See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230563619

The Evolution of Human Sexuality: An

Introduction

Article in Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

2 2,375

1 author:

Michael Kauth
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
75 PUBLICATIONS 850 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transgender veteran health disparities View project

Qualitative study of rural LGBT Veterans View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Kauth on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Evolution of Human Sexuality:
An Introduction
Michael R. Kauth, PhD

SUMMARY. Humans are sexual creatures. Human preoccupation with

sex and sexuality makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. In par-
ticular, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) has proven to be a valuable heu-
ristic approach for generating and testing hypotheses about human
sexuality. The main theme of this volume is the evolution of human sex-
uality, or evolved human sexual psychologies. A second theme is the
identification of implicit conceptual assumptions about sexual attraction
and the operational definition of key terms in order to promote greater
integrity of conceptual models. doi:10.1300/J056v18n02_01[Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-
HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights
reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Evolution, psychology, human sexual attraction, as-

sumptions

Michael R. Kauth is Clinical Psychologist, Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health

Care System, New Orleans, LA, and Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry &
Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine.
Address correspondence to: (E-mail: michael.kauth@med.va.gov).
The author thanks Frank Muscarella for his helpful comments on an earlier version
of this manuscript.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Evolution of Human Sexuality: An Introduction.” Kauth, Mi-
chael R. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality (The Haworth Press,
Inc.) Vol. 18, No. 2/3, 2006, pp. 1-22; and: Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality (ed: Michael R.
Kauth) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 1-22. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee
from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail ad-
dress: docdelivery@haworthpress.com].
Available online at http://jphs.haworthpress.com
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J056v18n02_01 1
2 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Art is the sex of the imagination.

–George Jean Nathan, art critic, 1929

We have reason to believe that man first walked upright

to free his hands for masturbation.

–Lily Tomlin, comedian

Humans are inherently sexual creatures (Symons, 1979). Sexuality is

pervasive in human activities, essentially producing a sexual culture
(Taylor, 1996; Taylor, this volume; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). A clear
example of how sexual human culture is can be found in a quick survey
of popular Western culture. Sexy images of young, beautiful, and se-
ductively clad women and men are employed in advertisements for any
number of products (automobiles, beverages, couture, deodorant, erec-
tile enhancing drugs, floor cleaners, etc.) with the purpose of associat-
ing attraction to the sexual images with attraction to the product. The
fact that sexy images are used so frequently for so many products is evi-
dence that the strategy works. Acquiring the product may then evoke in
the consumer a feeling of sexiness, or the possibility of sexual conquest
and sexual fulfillment that is alluded to by the advertising images.
Sexual behavior and sexuality are central themes of popular Western
entertainments: books and magazines, computer games, movies and
television, theater, music, and even sports. As subject matter, sexuality
seems to be a fathomless well; similar stories of love and loss have been
told and re-told for thousands of years. In Western culture, sexual be-
havior and sexuality are frequent topics of discourse that on any given
day may include speculation about possible sexual activity, relation-
ships, condoms, masturbation, orgasm, abstinence, pregnancy, abor-
tion, homosexuality, sexual infidelities, or sexual jealousy. In addition
to talking frequently about it, many people experience sexual arousal
most days or engage in some form of sexual activity–flirtations, sexual
fantasies, masturbation, or intercourse. Although men and women are
sexually aroused by different sexual stimuli and prefer different types
and frequencies of sexual behaviors, most people attend and respond to
sexual stimuli in the environment (Chivers, 2005).
Why are humans so consumed with sexuality? “Why” questions
about human nature are difficult to answer and invariably elicit passion-
ate and diverse religious, political, and social responses, which often
 Introduction 3

come down to faith in one’s personal beliefs (Pinker, 2002). No less

provocative but perhaps more tangible are scientific explanations of hu-
man nature that are based on established theory and systematic observa-
tion. Scientific explanations have the advantage of being observable by
others and generating testable predictions. In this volume, contributors
attempt to explain the “why” of human sexuality from an evolutionary
sciences perspective.

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Evolutionary theory is adept at addressing “why” questions; this is

the evolutionist’s stock-in-trade. That is, evolutionary theory helps to
explain how particular traits evolved within a species and whether a trait
is adaptive or functional (Symons, 1979). Adaptive traits (adaptations)
evolved to solve problems related to survival and reproduction in the
ancestral environment of the organism. Reproductive success, not sur-
vival, is the ultimate function of a trait: that is, the trait results in the or-
ganism leaving more robust offspring, who also possess the adaptive
trait and pass it on to their offspring. Even traits that confer very small
selective advantages can, over many generations, enhance the repro-
ductive success of organisms with the favored trait, until eventually the
trait spreads throughout the population (Haldane, 1927). Common hu-
man features such as upright posture, walking, verbal language, and in-
terest in sexual stimuli, for example, can be explained by natural
selection theory as adaptations that enhanced the reproductive fitness of
our early ancestors and so spread through the population. Other fea-
tures, such as physical differences between the sexes, can be explained
by sexual selection theory as traits associated with reproductive fitness
and favored by one but not the other sex. Sexual selection theory also
helps to explain sex differences in sexual psychologies that result in dif-
ferential mating behaviors. By incorporating both natural and sexual se-
lection theories, Evolutionary Psychology (EP) has emerged as a
productive approach for generating hypotheses about human sexual
psychologies and testing them.
Anthropologist Donald Brown (1991) has claimed that human so-
cieties share similar ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving, which
are likely a result of our evolutionary history as a species. Brown has
documented numerous universal human characteristics, including
abstract thinking, belief in the supernatural/religion, color terms,
classification of sex, culture/nature distinctions, division of labor by
4 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

