what does human DNA seek in a mate?

Could you imagine that you are a parent who is screening possible mates for your maturing child? Of course, this may actually be something you have done, but even if you are not a parent screening possible mates for your child, you screen prospective associates ongoingly, from selecting what businesses to  use to selecting your companions. Further, simply by considering what  matters in screening prospective “in-laws,” we may in this  inquiry find some value in relation to refining our more general “screenings.”

DNA also favors certain patterns in screening prospective mates, and not just human DNA, but human DNA is what we will focus on for now. What does human DNA favor?

Before we get specific, note that “meddling parents” may not particularly need to emphasize whatever DNA already favors. Why? Because the DNA within their maturing child will already screen for those factors, at least to the extent that the maturing child has influence over the selection of a mate, which in many cultures is not much.

And here we find our first point of primary intrigue. DNA already favors certain patterns among prospective mates. Identifying those patterns should be simple and relatively uncontroversial. However, various human cultures, which even all arise from nearly identical DNA, may emphasize or diminish certain factors that DNA naturally favors. So, as parents screening prospective “in-laws,” we can help to “evolve” or adapt the selection process. We are selectively breeding for the future of humanity.

So, the inquiry I am proposing is not just a human question of what kind of human (or what kind of human DNA) would you as a parent favor for bringing in to the bloodline of your descendents, but a cultural question of what kind of human within your specific culture would you favor. Because this inquiry is not designed to cover all cultures or even any particular one, it is truly just an inquiry.

Let’s proceed with an imanginary category called “most modern cultures.” In most modern cultures, parents want their kids to marry someone who has most or all of these qualities: healthy, high social status (well-connected and socially adept), and wealthy. DNA recognizes health (especially in regard to female mates, since they actually carry the offspring in pregnancy and then, potentially, nurse). DNA also apparently recognizes social adeptness (especially in males). In other words, DNA favors not only physically dominant males (who outcompete or kill their competitors and may offer enhanced physical security to their mate or mates) but males who are dominant IN ANY WAY.

Physical dominance as in personal combat is of course social (occuring amongst members of the same species). Other distinctions in social dominance (or even mere social excellence) could be in diplomacy, in any field of the arts, in athletics, or any form of warfare including psychological warfare and economic warfare. So, social dominance is not just a man who is physically fit (but could even be one who is well-armed or at least well-protected by mercenaries such as deputies and other agents of organized coercion).

Culturally, the elite members of a culture establish barriers to their competitors and then implement those barriers. These range from obvious things like free birth control or planned parenthood charities to… most any program of any government or commercial media. Governments and media companies (and churches) may all be formed and run, of course, by the socially dominant (elite).

One of the most intriguing points is that the masses are taught to criticize the elite. Why? Those who do not “faithfully” (sincerely) criticize the elite may be open to directly competing with the elite.

So, it is important to note that, for the elite, openly criticizing some practice may simply be a program to discourage other people from that activity. For instance, if the elite criticize lying, does that imply that they do not ever lie? Or, are they simply discouraging other people from lying (including TO THEM)?

Of course, for those parents within a moderate level of social dominance, there can certainly be some distinct attractiveness to rules like “no sex outside of marriage.” Parents of daughters could obviously prefer that their daughter’s mates be exclusive to their daughter, for a man who ongoingly has many female sexual partners may have his attention to their daughter “split.” What if he impregnates multiple  women prior to the weaning (or even birth) of their grandchild? We can easily recognize how this issue of exclusive loyalty may be very prominent.

Of all of the “rules” relevant to marriage, discouragement of infidelity (adultery) is amongst the most universal across human cultures- at least when economic prosperity is decreasing over time. When economic prosperity is increasing dramatically, it might be expected that the parents of a maturing daughter might be at least somewhat less conservative about whether a man has multiple female sexual partners, and as that relaxes parent by parent, cultures shift.

