Anthropology 568

Sexual Conflict

Spring, 2009

Instructor: Ryne A. Palombit

Prerequisites:  Permission of instructor (substantial background in behavioral ecology and/or primate behavioral biology)

Texts:

Requirements:


 Sakai Website: 16:070:568:01 S09

Goal of Seminar:

     Our goal is to reach some conclusions about the current state of theory and data concerning “Sexual Conflict.”  Sexual conflict has attracted rapidly increasing attention from behavioral ecologists over the last decade or so, such that studies of it have now come to outnumber investigations of the “conventional” forms of sexual selection.   Indeed, although it is essentially a source of intersexual selection, sexual conflict is increasingly recognized as a “third form” of sexual selection, in addition to those two traditional forms: intrasexual competition (usually males) and mate choice (usually females).  As is true with any new and quickly growing theoretical field, there is considerable debate over the definitions, assumptions, and models of sexual conflict.  Most of this research has focused on invertebrates—particularly insects—and some select vertebrates such fish, birds, and an occasional mammal.  In spite of an early landmark paper, research on sexual conflict in primates has not progressed as dramatically.

     We recognize two general forms of sexual conflict as sexually divergent optima for either: (1)  alleles determining a specific trait—intralocus conflict—as in the evolution of sexual dimorphism; or (2) the outcome of male-female interactions—interlocus conflict.  This course is mainly about interlocus conflict (the former is discussed more in the seminar Sex Differences and Sexual Selection in Primates).


Moderating

    Once or twice during the semester you’ll moderate discussion.  This means leading the discussion by offering your critical evaluations of the readings.  This does not mean simply rephrasing the content of the papers.  Rather, take a position on the work and present it.  Foster debate by presenting opposing views on a subject.

    One of your responsibilities as moderator is to do a (computer) search of the literature on the topic you’re moderating and make recommendations regarding papers we should read in class.  The question basically is: are there other papers of enough importance to recommend we drop the currently assigned reading (see below) and replace it?  Your recommendations don’t have to be necessarily based on in depth analysis of each paper.  Rather, you should be able to make a preliminary evaluation based on a quick reading of it.

    So, two weeks before your moderating date, you should hand in to me (or email to me) a list of five papers you’ve run across that you think are relevant for the discussion.  Then, for each one, explain in a few sentences why you recommend it or don’t recommend it for as a reading for the seminar.



Rapporteur:

    Each meeting will have one person who will act as rapporteur charged with summarizing the important points of the discussion that day.  This should generally be only one page (single-spaced).  Rapporteurs should link ideas with the people who offered them, and should identify and highlight in their reports the following:  (1) the 3 most important ideas presented (and explain why!); (2) the best quote of the day (linked to the person who generated it).  These summaries are not transcripts, however.  They are brief statements of the best insights/questions we managed.  Rapporterus should also feel free to editorialize.  Email the summary to me within 24 hrs of the meeting.  After checking it, I’ll then put in on the Sakai site.


Position Papers:

    A couple times during the semester you will write a “position paper.”  These are brief and cogent articulations of your position and the support for it.  Position papers on a topic will be photocopied and distributed to everyone.  We will read the papers and then discuss them in the next meeting.  You are not graded on the position you take.  What is required for full credit is a serious effort to state a convincing position.

    These papers are somewhat similar to the “Open Peer Commentary” exemplified by journals such as The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Each position paper should not exceed 1500 words.  Due date and topic TBA later in semester.  Remember: take a position and convince the reader of it.
   
    EMAIL:  On the due dates, please email your position paper to me.  Please do not email participants in the course directly. Around 5pm on the due date, I will email all position papers to everyone.  Make sure yours reaches me before then!

Papers:

    You will write a paper on a topic of your choosing (related to sexual conflict).  There are many possible topics to write about due to the large number of debates about sexual conflict and the immense diversity of outcomes of the process of sexual conflict.

NOTE: You can write the paper either as a standard review or as a (mock) research grant proposal.

    We will set aside some class periods for you to present a working version of your ideas for your paper in class.  This will give you a chance to get feedback from colleagues before you hand in the paper.  You’ll assign some readings and then basically share your information and conclusions to date.  The paper is due on at the end of the semester in time for me to grade before grade submission (date TBA).

