Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Alloparenting and Female Same-Sex Behavior

  • Barry X. KuhleEmail author
  • Sara BrezinskiEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_62-1

Keywords

Heterosexual Woman Genital Arousal Paternal Investment Sexual Fluidity Sexual Responsiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Synonyms

Definition

The alloparenting hypothesis posits that female sexual fluidity – “situation-dependent flexibility in women’s sexual responsiveness…that makes it possible for some women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation” (Diamond 2008, p. 3) – was selected because it facilitated the acquisition of and bonding to an alloparent (a non-biological caregiver for one’s offspring).

Introduction

As Darwin outlined in The Descent of Man (1871), reproduction is the engine of evolution. Sexual selection favors traits that increase an organism’s ability to reproduce; therefore, seemingly counterproductive behaviors such as same-sex sexual activity and romantic relationships pose an evolutionary puzzle. Although there have been several hypotheses put forward to attempt to explain same-sex sexual behavior in men [cite relevant Encyclopedia entries here], relatively little has been posed to explain such behavior in women. One exception is Kuhle and Radtke’s (2013; see also Kuhle 2013) alloparenting hypothesis positing that sexual fluidity in women evolved as an adaptation that increased ancestral women’s abilities to form pair-bonds with females who could help them rear children to reproductive age.

Alloparenting

Alloparenting has been observed in an array of species and is particularly common in our primate cousins (Hrdy 1999). Among squirrel monkeys, relatives and non-kin engage in reciprocal alloparenting of infants (Roulin 2002; Williams et al. 1994). Among Japanese macaques, mothers allow other females to hold, watch, and protect infants (Bardi et al. 2001; Redmond 2008). Bonobo females form strong pair-bonds that last the duration of their lives (Furuichi 2011; Kano 1992). When a female reproduces, other females are significantly involved in the life of the young bonobo (De Lathouwers and Van Elsacker 2004; Furuichi 2011; Kano 1992). To cement pair-bonds within the troop, female bonobos engage in various forms of sex with troop members, especially with females who may serve as allomothers.

In humans, Kuhle and Radtke (2013) argue that alloparenting may have been a way for ancestral women to acquire a second form of parental investment for their children in the face of paternal desertion, death, or divestment of resources. Hrdy (1999, 2007, 2008) surmises that without cooperation from both kin and non-kin alloparents, humans may have been unable to flourish as a species because human infants are so altricial. Close kin are not always the dominant allo-caregiver; unrelated women often contribute substantial allomothering across cultures (Bentley and Mace 2009; Hrdy 1999; Meehan 2009).

Sexual Fluidity

Relative to men, women are more likely to report bisexual attractions than exclusive same-sex attractions (Baumeister 2000; Diamond 2006, 2007, 2008; Peplau 2001; Peplau and Garnets 2000). Additionally, US women aged 18–44 years are more than twice as likely as men to report being attracted to and having had sexual contact with members of the same sex (Chandra et al. 2011). Women’s fluid sexuality is also evidenced physiologically (Chivers 2005, 2010). As opposed to men, women do not experience a significantly greater genital arousal from stimuli of their preferred versus non-preferred sex (Chivers and Bailey 2005; Chivers et al. 2004).

For the present purposes, a fluid sexuality is one that is potentially sexually responsive to both sexes (but not necessarily at the same point in time). It avoids a focus on changes in one’s sexual identity or sexual orientation.

Sexual Fluidity as a Conditional Female Mating Strategy

According to the alloparenting hypothesis, sexual fluidity increased ancestral women’s reproductive success by diminishing the costs of four adaptive problems that resulted in a deficiency of paternal investment and by promoting the acquisition of allomothering investment from unrelated women: (1) an absence of paternal investment due to rape, (2) reduced paternal investment due to paternal defection, (3) reduced paternal investment due to paternal death, (4) and reduced paternal investment due to a dilution of resources (Kuhle and Radtke 2013). Under this view, most heterosexual women are born with the capacity to form romantic bonds with both sexes. Female sexual fluidity is a conditional reproductive strategy where the pursuit of men is the default strategy, and same-sex sexual responsiveness is triggered when inadequate paternal investment occurs or when women with alloparenting capabilities are encountered. Sexual selection is hypothesized to have designed sexual responsiveness mechanisms in women that are sensitive to the situations and experiences that were recurrently associated with the availability of paternal and allomothering investment over evolutionary history. The alloparenting hypothesis makes 14 testable predictions. Although there are several studies relevant to the first three predictions (see original article), no empirical evidence yet exists that bares upon predictions 4–14.
  1. 1.

