Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 821–830 | Cite as

Avuncular Tendencies and the Evolution of Male Androphilia in Samoan Fa’afafine

Original Paper


The kin selection hypothesis for male androphilia holds that genes for male androphilia can be maintained in a population if the fitness costs of not reproducing directly are offset by enhancing indirect fitness. Kin share some proportion of genes identical by virtue of descent. Theoretically speaking, androphilic males can increase their fitness indirectly by allocating altruistic behavior toward kin, which, in turn, allows kin to increase their reproductive success. Research conducted in Independent Samoa has shown that androphilic males (known locally as fa’afafine) report significantly higher avuncular tendencies relative to gynephilic men. Here, we replicate this sexual orientation difference, using a larger, independent sample, suggesting that the documented sexual orientation difference in avuncular tendencies in Independent Samoa is genuine. We also extend previous research by showing that fa’afafine exhibit significantly higher avuncular tendencies even when compared to a more closely matched control group that also lacks direct parental care responsibilities (i.e., gynephilic men with no children). Although the greater avuncular tendencies of fa’afafine relative to gynephilic men are consistent with the predictions of the kin selection hypothesis for male androphilia, further research is needed before deeming male androphilia an adaptation for promoting elevated avuncularity. Likewise, more research is needed before deeming elevated avuncularity in fa’afafine an evolved adaptation for promoting indirect fitness. We discuss these findings in the context of alternative evolutionary explanations for male androphilia (i.e., an evolved by-product of an adaptation).