sex, ethnocentrism, etiquette, facial expressions, father and mother as

kin categories, food sharing, gossip, grammar, inheritance rules, insults,
jokes, law, love of sweets, males occupying public/political roles, mar-
riage, meal times, music, myths, nepotism, nouns, play, rape, reciproc-
ity, rites of passage, sexual attraction, sexual regulation, social statuses,
speech, tools, trade, turn-taking, units of time, violence, and a world-
view, to name a few. A universal human nature, or evolved psychology,
makes it possible for humans to communicate with and understand alien
human cultures (Pinker, 2002). Evolutionists assert that human nature
evolved in response to competing survival and reproductive strategies
(Cosmides, Tooby, & Barkow, 1992; Pinker & Bloom, 1992; Wilson,
1975/2000). Thus, we should expect that human nature is highly attuned
to sexuality and sexual communication.
From an evolutionary perspective, human preoccupation with sexu-
ality makes perfect sense (Taylor, 1996). People should be preoccupied
with sexuality because our ancestors were; that is, early humans who
were focused on sexuality were most likely to have engaged regularly in
conceptive sexual behavior and have children who also shared their par-
ents’ heightened sexual interest. By contrast, early humans with only a
modest or infrequent interest in sex would rapidly have been out-repro-
duced by sex-focused members of the species. Contemporary humans
are the product of generations of reproductively successful ancestors
who were preoccupied with sexuality.
Evolutionists have argued that our human sexual psychologies
evolved over tens of thousands of generations to solve specific consis-
tent ecological, psychological, and social problems in the ancestral en-
vironment (Pinker & Bloom, 1992). However, few humans today live
exclusively in the natural environment under conditions similar to those
experienced by our ancestors. As well, modern life presents challenges
and opportunities that early humans never faced and could not have
imagined. Nevertheless, knowledge of human evolution can help to ex-
plain, for example, why people today respond favorably to certain sex-
ual images (readily exploited by advertisers), why people fall in love,
why people are attracted to particular sexual features, why people expe-
rience sexual jealousy, why males feel protective of their mate and
readily fight with other males, why partners sometimes cheat on each
other, and why females strive to appear sexy but are choosey in select-
ing a mate. Evolutionary theory can also help to explain why some sex-
ual behaviors are taboo and perceived as disgusting, and possibly why
many people experience varied sexual attractions.
 Introduction 5

Several recent texts have well-described EP’s approach and

EP-generated findings about human sexuality. These texts include
Badcock’s (2000) Evolutionary Psychology: A Critical Introduction;
Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby’s (1992) The Adapted Mind: Evolu-
tionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture; Buss’s (1994) The
Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating and his (2005)
Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology; Geary’s (1998) Male, Fe-
male: The Evolution of Human Sexual Differences; and Miller’s
(2000) The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of
Human Nature. For many, the edited volume, The Adapted Mind, is
the bible of EP, although the edited and equally scholarly Handbook of
Evolutionary Psychology is well on its way to becoming a classic text.
Yet the contributors of The Adapted Mind, although focused on psy-
chological mechanisms of human social behavior, largely ignore
sexual selection theory and give little attention to human sexual psy-
chologies. The mammoth Handbook, while incorporating both natural
and sexual selection theories and focusing more on human sexuality,
is written for the advanced evolutionist. The Mating Mind, a more ac-
cessible text, is written for a general audience. This volume is written
for sexual scientists, scholars, and students who wish to understand
adult-adult human sexual attraction and behavior and are relatively
new to recent evolutionary theories.
Thus, the principal theme of this volume is the evolution of human
sexuality. Contributors discuss the evolutionary history of human sexu-
ality, including linkages to non-human primate sexual behaviors and the
emergence of human (sexual) culture. Contributors also present current
findings from EP studies on consensual adult human sexual behaviors,
including evolved male and female mating strategies, mate preferences,
and sexual psychologies. The elusive role of sexual attraction and sex-
ual orientation is a recurring theme. Sexual attraction is more difficult
than sexual behavior to measure, but more comprehensive. Elucidating
sexual attraction approaches the problem of understanding sexual ori-
entation. Several contributors note the prevalence of varied (nonexclu-
sive) sexual attractions in human societies, and four contributors
discuss theories of the development and function of same-sex sexual at-
traction.
This volume does not attempt to explain all aspects of human sexual-
ity. The contributors and I hope that the ideas expressed here will stimu-
late scholars and researchers to investigate other areas of human
sexuality from an evolutionary perspective.
6 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