There is also the issue of the actual social authority over marriages. Marriage is a nearly universal cultural institution. In some cases the privilege to marry is only bestowed after formal government (or church) review. In other cultures, “common law marriage” is recognized after-the-fact by courts as legally binding even without any formal notice to the court system ruling in that jurisdiction (except perhaps in cases where foreign citizens and visas and so are involved).

What tests might be required of applicants to marry? There is the “ritual” of blood testing. What for?

In many states of the U.S., before the state issues a license to marry, the standard premarital blood tests are used to check for evidence of syphilis (now or in the past) and rubella (German measles). The idea is that the government wants healthy children. In other words, the government can decline to license applicants for marriage who have certain health conditions that have been identified as possible for being transmitted to the fetus, potentially reducing fetal health greatly.

In other words, governments act like parents of their maturing children (as in their prospective tax-paying constituents who are considering marriage). If governments still require blood tests for couples who want to get married at age 72 (in other words, when the post-menopausal woman is not going to conceive), the inefficiency that requirement may be a relatively minor piece of trivia, since not many 72 year-old women are getting married (as a proportion of all brides).

Marriage is regulated as an expression of a government’s valuation of the next generation. Obviously, tightening regulations could mean less children in the near future, at least when there is tremendous social punishment of unwed parents. In contrast, when there are extensive rewards for parenting (like food stamp subsidies for single women with children or tax deductions for dependents or free public schooling), all of those government programs to directly or indirectly reward reproduction financially (to systematically favor the reproductive adults over the adults who do not reproduce) would naturally be expected to increase the frequency of pregnancies.

Governments that favor parenting are not only favoring reproduction but also encouraging immigration by parents with children, depending on the extent of the subsidies and benefits available for immigrant parents.

So, while it may be somewhat “cool” to rebel against authority (at least amongst males), who set up that mystique or bias? Could the authorities themselves have set it up? Might they want to program the relatively intelligent and capable men to identify themselves to the authorities as “rebels?”

While a male’s “willingness to take risks” is a factor that females may find attractive, it is not the willingness that is so attractive, but the successful avoiding of risk to which a male courageously (or otherwise) has been exposed to. Men who succeed at enduring risk and excelling- whether they are later public and arrogant about it or not- may be attractive to maturing young women.

When women say that they favor men who are mature and intelligent, they may mean men who have demonstrated socially relevant intelligence and maturity by achieving or at least sustaining certain levels of “material success.” Overall intelligence is important when hiring an auto mechanic, but the intelligent must be relevant- like someone who is familiar with the kind of car you have is best. What specific kind of intelligence do maturing young women value? Practical intelligence… which may translate in to “street smarts” as well as “success” (as in both a great reputation and wealth).

Of course, some women may be “gold-diggers” who use marriage (or use sex as in prostitution) not for procreation but for quick financial gain which they may then take with them as they move on to pursue a future reproductive partner. That is understandable, but not directly relevant to this topic. Those women may seek a man who is naive and wealthy (seeking in the mode of parasite or vulture), rather than seeking a man who is wealthy and intelligent in the mode of reproducing. Of course, if a woman feels “desperate” (like she has no children and her biological clock is “running out”) then why not “throw herself” at a fairly wealthy guy? She may get his financial support and perhaps even his semen for her to have at least one descendent- and with modern court systems of child support laws, she may not even need to have any ongoing relationship with him!

So, does a man criticize the culture in his midst? If he does, do maturing young women find this attractive? It depends!

Maturing young women who find cultural criticism attractive amongs males are probably not the most dominant women (including in terms of physical health). Maturing young women who are the most attractive (and have to develop bitchiness in order to fend of unwanted suitors) may favor a male sexual partner who is well-adapted to the dominant culture, whatever it is.

Fluency (as in familiarity) with issues of controversy within a culture would be distinct from lack of fluency. Women may favor someone who is generally fluent in various popular controversies without being emotionally consumed by them. Or, someone who is totally unfamiliar with a culture’s controversies (such as a foreigner) may be intriguing to certain women, if only as a curiosity.