Male androphilia Samoa Evolution Avuncular tendencies Kin selection 


  1. Bailey, J. M. (2003). The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexualism. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetics and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Dawood, K., Miller, M. B., Farrer, L. A., Trivedi, S., et al. (1999). A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. Behavior Genetics, 29, 79–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartlett, N. H., & Vasey, P. L. (2006). A retrospective study of childhood gender-atypical behavior in Samoan fa’afafine. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  6. Besnier, N. (1994). Polynesian gender liminality through time and space. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 285–328). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  7. Besnier, N. (2000). Transvestism (transgenderism). In B. V. Lal & K. Fortune (Eds.), Pacific islands: An encyclopedia (pp. 416–417). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bobrow, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained via kin selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, P., & Bocahut, L. (Directors). (1998). Woubi cheri [Motion picture]. San Francisco: California Newsreel.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Camperio Ciani, A., Cermelli, P., & Zanzotto, G. (2008). Sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality. PLoS ONE, 3, e2282. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Camperio Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiñas, B. (1995). Isthmus Zapotec attitudes toward sex and gender anomalies. In S. O. Murray (Ed.), Latin American male homosexualities (pp. 293–302). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cochran, B., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 773–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman, E., Colgan, P., & Gooren, L. (1992). Male cross-gender behavior in Myanmar (Burma): A description of the acault. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 313–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Croall, H. & Wunderman, E. (Directors). (1999). Paradise bent: Gender diversity in Samoa [Motion picture]. New York: Filmmakers Library.Google Scholar
  17. Danielsson, B., Danielsson, T., & Pierson, R. (1978). Polynesia’s third sex: The gay life starts in the kitchen. Pacific Islands Monthly, 49, 10–13.Google Scholar
  18. Dickemann, M. (1995). Wilson’s panchreston: The inclusive fitness hypothesis of sociobiology re-examined. Journal of Homosexuality, 28, 147–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fone, B. R. S. (2000). Homophobia: A history. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S. (2004). It’s like one of those puzzles: Conceptualizing gender among bugis. Journal of Gender Studies, 13, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, D. F. (1988). The construction of homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). Population genetics. New Biology, 18, 34–51.Google Scholar
  25. Hamer, D., & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist, 97, 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1994). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  28. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Holmes, L. D. (1987). Quest for the real Samoa: The Mead/Freeman controversy and beyond. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Iemmola, F., & Camperio Ciani, A. (2008). New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: Female fecundity increase in the maternal line. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6.
  31. Johnson, M. (1997). Beauty and power: Transgendering and cultural transformation in the Southern Philippines. New York: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Kendler, K. S., Thornton, L. M., Gilman, S. E., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Sexual orientation in a US national sample of twin and non-twin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1843–1846.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. King, M., Green, J., Osborn, D. P. J., Arkell, J., Hetherton, J., & Pereira, E. (2005). Family size in white gay and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 117–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  35. Knüsel, C. J., & Ripley, K. M. (2000). The man-woman or ‘berdache’ in Anglo-Saxon England and Post-Roman Europe. In W. Frazer & A. Tyrrel (Eds.), Social identity in early medieval Britain (pp. 157–191). Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Koon, T. Y. (2002). The Mak Nyahs: Malaysian male to female transsexuals. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kulick, D. (1998). Travestí: Sex, gender and culture among Brazilian transgendered prostitutes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lal, B. V., & Fortune, K. (2000). Pacific islands: An encyclopedia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  39. LeVay, S. (1993). The sexual brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mageo, J. M. (1996). Samoa, on the Wilde side: Male transvestism, Oscar Wilde, and liminality in making gender. Ethos, 24, 588–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mageo, J. M. (1998). Theorizing self in Samoa: Emotions, genders and sexualities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  42. McKnight, J., & Malcolm, J. (2000). Is male homosexuality maternally linked? Psychology, Evolution & Gender, 2, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray, S. O. (2000). Homosexualities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mustanski, B. S., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2002). A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 89–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Namaste, V. (2000). Invisible lives: The erasure of transsexual and transgendered people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nanda, S. (1998). Neither man nor woman: The hijras of India. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  47. Nardi, B. A. (1983/1984). Infant feeding and women’s work in Western Samoa: A hypothesis, some evidence and suggestions for future research. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 13/14, 277–286.Google Scholar
  48. Nash, G. (2001). The subversive male: Homosexual and bestial images on European mesolithic rock art. In L. Bevan (Ed.), Indecent exposure: Sexuality, society and the archaeological record (pp. 43–55). Glasgow: Cruithne Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahman, Q., Collins, A., Morrison, M., Orrels, J. C., Cadinouche, K., Greenfield, S., et al. (2008). Maternal inheritance and familial fecundity factors in male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2.
  51. Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 461–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1983). Polynesian child rearing: An alternative model. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruse, M. (1982). Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  55. Schmidt, J. (2003). Paradise lost? Social change and fa’afafine in Samoa. Current Sociology, 51, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tiffany, S. W. (1975). The cognatic descent groups of contemporary Samoa. Man, 10, 430–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turke, P. W. (1988). Helpers at the nest: Childcare networks on Ifaluk. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 173–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Turner, W. J. (1995). Homosexuality, type 1: An Xq28 phenomenon. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 109–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Vasey, P. L., & Bartlett, N. H. (2007). What can the Samoan fa’afafine teach us about the Western concept of “Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood”? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50, 481–490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Vasey, P. L., Pocock, D. S., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007). Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa’afafine. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007a). Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa’afafine. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 274, 1437–1442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007b). Are the mothers of androphilic males more fecund? Evidence from Western Samoa. Poster presented at the meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  63. Vokey, J. R. (2003). Multiway frequency analysis for experimental psychologists. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 257–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Weinrich, J. D. (1987). Sexual landscapes: Why we are what we are, why we love whom we love. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  65. Whitam, F. L. (1983). Culturally invariable properties of male homosexuality: Tentative conclusions from cross-cultural research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 207–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Wikan, U. (1977). Man becomes woman: Transsexualism in Oman as a key to gender roles. Man, 12, 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Williams, W. (1992). The spirit and the flesh: Sexual diversity in American Indian culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  70. Yankelovich Partners. (1994). A Yankelovich monitor perspective on gays/lesbians. Norwalk, CT: Yankelovich Partners.Google Scholar
  71. Yates, T. (1993). Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. In C. Tilley (Ed.), Interpretive archaeology (pp. 31–72). Providence, RI: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations