1117.
Manson JH. 2011. Mate choice. In: Campbell CJ, Fuentes A,
MacKinnon KC, Bearder SK, Stumpf R, editors. Primates in
perspective, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marlowe FW. 2003. A critical period for provisioning by Hadza
men: implications for pair bonding. Evol Hum Behav 24:217–
229.
Marlowe FW. 2005. Hunter-gatherers and human evolution.
Evol Anthropol 14:54–67.
Marlowe FW. 2007. Hunting and gathering: the human sexual
division of foraging labor. Cross-Cultural Res 41:170–195.
Marlowe FW. 2010. The Hadza: hunter-gatherers of Tanzania.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California.
Mazur A, Michalek J. 1998. Marriage, divorce and male testos-
terone. Soc Forces 77:315–330.
McHenry HM. 1994. Behavioral ecological implications of early
hominin body size. J Hum Evol 27:77–87.
McLean CY, Reno PL, Pollen AA, Bassan AI, Capellini TD,
Guenther C, Indjeian VB, Lim X, Menke DB, Schaar BT,
Wenger AM, Bejerano G, Kinsley DM. 2011. Human-specific
loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific
traits. Nature 471:216–219.
Meizner I. 1987. Sonographic observation of in utero fetal ‘mas-
turbation’. J Ultrasound 6:111.
Mesnick SL. 1997. Sexual alliances: evidence and evolutionary
implications. In: Gowaty PA, editor. Feminism and
 EVOLUTION AND HUMAN SEXUALITY
evolutionary biology: boundaries, intersections and frontiers.
New York: Chapman and Hall.
Miller G. 2000. The mating mind. London: Heineman.
Mitani JC, Call J, Kappeler PM, Palombit RA, Silk JB, Editors.
2012. The evolution of primate societies. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Mitani JC, Gros-Louis G, Richards AF. 1996. Sexual dimor-
phism, the operational sex ratio, and the intensity of male
competition in polygynous primates. Am Nat 147:966–980.
Montagu MFA. 1946. Adolescent sterility. Springfield, IL: CC
Thomas.
Mubiru JN, Cavazos N, Hemmat P, Garcia-Forey M, Shade RE,
Rogers J. 2012. Androgen receptor CAG repeat polymorphism
in males of six non-human primate species. J Med Primatol
41:67–70.
Muehlenbein, M, ed. 2010. Human evolutionary biology. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Muller MN, Emery Thompson ME, Wrangham RW. 2006. Male
chimpanzees prefer mating with older females. Curr Biol 16:
2234–2238.
Muller MN, Wrangham RW, editors. 2009. Sexual coercion in
primates and humans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Murdock GP. 1949. Social structure. New York: Free Press.
Murdock GP, White DR. 1969. Standard cross-cultural sample.
Ethnology 8:329–369.
Nelson E, Rolian C, Cashmore L, Shultz S. 2011. Digit ratios
predict polygyny in early apes, Ardipithecus, Neanderthals
and early modern humans but not in Australopithecus. Proc
Roy Soc Lond B 278:1556–1563.
Nunn CL. 1999. The evolution of exaggerated sexual swellings
in primates and the graded-signal hypothesis. Anim Behav
58:229–246.
O’Bleness M, Searles VB, Varki A, Gagneux P, Sikela JM. 2012.
Evolution of genetic and genomic features unique to the
human lineage. Nat Rev Genet 13:853–866.
O’Connell JF, Allen J. 2007. Pre-LGM Sahul (Pleistocene
Australia-New Guinea) and the archaeology of early modern
humans. In: Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C, edi-
tors. Rethinking the human revolution. Cambridge: McDo-
nald Institute for Archaelogical Research. p 395–410.
Ogas O, Gaddam S. 2011. A billion wicked thoughts. New York:
Dutton.
Parish WL, Laumann EO, Mojola SA. 2007. Sexual behavior in
China: trends and comparisons. Popul Dev Rev 33:729–756.
