Content uploaded by Ludek Bartos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ludek Bartos on Oct 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
To cite this article:
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2012; 33(6):636– 642
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Neuroendocrinology Letters Volume 33 No. 6 2012
Evolutional background of dominance/submissivity
in sex and bondage: the two strategies?
Eva J 1, Ludek B 2, Jaroslav F 3
1 Department of
Biology, J.E. Purkynje University, Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
2 Department of
Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
3 Biology Section, Faculty of Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Correspondence to: Eva Jozifkova, PhD.
Department of Biology, J.E. Purkyně University in Usti nad Labem,
Za valcovnou 1000/8, Usti nad Labem, 400 96, Czech Republic.
: +420 475283617; : +420 475 283 622; -: evasmid@centrum.cz
Submitted: 2012-06-10 Accepted: 2012-08-11 Published online: 2012-11-15
Key words: sex; evolution; sadism; sex behavior; hierarchy; dominance;
evolution; strategy; BDSM; bondage
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2012; 33(6):636–642 PMID: 23160222 NEL330612A02 © 2012 Neuroendocrinology Letters • www.nel.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We theorize that sexual arousal by dominance and submission may
be connected to a reproduction strategy respecting a reached social dominance
rank (a common reproduction strategy in socially living mammals), while the
preference for “bondage” may be derived from an opportunistic strategy when
being unable to compete for hierarchic rank (an alternative reproductive strategy
that co-occurs frequently with the above-named main strategy). The answers to
questions dealing with hierarchy in character should correlate exclusively with
sexual arousal connected to any kind of expression of a hierarchy, but not with
bondage.
DESIGN AND SETT INGS: The data were obtained from young adults (157 males
and 183 females aged 18–20, with mean 18.4 years) via questionnaires.
Results: Seven out of eight questions dealing with hierarchy correlated with
sexual arousal by dominance and submission in men (Spearman’s r=0.169–0.313;
p<0.05 – p<0.001), two questions correlated with sexual arousal by dominance
and submission in women (Spearman’s r=0.32–0.166, p<0.001, p<0.05).
THE MAIN F INDINGS: The questions dealing with hierarchy correlated with
sexual arousal by dominance and submission while no answers correlated with
bondage, neither in men nor in women.
CONCLUS ION: The preference for sexual arousal by dominance and submission
may be connected to strategy respecting rank, while the preference for “bondage”
may be derived from an opportunistic strategy that may be essential for possible
partner problems solution. From the evolutionary biology point of view, these
patterns of sadomasochistic sex appear as adaptive rather than as pathology.
637
Neuroendocrinology Letters Vol. 33 No. 6 2012 • Article available online: http://node.nel.edu
The two strategies?
INTRODUCTION
The diverse independent behavioral patterns of sado-
masochistic sex
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, masochists are aroused by being
humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer
(American Psychiatric Association 2000). The list of
the named activities (humiliation, beating, binding)
is in good accordance with further analyses of sexual
practices (Alison et al. 2001) disclosing that the phe-
nomenon called “sadomasochistic sex” may include
diverse and distinct sexual preferences of practitioners.
Interpreting the results obtained by questioning Finnish
sadomasochistic sex practitioners, Alison et al. (2001)
distinguished several independent facets, namely admin-
istration of pain, (ritualistic) humiliation, bodily restric-
tion and hypermasculinity. These facets are in good
accordance with the terms used by active practitioners
of sadomasochistic sex themselves. The participants dis-
tinguish between S/M (sadism and masochism, involve-
ment of strong physical stimuli); D/s sex (dominance
and submissivity in sex – the emphasis is on manifesta-
tion of hierarchical disparity between partners, strong
physical stimuli are not necessary (Hoff 2006; Kolmes
et al. 2006); bondage (the use of physically-restraining
devices or materials that have sexual significance for at
least one partner (Ernulf & Innala 1995)); and leathersex
(eroticization of the macho, masculine image, symbol-
ized by wearing leather clothing and costumes derived
from the cowboy, motorcycle rebel, etc., typical for gay
subculture (Weinberg 2006)). The practitioners with
preference for a particular subset even gather in diverse
groups of interest in both real life and cyberspace.
However, a more accurate analysis of the phe-
nomenon may be blurred by co-occurrence of some
preferences. At least a part of sadomasochistic sex prac-
titioners claim to be aroused by hierarchical disparity
rather than by strong physical stimuli or pain (Cross
& Matheson 2006). When focusing on bondage, 33%
of subjects mentioned sadomasochism, which either
occurred simultaneously with sexual bondage or was
perceived as a part of it in their messages posted to
internet discussions (Ernulf & Innala 1995). Another
effect may play a role. Sadism and masochism are
treated as sociological phenomena, dependent upon
meanings which are culturally produced, learned and
reinforced by participation in the sadomasochistic sub-
culture (Weinberg 2006). Thus, the subjects may first
learn about the practice and then include the practice
into their sexual behavior. For example, masochists
may practice bondage as a strong stimulus providing
sexual pleasure, whereas D/s sex participants may use
the practice to overemphasize dominance. In addi-
tion, many subjects may practice mild bondage to
enrich their sexual repertoire independently of their
sexual orientation. It follows that mere co-occurrence
of specific sexual behaviors does not imply a common
evolutionary background of the behaviors. Indeed, the
distinct form of sexual behavior may be derived from
distinct individual mating strategies (Hirsch & Paul
1996; Thornhill & Palmer 2000). Thus the analysis of a
possible evolutionary background of the phenomenon
may help to understand the phenomenon.
Arousal by hierarchy disparity and fitness
Sexual arousal by overemphasized hierarchy (e.g.
dominatrix-slave play) may originate in a successful
reproductive strategy. This hypothesis was recently sup-
ported by Jozifkova and Konvicka (2009), who found,
in a modern middle-class population, that markers of
reproductive success (the number and gender of rela-
tives and self-reported attractiveness) correlated with
sexual arousal by higher- or lower- ranking partner
(when compared to respondents’ hierarchic rank,
measured by questions similar to questions 3 and 4 in
Table 1), despite the low average number of offspring in
modern humans. Specifically, arousal by lower-ranking
partner correlated positively with the proportion of
males in relatives and with self-reported attractiveness;
arousal by higher-ranking partner correlated positively
with self-attractiveness. The proportion of males in
relatives is supposed to be connected to increased fit-
ness, because a male in good condition can have more
offspring than a female in good condition (extension
of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis (Trivers & Willard
1973)). Attractiveness may allow one to reach a high
quality partner (Buss & Shackelford 2008; Gangestad &
Thornhill 2003). Thus, sexual arousal by lower- and/or
higher-ranking partner appeared to be a manifestation
of a successful reproductive strategy, and hence natural
human behavior.
How exactly can sexual arousal by lower- and/or
higher-ranking partner increase reproductive success?
Arousal by a higher-ranking male likely facilitates
mating with a partner possessing good genes (Gan-
gestad et al. 2004; Simmons et al. 2004) or/and access
to resources (Llaurens et al. 2009). There is evidence
of advantages of such behavior in humans (Fieder et
al. 2005; Mealey 1985). Attractive males usually guard
their female partners less than unattractive ones (Kokko
& Morrell 2005). Theoretically, women are expected to
lower their infidelity when paired with high quality
males (Weatherhead & Boag 1995). This view is sup-
ported by the finding that human males tend to prevent
infidelity by increased displays of dominance (Goetz &
Shackelford 2009).
Importantly, it is advantageous for both lower-rank-
ing females and males to couple with higher-rankers
of the opposite sex when considering genes/resources.
While analyzing a possible explanation for the prefer-
ence of higher-ranking females for lower-ranking males
(i.e., the arousal of (some) women by male submissive-
ness), we found that hierarchically disparate pairs had
an increased number of offspring independently of the
higher-ranking gender in a European urban population
638
Copyright © 2012 Neuroendocrinology Letters ISSN 0172–780X • www.nel.edu
Eva Jozifkova, Ludek Bartos, Jaroslav Flegr
(data in preparation). This pattern may be caused by
increased within-pair cooperation and cohesion, but
regardless of its cause, the connection between court-
ship and social hierarchy is evident. For example, the
markers of dominance in men and markers of submis-
sivity in women (e.g. eye movements, body orienta-
tion) are apparent in nonverbal communication during
courtship (Burke & Sulikowski 2010; Henley 1995;
Moore 2010).
The main and the alternative mating strategy
The possibility that a polygamous mating system (more
specifically, polygyny) favoring dominant males had
been widespread in prehistoric human populations
has received support from various areas (Dupanloup
et al. 2003; Potts 1997). Polygyny is still permitted in
certain cultures throughout the world, especially in
Africa and the Islamic world (Sanderson 2001), Aus-
tralian Aboriginal communities (Chisholm & Burbank
1991), etc. In virtually all societies, polygynous men are
almost invariably men of high social rank (Einon 1998),
and the same applies to men practicing serial polygyny
(Lockard & Adams 1981). Reproductive success varies
more prominently in males under polygamy (Einon
1998) when compared to males under monogamy. The
shift from polygyny to monogamy appears to be a rela-
tively recent phenomenon, as indicated by analysis of
Y-chromosome diversity, suggesting that for millennia,
a small fraction of men may have contributed a large
fraction of the Y-chromosome pool at every generation
in various parts of the world (Dupanloup et al. 2003;
Kayser et al. 2003).
In the mating systems in which individuals pair,
separate and re-pair repeatedly (i.e. serial monogamy),
some males still monopolize more than one female’s
reproductive life span, thus leaving other males effec-
tively mateless. Males who cannot secure females
through standard methods may seek alternatives,
such as (but not only) rape, to ensure gene passage
into future generations (Starks & Blackie 2000). Such
a tactic seems to be opportunistic. Still, predisposition
towards alternative male mating strategies may contain
a genetic component, or may be influenced by maternal
effects (Hews et al. 1997). It has already been suggested
that human males may adopt the “quality strategy”, a
long-term pair bond with considerable paternal invest-
ment, or the “quantity” strategy, short-term bonds with
little paternal investment (Hirsch & Paul 1996). Genetic
polymorphism for alternative mating behavior has been
reported in various taxa (Boul et al. 2007; Hews et al.
1997). Also in humans, evolutionary forces have influ-
enced the foundations of interpersonal relationships
(Bleske & Buss 2000; Gangestad & Simpson 2000).
In the nonhuman world, alternative male mating
strategies appear to be relatively common across
taxa (Taborsky 1994; Taborsky 2001). If mates can be
monopolized through dominance, males may invest
in primary access to fertilization by adopting a “bour-
geois” or “courting” strategy (Taborsky 1994). These are
also called “primary access males” sensu Reynolds in
Taborsky (Taborsky 1994). Those unable to compete
for dominance may employ alternative ‘‘parasitic’’ or
“sneaking” tactics, evading the reproductive monopoly
of other males and forcing or stealing fertilization (e.g.
(Dominey 1984; Healey & Prince 1998).
Hirsch and Paul’s (Hirsch & Paul 1996) “quality”
strategy, a long-term pair bond (Gangestad & Simpson
2000), may reflect the ability to monopolize the mate
through dominance. Individuals involved in the “domi-
nance principle” should respect principles of social
hierarchy, preferring signals of mate quality closely
associated with dominance. On the other hand, the
alternative mating tactics, “quantity” strategy (Hirsch
& Paul 1996), an “opportunistic principle” in this study,
should involve not only disposition to romantic rela-
tionships (Furlow et al. 1998), but, to a much larger
extent, opportunistic approaches such as rape (McKib-
bin et al. 2008; Starks & Blackie 2000) and other sexual
practices including various forms of physical restriction
(Alison et al. 2001).
Tested hypothesis
In this study we propose the existence of at least two
possible alternatives in mating strategy in humans.
We investigated the consequences of possible
human alternative mating strategies resulting from
previous human evolution, applying a division of the
human reproductive system into monopolizing part-
ners (“dominance principle”) and alternative mating
tactics (“opportunistic principle”). If the division of
human reproductive strategies into the “dominance”
and “opportunistic” principles is valid, then the strate-
gies should be heritable. We may predict then, that the
answers to questions dealing with hierarchy in char-
acter should correlate exclusively with sexual arousal
connected to any kind of expression of a hierarchy but
not with bondage. One may expect more pronounced
divisions in males than in females.
