Female promiscuity is common in chimpanzees, chickens, salmon, sea urchins and obviously humans. But no one ever found an evolutionary benefit to it (although they had found plenty of negatives, including disease and death to the hussy female). Now, scientists examining red flour beetles suggest females have an innate drive to sample lots of sperm to find the most compatible seed and increase the number of offspring that will survive.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom found that inbred (therefore handicapped fertility-wise) female red flour beetles mating with just one male had a 50 per cent fewer surviving offspring than non-inbred beetles. But those that mated with five males managed to have the same reproductive success as non-inbred populations.
The research will appear in the September 23 issue of the journal Science.
Yes, the study was in beetles, so it’s a bit of a jump to make assumptions about humans. But if dudes can blame science for their indiscretions, women should be able to, too, dammit!
[Science]
Image: Shutterstock/Jason Stitt
Rhys
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 8:05 AMI blame the chicken
i2
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 8:35 AM:-| sorry… you were saying something?
Jack
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM+1
Adam
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 1:39 PM+1
Ash
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 9:00 AMI’d smack dat.
Sam
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:11 AM…So the moral to the story is inbred women have an equal chance of conceiving if the sleep around, as non-inbred women? Music to Elisabeth Fritzl’s ears I suppose…
Morkai
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM“bobby, billy, billy-joe, lil’ pete, jefferson, come ‘ere and take a run atcher sister here!”
Borganstein
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:52 PMThat horrific… but I couldnt stop myself from laughing.
Dave Lord
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:13 AMKristen, Kristen, Kristen…. Did you even read the article?
The study was able to “identify major fitness benefits” in female red flour beetles after 15 generations of inbreeding.
That’s inbreeding, Kristen…. you know? When cousins marry?
The study shows that the offspring recorded increased levels of female promiscuity compared with non-inbred controls.
If you want to extrapolate that to the human population, then you are way too late! We have already known that for a couple of thousand years. DUH!!!!
Dave Lord
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:59 AMThe study does not prove that “Female Promiscuity Is a Biological Imperative”.
It just suggests that it is a better alternative to having sex with your mother.
Dave Lord
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:02 AMApologies.
In context, that should be “it is a better alternative to having sex with your FATHER.”
markk
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:58 AMHmmm something you need to get off your conscience here Kristen?
HighlyDubious
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:00 AMThis article could definitely do with more pictures of boobies.
TSH
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:11 AMIt’s a very long bow to draw, in so many ways.
Of particular importance is maximum human fecundity (i.e. how rapidly we can reproduce). Gestating a human offspring, not to mention the rearing of said offspring, is a major investment of resources compared to a female flour beetle’s ability to lay 300-400 eggs in her ~8 month adult life. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_stored_product_entomology )
I suspect that human female promiscuity has more to do with the interaction between our biological and social evolution over the last few million years. In short: men are culturally more expendable than women, meaning even the most high-quality men could be dead come the next hunting trip or tribal war. So those women who tended to be less attached to a single man would have more reproductive success, increasing the overall promiscuity of the next generation.
That’s my 2c anyway! :–]
duey cumalot
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:19 AMWhat a load of rubbish, just because you have never heard a ‘biological imperative” explanation for female promiscuity does not mean it has never been found / discussed.
Evolutionary biologically speaking it is far better for a woman to have different fathers for her many offspring, that way a genetic defect in the father effects only some of her offspring and not all of them.
Monogamy benefits the Male gender as is prevents only the strongest reproducing, and hence reduces the stresses within a group. If only the strongest / fittest get any action the resultant infighting would reduce the male population down to small numbers.
so remember
monogamy = MALE benefit
polygamy = FEMALE benefit
Dave Lord
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:00 PMThis article is not referencing monogamy vs polygamy. It discusses polyandry, which is a wholly different thing. It is where a female has concurrent sexual partners. You might like to think of it as a “Gang Bang” if that helps.
A good example of polyandry is the Australian Brush-turkey (Alectura lathami). The female has sex with multiple robust males in her environment. This encourages her to lay larger, healthier eggs more often.
However, she chooses to lay those eggs in the largest mound or nest, and therefore secures the best “Parent” for her offspring. So that male spends his life caring for many offspring that are not even his biological progeny.
AND THAT, MY FRIENDS IS WHY HE IS CALLED A TURKEY!
HighlyDubious
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM^ *boom tish*
duey cumalot
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:36 PMWow, I dont think the article was refering to polyandry, polygamy or monogamy at all. It was discussing multiple sexual partners of a female being biologically beneficial. It does not imply that there needed to be any ongoing relationship for this benefit.
Polyandry is the “condition of having more than one husband at a time”.
polygamy is the “condition of having more than one confirmed sexual relationship at a time”. the traditional definition of confirmed is generally accepted to be marriage.
Therefore polyandry is a subset of polygamy.
As for the bush turkey, does the male only ever hav one female partner? If not then it is not a polyandry situation but a polygamy situation.
Dave Lord
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 4:24 PMWow! Every single sentence you have written here is incorrect!
Maybe you might like to actually read the article in question before commenting. It is located here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1739.abstract
It is about polyandry in beetles.
Matt L
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:30 PMSince when does compatible sperm = $$$?
ed power
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:47 PMSo all the research showed that imbreding is bad. What a surprise. But what a stretch of the imagination to link promisuity in imbreds as a biological imperitive.
Genetic diversity is the imperitive. Its not news, just survival of the fittest.
Osiris Fox
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 4:39 PMYes, indeed it is a very poor comparison. Inbred is very different biologically compared to unrelated monogamous partner.
Otacon
Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 3:36 AMI think the main questions here is, what is the name of the woman in the poster?
Andre
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 1:10 PM+1