Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Precopulatory Adaptations
- Part II Copulatory Adaptations
- Part III Postcopulatory Adaptations
- 14 Postejaculatory Adaptations to Self-Semen Displacement
- 15 Male Mate Retention
- 16 Shifts in Partner Attractiveness
- 17 Emotional Commitment in Men
- 18 Sexual Jealousy in Males
- 19 Men’s Attachment-Related Needs in the Sexual Arena
- 20 Paternal Care
- 21 Paternal Filicide
- Index
- References
14 - Postejaculatory Adaptations to Self-Semen Displacement
from Part III - Postcopulatory Adaptations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Precopulatory Adaptations
- Part II Copulatory Adaptations
- Part III Postcopulatory Adaptations
- 14 Postejaculatory Adaptations to Self-Semen Displacement
- 15 Male Mate Retention
- 16 Shifts in Partner Attractiveness
- 17 Emotional Commitment in Men
- 18 Sexual Jealousy in Males
- 19 Men’s Attachment-Related Needs in the Sexual Arena
- 20 Paternal Care
- 21 Paternal Filicide
- Index
- References
Summary
Unlike extensive research conducted on courtship, foreplay, and intercourse, what happens after ejaculation is one of the most neglected dimensions of human sexual behavior. As described in this chapter, postejaculatory adaptations have important and diverse implications for such things as penis hypersensitivity, the refractory period, female infidelity, sperm competition, semen displacement, self-semen displacement, spousal rape, the risk of transmitting sexually transmitted diseases for uncircumcised men, and the incidence of nonpaternity. This chapter also outlines ways to test the Bruce effect in human females and provides a novel explanation for the absence of the Coolidge effect in women.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Anderson, K. G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Results from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Current Anthropology, 48, 511–518.Google Scholar
Baker, R. (2013). Sexual whodunits and evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition: Copulation, masturbation, and infidelity. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Bruce, H. M. (1959). An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature, 105, 184.Google Scholar
Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Pregnancy as a stimulus for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 243–247.Google Scholar
Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2019). Abusive men are driven by paternal uncertainty. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14, 197–209.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Ampel, B. C. (2017). Sibling resemblance and the effects of gamete formation, independent reassortment, paternal uncertainty, twining and adoption. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12–23.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Burch, R. L. (2006). The semen displacement hypothesis: Semen hydraulics and the intra-pair copulation proclivity model of female infidelity. In Platek, S & Shackelford, T (Eds.), Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics (pp. 129–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Burch, R. L. (in press). Intimate partner violence and relationship maintenance. In Mogilski, J & Shackelford, T (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and romantic relationships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Burch, R. L., & Berens Mitchell, T. J. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of in-pair copulations. Human Nature, 17, 253–264.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Burch, R. L., & Petricone, L. (2012). Sexual conflict, infidelity, and vaginal/semen chemistry. In Shackelford, T & Goetz, A (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 217–232). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., & Davis, J. A. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277–289.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Finn, M. M., & Sammis, B. (2009). On the origin of descended scrotal testicles: The activation hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 517–524.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Stolz, J. A., Burch, R. L., & Bremser, J. A. (2019). How evolutionary studies enables people to think outside the box. In Geher, G, Gallup, A. C, & Head, H (Eds.), Evolutionary studies: Darwin’s road map to the curriculum (pp. 321–362). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr., Towne, J. P., & Stolz, J. A. (2018). An evolutionary perspective on orgasm. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12, 52–69.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as sperm competition tactics in humans. Human Nature, 17, 265–282.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, J. N., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2020). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 495–509.Google Scholar
Moore, K. L., Persaud, T. V. N., & Torchia, M. G. (2015). Before we are born e-Book: Essentials of embryology and birth defects with STUDENT CONSULT online access. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
O’Hara, K., & O’Hara, J. (1999). The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. British Journal of Urology, International, 83, 79–84.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance matters more for males than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 159–166.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary analysis of anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sela, Y., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Shackelford, T. K., & Pham, M. N. (2015). Female copulatory orgasm and male partner’s attractiveness to his partner and other women. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 152–156.Google Scholar
Wachowiak, D., & Bragg, H. (1980). Open marriage and marital adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 57–62.Google Scholar