The Shape of Things

There is now a considerable literature on the evolution of human sex-

ual behavior, much of it generated recently by evolutionary psycholo-
gists. Confirming evidence has led to some findings (e.g., general male
interest in novel sex partners, general female choosiness in mates) being
viewed now as established fact. Yet there is still much to know, and
there are many areas where scientific opinions differ. Good scientists
sometimes disagree, and differences of opinion are likely to be found at
the fuzzy edges of phenomena. Human sexuality has a lot of fuzzy
edges. For me, the scientific process is most interesting when scientists
struggle with how to make sense of something. That struggle is evident
in this volume. The contributors were selected to present good evolu-
tionary science, rather than present a range of viewpoints. However, as
they try to bring the fuzzy edges of human sexuality into better focus,
several contributors have proposed different interpretations of similar
data and make strong arguments for their case.
This volume begins with a depiction of the historical and social con-
text of evolutionary theory. I describe a brief history of the theory of
evolution and its development, including EP, and argue that without
knowing the historical context it is difficult to fully appreciate the the-
ory or understand critics’ objections to it. Cultural context shapes how
both scientists and nonscientists view evolution and human sexuality.
Sprinkled throughout the history, I introduce key concepts of evolution-
ary theory that are employed extensively in later texts. I also identify
and discuss fundamental assumptions of evolutionary theory and EP.
Lastly, I outline basic objections to evolutionary theory and comment
on their validity, concluding that much opposition to evolutionary the-
ory is based, not on scientific grounds, but on misunderstanding of the
theory and a false nature/nurture dichotomy, on political philosophies
such as Marxism and feminism, or on evangelical beliefs that resist the
omission of a Creator. Christian evangelicals have long opposed evolu-
tion and opposed openness about sexuality and have often linked the
two, attributing a host of evils–moral decline in the United States, sex-
ual promiscuity, abortion, and tolerance of homosexuality–in large part
to the teaching of evolution and sex education in public schools.
Next, archaeologist Timothy Taylor provides an ancient cultural con-
text to this project, with an overview of hominin evolution and the birth
of human (sexual) culture. While acknowledging the difficulties in
drawing behavioral inferences from the archaeological data and the so-
cial biases in the ethnographic record, he argues that major turning
 Introduction 7

points in human evolution can be agreed upon. Taylor then challenges

several assumptions about premodern human sexuality, asserting that
contraception was more widely available than has been traditionally
thought and that exclusive heterosexuality was not the dominant form
of sexual behavior in ancient human cultures, citing evidence of varied
sexual practices and of ritual condemnation of aberrant sexual practices.
He hypothesizes that constellations of human groups engaged in early
social practices that then shaped human sexuality and behavior and in
turn influenced the emerging culture. The beginning of human culture,
he suggests, may be traced to the invention of the infant-carrying sling,
probably a woman’s invention, which solved critical problems related
to bipedalism and increasing human brain capacity, such as caring for
underdeveloped infants because of narrow birth canals. A related mile-
stone in the evolution of human culture, according to Taylor, is the
subsequent attribution of “gender” and attempts to regulate sexuality.
And so began culture’s subversion of biology.
Complementing Taylor’s text, Felicia De la Garza-Mercer pre-
sents a brief evolutionary history of sexual pleasure. It is difficult to
imagine sexual behavior without sexual pleasure. Garza-Mercer ar-
gues that pleasure associated with conceptive behavior ensures that
such behavior will occur with sufficient frequency. Further, the asso-
ciation of pleasure with nonreproductive sexual behaviors (e.g., kiss-
ing, masturbation, oral sex) may indirectly support the likelihood of
conceptive sexual behaviors. Thus, a heightened capacity for sexual
pleasure may be an evolved human trait. More generally, Garza-Mercer
adds, the experience of pleasure and pain may drive human behavior.
The next two texts describe evolved human reproductive strategies and
mate preferences. Jon Sefcek, Barbara Brumbach, Geneva Vasquez, and
Geoffrey Miller summarize a large body of knowledge on human mating
strategies. Differential reproductive costs have led males and females to
develop different, sometimes competing, mating strategies and specific
mate preferences. For example, because women have a large reproduc-
tive investment (e.g., limited supply of costly eggs, low reproductive
variance, long gestation, high parental investment, and rapidly declining
fertility), they tend to be choosier in sexual partners and in general pre-
fer long-term mateships in order to maximize their reproductive suc-
cess. On the other hand, because men have a lesser reproductive
investment (e.g., plentiful low-cost sperm, high reproductive vari-
ance, low parental investment, and slow declining fertility), they tend
to prefer partner variety and short-term mateships. However, for many
reasons, men often pursue long-term mateships to maximize their repro-
8 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

ductive success, and women sometimes seek out short-term sexual part-
ners. Sefeck, Brumbach, Vasquez, and Miller make the important point
that sexual decision-making is context-dependent: that is, the ecological
context influences the particular mating strategy and what particular
characteristics are valued in a mate. Mating patterns can be shown to
vary with the harshness of the natural environment and availability of
material and nutritional resources. The influence of context–natural, so-
cial, behavioral, economic, and political context–on mate preferences
and mating patterns is often ignored by critics who portray evolutionary
explanations as rigid and deterministic.
Sefcek and colleagues also describe how humans, like all sexual or-
ganisms, have developed sexual signals to advertise their quality (e.g.,
“good genes” or good health) and value as a mate (e.g., fertility, willing-
ness to invest). Human fitness signals include physical features, as well
as social status, fashion, networks of friends, and material wealth. Thus,
distinctive physical features–large female breasts, large male penises,
body hair–can be thought of as sexual ornaments that have no adaptive
value in themselves but function to signal fertility, good health, “good
genes,” or sexiness. High cost physical traits are seen as more reliable
indicators of good health or “good genes.” An evolved preference for
particular traits is simply experienced as attraction.
Expanding on Sefcek and colleagues, evolutionary psychologist Da-
vid Schmitt describes how personality traits and sociosexual behaviors
compare across sexual orientations among self-identified gay/lesbian,
bisexual, and heterosexual men and women in 48 cultures, finding some
remarkable consistency. Cross-cultural comparisons provide a prime
opportunity for testing hypotheses about sex-specific versus target-spe-
cific mating psychologies, and Schmitt’s work illustrates one way of
approaching cross-cultural studies. He finds that sex differences in
sociosexual behavior are robust and culturally universal, supporting pa-
rental investment theory and sexual strategies theory. Sociosexual be-
haviors varied by and appeared adaptively responsive to sex ratio biases
and sociopolitical factors, such as women’s equality, sex role ideolo-
gies, and degree of patriarchy in the culture. From this large dataset,
Schmitt concludes that men are consistent in their sexual attitudes re-
gardless of sexual orientation or where they live. However, among men,
sexual behaviors differed by sexual orientation, probably due to the fact
that gay men have sex with men who may share similar attitudes about
sexuality. Among women, however, bisexuals differed significantly
from both heterosexual women and lesbians in sexual attitudes and be-
haviors. Although further validation studies are needed with different
 Introduction 9