But the DNA of maturing young women may be predisposed to identify distinctions like niavete, fluency, emotional reactivity, and groundedness (focus). Institutions may also be constructed around “sorting” constituents in regard to some of those same distinctions (whether specifically in relation to sexual selection or not).

Who can be rebellious without being hysterical? Who is totally terrified of being rebellious, like shaming it as “spiritually immature negativity”? Who is willing to be extremely rebellious- even very radically- but only very selectively?

Could these be questions that the DNA of maturing young women are attuned to? Could these be issues that governments and other social institutions operate to “sort out,” at least in part?

Of course, men may be systematically influenced or even misled as to what to value in a prospective female partner. Would a man be looking for a woman who is notably healthy, like both in body “and spirit” (emotion, mental health, etc)? Or is a man looking for “a replacement for his mother?” I do not just mean a woman who has some similar qualities to his mother, but a woman who “mothers him.”

Further, how appealing is a “compliant wife” to a particular man? An arrogant or aloof (or emotionally abusive) wife might be distinctly unappealing, but a man may favor a wife who is faithful without being complacent (or “stupid”), and who can be both modest and confident amongst competition (or even can accurately assess her competitors, like with quick “intuitive” processing, and diplomatically withdraw when confidence would be dangerously arrogant).

Overall, we can presume that men simply are not as selective about female sexual partners as women in general are about men, for only women bear the fetus. Men may be just as selective though when it comes to marriage (or in a hiring interview for a business they own etc). Or perhaps it is only fathers who are so deliberately selective, like encouraging their sons (and daughters) to avoid certain qualities and favor certain others.

Attached are two images of closely related Seminole Indian girls photographed by dentist Weston Price in the 1930s. Does one of the two immediately present as “more attractive?”

Women tend to want men who can successfully compete with other men. Women tend to favor socially dominant men. Unsuccessful rebels and reactive critics (as in the ones who are sincere as in the most sensitive to cultural norms of “looking good” and “moral self-righteousness”) may simply not be very appealing.

Comments? Ladies in particular?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “what does human DNA seek in a mate?”

  1. J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:

    DP wrote:

    Eror 404!

    DNA is looking for procreation and improvement.

    New researches in the field of evolution shown that what we have beleved that only strongest survive is not quite truth. Actually coopertive species survive.

    JR replies:

    perhaps cooperative species survive when that cooperation is an advantage to their competitiveness. 😉

    Think of a war and a bunch of isolated hunters who do not organize. A small organized group of a fifty soldiers can easily defeat thousands of isolated, single opponents, if only rather slowly.

    Humans apparently began as hunters and only developed agriculture perhaps 10,000 years ago or so (which woulod be when carbohydrates and vegetable matter started to because a larger portion of the diet). You might not be open to archeology and anthropology and a broader review of DNA research, You may prefer to focus on particular conclusions that fit particular pre-existing biases of yours. That is also a normal stage of the process of scientific inquiry.

    I have found that when I was a vegetarian, I was quite competitive in my mindset. I thought things like “my diet is the best and, not only that, but other people should agree with me! And if people are so stupid as to criticize my vegetarianism, then I will yell at them and viciously condemn them and physically interfere with them slaughtering any creature including insects, but of course not fish or plants, because I like to eat fish and plants.” Welll, not exactly that, but you get the idea.

    DP replies:

    I think that your mind didn˙t change a much and that you are still competitive and focused on approving that your diet is superior and the best and your mind is defending in relation to others you suppose they are against or they are ignorant. At least it is my impression. It seams to me that diet is some kind of cult for you now like it obviously was before. Your identification with diet and body is strong. It is easy to you to put me on opposition side and to tell yourself “It wouldn˙t work, she is against my diet! She doesn˙t has understanding! She is wrong! She even do not eat what I prefer. And she do not attend Landmark. So, she is completely inadequate.” You can think whatever you want.
    I can tell you that I am not in mood to be in opposition and to discuss about it. You even do not know what I think and how I think and for what I am open or not. Simple you have never has interest to discover it because you are focus on yourself and things which response to your interest. My previous reply to your post was completely innocent and I do not understand why you need to put me in opposition you are discussing with.

