Study shows women benefit from multiple marriages while men do not

rings
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A pair of researchers, one with the University of California, the other with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, has found that women in an East African community benefit from multiple marriages while the men seem to suffer. In their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Monique Mulder and Cody Ross describe their study of people living in Pimbwe, a community in a western part of Tanzania, and what they learned from them.

British geneticist and botanist Angus John Bateman proposed in 1948 that variability in is greater in males than females. Since that time, Bateman's principles, as they have been named, have become somewhat of a standard that describes variability of partnerships in human sexual relations. In effect, they suggest that because men are able to spread their seed around indiscriminately, they more effectively reproduce if they have multiple partners. Women, on the other hand, women, bound by time and the number of children they can carry, are more likely to fare better in fewer and longer sexual relationships. In this new effort, the researchers have tested those principles in a real human population and report evidence that contradicts them.

Mulder and Ross analyzed data covering a 20-year period for approximately 2000 people living in Pimbwe. The data covered marriages, divorces, births and deaths for virtually everyone living in the small community. The researchers found something surprising: women who married multiple times had more surviving children than who married fewer times. Also surprising was that men who married multiple times had fewer surviving children than did men who married fewer times.

The researchers note that swapping partners is quite common in Pimbwe, and marriage is a rather loose term—either partner is free to leave at any time. They report that they were surprised by their results, as they contradict at least two of Bateman's principles. They also acknowledge that they were not able to explain why there were differences from the expected norm in Pimbwe. They further suggest their findings challenge evolutionary stereotypes, and point out that female mating strategies are clearly more complex than has been suggested by prior studies.


Explore further

Study brings greater clarity to sex roles

More information: Monique Borgerhoff Mulder et al. Unpacking mating success and testing Bateman's principles in a human population, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2019). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1516

Press release

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Study shows women benefit from multiple marriages while men do not (2019, August 14) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-women-benefit-multiple-marriages-men.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2397 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 14, 2019
While the study itself might be of interest, but generalizing from this sample to the population seems illegitimate. IIRC from Stat 101,such generalization has the assumption that the sample chosen is representative of humanity at large. I would question that result. It was noted that the village has a causal attitude toward marriage. Is this representative attitudes of humanity at large?
I am perfectly willing to accept their conclusions generalized to samples with the same causal attitude toward marriage. But no further. It may in fact be the case that such attitudes have only a minimal a
correlation with reproductive success. But that has to be determined before widespread generalization

Aug 14, 2019
" In effect, they suggest that because men are able to spread their seed around indiscriminately, they more effectively reproduce if they have multiple partners. Women, on the other hand, women, bound by time and the number of children they can carry, are more likely to fare better in fewer and longer sexual relationships"

-No, a womans prerogative is to select the very best donor for each and every child she wishes to bear. She prefers quality while men prefer quantity. And how do women discern quality in potential donors? By compelling them to compete for her affections, whether she is married or not.

This endless competition for repro rights is something the tropical human male seeks to avoid, and it is also injurious to tribal harmony. So it is the male who seeks to establish long term relationships protected by tribal law, preferably in a polygamous arrangement.

Chronic intertribal conflict throughout the pleistocene increased the chances that skilled survivors had harems.

Aug 14, 2019
We can observe this system at work. The most successful tribes are the ones that restrict their women's ability to entice. Muslim women are the most obvious example. The hair, her flag of feminine display, is covered to prevent her from flicking and waving it about. The body is fully covered and features completely hidden. She is prohibited from venturing about on her own or participating in social interactions which would give her the chance to flirt.

It is the same with any religion. The more orthodox or fundamentalist, the more the women are suppressed and confined to making and raising children; and the greater acceptance of polygamy. The result is a stronger tribal identity and cohesion, with men more willing to fight and die for the fellows. These tribes grow faster, spread faster, and retain their identities over ever larger and dispersed groups.

Aug 14, 2019
Having multiple sperm donors decreases the chance that all your kids will die of the same disease and reach maturity. More variety = more chances at success.

Aug 14, 2019
Being the primary caregiver, I venture that a woman's bliss correlates with offspring survival. Women who left their mate for another are happier than those who were dumped.