    Relative to women who have never been abused by their male mates, women who have experienced abuse by male mates will be more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.

     
  2. 2.

    Relative to women who have never been raped by men, women who have been raped by men are more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.

     
  3. 3.

    Relative to women who were never abused as children, women who experienced physical or sexual abuse by men during childhood or adolescence will be more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.

     
  4. 4.

    Women whose husbands divested in them for the sake of other women are more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior (especially if they have children) relative to women whose husbands’ investment did not diminish from being diluted among other women.

     
  5. 5.

    Women whose husbands deserted them are more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior (especially if they have children) relative to women whose husbands remain mated to them.

     
  6. 6.

    Women whose husbands have died are more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior (especially if they have children) relative to women whose husbands are alive and investing in them.

     
  7. 7.

    In the absence of paternal defection, desertion, and death, wives of husbands whose investment has diminished are more likely to have subsequently engaged in same-sex sexual behavior (especially if they have children) relative to women whose husbands’ investment is sufficient.

     
  8. 8.

    A woman’s mate value (MV) will be an important moderating variable on her likelihood of engaging in same-sex sexual behavior. All things being equal, lower MV women will be more likely than higher MV women to engage in same-sex sexual behavior in the face of male abuse, rape, divestment, desertion, and death because they are less able to acquire sufficient paternal investment from other men.

     
  9. 9.

    Women who have formed deeper, emotional friendships with women who exhibit alloparenting potential are more likely to have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior than women with fewer such friendships.

     
  10. 10.

    Women who experience extreme stress associated with childrearing are more likely to report having engaged in same-sex sexual behavior than women without such stress.

     
  11. 11.

    Women with an unrestricted sociosexuality (Jackson and Kirkpatrick, 2007; Simpson and Gangestad, 1991) will be more likely to engage in same-sex sexual behavior than women with a restricted sociosexuality. The more willing and comfortable a woman is in engaging in casual sex without love, commitment, or closeness, the more likely she is to experience a dearth of paternal investment postpartum and hence need allomothering investment.

     
  12. 12.

    Women with few kin available to alloparent will be more likely to engage in same-sex sexual behavior than women with abundant alloparenting help from kin.

     
  13. 13.

    Women will be more likely to engage in same-sex sexual behavior during non-fertile versus fertile phases of their menstrual cycles. In the context of a plural marriage, same-sex sexual behavior during ovulation comes with opportunity costs that detract from reproduction. However, such behavior during non-fertile phases could promote the forming and grooming of alloparenting relationships among women.

     
  14. 14.

    If sexual fluidity serves to promote female-female bonds, heterosexual women who evidence high levels of fluidity (e.g., the most nonspecific patterns of genital arousal) should have a larger number of close female friends compared to heterosexual women with lower levels of fluidity.

     

But Why the Sex?

Sex is an effective means of forming, increasing, and sustaining pair-bonds between people (Brigman and Knox 1992; Hazan and Diamond 2000; Leigh 1989; Meston and Buss 2009). Sexual behavior with male mates promotes women’s feelings of commitment to these partners (Meston and Buss 2009). A similar process of sexual behavior-induced commitment is likely to occur between female partners. As female same-sex behavior in bonobos appears to increase both the survival of the mother and her offspring (Furuichi 1989; Hohmann and Fruth 2000; Parish 1994, 1996), it is likely that future research will reveal that sexual relations between female bonobos increase pair-bonding and help ensure that a mother’s offspring are cared for by alloparents (Radtke 2012). The alloparenting hypothesis suggests that psychological mechanisms underlying a similar process of same-sex sexual behavior in the service of alloparenting evolved in human females and is particularly likely to be triggered among women who encounter an absence of paternal investment, or the availability of allomothering investment.

Conclusions

The alloparenting hypothesis entwines several diverse phenomena including (a) female sexual fluidity in human and nonhuman primates; (b) heterosexual women’s potent genital arousal to both sexes; (c) the rates of rape, physical abuse; and sexual abuse as a function of sexual orientation; and (d) the ubiquity of alloparenting among human and nonhuman primates. The alloparenting hypothesis also outlines 14 testable predictions, 12 of which specify variables that will shunt some women into forming same-sex romantic bonds that facilitate alloparenting. No other hypothesis for sexual fluidity is as wide ranging or as falsifiable.