    JR replies:

    Proving it to whom? What if I present it to various people in various ways and I invest my attention mostly in people who are either eager to inquire or who clearly know even more about ancient nutrition and everyday physiology than I do.

    You are speaking from superiority as in moral or personal superiority. I am saying that there are patterns that are easy to identify. I did not say it should be important to you. I said I notice it and it interests me how and when it does.

    I could show pictures of group of pigs or rats or cats and show the pictures and sort them by diet. Certain differences in the diets of pigs might produce pigs without developed eye organs. What kind of difference? No vitamin A in the pre-natal nutrients.

    What about for cats or rats or humans? Again, vitamin A might be related in all cases to the fetal development of eyes.

    is that important? Is vitamin A important? Is it better to have eyes?

    No, it is nature’s adaption. When there is vitamin A in the diet of the pregnant mother (human, pig, rat, or cat, etc), that is a signal to the DNA about the presence of sunlight because vitamin A indicates lots of green leafy plant matter in the diet (the parts of the plants that do the biochemical function of photosynthesis and produce chlorophyll which makes the leaves green).

    Cow’s milk may have a lot of vitamin A. Why? Because the cows made it from eating things like grass, which implies sunlight.

    So, when a creature lives in the deep sea or in a dark cave or even deep in the dirt, they may not really have any need for eye organs. So, the DNA to produce eye organs is intact, but only the presence of vitamin A results in the use of that DNA to make eyes.

    I’m not saying that cave salamanders who do not have eyes should eat more vitamin A because it is morally superior. That is somewhat how your defense/counter-accusations are to me.

    I will now go on a campaign to provide ample vitamin A to all cave salamanders. Anyone who does not join me is my enemy and should be crucified slowly.

    That is insanity. However, to promote insanity amongst a target population is propaganda and typical warfare. The western nations are being softened up (including biochemically) for a new social structure.

    Phrases like “moral superiority” may be used in that process. I prefer terms like “social dominance,” but if I hire propagandists (also called a PR staff- “public relations”/ “publicity” people), then I may direct them to edit all of my references to “socially dominant” and call it “morally superior,” possibly to more effectively confuse and manipulate the masses.

    Anyway, there are two pictures attached of two young ladies. I will base the new social order on offering services to every narrow-jawed woman to make her appear more like the other. We will offer surgery and braces for teeth and cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. We will ban traditional nutrients (or ignore them completely). Of course, that new social order would not be new at all. Then, we will train them that nutritionally deficient diets are morally superior, which will help them rationalize to themselves that they should avoid traditional diets.

    “A woman who eats a traditional diet may be seen as a threat by the evil women who rule society and so may be severely punished for even considering a totally disgusting and morally reprehensible diet conatining such things as cheese, chicken broth, honey, oysters, and eggs. When the flesh of animals becomes a corpse at death, it must not be eaten, especially not by vultures or bugs, because that would be spiritually impure of them and they would be subject to a life of angst trying to avoid going to hell for eating animal flesh and compensating for their sins against our fascist idealism. Hell is real. Hell is not an idea. Hell is your experience now, and not because we made it up and terrorized you and shamed you for drinking breast milk from your mother’s tits, which is parasitic and thus morally reprehensible, but because it was inherently evil to put your lips on another human body (SINNER!) and we have just done you the favor of showing you the error of your ways so that you know how to get back on God’s good side like a good little girl.”

    re: ignorance

    what if some other people are ignorant? what if some of them are even open and curious?

    re: the idea that JR would say of DP that “she is wrong… inadequate (as a partner in a couple):”

    Or, maybe it is that you were “too serious” for me. I like playfulness and humor.

    Even certain graduates of the programs of landmark education may be “too serious” for me to find them appealing as high frequency companions. Carl and I were visiting for a few hours in person this morning and he mentioned how disruptive I have been to his life, which he greatly appreciates, but that it has been a matter of pacing or dosage.