age and socioeconomic groups, Schmitt’s work signals the general

direction that empirical evolutionary studies must go.
The next four texts address the evolution of same-sex sexual attrac-
tion and behavior. Some same-sex sexual behavior is a common feature
of human populations. According to contemporary surveys, even exclu-
sive same-sex sexual behavior occurs above the level of a random muta-
tion, and exclusive same-sex sexual attraction is also well-documented
in human history. Here, four contributors take very different approaches
to explain same-sex sexual attraction. One author draws on primate
models; two authors describe early human models; and the last author
proposes an olfactory/pheromone model of male-male attraction. Each
draws somewhat different conclusions about the adaptive function of
same-sex sexual attraction.
Primatologist Paul Vasey employs functional and phylogenetic per-
spectives to frame his extensive observations of female Japanese ma-
caques and female-female sexual encounters. Female macaques, unlike
other primates besides humans, sometimes prefer female sexual part-
ners over male partners for significant periods of time. Vasey provides
convincing evidence that female macaques are indeed selecting female
sexual partners for sexual encounters, perhaps solely for sexual plea-
sure. He concludes that same-sex sexual behavior among female Japa-
nese macaques serves no reproductive function and is a by-product of
female-male mounting (an adaptation).
Vasey then applies the same inductive strategy to examine (exclu-
sive) human male-male sexual behavior, drawing upon observations of
nonhuman primates and a recent study of Italian mothers and their chil-
dren. He concludes that (exclusive) male homosexuality among humans
is also a by-product of an adaptation that has increased the mother’s fer-
tility. He rejects the hypothesis that (non-exclusive) male-male sexual
attraction evolved from male-male alliances because sexual attractions
and, thus, the alliances would be short-lived.
Next, psychologist Lisa Diamond describes an evolutionary history
of female-female affectional bonding and presents an innovative theory
of female-female affectional attraction–as opposed to a sexual orienta-
tion. Males, she claims, primarily have a sexual orientation; females, on
the other hand, have an affectional orientation. That is, for women, per-
sonal variables and proximity are more important for falling in love,
compared to the more sexual-based response among men, which is not
to say that women are not sexually responsive or that men cannot fall in
love with the person first. Diamond proposes that as proceptivity (moti-
vation to initiate sexual activity) became uncoupled from arousability
10 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

(capacity to become sexually aroused to sexual stimuli) among early

human females, women gained the capacity to experience affectional
attraction to other women. She argues for the inherent sex-neutrality of
female arousability, citing considerable evidence of affectional attrac-
tion and bonding among women in contemporary societies. This theory
helps to explain variability in sexual attraction, arousability, and behav-
ior reported by women compared to men. Women show much more ca-
pacity for change in sexual attractions over time and across conditions
than do men. Diamond stops short of proposing that female affectional
bonding has an adaptive function. She also concludes that female-fe-
male sexual attraction is a by-product of some adaptation and has no
reproductive function itself.
Then, evolutionary psychologist Frank Muscarella describes the
evolutionary history of male-male sexual behavior. Counter to Vasey
and Diamond, Muscarella argues that male-male sexual behavior
evolved to benefit the formation of same-sex alliances in the ancestral
world. Drawing on nonhuman primate data, anthropological studies,
and even ancient literature, he purports that close alliances indirectly
benefited male reproductive success by facilitating increased social
status and the acquisition of resources that are associated with social
status and wealth, including quality female mates. Thus, Muscarella as-
serts, male-male sexual attraction was co-opted (an exaptation) to sup-
port male-male alliances (an adaptation). As additional support, he
reports that college students acknowledge the reproductive advantages
of a brief same-sex sexual relationship in a hypothetical situation that
simulates conditions similar for ancient male-male alliances. Unlike
Vasey and Diamond, Muscarella distinguishes between exclusive and
non-exclusive same-sex sexual attraction and implies, I think, that ex-
clusive male-male sexual attraction is a by-product of genetic variabil-
ity for the trait of bisexual attraction.
Lastly, biochemist James Kohl describes an evolutionary history of
pheromones as chemical messengers that influence an organisms’ sex-
ual behavior. He cites convincing evidence that humans respond
behaviorally to human odor: that is, putative human pheromones. He
details the linked biological processes involved in responding to olfac-
tory/pheromonal input. Kohl goes on to present an innovative proxi-
mate model for exclusive male-male sexual attraction, based on
conditioning visual responses to various olfaction/pheromones. Given
the complexity of putative pheromones involved, the model seems to
permit flexibility in the development of conditioned sexual attractions.
Kohl does not speculate on the function or non-function of exclusive
 Introduction 11

male-male sexual attraction, nor does he note to what extent his

olfaction/pheromone model can explain exclusive female-female sex-
ual behavior. Although he does not say so, Kohl seems to present a gen-
eral model for explaining sexual orientation.
Finally, I conclude this project by examining how the contributors
have conceptualized human sexuality based on the language they use.
The contributors recognize variability in sexual attractions and deal
with the problem of sexual orientation in an unexpected way. Given
their treatment of the problem and other data, I comment on the contin-
ued value of sexual orientation as a concept.