Since the engine of evolution is reproduction, same-sex sexual behavior appears to be an enigma. However, it is resolved if, instead of hindering reproduction, the trait actually facilitates it. In light of the alloparenting hypothesis, a trait that formerly appeared maladaptive – sexual behavior between women – is recast as an adaptive outcome. This hypothesized contingent adaptation may have increased ancestral women’s ability to form pair-bonds with women who helped them rear children to reproductive age in the face of male rape, death, desertion, and divestment of resources, as well as during stressful childrearing times, or simply when a suitable allomother presented herself. Being born with the ability to go both ways may have been beneficial to ancestral women.

Cross-References

References

  1. Bardi, M., Shimizu, K., Fujita, S., Borgognini-Tarli, S., & Huffman, M. A. (2001). Social behavior and hormonal correlates during the perinatal period in Japanese macaques. Hormones and Behavior, 39, 239–246.Google Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.Google Scholar
  3. Bentley, G., & Mace, R. (2009). Substitute parents: Biological and social perspectives on alloparenting in human societies. NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  4. Brigman, B., & Knox, D. (1992). University students’ motivations to have intercourse. College Student Journal, 26, 406–408.Google Scholar
  5. Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., & Copen, C. (2011). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36, 1–36.Google Scholar
  6. Chivers, M. L. (2005). A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 20, 377–390.Google Scholar
  7. Chivers, M. L. (2010). A brief update on the specificity of sexual arousal. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25, 407–414.Google Scholar
  8. Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2005). A sex difference in features that elicit genital response. Biological Psychology, 70, 115–120.Google Scholar
  9. Chivers, M. L., Rieger, G., Latty, E., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal. Psychological Science, 15, 736–744.Google Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man; and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lathouwers, M., & Van Elsacker, L. (2004). Comparing maternal styles in bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology, 64, 411–423.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, L. M. (2006). The evolution of plasticity in female-female desire. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 16, 245–274. Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, L. M. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 142–161.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Furuichi, T. (1989). Social interactions and the life history of female Pan paniscus in Wamba, Zaire. International Journal of Primatology, 10, 173–197.Google Scholar
  16. Furuichi, T. (2011). Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 131–142.Google Scholar
  17. Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review of General Psychology, 4, 186–204.Google Scholar
  18. Hohmann, G., & Fruth, B. (2000). Use and function of genital contacts among female bonobos. Animal Behaviour, 60, 107–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  20. Hrdy, S. B. (2007). Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective (pp. 39–68). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hrdy, S. B. (2008). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.Google Scholar
  23. Kano, T. (1992). The last ape: Pygmy chimpanzee behavior and ecology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhle, B. X. (2013). Born both ways: The alloparenting hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women [Web log post]. Retrieved 3 July 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201304/born-both-ways
  25. Kuhle, B. X., & Radtke, S. (2013). Born both ways: The alloparenting hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 304–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meehan, L. C. (2009). Maternal time allocation in two cooperative childrearing societies. Human Nature, 20, 375–393.Google Scholar
  28. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2009). Why women have sex. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  29. Parish, A. R. (1994). Sex and food control in the “uncommon chimpanzee”: How bonobo females overcome a phylogenetic legacy of male dominance. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 157–159.Google Scholar
  30. Parish, A. R. (1996). Female relationships in bonobos (Pan paniscus): Evidence for bonding, cooperation, and female dominance in a male-philopatric species. Human Nature, 7, 61–96.Google Scholar
  31. Peplau, L. A. (2001). Rethinking women’s sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach. Personal Relationships, 8, 1–9.Google Scholar
  32. Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women’s sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 329–350.Google Scholar
  33. Radtke, S. (2012). An exploration of female same sex behavior in relation to allomothering and grooming in a group of captive bonobos (Pan paniscus). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Animal Behavior Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 10–14 June 2012.Google Scholar
  34. Redmond, I. (2008). The primate family tree. The amazing diversity of our closest relatives. Buffalo, NY: Firefly.Google Scholar
  35. Roulin, A. (2002). Why do lactating females nurse alien offspring? A review of hypotheses and empirical evidence. Animal Behaviour, 63, 201–208.Google Scholar
  36. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, L., Gibson, S., McDaniel, M., Bazzel, J., Barnes, S., & Abee, C. (1994). Allomaternal interactions in the Bolivian squirrel monkey (Saimiri boliviensis boliviensis). American Journal of Primatology, 34, 145–156.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ScrantonScrantonUSA