Aims
Sexual arousal by dominance/submissivity and bond-
age may be derived from distinct mating strategies – the
“dominance” strategy and the “opportunistic” strat-
egy. Based on this assumption, we expect the answers
to questions dealing with hierarchy to correlate with
reported sexual arousal by dominate/dominated but
not with a reported preference of binding/bound.
METHODS
Participants
The studied population consisted of 340 last-year stu-
dents (157 men and 183 women) from 15 high school
classes (in two cases, two classes, and in two cases, three
classes, from the same school, one class specializing in
arts, one containing the best students, who received
639
Neuroendocrinology Letters Vol. 33 No. 6 2012 • Article available online: http://node.nel.edu
The two strategies?
met their lifelong partners yet, and whose partnership
preferences were not yet biased by experiences of later
adult life.
Questionnaire
This study was a part of a larger project. The respon-
dents completed an original questionnaire containing
95 questions altogether. For this study we selected 12
questions (Table 1). The respondents scored the ques-
tions on a scale ranging from 1 to 7.
Main Outcome Measures
A score sum of questions focused on bondage (1 and
2 in Table 1) and a score sum of questions focused on
Tab. 1. Questionnaire used and definition of the scoring the
answers.
No Question
1 During sexual intercourse I would like to bind my partner’s
hands with a silk scarf
absolutely no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely yes
2 During sexual intercourse I would like my partner to bind my
hands with a silk scarf
absolutely no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely yes
3 When watching a movie or reading a book I would be
aroused with a situation in which a partner would be
behaving equally to his partner rather than lower-ranking
Equally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lower-ranking
4 When watching a movie or reading a book I would be
aroused with a situation in which a partner would be
behaving equally to his partner rather than higher-ranking
Equally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 higher-ranking
5 In my future relationship, my partner will submit to my
demands
absolutely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely no
6 In my future relationship will persist an equality between the
partners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 one of the partners will have to
subordinate
7 In my future relationship, my partners and I will have a fixed
rank relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 our roles may change in
due time
8 I will be pleased being successful to force my partner to do
something
absolutely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely no
9 If there is no chance to win the conflict or disputation
I do not avoid it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do avoid it
10 I often keep control of the conversation when socializing
with others
frequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rarely
11 Other people (colleagues or friends) often submit to my
demands
frequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rarely
12 It would be a pleasure for me to force my friends/colleagues
to do something
absolutely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely no
more detailed education since the fifth level of their
basic school) in Prague, Czech Republic. The age of
the students ranged from 18 (222 respondents) to 19
(112 respondents) to 20 (6 respondents). The students
were asked to voluntarily participate in human natural
behavior research and instructed to feel free to termi-
nate their participation in the study. In case they did
not want to answer a particular question, they were
instructed to skip it rather than provide false infor-
mation. The respondents signed an informed consent
form. The data were collected anonymously.
The targeted group represents a homogeneous popu-
lation of European young urban adults, who had already
attained their first experiences with sex, but have not
Tab. 2. Spearman correlation matrix among “bonding”, “bonded”,
“dominate”, and “dominated” for females (N=173).
Bound Dominate Dominated
Binding 0.678*** 0.269*** 0.184*
Bound 0.371*** 0.210**
Dominate 0.428***
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
Tab. 3. Spearman correlation matrix among “bonding”, “bonded”,
“dominate”, and “dominated” for males (N = 146)
Bound Dominate Dominated
Binding 0.747*** 0.067 0.093
Bound 0.095 0.003
Dominate 0.508***
*** p<0.001
Tab. 4. Spearman correlation coefficients between Dominance/
Bondage and other eight questions according to sex of the
respondents.
Question No
from Table 1
Correlation Coefficients
Female
N=174–179
Male
N=148-150
Dominance Opportunism Dominance Opportunism
5 0.033 0.007 –0.236** 0.118
6 0.32*** 0.036 0.313*** 0.045
7 0.111 0.128 0.183* 0.012
8 –0.132†0.047 –0.178* 0.065
9 0.089 0.003 –0.169* 0.118
10 0.005 0.036 –0.196* 0.11
11 –0.036 0.098 –0.146†† 0.133
12 –0.166* 0.059 –0.164* 0.127
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, † p=0.08, †† p=0.07
640
Copyright © 2012 Neuroendocrinology Letters ISSN 0172–780X • www.nel.edu
Eva Jozifkova, Ludek Bartos, Jaroslav Flegr
dominance/submissivity (3 and 4 in Table 1) were cor-
related with eight questions dealing with hierarchy
(Table 4).