Schedule of Meetings

Spring 2005 Reading List

Date

Topic

Readings

Jan. 22

Introduction

Organizational Meeting

Jan. 29


 Some Introduction Ideas, Frameworks
 		Partridge, L. & Hurst, L.D.  1998.  Sex and conflict.  Science, 281:2003-2008.
(Important original paper; heavier emphasis on intragenomic conflict over intergenomic, but a lot of ideas and thinking in here).

Holland, B. & Rice, W.R.  1998.  Chase-away sexual selection: Antagonistic seduction versus resistance.  Evolution, 52:1-7.

Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L.  2005.  Sexual Conflict, Princeton University Press, Princeton. [Chapter 1]

NOT REQUIRED (we probably won’t have time to discuss, but this paper is among the original treatments of the “arms race” idea underlying this entire enterprise):

Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J.R.  1979.  Arms races between and within species.  Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B, 205:489-511.

Feb. 5


 Sexual Coercion: Theoretical issues, relation to sexual conflict
 		Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Parker, G.A.  1995.  Sexual coercion in animal societies.  Anim. Behav., 49:1345-1365.

Watson-Capps, J.J.  2009. Evolution of sexual coercion with respect to sexual selection and sexual conflict theory.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 23-41 Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

NOT REQUIRED, BUT FOR REFERENCE:

Smuts, B.B. & Smuts, R.W.  1993.  Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: Evidence and theoretical implications.  Adv. Stud. Behav., 22:1-63.

Feb. 12


 Forced Copuation
vs.
Coerced Copulation
 		Knott, C.D.  2009.  Orangutans: Sexual coercion without sexual violence.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 81-111.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Emery Thompson, M.  2009.  Human rape: Revising evolutionary perspectives.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 346-374.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Muller, M., Kahlenberg, S.M. & Wrangham, R.W.  2009.  Male aggression against females and sexual coercion in chimpanzees.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 184-217.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Goetz, A.T., Shackelford, T.K., Romero, G.A., Kaighobadi, F., and Miner, E.J. 2008. Punishment, proprietariness, and paternity: Men’s violence against women from an evolutionary perspective.  Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13: 481-489.

Feb. 19


Coercion as male display
 		Rodseth, L. & Novak, S.A.  2009. The political significance of gender violence.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 292-321.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kitchen, D.M., Beehner, J.C., Bergman, T.J., Cheney, D.L., Crockford, C., Engh, A., Fischer, J., Seyfarth, R.M. & Wittig, R.  2009.  The causes and consequences of male aggression directed at female chacma baboons.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 129-156.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Sicotte P. 2002. The function of male aggressive displays towards females in mountain gorillas. Primates 43: 277-278.

Feb. 26


 Postcopulatory Pre-zygotic Sexual Conflict
 		Stockley, P.  2002.  Sperm competition risk and male genital anatomy: Comparative evidence for reduced duration of female sexual receptivity in primates with penile spines.  Evol. Ecol., 16:123-137.

Dixson, A.F. & Anderson, M.J.  2002.  Sexual selection, seminal coagulation and copulatory plug formation in primates.  Folia Primatol., 73:63-69.

Edvardsson, M. & Canal, D.  2006.  The effects of copulation duration in the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculatus.  Behav. Ecol., 17:430-434.

Reason, L.L.  2004.  The behavioral ecology of female genital cutting in northern Ghana.  Research in Economic Anthropology, 23:175-202.

Hosken, D.J. & Stockley, P.  2004.  Sexual selection and genital evolution.  Trends. Ecol. Evol., 19:87-93.

Cook, P.A. & Wedell, N.  1999.  Non-fertile sperm delay female remating.  Nature, 397:486.

NOT REQUIRED (but in folder for reference): Crudgington, H.S. & Siva-Jothy, M.T.  2000.  Genital damage, kicking and early death.  Nature, 407:855-856.

Position Paper due

Mar. 5

 Discussion with
Richard Wrangham

Position Paper Discussion
Student Position Papers

Mar. 12

 Female Counter-Strategies to Sexual Conflict
 		Paoli, T., 2009.  The absence of sexual coercion in bonobos.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 411-423.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rosenfeld, D.L.  2009.  Sexual coercion, patriarchal violence, and law.  In: Sexual Coercion in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females, (M.N. Muller & R.W. Wrangham, eds.), pp. 424-447.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Brereton, A.R.  1995.  Coercion-defense hypothesis: The evolution of primate sociality.  Folia Primatol., 64:207-214.

Wilson, M. & Mesnick, S.L.  1997.  An empirical test of the bodyguard hypothesis.  In: Feminism and Evolutionary Biology: Boundaries, Intersections, and Frontiers, (P.A. Gowaty, ed.) pp. 505-510.  Chapman & Hall, New York.