Parker GA. 1970. Sperm competition and its evolutionary conse-
quences in the insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567.
Plavcan JM. 2012. Sexual size dimorphism, canine dimorphism,
and male-male competition in primates: where do humans fit
in? Hum Nat 23: 45–67.
Poiani A. 2010. Animal homosexuality. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Prichard ZM, Mackinnon AJ, Jorm AF, Easteal S. 2007.
AVPR1A and OXTR polymorphisms are associated with sex-
ual and reproductive behavioral phenotypes in humans. Hum
Mutat 28:1150.
Prufer K, et al. 2012. The bonobo genome compared with the
chimpanzee and human genomes. Nature 486:527–531.
Pusey AE. 2012. The magnitude and sources of variation in
female reproductive performance. In: Mitani J, Call J, Kap-
peler P, Palombit R, Silk J, editors. Evolution of primate soci-
eties, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Puts D. 2010. Beauty and the beast: mechanisms of sexual
selection in humans. Evol Hum Behav 31:157–175.
Quinlan RJ. 2008. Human pair-bonds: evolutionary functions,
ecological variation, and adaptive development. Evol Anthro-
pol 17:227–238.
Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, Schneider GM, Koenig SSK, McCulle
SL, Karlebach S, Gorle R, Russell G, Tacket CO, Brotman
RM, Davis CC, Ault K, Peralta L, Forney LJ. 2011. Vaginal
microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci
108:4680–4687.
Reno PL, Meindl RS, McCollum MA, Lovejoy CO. 2003.
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar
117
to that of modern humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9404–
9409.
Reynolds JD. 1987. Mating systems and nesting biology of the
red-necked phalarope Phaloropus lobatus: what constrains
polyandry? Ibis 129:225–242.
Robles TF, Shaffer VA, Malarkey WB, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. 2006.
Positive behaviors during marital conflict: influences on stress
hormones. J Soc Pers Rel 23:305–325.
Ryan C, Jetha C. 2010. Sex at dawn: how we mate, how we
stray, and what it means for modern relationships. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Schaefer K, Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Bookstein FL.
2004. Craniofacial sexual dimorphism patterns and allometry
among extant hominids. Ann Anat 186:471–478.
Schlegel A, Barry H III. 1991. Adolescence: an anthropologica-
liInquiry. New York: The Free Press.
Schmitt DP. 2003. Universal sex differences in the desire for
sexual variety: tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13
islands.” J Pers Soc Psychol 85:85–104.
Schmitt DP. 2005. Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe:
a 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human
mating.” Behav Brain Sci 28:247–311.
Senut B, et al. 2001. First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino
Formation, Kenya). CR Acad Sci Paris 332:137–144.
Shoskak M. 1981. Nisa, the life and words of a !Kung woman.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Short RV. 1976. The evolution of human reproduction. Proc Roy
Soc Lond B 195:3–24.
Simpson SW, Quade J, Levin NE, Butler R, Dupont-Nivet G,
Everett M, Semaw S. 2008. A female Homo erectus pelvis
from Gona, Ethiopia. Science 322:1089–1092.
Smith EA. 2004. Why do good hunters have higher reproductive
success? Hum Nat 15:343–364.
Smuts BB. 1985. Sex and friendship in baboons. New York: Aldine.
Smuts BB. 1992. Male aggression against women: An evolution-
ary perspective. Hum Nat 3:1–44.
Starkweather KE, Hames R. 2012. A survey of non-classical
polyandry. Hum Nat 23:149–172.
Stearns SC. 1992. The evolution of life histories. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Stockley P, Bro-Jorgensen J. 2011. Female competition and its
evolutionary consequences in mammals. Biol Rev Camb
Philos Soc 86:341–366.
Strassman BI. 1981. Sexual selection, paternal care, and con-
cealed ovulation in humans. Ethol Sociobiol 2:31–40.