Statistics
All data were analyzed with the aid of SAS version 9.1.3.
For clustering we used PROC RANK (SAS software).
It partitions the original values into a defined number
of groups, with the smallest values receiving a quartile
value of 0 and the largest values receiving a quartile
value of the number-of-groups minus 1. The Spearman
rank correlations were computed in PROC CORR.
RESULTS
The data from 319 respondents (146 men and 173
women) were analyzed. When the questionnaire was
not complete in the answers analyzed, answers of that
person were omitted from the analysis.
Two questions, 3 and 4 in Table 1, focused on domi-
nance (referred to further as “dominate” and “domi-
nated”), representing the “dominance principle” and
two questions, 1 and 2 n Table 1, focused on bondage
(referred to further as “binding” and “bound”), repre-
senting the predicted “opportunistic principle”.
We calculated a Spearman coefficient matrix for
females (Table 2) and males (Table 3). In both sexes there
was a high correlation between “binding” and “bound,”
and between “dominate” and “dominated” despite their
assumed contrasting meaning. When using cluster
analysis in both sexes, one cluster was based on ques-
tions of “dominate” and “dominated,” while the other
one was based on “binding” and “bound” (Figure 1). It
led us to discern between two different phenomena via
calculating two variables.
We established a variable “Dominance” that was a
score sum of “dominate” and “dominated,” and a vari-
able “Opportunism” that was a score sum of “binding”
and “bound.”
We used these two new variables for further testing
and calculated Spearman correlation coefficients with
the scores of the rest of the questions (Table 1, ques-
tions 5 to 12).
Spearman’s correlation coefficients between “Domi-
nance” or “Opportunism” and eight questions, split
according to the sex of the respondents, are shown in
Table 4. There were differences in the relationships
between male and female respondents. While there was
a significant or nearly significant correlation between
“Dominance” and all eight other questions for male
respondents, this was the case in only three out of eight
questions for female respondents. On the other hand,
either for males or females, no significant correlation
was found between “Opportunism” and any of the eight
questions. “Dominance” and “Opportunism” were cor-
related in females (rs=0.379, N=173, p<0.0001), but not
males (rs=0.107, N=146, p=0.20).
DISCUSSION
Although the restriction of locomotion may dem-
onstrate dominance in the cultural context, the pres-
ent study documents that a tendency to bind or to be
bound during sexual activity may represent a different
behavioral pattern that was not derived from hierarchy
between partners in a substantial part of population.
This supports previous findings of Alison et al. (2001),
who reported that bondage was associated with physi-
cal restriction, but not with ritualistic humiliation. This
is in line with our original expectations, and we suggest
the pattern may reflect the existence of distinct repro-
ductive strategies in humans.
As predicted, at least for males, the variable “Domi-
nance” correlated or nearly correlated with all eight
questions that focused on hierarchical disparity
between partners, while the variable “Opportunism”
did not correlate with any of them. The correlation
coefficients for “Dominance” were significant though
DOMINATED
DOMINATE
BINDING
BOUND
PROPORTION OF VARIANCE EXPLAINED
NAME OF VARIABLE OR CLASTER
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Fig. 1. Cluster analysis applied on questions “binding”, “bound”, “dominate”, and
“dominated” for respondents.
641
Neuroendocrinology Letters Vol. 33 No. 6 2012 • Article available online: http://node.nel.edu
The two strategies?
not very high. The strength of the correlations may
be masked by various proximate factors (e.g. personal
experience, life history, attitude, cultural background)
(Furlow et al. 1998; Hawley 1999; Renaud & Byers
2005), which could interact with the varied individuals’
natural tendency.
In women, the differences were less obvious. Only
two hierarchical disparity questions correlated sig-
nificantly with “Dominance”. Nevertheless, the male
and female responses agreed with regard to question
6 (Table 1), asking for the expectation that “one of the
partners will have to subordinate”. It must be noted
that some of the known female reproductive strategies
cannot bring benefit while avoiding cost without being
discrete. Cuckoldry as a strategy (Goetz & Shackelford
2009; Kaighobadi & Shackelford 2008) and concealed
ovulation (Roberts et al. 2004) are good examples.