Moore, A.J., Gowaty, P.A. & Moore, P.J.  2003.  Females avoid manipulative males and live longer.  J. Evol. Biol., 16:523-530.

Mar. 19

 -
 		Spring Break

Mar. 26

 Sexual Conflict Over Parental Investment
 		Hager, R. & Johnstone, R.A.  2005.  Differential growth of own and alien pups in mixed litters of mice: A role for genomic imprinting?  Ethology, 111:705-714.

Houston, A.I., Székely, T. & McNamara, J.M.  2005.  Conflict between parents over care.  Trends. Ecol. Evol., 20:33-38.

Olson, V.A., Liker, A., Freckleton, R.P. & Székely, T.  2008.  Parental conflict in birds: Comparative analyses of offspring development, ecology and mating opportunities.  Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B, 275:301-307.

Westneat, D.F. & Sargent, R.C.  1996.  Sex and parenting: The effects of sexual conflict and parentage on parental strategies.  Trends. Ecol. Evol., 11:87-91.

Apr. 2 

Female Coercion of Males
Bro-Jørgensen, J.  2007.  Reversed sexual conflict in a promiscuous antelope.  Cur. Biol., 17:2157-2161.

Starratt, V.G., Popp, D. & Shackelford, T.K.  2008.  Not all men are sexually coercive: A preliminary investigation of the moderating effect of mate desirability on the relationship between female infidelity and male sexual coercion.  Personality & Individual Differences, 45:10-14.

Hogben, M., Byrne, D. & Hamburger, M.E.  1996.  Coercive heterosexual sexuality in dating relationships of college students: Implications of differential male-female experiences.  J. Psychol. Sexuality, 8:69-78.

Prosen, E.D., Jaeger, R.G. & Lee, D.R.  2004.  Sexual coercion in a territorial salamander: Females punish socially polygynous male partners.  Anim. Behav., 67:85-92.

Sæther, S.A., Fiske, P. & Kålås, J.A.  2001.  Male mate choice, sexual conflict and strategic allocation of copulations in a lekking bird.  Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B, 268:2097-2102.

Apr. 9
Student Presentations:
Jane: Sexual dimorphism and intralocus conflict
Robert: Sexually antagonisitc parental investment strategies in humans
Cox, R.M. & Calsbeek, R.  2009.  Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict.  Am. Nat., 173:176-187.

Foerster, K., Coulson, T., Sheldon, B.C., Pemberton, J.M., Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Loeske, E.B.K.  2007.  Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer.  Nature, 447:1107-1110.

Day, T. & Bonduriansky, R.  2004.  Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting.  Genetics, 167:1537-1546.

Apr. 16
Student Presentations:

Emily: Does sexual conflict promote extinction?

Frank: Modelling sexual conflcit as a mechanism of speciation
<>
Rankin, D.J. & Kokko, H.  2006.  Sex, death and tragedy.  Trends Ecol. Evol., 21:225-226.

Gavrilets, S. & Waxman, D.  2002.  Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict.  Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 99:10533-10538.

Apr. 23
Student Presentations:

  Lauren: Rape in humans and orangutans

Susan: Intimidation and punishment as reproductive adaptations
Knott, C.D. & Kahlenberg, S.M.  2007.  Orangutans in perspective: Forced copulations and female resistances.  In: Primates in Perspective, (C.J. Campbell, A. Fuentes, K.C. MacKinnon, M. Panger & S. Bearder, eds.), pp. 291-305.  Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thornhill, R. & Palmer, C.T.  2000.  A Natural History of Rape, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (excerpt, pp. 59-183).

Rankin, D.J.  2008.  Can punishment maintain sex?  Oikos, 117:173-176.

Nico de Bruyn, P.J., Tosh, C.A. & Bester, M.N.  2008.  Sexual harassment of a king penguin by an Antarctic fur seal.  J. Ethol., 26:295-297.

Apr. 30

 Discussion of Breakfast Seminar Discussion of Sexual Conflict

Sexual Conflict & Deception: Strategic Interference Theory
 		Haselton, M.G., Buss, D.M., Oubaid, V. & Angleitner, A.  2005.  Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31:3-23


Other Graduate Seminars:
Biology of Social Bonds Sex Differences & Sexual Selection in Primates Methods in Field Primatology


[Ryne Palombit's Homepage]