Proximate Causes

A few cautions about evolutionary explanations are warranted at this

point: Evolutionary explanations are explanations based in the distant
past. The evolutionary sciences are focused on ultimate (reproductive)
causes of traits. Further, evolutionary explanations account for evolved
sexual traits or behaviors within a population or on the average, but not
for the individual case (Geary, 1998). Proximate factors are relevant for
the individual case. Individuals may experience adverse events or
immediate influences that limit their reproductive success.
Those who wish to understand why a particular individual behaved in a
certain way, or what social or psychological factors influenced an individ-
ual’s particular decision, must look to proximate causal factors. Proximate
explanations attribute causality to variables in the more immediate environ-
ment: for example, genes, fetal hormones, environmental toxins, disease,
personality, early childhood social experiences, stress, trauma, family dy-
namics, poverty, racism, sexism, etc. Most theories of human sexual orienta-
tion are proximate explanations (e.g., Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith,
1981; Bem, 1996; Money, 1988). Proximate theories of sexuality often
address questions about physiology and development (e.g., Kohl, this
volume), typical and atypical behaviors, and meeting hypothesized social
and emotional needs. Evolutionary theories of human sexuality are not
meant to supplant proximate casual theories. In fact, many evolutionists (e.g.,
Fisher, 1998; Geary, 1998; Kauth, 2000; Pinker, 2002; Ridley, 1993) refer-
ence proximate processes as mechanisms for the development and expres-
sion of evolved traits. Another way of conceptualizing the relationship
between proximate and ultimate causal factors is that evolutionary theories
of human sexuality represent the background, while proximate theories are
the foreground. For a clear picture of human sexuality, both ultimate and
proximate explanations are necessary and require integration.
12 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Discomfort with Evolutionary Explanations of Human Nature

Some people may accept evolutionary explanations for non-human

traits but are uncomfortable with biological explanations when ap-
plied to humans. (For discussion, see Larson, 2004; Pinker, 2002;
Segerstråle, 2000). Some of these people include evolutionists. What
are their concerns? Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory
of natural selection with Charles Darwin, for example, broke company
with Darwin over the idea of an evolved human nature. Wallace be-
lieved that the human mind was too perfectly designed to have evolved
and, thus, must have had a Creator (Larson, 2004). Not so dissimilarly,
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1999) has argued that the human
mind and morality cannot be explained by biology. He has complained
that evolutionary explanations for human behavior smack of genetic de-
terminism: “Why do we want to fob off responsibility for our violence
and sexism upon our genes?” (cited in Pinker, 2002, p. 133). Although
Gould (1997) has consistently maintained that materialistic evolution-
ary processes are in effect and has refuted creationism, his shrill rants
against sociobiology, EP, and adaptationism led New Yorker science
writer Robert Wright (1999) to dub him “the accidental creationist.”
Often criticism of sociobiology and EP is about metaphysical and po-
litical issues regarding human nature and morality, rather than science
(Segerstråle, 2000; Kauth, this volume). Francis Collins (2002), direc-
tor of the National Human Genome Research Institute, wrote, “Science
will certainly not shed any light on what it means to love someone, what
it means to have a spiritual dimension to our existence, nor will it tell us
much about the character of God” (p. 16). Collins raises a false argu-
ment: science and evolution are not expected to explain what things
mean, but rather how they function. Meaning is an existential phenom-
ena, and peculiarly human. Meaning-making is the domain of philoso-
phy and religion, although it seems that some expect Science to produce
an intrinsic meaning to life.
Concerns about evolutionary explanations of human nature are sev-
eral, although a common element of these concerns is the fear that hu-
man nature will be diminished. Some believe that a biological nature
makes humans no more than animals, instinctively behaving, without
free will and choice, thus, making social inequities inevitable. Cogni-
tive psychologist Steven Pinker (2002) in The Blank Slate: The Modern
Denial of Human Nature has attributed anxiety over the biology of
human nature to four fears:
 Introduction 13

• If people are innately different, oppression and discrimination will

be justified.
• If people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condi-
tion will be futile.
• If people are products of biology, free will is a myth and we can not
hold people responsible for their actions.
• If people are products of biology, life will have no higher meaning
and purpose.

In brief, Pinker argues that such fears are unfounded and that the ab-
sence of a biological nature is no guarantee of the cherished values im-
plicit in these worries. I also suspect that the perceived threat of
evolutionary explanations and their passionate denials may stem in part
from the implied loss of status–that humans are not privileged, not spe-
cial. The desire by individuals, groups, nations, and the species as a
whole to view themselves as unique, entitled, powerful, and even supe-
rior may be a universal human trait. Whether or not objections to a bio-
logical human nature are due in part to hubris, what is special about
humans is not denied by biology or evolution.