“Opportunism” realized as “taking a chance” or more
specifically “to allow somebody to take the opportu-
nity” must be practiced secretly, too. Thus the strategy
may exist independently of the gender of its bearers, but
the genders may differ in the ways in how the strategy is
manifested and brings expected benefit. Moreover, the
male and female preference for “Opportunism” may be
connected.
The variation among males in lifetime reproductive
success is striking. In still naturally living human popu-
lations, such as in New Guinea, an extreme patrilocality
and/or biased reproductive success in males has been
reported. It has resulted in low levels of Y-chromosome
diversity contrasting with high levels of mtDNA diver-
sity reported for the same populations (Kayser et al.
2003). Thus, male affinity to bondage could represent
a male manifestation of opportunistic mating strategy.
This strategy, in some aspects related to the strategy of
sneakers (Taborsky 1994; 2001) or rapists (e.g. McKib-
bin et al. 2008), can be beneficial when rare and dis-
advantageous when common. Otherwise long-term
coexistence of two strategies could not be possible
(e.g. Gross 1996). In the same vein, the female affinity
to bondage could be an adaptive strategy in situations
when opportunistic males are rare and therefore the
sons with genes for this strategy are expected to have
a high level of fitness (McKibbin et al. 2008). And/or,
it can be speculated that a woman’s affinity to bondage,
not affected by the dominance principle, might be asso-
ciated with an ancient tendency to obtain good genes
from outside the local society.
As showed in Table 2, the respondents may prefer
both “Opportunism” and “Dominance”. Certainly a
portion of respondents may view bondage as a mani-
festation of hierarchical disparity between partners or
they may feel aroused by any “kinky” sexual behavior.
Finally, a possibility of co-occurrence of the two tac-
tics (“Opportunism” and “Dominance”) in a single
individual that can manifest under different conditions
(e.g. conditional strategy (Alcock 2001)) should be
considered.
The questions referring to binding and being bound
correlated highly and so did questions referring to dom-
inate and being dominated. This could be interpreted
in several ways. First, a portion of the respondents
may be sexually aroused just by binding or dominat-
ing independently of active/passive or dominant/sub-
missive role. Alternatively, the respondents may be
unconscious of their concrete specific role due to being
young and inexperienced. Or, the substantial portion of
respondents may be attracted by both active and pas-
sive or dominant and submissive roles. A large portion
of sadomasochistic sex practitioners called “switches”
are attracted by both sadism and masochism, or both
dominance and submissivity (Cross & Matheson 2006;
Levitt et al. 1994; Sandnabba et al. 1999). Thus the cor-
relation may reflect the reality.
CONCLUSION
Sexual practices such as to bind or to be bound during
sexual intercourse are usually interpreted as being
linked to dominance. Although it may be used to stress
dominance/submissivity, the preference for bondage
in a substantial part of the population may represent
behaviour originating from different adaptive behav-
ioral patterns than sexual arousal by dominance/sub-
missivity. Arousal by dominance/submission may be
connected to dominance strategy respecting hierar-
chy rank, whereas the preference for “bondage” may
be derived from an opportunistic strategy. This find-
ing should be consulted when dealing with problems
connected to behavior and partner relations of sexual
minorities. Regarding the existence of different repro-
ductive strategies, various sexual practices in humans,
including sadomasochistic oriented behavior, appear as
adaptive rather than deviant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors deeply thank Dr. M. Konvicka, Ph.D., at
the University of South Bohemia. Help with improving
English was provided by Professor Thomas S. Wein-
berg, Ph.D of Buffalo State College, Professor Raymond
A. Eve of the University of Texas at Arlington, and
Matthew Sweney. The study was supported by grants
from the Czech Ministry of Education and Sports
(0021620828), the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech
Republic (MZE0002701404), J.E. Purkynje University
(5322115000101) and the Grant Agency of the Czech
Republic (P407/12/P616).
REFERENCES
1 Alcock J (2001). Animal Behavior. Sunderland: Sinauer Associ-
ates, inc.
2 Alison L, Santilla P, Sandnabba NK, Nordling N (2001). Sadomas-
ochistically Oriented Behavior: Diversity in Practice and Mean-
ing. Arch Sex Behav. 30: 1–12.