    In the case of Carl, perhaps I was “too playful” or “too challenging” for him in terms of very high frequency interactions, but there have been times when we saw each other day after day after day- but not always talking about things like diet (or spirituality, which is the subject where he and I have more specifically contributed to each other’s development). He is very comfortable and competent in conversing about many other subjects that have been interesting for me as well.

    He is still not very receptive, in my opinion, to trying my diet. However, this does not really concern me. I think he may be opening up more though.

    He likes sprouted and fermented vegetable matter and he has basically cut out regular carbohydrates, which was not the case years ago. He was a severe sugar addict, like most people I know. However, he did have an interest in shifting that and he unequivocally admitted his dissatisfaction with sugar cravings.

    Yesterday, I talked with my “other best friend” Andy (friends for about 15 years) about exercise and diet. He was more interested in what I shared with him about exercise, but he had some new interest in diet. He is in his early 60s and he has life circumstances which may be a factor in more receptivity to dietary exploration.

    Now, since these guys know that I love them whatever they eat (and so on), there would never be an argument or moral charge about diet between us. You may not know that I would love you whatever you eat.

    You may know that I MIGHT have more attachment to how you eat, depending on the nature of our interaction. I do not say to Carl “I will only use you as a chiropractor if you eat my diet.” I do not say to Andy “I will only play music with you if you eat my diet.” However, I might say to you (or any of them) “I will only lead you if you will follow me in the direction that I am going.”

    I even talked to my other “other best friend” Will wihtin the last few days (and I could even stretch a bit and call Lucy or Angelina “other best friends” of mine, which is close enough). I do not think that diet came up at all. Lucy and Angelina know a bit about my diet, but neither of them (nor Will) seem espeically interested either way. So what?

    I also spoke with my Mom (Alison) yesterday (yes, lots of phone calls). I even mentioned diet to her. However, I did not say a whole lot really and just emailed her a link to an MD talking about how cells process sugars. However, he throws in several references to diet. I sent her another link that is more specific to some of her health concerns. Maybe she will be open to his presentation. Maybe not.

    Perhaps I have offended you (as in scared you). If so, it is okay for you to withdraw… or to try a new approach with me in which you perhaps ask questions of me.


  2. danijela Says:

    Why Ladies?
    I read your observation on the topic and I can˙t find anything I would like to discuss. I could say that I agree with your observation and that I am not so interested. Maybe because I am not so “young mature woman” 🙂 . Maybe the main reason I don˙t have a family (like husband and kids) is because operative system of my DNA is infected with some virus and instead to choose some socially well integrated man, I find it boring and choosing opposite – some freak out man.
    I am curious why in the world are so many abusive parents? From another side there are so many people who could be good parents and they can˙t have a child or they can˙t find a partner. Somehow I can˙t find some logic in this. Also, wealthy society are society with lowest birth rate.
    Does chemistry has something with this what our DNA wants? Is it psychological or both? It is hard to explain why somebody is attractive or not. Sometimes somebody is attractive even if you do not like him and do not find him as person with whom you want to spend your life. From another hand, one can find somebody very, very nice, but can stay completely indifferent sexually.
    Recently I had some kind of sensual dream about one man who visited us. It was surprising to me for I am not interested for him at all in reality. Although he is attractive in eyes of most women, famous, popular and successive. What does this dream mean? That he is Alfa male?
    However, my conclusion is:
    Monogamy is OK.
    Polygamy is OK.
    Men are promiscuous by nature, but not necessarily.
    Women are not basically promiscuous by nature, but not necessarily.
    Every man who wants to have a woman should have 10 cows.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      Perhaps some of the same people who we might think “could be good parents” later do find a partner (or adopt) and then become parents and eventually abuse children. Child abuse however is perhaps most often performed by other children. Remember some of the stories you told me about elementary school? Consider that safety and security are not automatic and that when they are present, appreciate them, for a war or other systemic shift such as economic crisis could quickly remove safety and security and prosperity.

