Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 1329–1333 | Cite as

Human Life Histories are Flexible, Not Fixed

  • Siobhán M. MattisonEmail author
  • Adam Z. Reynolds
  • Katherine Wander

Luoto, Krams, and Rantala’s (2018) Target Article presents a wide-ranging review whose main purposes, as we understand them, are to (1) delineate differences in the biology and behavioral strategies of “butch” versus “femme” versus bisexual versus heterosexual women, (2) identify the causes, both proximate and ultimate, that lead to differences in these phenotypes, and (3) propose a novel hypothesis that synthesizes (1) and (2) essentially by suggesting that nonheterosexual women are, by various mechanisms, “masculinized,” with characteristics that reflect evolved strategies to engage in faster (more “masculine”) life histories. Two overarching goals of the article are laudable. First, using Tinbergen’s (1963) framework to integrate multiple levels of causality for a fuller understanding of same-sex sexuality could serve to advance related attempts in other areas of biology (Sherman, 1988) and to improve our understanding of the complex expression of the human sexuality spectrum....


  1. Apostolou, M. (2016). The evolution of same-sex attractions: Parental and intimate partners’ reactions to deviations from exclusive heterosexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 380–389. Scholar
  2. Baldini, R. (2015). Harsh environments and “fast” human life histories: What does the theory say? BioRxiv. Scholar
  3. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647–670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bribiescas, R. G., Ellison, P. T., & Gray, P. B. (2012). Male life history, reproductive effort, and the evolution of the genus homo. Current Anthropology, 53, S424–S435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, G. R., Laland, K. N., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8805–8810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Del Giudice, M., Gangestad, S. W., & Kaplan, H. S. (2015). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–27). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  8. Diamond, L. M. (2007). The evolution of plasticity in female-female desire. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(4), 245–274. Scholar
  9. Dickins, T. E., & Barton, R. A. (2013). Reciprocal causation and the proximate–ultimate distinction. Biology and Philosophy, 28(5), 747–756. Scholar
  10. Ellis, B. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). Developmental adaptation to stress: An evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1).
  11. Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20(2), 204–268. Scholar
  12. Eves, A. (2004). Queer theory, butch/femme identities and Lesbian space. Sexualities, 7(4), 480–496. Scholar
  13. Gravlee, C. C. (2009). How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139, 47–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Jones, N. G. B. (1997). Hadza women’s time allocation, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Current Anthropology, 38, 551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, K. (1993). Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 2, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, J. H., & Bliege Bird, R. (2014). The marginal valuation of fertility. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 65–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan, H. (1996). A theory of fertility and parental investment in traditional and modern human societies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 39, 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–413. Scholar
  19. Kramer, K. L., & Ellison, P. T. (2010). Pooled energy budgets: Resituating human energy allocation trade-offs. Evolutionary Anthropology, 19, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2013). More on how and why: Cause and effect in biology revisited. Biology and Philosophy, 28(5), 719–745. Scholar
  21. Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is Mayr’s proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science, 334(6062), 1512–1516. Scholar
  22. Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., … Strassmann, J. E. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature, 514(7521), 161–164. Scholar
  23. Luoto, S., Krams, I., & Rantala, M. J. (2018). A life history approach to the female sexual orientation spectrum: Evolution, development, causal mechanisms, and health. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Scholar
  24. Mattison, S. M. (2016). Male-provisioning hypothesis. In V. Weekes-Shackelford, T. K. Shackelford, & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 1–6). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Scholar
  25. Mattison, S. M., Quinlan, R., & Hare, D. (2018). The expendable male hypothesis. bioRxiv. Scholar
  26. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506. Scholar
  27. McEwen, B. S., & Wingfield, J. C. (2003). The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 2–15. Scholar
  28. Reeve, H. K., & Sherman, P. W. (1993). Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scelza, B. A. (2013). Choosy but not chaste: Multiple mating in human females. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 22(5), 259–269. Scholar
  30. Sear, R. (2016). Beyond the nuclear family: An evolutionary perspective on parenting. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 98–103. Scholar
  31. Sear, R., Sheppard, P., & Coall, D. (2018). Cross-cultural evidence does not support universal acceleration of puberty in father-absent households. OSF Preprints.
  32. Sherman, P. W. (1988). The levels of analysis. Animal Behaviour, 36, 616–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, E. A. (2013). Agency and adaptation: New directions in evolutionary anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sober, E. (1994). Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  37. Walker, J. J., Golub, S. A., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons, J. T. (2012). Butch bottom-femme top? An exploration of lesbian stereotypes. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16(1), 90–107. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA

Personalised recommendations