642
Copyright © 2012 Neuroendocrinology Letters ISSN 0172–780X • www.nel.edu
Eva Jozifkova, Ludek Bartos, Jaroslav Flegr
3 American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statis-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision.
Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
4 Bleske AL, Buss DM (2000). A comprehensive theory of human
mating must explain between-sex and within-sex differences in
mating strategies. Behav Brain Sci. 23: 593–594.
5 Boul KE, Funk WC, Darst CR, Cannatella DC, Ryan MJ (2007).
Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proc
Roy Soc Lond B. 274: 399–406.
6 Burke D, Sulikowski D (2010). A New Viewpoint on the Evolution
of Sexually Dimorphic Human Faces. Evol Psychol. 8: 573–585.
7 Buss DM, Shackelford TK (2008). Attractive Women Want it All:
Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting Proclivities, and
Emotional Commitment. Evol Psychol. 6: 134–146.
8 Chisholm JS, Burbank VK (1991). Monogamy and Polygyny in
Southeast Arnhem-Land - Male Coercion and Female Choice.
Ethol Sociobiol. 12: 291–313.
9 Cross PA, Matheson K (2006). Understanding sadomasochism:
An empirical examination of four perspectives. J Homosex. 50:
133–166.
10 Dominey WJ (1984). Alternative Mating Tactics and Evolution-
arily Stable Strategies. Amer Zool. 24: 385–396.
11 Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ,
Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003). A recent shift from polygyny to
monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide
Y-chromosome diversity. J Mol Evol. 57: 85–97.
12 Einon D (1998). How many children can one man have? Evol
Hum Behav. 19: 413–426.
13 Ernulf KE, Innala SM (1995). Sexual Bondage – A Review and
Unobtrusive Investigation. Arch Sex Behav. 24: 631–654.
14 Fieder M, Huber S, Bookstein FL, Iber K, Schafer K, Winckler G,
Wallner B (2005). Status and reproduction in humans: New evi-
dence for the validity of evolutionary explanations on basis of a
university sample. Ethology. 111: 940–950.
15 Furlow B, Gangestad SW, Armijo-Prewitt T (1998). Developmen-
tal stability and human violence. Proc Roy Soc Lond B. 265: 1–6.
16 Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000). Trade-offs, the allocation of
reproductive effort, and the evolutionary psychology of human
mating. Behav Brain Sci. 23: 624–644.
17 Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ, Garver-Apgar CE, Chris-
tensen PN (2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral
displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci. 15:
203–207.
18 Gangestad SW, Thornhill R (2003). Facial masculinity and fluctu-
ating asymmetry. Evol Hum Behav. 24: 231–241.
19 Goetz AT, Shackelford TK (2009). Sexual Coercion in Intimate
Relationships: A Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Women’s
Infidelity and Men’s Dominance and Control. Arch Sex Behav. 38:
226–234.
20 Gross MR (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics:
Diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol. 11: 92–98.
21 Hawley PH (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A
strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Dev Rev. 19: 97–132.
22 Healey MC, Prince A (1998). Alternative tactics in the breeding
behaviour of male coho salmon. Behaviour. 135: 1099–1124.
23 Henley NM (1995). Body politics revisited: What do we know
today? In: Kalbfleisch PJ, Cody MJ, editors. Gender, power, and
communication in human relationships. Hillsdale: Erbaum.
24 Hews DK, Thompson CW, Moore IT, Moore MC (1997). Population
frequencies of alternative male phenotypes in tree lizards: geo-
graphic variation and common-garden rearing studies. BehavE-
col Sociobiol. 41: 371–380.
25 Hirsch LR, Paul L (1996). Human male mating strategies .1. Court-
ship tactics of the ‘’quality’’ and ‘’quantity’’ alternatives. Ethol
Sociobiol. 17: 55–70.
26 Hoff G (2006). Power and Love: Sadomasochistic Practices in
Long-Term Committed Relationships. Electronic J of Human Sex-
uality. 9. Http://www.ejhs.org/volume9/Hoff-abst.htm (Accessed
13 February 2011).
27 Jozifkova E, Konvicka M (2009). Sexual Arousal by Higher- and
Lower-Ranking Partner: Manifestation of a Mating Strategy? J
Sex Med. 6: 3327–3334.