REVEALING ASSUMPTIONS

A second theme in this volume is the explication of concepts and im-

plicit assumptions. An abundant knowledge about the evolution of hu-
man sexuality now exists, much of which has been produced by
scholars from various disciplines. Both the evolutionary sciences and
sexology draw upon diverse disciplines. Each discipline brings with it a
different perspective and different assumptions. Rarely do writers men-
tion the inherent conceptual assumptions of a discipline, let alone their
own. Scholars and researchers, like everyone else, have assumptions
about human sexuality. Implicit assumptions are particularly difficult to
recognize until they are challenged. Even then, the challenge may be re-
buffed as nonsense. Assumptions are beliefs that are accepted as true,
without proof. Because human sexuality is still mostly undiscovered
territory and an uncomfortable topic for many, assumptions about sexu-
ality may be based on false beliefs and stereotypes (Kauth, 2005). While
stereotypes may be true in part or true for some, stereotypes are damag-
ing because they are at best exaggerations applied to all members of a
group. Assumptions about sexuality include the belief that lesbians are
butch and, conversely, that straight women are feminine; that gay men
14 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

are effeminate queens, while straight men are masculine and do not care
about their personal appearance; that straight women only want com-
mitted monogamous relationships, but straight men want one night
stands; that straight men never have sexual fantasies about men; that
children are not sexual; and that anal intercourse is only something that
gay men do.
Suggestive evidence of a writer’s implicit, unexamined assumptions
about sexuality is indicated when definitions are omitted or when hy-
potheses re-state social prejudices. In other cases, opinions are restated
as supportive evidence. Suggestive evidence of a writer’s implicit as-
sumptions about sexuality is indicated when the study methodology is
biased against finding disconfirming evidence, or when alternative ex-
planations are not discussed or given short shrift and quickly dismissed.
Implicit assumptions are also likely when writers ignore contradictions
in conceptual models and cite data from disparate theoretical models,
treating the data as equivalent (Kauth, 2005). I do not intend to be criti-
cal of examining social beliefs or ideas, which is an important part of so-
cial psychological research. Rather, I am referring to uncritically
incorporating social prejudices into scientific research. The goal is not
to make science assumption-free. The goal is to make the scientific pro-
cess assumption-transparent.

What Assumptions?

Several authors have noted the consequences of unexamined, implicit

assumptions in sexology and in the evolutionary sciences (e.g., Buss,
Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Byne & Parsons,
1993; Kauth, 2002, 2005; Stein, 1999). Unexamined, implicit assump-
tions contribute to confused, incoherent conceptions; non-standard defi-
nitions; misused terms; methodological biases; and flawed conclusions.
Worse, tolerance for imprecision does nothing to advance the field and
promotes confusion. I have argued that understanding the implicit as-
sumptions in sex research, particularly around the concept of “sexual
orientation,” is critical to disentangling an often confused literature
(Kauth, 2005, 2006). “Sexual orientation” is a fundamental concept in
human sexuality. Nevertheless, conceptual models of sexual orientation
are generally poorly defined, if described at all. “Sexual orientation” is a
slippery term. Consequently, there is no consensus on how best to mea-
sure it.
Although this volume does not directly address sexual orientation,
many contributors here discuss kinds of sexual attractions and attempt
 Introduction 15

to explain them. Thus, the difficulties related to the concept of “sexual

orientation” may be relevant. Therefore, I will briefly summarize some
the conceptual problems and assumptions surrounding “sexual orienta-
tion” and how implicit assumptions can be explicated and concepts
strengthened. (See Kauth, 2005, for a detailed discussion.) It is impor-
tant first to recognize that “sexual orientation” is a Western concept that
draws heavily on the values of individuality, gender roles, dualism, cap-
italism, democracy, Puritanism, and medicine (Katz, 1995). Non-West-
ern cultures have usually structured sexual relationships and attractions
in terms of social characteristics (e.g., age, race, personality traits, phys-
ical characteristics, status, dominance, and mentoring), sexual acts, and
pleasure (Ross, 1987). As Westerners, we are stuck for the moment with
the flawed concept of “sexual orientation.”
Second, “sexual orientation” is defined by the “sex” or “gender” of
participants (Kauth, 2005). Sex refers to biological and physiological
characteristics that differentiate males from females (e.g., sex chromo-
somes, hormone levels, testes, ovaries), while gender refers to social
characteristics and roles that typify men and women (e.g., masculinity
or femininity, husband or wife, clothing, occupations). Both “sex” and
“gender” can be conceptualized as binary, bimodal, or continuous
(Stein, 1999): that is, each can be thought of as dichotomous, as mostly
distinct, or as more fluid and variable. A writer’s choice of terminology
reflects how sex/gender have been conceptualized and suggests specific
relationships to sexual orientation. For instance, the term “oppo-
site-sex” suggests that the sexes are dichotomous and mutually exclu-
sive or opposed, but the term “other-sex” suggests only a difference.
The phrase “same-sex orientation” emphasizes the physiological char-
acteristics of actors and partners, while “same-gender orientation” em-
phasizes the social characteristics of participants (Kauth, 2005).
“Homosexual orientation” is particularly imprecise in that the phrase
can refer to same-sex sexual attraction or to a social group of individuals
who are presumed to have particular traits and behaviors. Some writers
(e.g., Stein, 1999) use the hyphenated term “sex-gender” to illustrate the
contribution of both constructs, although this practice does not elimi-
nate the conceptual ambiguity.
Third, “sexual orientation” can also be conceptualized as binary, bi-
polar, or multidimensional (Stein, 1999). A binary sexual orientation
refers to two mutually exclusive attractions–same-sex (“homosexual”)
or other-sex (“heterosexual”). This is a simplistic, inaccurate model
that is common among laypeople and some researchers. In this model,
attraction to both sexes (bisexuality) must be situational (e.g., due to
16 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