Aug 14, 2019
it is very amusing to read the males attempting to rationalize & justify their opinions of the results of this study.

without any women contributing their opinions
of course how does one confirm the sexual identity of online claimants?

especially since women i have privately conversed with?
consider the risk of exposure to to vicious harassment & outright physical threats are all too common

the intolerance from the old-boys-club drives many women to deliberately avoid contributing or in cloaking themselves in anonymity

what?

you take personal offense at confronting female expectations
that leave you uncomfortable & questioning your own behavior?

good...

so?
what do you intend to do, yourself?
to create a safer environment online to gain female opinions?

Aug 14, 2019
it's not the only multiple * that women benefit from ! phys.org8sms x:)

Aug 15, 2019
Don't believe anything coming out of the Social Sciences these days. They are all infested by pseudo scientists who are really social activists looking to use science to 'prove' their ideology.

Aug 15, 2019
Don't believe anything coming out of the Social Sciences these days. They are all infested by pseudo scientists who are really social activists looking to use science to 'prove' their ideology.
Indeed. They're there to influence behavior, not explain it.

Aug 15, 2019
The usual simplistic nonsense from the "EvoPsych" crew:

"It is the same with any religion. The more orthodox or fundamentalist, the more the women are suppressed and confined to making and raising children; and the greater acceptance of polygamy. The result is a stronger tribal identity and cohesion, with men more willing to fight and die for the fellows. These tribes grow faster, spread faster, and retain their identities over ever larger and dispersed groups."

So, how is it that any non-fundamentalist individuals and societies exist?


Aug 15, 2019
I have a wonderful testimony to share to the whole world on how Papa Egbe used his herbal product on me, I have been affected with HSV for 6 years and I might papa Egbe through a testimony shared by someone online and told my self let me give him a try and visiting many hospitals and herb home for cure and so lucky for me he did a wonderful job on me and the virus I have had for 6 years was completely cured, thank to Papa Egbe for making me healthy again. What are your infection is it
Hepatitis ABC.
HIV and Aids.
HSV 1&2.
Cancer of any kinds.
Diabetes.
Genital wart.
Unable to get pregnant.
Miscarriage.
Weak erection.
Kidney.
Heart disease.
Any infection.
Ex lover back.
Court Case.
Relationships problem.
Lottery spell.
Contact him now for a cure via email papaegbespiritualtemple @ gmail . com, with your infection listed and not listed, for Natural Remedies.

Aug 15, 2019
So, how is it that any non-fundamentalist individuals and societies exist?
Good question. But even more telling questions can be asked...
If fundys tend toward maximum overgrowth, why isn't the world an ecological ruin?
Why hasn't a single one emerged to overpower the others and 'fill up the earth'?
Why is it that when one emerges, another one tends to emerge to counter it?

-Tribes form to resist enemies. In an overcrowded world, people naturally collect in tribes for protection of resources. So after 1000s of gens of tribal living in a chronically overcrowded world, the compulsion to belong to a tribe is genetically ingrained... and along with it, the anticipation of an enemy.

This genetic format makes people very easy to manipulate. It indicates that religions were invented in order to spread the tribal identity over ever larger regions and disparate peoples. And these designer religions must have concocted enemies in order to exist.
Cont>

Aug 15, 2019
IOW you can never have just one religion.

The holy books are all about tribalism. Threats to home and soul and goodness. The chosen people living amidst enemies, sent to free their rightful home from other enemies. Us vs them.

Christendom was never a unified thing. Arians vs catholics, eastern empire vs west, protestant cs catholic. As soon as Islam emerges it split into Sunni and Shiite. Buddhism was eradicated in the country it originated in. Hinduism was always a miasma of competing gods, sects, and credos.

Due to the tribalist nature of religion and its penchant for outgrowing and overrunning, there never can be just one. An ultimate victor would soon grow past the point of stability. People would begin to suffer. Factions would emerge, blaming each other for angering god and inviting his wrath. And it would start all over again.
Cont>

Aug 15, 2019
But the question remains: why hasn't this destroyed the world? A vast swath of ruin and desolation does exist from the sahel, through the middle east, and to the gobi. This is evidence of the destruction caused by overpopulation and intertribal conflict. If left to it's own ends, I believe humanity would have ruined the earth.

