Tournament and pair-bonding strategies for pheromone use

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

Biologists have noted two types of species with distinct physical and behavioral characteristics with regard to mating. Those are called tournament speciesand pair bondingspecies.

In tournament species males compete for the opportunity to mate with females. They may compete via fighting like the elk, or via displays like the peacock. In pair bonding species like the swan a male and a female form a lasting pair bond. (In a very few species it is the female that competes to mate with the male. These species are the exception rather than the rule. In the rest of this discussion I’ll refer to the male as the competing sex.)

Contrasting the traits of pair-bonding and tournament species.

Tournament species usually have a high degree of sexual dimorphism, since traits in the males are selected for by their success in the tournaments. Males are often larger than females in fighting species, or equipped with weaponry the females do not possess. In display species the males will often have coloration or display features the female does not. In pair bonding species the male and female are often very similar in appearance.

Generally males in tournament species do not participate in rearing of infants. Many tournament species males practice infanticide against infants not their own. This frees up the reproductive capacity of the female for mating with the current alpha male. In pair-bonding species both parents share in rearing infants. Since both parents are optimized for this parental role instead of competitions, this accounts for some of the similarities between males and females in the pair-bonding species.

In tournament species most of the mating is done by a small percentage of the males. In pair-bonding species a much larger percentage of the males mate successfully.

In tournament species the female is more committed to rearing the young, as there is often no back-up resource. In pair bonding species females sometimes abandon their young to mate again elsewhere, because the cuckolded male will complete the rearing of the offspring.

Non-mendelian imprinted genesare a characteristic of tournament species, and are largely absent in purely pair-bonding species.

Tournament species females select males on their ability to win competitions, which also is an indicator of their health and survival abilities. Pair bonding females also consider the child rearing abilities of the male when selecting a mate.

What are humans?

Humans exhibit a medium degree of sexual dimorphism, with the males being on average somewhat larger and stronger than the females. Humans also have an intermediate number of imprinted genes between clearly tournament and clearly pair-bonding species. Even leaving all observed human behaviors aside, these two clear biological markers indicate that humans use both (or some mixture of) pair bonding and tournament mating strategies.

Role of pheromones

One must wonder what role pheromones play in these two mating strategies. Is it possible that some pheromones play a strong role in mammalian tournament selection, and others play a role in mammalian pair-bonding selection. This question can probably be answered experimentally, but to my knowledge the experiments have not been done.

Anecdotal reports on this forum indicate that –none worn by a male can inspire fear/respect/aggression in other males, strong sexual responses in ovulating females, and aggressive/protective responses in non-ovulating women or women with infants. This seems entirely consistent with –none being a marker for a “winning” alpha male in a tournament species. Females are interested in such a male when fertile, and need to protect themselves and their infants from the male at other times.

-rone in contrast has been noted to have somewhat of a older, pater-familias effect. One might speculate that this pheromone could indicate a male optimized for child rearing.

There have been reports of the mixture a314 creating a “stalking” response in women. A314 contains both –none and –rone. Stalking would seem to be an attempt at pair-bonding. Perhaps the -none/-rone combination can indicate both fitness and child-rearing abilities. A male sending both signals might be considered a valuable partner for a pair-bond.

The alpha and beta –nols seem to affect communication. This suggests that they might be more effective in pair-bonding than in tournament play. However, in humans winning a tournament may require developing a certain level of trust and secure feelings in the female, so these –nols may also play a secondary role in a tournament strategy.

I can’t help but think that there is sufficient investigation here for 10 or 20 doctoral theses. I suspect we will see an explosion of information on these communication molecules in the next few years. In the meantime, we are recording some very interesting data on the effects of these molecules in human dating/mating rituals.

Periodically people pop up on the forum and ask “What pheromone should I use.” I’ve come to believe that this question can’t be answered without knowing if the person is oriented toward a tournament or a pair-bonding strategy. The person looking to get laid and leave needs to send different signals than a person looking to establish an exclusive long-term bond.

Pair bonding and tournament strategies have repercussions outside of mating behavior. The social organizations of the two types of species also differ, and I am forced to speculate that the strategy and signals of the mating strategy adopted will also affect same-sex interactions. Again, there is a lot of work to be done before these signaling implications are clear.

[Phoenix]

Very interesting discussion.
So in practical terms, if you are seeking a long-term relationship/bond, does that mean one should use less -none, or balance it eg as in a314?

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

@Phoenix

Very interesting discussion.
So in practical terms, if you are seeking a long-term relationship/bond, does that mean one should use less -none, or balance it eg as in A314?

That seems like a viable hypothesis. We really have very little data at this point.

However, were I trying to establish a pair bond, I would probably go with the practical approach you have suggested.

[bubblebob]

Bump for this interesting read!