28 Kaighobadi F, Shackelford TK (2008). Female attractiveness medi-
ates the relationship between in-pair copulation frequency and
men‘s mate retention behaviors. Pers Indiv Differ. 45: 293–295.
29 Kayser M, Brauer S, Weiss G, Schiefenhovel W, Underhill P, Shen
PD, Oefner P, Tommaseo-Ponzetta M, Stoneking M (2003).
Reduced Y-chromosome, but not mitochondrial DNA, diversity
in human populations from West New Guinea. Am J Hum Genet.
72: 281–302.
30 Kokko H, Morrell LJ (2005). Mate guarding, male attractiveness,
and paternity under social monogamy. Behav Ecol. 16: 724–731.
31 Kolmes K, Stock W, Moser C (2006). Investigating bias in psycho-
therapy with BDSM clients. J Homosex. 50: 301–324.
32 Levitt EE, Moser C, Janison KV (1994). The Prevalence and Some
Attributes of females in the Sadomasochistic Subculture: A
Second Report. Arch Sex Behav. 23: 465–473.
33 Llaurens V, Raymond M, Faurie C (2009). Ritual fights and male
reproductive success in a human population. J Evol Biol. 22:
1854–1859.
34 Lockard JS, Adams RM (1981). Human Serial Polygyny – Demo-
graphic, Reproductive, Marital, and Divorce Data. Ethol Socio-
biol. 2: 177–186.
35 McKibbin WF, Shackelford TK, Goetz AT, Starratt VG (2008). Why
do men rape? An evolutionary psychological perspective. Rev
Gen Psychol. 12: 86–97.
36 Mealey L (1985). The relationship between social status and bio-
logical success: A case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy.
Ethol Sociobiol. 6: 249–257.
37 Moore MM (2010). Human Nonverbal Courtship Behavior-A Brief
Historical Review. J Sex Res. 47: 171–180.
38 Potts M (1997). Sex and the birth rate: Human biology, demo-
graphic change, and access to fertility-regulation methods.
Popul Dev Rev. 23: 1–2.
39 Renaud CA, Byers ES (2005). Relationship between sexual
violence and positive and negative cognitions of sexual domi-
nance. Sex Roles. 53: 253–260.
40 Roberts SC, Havlicek J, Flegr J, Hruskova M, Little AC, Jones
BC, Perrett DI, Petrie M (2004). Female Facial Attractiveness
Increases During the Fertile Phase of the Menstrual Cycle. Proc
Roy Soc Lond B. 271: S270–S272.
41 Sanderson SK (2001). Explaining monogamy and polygyny in
human societies: Comment on Kanazawa and Still. Soc Forces.
80: 329–335.
42 Sandnabba NK, Santtila P, Nordling N (1999). Sexual Behavior
and Social Adaptation Among Sadomasochistically-Oriented
Males. J Sex Res. 36: 273–82.
43 Simmons LW, Rhodes G, Peters M, Koehler N (2004). Are human
preferences for facial symmetry focused on signals of develop-
mental instability? Behav Ecol. 15: 864–71.
44 Starks PT, Blackie CA (2000). The relationship between serial
monogamy and rape in the United States (1960–1995). Proc Roy
Soc Lond B. 267: 1259–1263.
45 Taborsky M (1994). Sneakers, Satellites, and Helpers – Parasitic
and Cooperative Behavior in Fish Reproduction. Adv Stud Behav.
23: 1–100.
46 Taborsky M (2001). The evolution of bourgeois, parasitic, and
cooperative reproductive behaviors in fishes. J Hered. 92:
100–110.
47 Thornhill R, Palmer, CT (2000). A natural history of rape. Cam-
bridge, England: The MIT Press.
48 Trivers RL, Willard DE (1973). Natural selection of parental ability
to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science. 179: 90–92.
49 Weatherhead PJ, Boag PT (1995). Pair and Extra-Pair Mating Suc-
cess Relative to Male Quality in Red-Winged Blackbirds. Behav
Ecol Sociobiol. 37: 81–91.
50 Weinberg TS (2006). Sadomasochism and the social sciences: A
review of the sociological and social psychological literature. J
Homosex. 50: 17–40.