But the cause of this was apparent early on, and enduring Solutions were found.

Scholiast on Homer, Iliad, 1.5:
"There was a time when the countless tribes of men, though wide-dispersed, oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed earth, and Zeus saw it and had pity and in his wise heart resolved to relieve the all-nurturing earth of men by causing the great struggle of the Trojan War, that the load of death might empty the world. And so the heroes were slain in Troy, and the plan of Zeus came to pass."
Cont>

Aug 15, 2019
"13To Gabriel also the Lord said, Go to the biters, (13) to the reprobates, to the children of fornication; and destroy the children of fornication, the offspring of the Watchers, from among men; bring them forth, and excite them one against another. Let them perish by mutual slaughter; for length of days shall not be theirs." Book of Enoch chap10

"the Lord said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. 3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses." Joshua1
Cont>

Aug 15, 2019
-Like I say I think it's clear that the state sponsored religions we are plagued with today were Designed expressly to conquer and subdue the world. They have done this by dividing the people up and setting them against one another in manageable and constructive ways, by using the peoples genetic compulsion toward tribalism against them.

And the People who arranged all this were surprisingly eager to share all this with us by writing it all down in the most popular books ever written.

And like 'zeus' in the cypria I am sure they knew that some day these doomsday machines would have to be dismantled before they did indeed destroy the world, as they threaten to do do today. This great dismantling began during the enlightenment. Within a gen or 2 the church went from burning scientists, to employing them.

Most of the changes toward secularism since then have been just as abrupt and inexplicable, unless you consider that these holy institutions were ending themselves by Design.

Aug 15, 2019
"1 There is a [Proper] TIME for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens...
10 I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its TIME...
17 I said to myself,
"God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a [Proper] TIME for every activity,
a TIME to judge every deed."

-Etc. Early Leaders accepted that certain things like overgrowth were inevitable no matter what they did to prevent it. So they decided to manage it instead of resisting it. They sought to make war and revolution happen at the Proper Time, and in the proper manner, so that stability and progress could continue and civilization would endure.

Humans anticipate. Like joseph and pharaoh we prepare for the future. Noah survived the great flood [of humanity] with a vessel full of humanity's store of accrued knowledge, it's most valuable possession. His grandfather Enoch told him and us exactly why, and how.

Aug 15, 2019
blah13, that you got otto agreeing with you?
is not a recommendation
it is an indictment that you two loons are birds of a feather

i'd guess buzzards?

so you are joining the cult of looneytoon trolls infesting this site?
voluntarily providing thesis material to the Social Science & Mental Health students monitoring these comments?

that a boy, serving the public interest by revealing all those inner fears & inadequacies, festering within you

but, you are going to have to work very hard to match otto's long history supplying psych student's with material to diagnose his psychosis

year after year of graduates waving their diplomas to their proud parents cameras

i would hope in their speeches they gave some credit to otto for his contribution to their doctoral thesis

now blah13, it is your turn
for your generation of lunatics to step up, replacing the old cranks

Aug 15, 2019
rrwillsj
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Jeremy Hillary Boob , Ph.D, the Nowhere Man
"Yes! Ah, "yes" is a word with a glorious ring!
A true universal, euphonious thing!
Engenders embracing and chasing of blues!
The very best word for the whole world to use!
[writing with his foot] The footnotes for my 19th book! This is my standard procedure for doing it; and while I compose it, I'm also reviewing it!
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time. So much to know!"

-Sad.

Aug 16, 2019
wow otto
you have achieved a new depth of incomprehensible, out-of-context gobbling

sp?
not a buzzard?
but a domesticated turkey

"i got dibs on the dark meat!"

Aug 17, 2019
So willis you didn't bother to google that very famous poem? Of course not. You're so used to making up your own facts, you assume everybody does as well. When you see "_" you should understand that it's a QUOTE.

That's why you're the fool on the hill.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more