Customer Reviews

Female Choices: Sexual Behavior of Female Primates

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is an essential read in the study of female sexuality. It may not have the right answers but it is nevertheless one of very few counter arguments to the view of male promiscuity and female choosiness.

Small discusses the evolution of sexual reproduction and how this led to the logical conclusion that females 'should' be very choosy about the quality of the male or males they mate with. The author has herself studied macaques where females show virtually no evidence of being choosy. Other primates and other species show varying levels of choosiness by the females and varying levels of male coercion of females. An important point is also made about the difference between mate preference and mate choice - ie the actual male(s) mated with may not be the females preferred male(s).

The only factor the author sees as being fairly constant is the attractiveness of novelty. Though this has been accepted as a reason for the males renewed sexual interest in novel females, often explained as the Coolidge Effect, this also is shown to be the case for females and we should therefore also acknowledge the 'Ms' Coolidge Effect.

Though females are less choosy than they 'should' be they also do clearly reject certain males. Perhaps the focus should change to why females reject certain males rather than why they choose particular males. And males do sometimes reject certain females. In primates with a breeding season where females are in estrus at the same time sperm, rather than eggs, can become the limiting resource.

Small also discusses the social functions of female mating such as avoiding harm or harm to offspring. The female motivation for sex in humans and in some primates is disconnected from the hormones of reproduction and so mating has clear non-sexual/reproductive functions. When the female is ovulating then becoming pregnant 'should' be the main concern and we would expect females to be mating as much as possible at this time without necessarily being particularly choosy.

The final chapter is about human female sexuality and there is some discussion of marriage and how much or little choice women may have. The dependency of the human infant has clearly shaped human mating. Both sexes, Small says, experience conflict at the two levels of reproductive success - at the level of seeking novel mates and at the level of needing to pair-bond for the benefit of their joint offspring.

In human society males have been able to control female sexuaity far more than females can control male sexuality. Studies of human female mate choice, which Small discusses, are hindered by the imposed 'double standard' and the fact that females do not have a voice in many cultures.

Small's bringing to our attention of evidence that challenges our evolutionary ideas about how females 'should' behave sexually ought to lead to an expansion in our understanding of evolution along with our discoveries of the fascinating complexities of female behavior.

An essential read.

This is an interesting look at mating habits among non-human primates. Most of the theories and bald statements Small makes sound rather unfounded and I would like the opportunity to talk with her about them since she may mean something entirely different than my interpretation of what she's saying. In any event, she doesn't arrive at a theory that makes any sense (to me) until about page 178 which is pretty much at the end of the book. I enjoyed reading the book nonetheless.

On the one hand, this is a good and interesting book exposing the fallacies of androcentric sociobiology. On the other hand, it occasionally looks rather silly, since it's simply stating the obvious. Did you know that women enjoy sex? Did you know that women want to be just as sexually active as men, and that men therefore attempt to control their sexuality? Of course you did. But Meredith Small states this as if it was some kind of stunning revelation. And her book was published in 1992!

The reason for this sad state of affairs is, of course, that Small is a sociobiologist herself. She is something as oxymoronic as a feminist sociobiologist. Her book sounds like a strange cross of extreme Neo-Darwinism and NOW. Her book is presumably directed at the sociobiological community, pointing out that their paradigm is...well, wrong. Although the author still sees herself as a sociobiologist, her book is another nail in the coffin of sociobiology.

Small compares humans with other primates (read apes, monkeys and prosimians). According to sociobiology, males should be promiscuous, while females should be coy and choosy. Are they? No, not exactly. It turns out that males and females of most primate species are equally promiscuous. Indeed, female primates often take the initiative in mating. In some species, males rather than females are a "limiting resource", again disconfirming sociobiology. Sociobiology further predicts hypergamy: females should choose male partners of a higher rank than themselves. This too turns out to be more complicated in real life. Alpha males do "have their way" with the females, but the females turn out to have affairs with lower-ranking males in secret. It seems nonhuman primates make a sport out of confounding sociobiological expectations!

It also turns out (surprise) that female primates seem to enjoy sex, that some primate species are matriarchal, and that at least one species of nonhuman primate, the bonobo, is bisexual and has sex for non-reproductive purposes! Less than straight relations have also been reported among other nonhuman primates.

As a good Neo-Darwinist, Small also discusses various evolutionary reasons for female primate promiscuity. It could be a defense strategy against male infanticide. Or it could be a way of avoiding inbreeding. Both alternatives sound probable. The main weakness of the book is that it attempts to explain humans in mostly biological terms, instead of emphasizing patriarchy as a *social* construction. Indeed, it's unclear what position Small takes on the sociobiological idea that patriarchy is universal among humans. Here, sociobiology seems to constrain the author.

That being said, I nevertheless found "Female Choices" both interesting and revealing. In some socially constructed circles, stating the obvious is still necessary.

This book is interesting and Small has a number of good ideas on the topic. She has a good writing style which, though at times becomes a little too unprofessional for a scholar, is nevertheless easily readable and understandable. I have no quarrel with her message, granted I don't know enough about the topic to form a logical rebuttal. She puts forth her arguments clearly, and that I have no problems with.

But the grammatical and spelling mistakes that ABOUND through her book are inexcusable and the reason I give it three stars.

Her mistakes are those you'd expect to see in a paper by a high school student. She uses "it's" rather than "its" (page 120), uses an apostrophe for pluralization (page 130), forgets commas (pages 155 and 156), forgets an apostrophe (page 201) and has subject-verb disagreements in number (pages 2 and 156).

Aside from that, she commits spelling atrocities that would have been caught with any spell-check or careful reading: "matruing" (page 60), "menarchy" (page 65), "mht" (presumably for "might," page 124), "twenth-three" (page 141), "squeeking" (page 155) and "renown" (instead of "renowned", page 192).

As a student at her University (Cornell), it was mortifying to read it, knowing that not only did she not bother to do a simple spell-check, but that Cornell didn't either when they published it. Frankly, I expect more from an Ivy League university and the faculty whom it has chosen to employ. Even more ironic is that Cornell prides itself (and was nationally recognized last fall) for its emphasis on writing. I shudder to think how many red marks would be on a Meredith Small paper were she to turn one into a freshman writing seminar.