absence of the other sex), circumstantial (e.g., adolescent experimenta-

tion), or a form of homosexuality (e.g., married men who have sex with
men). However, when binary sex or gender overlay binary sexual de-
sire, attraction to males then becomes a sex-specific “female trait,” and
attraction to females becomes a “male trait.” Same-sex attraction is then
viewed as a kind of sex/gender inversion, reminiscent of nine-
teenth-century ideas about homosexuality (Coleman, Gooren, & Ross,
1989). Homosexuality-as-gender-inversion is a social belief that resur-
faces frequently as fact in the scientific literature (e.g., Bailey, 2003).
A bipolar sexual orientation is a continuum of attractions between
exclusive same-sex attraction at one end and exclusive other-sex attrac-
tion at the other. In this model, attraction to males is inversely related to
attraction to females. However, attraction to both sexes is also possible.
The Kinsey scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) reflects a bipolar
model of sexual orientation. Contemporary data on sexual behavior of-
ten evidence a bipolar model of attraction with a bimodal distribution
(e.g., Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994): that is, most peo-
ple report heterosexual behavior, some report same-sex behavior, and a
few note sexual behavior with both sexes.
A multidimensional model of sexual orientation views same-sex and
other-sex attraction as separate dimensions. For example, attraction to
males and attraction to females may be parallel dimensions, spanning
low to high attraction (Shively & DeCecco, 1977). In more complex
models, male and female attractions are orthogonal dimensions, form-
ing a grid (Storms, 1981). Even more complex models include multiple
dimensions, such as current and ideal attractions, gender preference,
sex-role, and phases or periods of life (Coleman, 1987; Klein, Sepekoff,
& Wolf, 1985).
Fourth, “sexual orientation” can be thought to represent a natural
kind, which is universal and invariant, or a social construction, which
views sexual identities and social roles as specific to a sociohistorical
period (Stein, 1999). If a natural kind, sexual attraction should be expe-
rienced today as it was in the past and should be similar across cultures.
In other words, particular attractions represent kinds of people. Writers
who make this assumption treat “homosexual” and “heterosexual” as
nouns, rather than adjectives; they also believe that these sexual kinds
of people exist in all cultures, even cultures that have very different
ideas about sexuality. If a social construction, however, terms like
“gay” or “heterosexual” reflect specific ideas about personhood, poli-
tics, gender, psychology, and sexuality, whose meanings have changed
over time (Foucault, 1978/1990; Katz, 1995). Writers who make this as-
 Introduction 17

sumption view sexual identities as limited to particular cultures and

time; attractions experienced outside of those boundaries are defined
differently. Still others have argued that sexual attractions show a com-
mon pattern, although their meaning is influenced by individual, social,
and cultural factors (Baumeister, 2000; Kauth, 2000). These common
patterns have produced related social identities.
Fifth, the concept of “sexual orientation” is shaped by how biological
and environmental factors are presumed to influence attraction (Stein,
1999). The effects may be direct, indirect, or not at all. Direct environ-
mental effects on sexual orientation are often assumed to lend flexibility
to attraction, while direct biological effects are assumed to make attrac-
tion relatively stable, but perhaps not invariable (Kauth, 2005). Neither
of these extreme views is accurate. However, writers who view biologi-
cal and environmental factors as interactive processes in development
tend to discuss sexual (orientation) phenotypes–the observable and var-
ied features of an organism. Interactionists purport that biological
and environmental factors (e.g., gender, health, nutrition, age, in-
jury, social class, culture) influence the expression of attraction. In this
model, sexual orientation may become relatively fixed over time, given
reinforcement and less variety in stimuli.
Finally, unexamined assumptions about “sexual orientation” may be
incorporated into research, contributing to study designs that re-confirm
the social belief (Kauth, 2005). For example, selection bias can weight
findings in one direction; an overemphasis on group differences can
make groups appear more different than they are; and the assumption of
a simplistic cause-effect relationship can lead to overgeneralization of
results.

Explicating Assumptions

What can be done to eliminate unexamined, non-conscious assump-

tions? Make them conscious! I have proposed a few direct questions
about how one thinks about “sexual orientation” in order to elicit and
then examine those assumptions (Kauth, 2005, 2006). Once identified,
the beliefs can be evaluated for validity or logical inconsistency, and
then owned or rejected. With clear, conscious assumptions, it is possi-
ble to begin defining terms and building logical conceptual models of
sexual orientation that can be tested.
The “sexual orientation” assumption–eliciting questions are as fol-
lows:
18 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

1. How are sex and gender defined? How is each structured (i.e., bi-
nary, bimodal, continuous)?
2. How is sexual orientation defined and structured (i.e., binary, bi-
modal, multidimensional)?
3. What is the presumed “nature” of sexual orientation (i.e., a natural
kind, social identity, some combination)?
4. What is the presumed role of biology and environment (i.e., di-
rect, indirect, some combination of an interaction) on the develop-
ment and stability of sexual orientation?

A final set of questions may help to identify methodological and ana-

lytic assumptions that can bias study results. These questions may also
point to hidden conceptual assumptions about sexual orientation:

5. What is the rationale for sample selection, selected measures, and

group comparisons (or not)?
6. What will this data not indicate about sexual orientation?