Strier KB. 1990. New world primates, new frontiers: Insights
from the woolly spider monkey, or muriqui (Brachyteles
arachnoides). Int J Primatol 11:7–19.
Symons D. 1979. The evolution of human sexuality. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Tinbergen N. 1963. On aims and methods in ethology. Zeits-
chrift fur Tierpsychologie 20:410–433.
Trivers R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In
Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed. BC Campbell,
136-179. Chicago: Aldine.
Van Schaik CP, Dunbar RIM. 1990. The evolution of monogamy
in large primates: A new hypothesis and some crucial tests.
Behaviour 115:30–62.
Vitzhum V. 2009. The ecology and evolutionary endocrinology of repro-
duction in the human female. Ybk Phys Anthropol 49: 95–136.
Van Anders SM, Brotto L, Farrell J, Yule M. 2009. Associations
between physiological and subjective sexual responses, sexual
desire, and salivary steroid hormones in healthy premeno-
pausal women. J Sex Res 6:739–751.
Van Anders SM, Gray PB. 2007. Hormones and human partner-
ing. Ann Rev Sex Res 18:60–93.
Van Anders SM, Watson NV. 2006. Social neuroendocrinology:
effects of social contexts and behaviors on sex steroids in
humans. Hum Nat 17:212–237.
Van Schaik CP. 1983. Why are diurnal primates living in
groups? Behav 87:120–144.
Van Schaik CP, Janson CH, Eds. 2000. Infanicide by males and
its implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
118 P.B. GRAY
Von Sydow K. 1999. Sexuality during pregnancy and after
childbirth: a metacontent analysis of 59 studies. J Psychosom
Res 47:27–49.
Walker AC, Leakey RE, Eds. 1993. The Nariokotome Homo
erectus skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker RS, Hill KR, Flinn MV, Ellsworth RM. 2011. Evolution-
ary history of hunter-gatherer marriage practices. PLoS ONE
6:e19066.
Walum H, Westberg L, Henningsson S, Neiderhiser JM,
Reiss D, Igl W, Ganiban JM, Spotts EL, Pedersen NL,
Eriksson E, Lichtenstein P. 2008. Genetic variation in the
vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with
pair-bonding behavior in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:
14153–14156.
Weisfeld GE. 1999. Evolutionary principles of human adoles-
cence. New York: Basic Books.
Wellings K, Collumbien M, Slaymaker E, Singh S, Hodges Z,
Patel D, Bajos N. 2006. Sexual behavior in context: a global
perspective. Lancet 368:1706–1728.
Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Dunson DB, McConnaughey DR, Kesner
JS, Weinberg CR. 2004. On the frequency of intercourse
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
around ovulation: Evidence for biological influences. Hum
Reprod 19:1539–1543.
Williams GC. 1957. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolu-
tion of senescence. Evolution 11:398–411.
Winking J, Kaplan H, Gurven M, Rucas S. 2007. Why do men
marry and why do they stray? Proc Roy Soc B: Biol Sci 274:
1643–1649.
Winn RL, Newton N. 1982. Sexuality in aging: a study of 106
cultures. Arch Sex Behav 11:283–298.
Wood B, Lonergan N. 2008. The hominin fossil record: taxa,
grades and clades. J Anat 212:354–376.
Wrangham RW. 1979. On the evolution of ape social systems.
Soc Sci Info 18:335–368.
Wrangham RW, Jones JH, Laden G, Pilbeam D, Conklin-
Britain N. 1999. The raw and the stolen: cooking and the
ecology of human origins. Curr Anthropol 40:567–594.
Yang CF, Gray P, Pope HG Jr. 2005. Male body image in Taiwan
versus the West: Yanggang Zhiqi meets the Adonis complex.
Am J Psychiatry 162:263–269.
Zeki S, Romaya JP. 2010. The brain reaction to viewing faces of
opposite- and same-sex romantic partners. PLoS ONE 5(12):
e15802.