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

Here is some interesting academic speculation on this topic that preceded my initial post by a couple of years. Many thanks to Tisha for bringing this paper to my attention.

http://www.milindwatve.com/pdf_images/2%20Andro.pdf

[Butterfly]

I have not had the pleasure of sniffing pheros on men, so I can’t say anything about it, but I think single, childless, monogamously minded women are most attracted to men who can provide both none and rone qualities, so they can have a husband who can provide the hot sex as well as the bacon.

I think bored, unhappily married women are most attracted to the pure none stallion, since they have a rone provider already.

I guess single mums would be more attracted to purer rone men, as they already have the healthy cubs and just need someone to provide for them.

Also, a father does need a bit of none to protect his young and have enough aggression at hunting or business to be a good provider, but of course not so much that he would rape his wife, kill her children or go out cheating. I guess how much none would be most popular would depend on to what extent it is a dog eat dog world out there.

[djandarial]

This is good INFO!!!

[xev]

Things get a lot more complicated and interesting when you look closely at primate breeding systems. Here is a summary of some of the diversity:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html

What is not delved into on this webpage is the mating habits of our closest living relative, the chimps. The webpage above lists them as promiscuous, and they really do not fall into either the tournament or pair bonding categories. The interesting thing is that chimp mating behavior differs from population to population and among individuals within populations. Some are polygynandrous (both males and females have multiple parnters), some form pair bonds (they may or may not cheat), and some form bonds of more than two – two females and a male, or two males and a female, etc. These pair bonds or group bonds can last various lengths of time. The differences seen among chimp populations may be non-genetic, cultural divergences that have developed over time.

I don’t think humans fit the stereotypical “tournament” profile simply because through most of our evolutionary history, it would have been infeasible for females to rear offspring alone, without paternal care.

Yes, men strut, and yes, women are choosey. But there is some male competition and female choice even in pair bonding species. (Pair bonding does not equal monogamous, and not all pair bondings are for life). Humans exhibit alot of pair bonding behaviors, though they don’t necessarily lead to lifelong pairings.

A good read (old but not completely outdated) is Desmond Morris’ “The Naked Ape”. He has two newer books “The naked man” and “the naked woman” that I haven’t read yet.

[xev]

@xev

I don’t think humans fit the stereotypical “tournament” profile simply because through most of our evolutionary history, it would have been infeasible for females to rear offspring alone, without paternal care.

Just to add some detail to this. Human babies have really big heads and we’re bipedal, a combination that has significantly constrained all kinds of aspects of our biology, including our mating systems.

Because we walk upright, and women have to birth big-headed babies, women have to have wide pelvises. Because there are constraints on sexual dimorphism, men also have wide pelvises compared to other apes. They are a little narrower than a womans, but a lot wider than any other ape.

The wide pelvis is seriously unstable mechanically (and is a great argument against intelligent design…). To stabilize it we have to have huge glutes (again relative to other apes). But even this is not enough to keep women spry and agile late into pregnancy, the way many other mammals are. Which means that a woman can’t hunt/gather food for herself when she’s 8 months pregnant. She’s going to have to have the help of, at minimum, another person if not a small group.

Once the baby comes, she’s just as vulnerable. For a really long time. Unlike most other mammals, our babies develop very slowly and spend a relatively large amount of time completely dependent upon their mothers. And one of the reasons for this is the amount of time needed for that huge brain to develop. If we gestated babies until they were ready to pop out and run around like fawns, their heads would have to be even huger, and the mother would never survive childbirth.

All this tells me that pair bonding (that lasted at least some number of years) must have been important throughout human history.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

Looking through an interesting book.

Endocrinology of Social Relationships
Edited by Ellison and Gray
Harvard University Press, 2009

Ch 12 - Gray and Campbell - Human Male Testosterone, Pair Bonding, and Fatherhood

One of the primary patterns emerging from the North American data is that pair-bonding status served as a consistent predictor of variation in male testosterone levels. In all but one study where males were distinguished by their involvement (or not) in a long-term committed relationship, they displayed lower testosterone levels, compared with their unpaired counterparts.

[Jean9]

@Butterfly

I think bored, unhappily married women are most attracted to the pure none stallion, since they have a rone provider already.

I think that married women who are not unhappy may go for the men they think would be good for long term domestic happiness. Usually these women have enough experience and understanding to know what they’re looking for, and when a high quality long term domestic partner comes along, they know him when they see him.

I happen to have a friend who seems to only attract more or less happily married women. He’s the “sweet” yet highly practical long-term partner, and a good lover to boot. But he’s too serious for young girls who just want to have fun, and he’s not interested in unhappy ladies in loveless marriages. So the matches for him are always people in long term partnerships that just might be looking to continue their happy serial monogamy elsewhere (hey, married ten years can be a long time – even if you found a good one).