Contributors to this volume were asked to define common terms and

identify their assumptions about sexual orientation and sexual attrac-
tions. In most cases, the emphasis on defining terms and examining as-
sumptions led contributors to significantly shift their terminology and
in some cases shift their thinking during the revision process. Contribu-
tors did a good job of defining common terms that have multiple mean-
ings, although definitions of sexual attractions are varied and still
unclear. A concise conceptual model of sexual orientation–not the ob-
jective of this project–is still far away. The readers can judge whether
the texts presented here are clear, descriptive, logical, and assump-
tion-transparent.
However, none of the contributors followed the formal approach to
explicating assumptions that I described above! I did not require that
they do so but only encouraged them to address implicit assumptions. In
some cases, my persistent questions about particular terminology and
about assumptions in earlier drafts led contributors to be more explicit.
One contributor declared in a first draft that he harbored no assumptions
about sexual attractions. After I pointed out several assumptions, he ac-
knowledged and addressed them in the text. Clearly, it is not easy to rec-
ognize one’s implicit conceptual assumptions, even with the aide of
guiding questions and examples. But, it is a start.
I challenge editors to push contributors to define sexual terms, opera-
tionally and conceptually, and to prod contributors to identify their con-
 Introduction 19

ceptual assumptions about sexual orientation, perhaps employing the

questions that I identified above. With reminders and practice, clear lan-
guage and logical concepts should become more commonplace in the
sexology literature. Terminology and concepts should become more
precise, logically consistent, and measurable, and sexual science will
move closer to developing reliable, testable models of sexuality.

CONCLUSIONS

This volume proposes to address two objectives. The first objective

is to present theory and research on the evolution of human sexuality,
particularly findings from EP. The intended audience includes sexual
scientists, scholars, and students who are relatively new to evolution-
ary theory. Topics in this volume include a history of evolutionary the-
ory, the evolution of human culture, sexual pleasure, human mating
behavior and mate preferences, and same-sex sexual attraction. A sec-
ond objective of this volume is to define sexual terms and explicate un-
examined, implicit assumptions about sexual orientation and sexual
attractions in order to promote conceptual clarity and integrity. A
method for explicating assumptions about sexual orientation is pro-
posed.

FURTHER READINGS
Darwin, C. (1859/1958). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. New
York: New American Library.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human Universals. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York:
Penguin Books.
Stein, E. (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual
Orientation. New York: Oxford University.
Taylor, T. (1996). The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture.
New York: Bantam.

REFERENCES
Badcock, C. (2000). Evolutionary psychology: A critical introduction. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and
transsexualism. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.
20 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992, Eds.). The adapted mind: Evolution-
ary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex
drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 347-
374.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its de-
velopment in men and women. Bloomington: Alfred C. Kinsey Institute of Sex Re-
search.
Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orienta-
tion. Psychological Review, 103, 320-335.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Buss, D. M. (1994/2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New
York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (2005). Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C.
(1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-
548.
Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biological theories re-
appraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-239.
Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specific-
ity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20(4), 377-390.
Coleman, E. (1987). Assessment of sexual orientation. In E. Coleman (Ed.), Psycho-
therapy with homosexual men and women: Integrated identity approaches for clini-
cal practice (pp. 9-24). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Coleman, E., Gooren, L., & Ross, M. (1989). Theories of gender transpositions: A cri-
tique and suggestions for further research. Journal of Sex Research, 26(4), 525-538.
Collins, F. S. (2002). Human genetics. In J. F. Kilmer, C. C. Hook, & D. B. Uustal
(Eds.), Cutting-edge of bioethics, (pp. 3-17). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Barkow, J. H. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary psychol-
ogy and conceptual integration. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.),
The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.
3-15). New York: The Oxford University Press.
Fisher, H. (1998). Lust, attraction, and attachment in mammalian reproduction. Human
Nature, 9(1), 23-52.
Foucault, M. (1978/1990). The history of sexuality. Volume I: An introduction. Trans-
lated by R. Hurley. New York: Vintage.
Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gould, S. J. (1997, June 12). Darwinian fundamentalism. The New York Review of
Books, 44(10).
Gould, S. J. (1999). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York:
Ballantine.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1927). A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part
V. Selection and mutation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,
23, 838-844.
 Introduction 21

Katz, J. N. (1995). The invention of heterosexuality. New York: Dutton Books.

Kauth, M. R. (2000). True nature: A theory of sexual attraction. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Kauth, M. R. (2002). Much ado about homosexuality: Assumptions underlying current
research on sexual orientation. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 14(1),
1-22.
Kauth, M. R. (2005). Revealing assumptions: Explicating sexual orientation and pro-
moting conceptual integrity. Journal of Bisexuality, 5(4), 79-105.
Kauth, M. R. (2006). Sexual orientation and identity. In R. D. McAnulty and M. M.
Burnette (Eds.), Sex and sexuality: volume 1 (pp. 208-257). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variate dy-
namic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1/2), 35-49.
Larson, E. J. (2004). Evolution: The remarkable history of a scientific theory. New
York: Modern Library.
Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization
of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of hu-
man nature. New York: Anchor Books.
Money, J. (1988). Gay, straight, and in-between: The sexology of erotic orientation.
New York: Oxford University.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York:
Penguin Books.
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1992). Natural language and natural selection. In J. H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychol-
ogy and the generation of culture (pp. 451-493). New York: The Oxford University
Press.
Ridley, M. (1994). The red queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. New York:
Penguin Books.
Ross, M. W. (1987). A theory of normal homosexuality. In L. Diamant (Ed.), Male and
female homosexuality: Psychological approaches (pp. 237-259). New York: Hemi-
sphere.
Segerstråle, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The sociobiology debate. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Shively, M. G., & DeCecco, J. P. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of
Homosexuality, 3, 41-48.
Stein, E. (1999). The mismeasure of desire: The science, theory, and ethics of sexual
orientation. New York: Oxford University.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Taylor, T. (1996). The prehistory of sex: Four million years of human sexual culture.
New York: Bantam.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H.
Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychol-
 22 HANDBOOK OF THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

ogy and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: The Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975/2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Wright, R. (1999, Dec 13). The accidental creationist. The New Yorker, 56-65.

doi:10.1300/J056v18n02_01

View publication stats