      As for your comment about 10 cows, I agree that any man who does not have at least 10 cows is simply not fit to be a husband. Plus, any woman who does not have at least 2 handguns is not fit to be a wife. “Everyone knows that!” 😉

  3. danijela Says:

    About photos, I do not find a teeth specialy atractive. Off course it is more atractive if somebody has a teeth then not. I prefere boy with a hat, but only because I can see his look. I don˙t choose first boy only because I can˙t see his eyes.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      As for the photos of the boys, those are girls. The first one REALLY did look to me like a boy at first too though. Of course, the strained facial expression made for the dentist taking the picture is not very attractive. The idea was that the teeth were straight and healthy and the jaw is wide and so on. Intelligence and focus are also correlated to physiological development and metabolism. A drunk person is still drunk no matter how strong. However, Sikhs or Amish folk who ate from much better quality food sources than other groups nearby them were much less likely to have alcoholism problems.

      I learned today why alcoholism vulnerability is so great in arctic regions, like Ireland and Eskimo. It is because the people there adapted to virtually ZERO carbs in their diets over centuries (or however long) and their bodies stopped “bothering” with insulin and other regulatory hormones that peopel who live in the rest of the world still have operative.

      As long as Irish and Eskimo eat traditional diets, they are still some of the sturdiest and healthiest folk around. However, once people stop eating healthy fats and proteins and start focusing on grains, then you get the kind of thing that happened in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain, the vegetarian-type, got quite fiesty and jealous and violent and then killed his brother. It was almost like he was drunk on… fermented sugars!!!!

  4. danijela Says:

    I have a girlfriend who is actually pretty but fat. From this reason she can˙t find partner here for men don˙t find her attractive. But she discovered that she is very attractive to Moroccans. From this reason she travel in Morocco often.

    In Mozambique women believe that they should be fat if they want to find husband. From this reason mothers and grandmothers torture their daughters by over feeding. Although this practice has damaging effect on their health. I watched documentary about it. But when journalist ask men which kind of women they prefer, they were a bit confused and said „Fat, off course“, but my impression was that they just say so because it is costum. If women decide to be slim they would say: „Slim, off course.“

    Generally, I think that men like women with big tits. Magna Mater.

    Another reference I find quite rampant is buying characteristics for future child. For example one can choose how child will look, which kind of eyes or hear it will has and which abilities. And all this is for sale, like buying car or whatever. “Designe your kid in genetic industry!” Fact that everything is for sale is morbid. Beauty industry impose its standards. Very soon it could become very inappropriate to have big or curve nose, imperfect teeth, big ears, long neck, thin lips or whatever imperfect, like it is already scandalous for women to appear in public with hears on legs or in armpit. It seams that we all are putted on level of consumers. Our time is time of Homo Consumer.

    Did I say that I have nothing to say?
    Well… it is just chating.

    • jrfibonacci Says:


      Western culture is focused on adolescence. The shaved face of a man and the hairless body of a woman is a social signal of submission and obedience to the culture of fascism/communism. It may be that women are unconsciously trying to look as if they are pre-adolescent to be sexually attractive to men, but I am not certain about that. I think that submission to the norm of juvenile conformity is the basic idea. We are showing that we are subordinate to our master, such as the black-robed priests of the court system.

      We love the idea of having straight teeth to hide that our bone structure is deficient. Why? Perhaps because most men are sexually rather reflexive and… dumb. Women know it works- just like fake tit implants work to attract stupid drunk guys.

      Part of it of course is the “star-bellied sneeches effect” though. do you know what I mean? That is a story by Dr. Seuss.

      I am reminded in all of this though of the silliness of fads and fashion. The fashion trend to wear jeans with holes was a rebellion and signal of solidarity with the poor – at least in the 60s. It came back in the 80s and never totally left (in the US).

      Now, many boys (mostly) wear their pants below their butt, with “athletic shorts” underneath. The pirate symbol (skull and bones) is ballooning in popularity.

      Ultra-violent video games are normal. Intense rap music and heavy metal is notably popular.

      Socionomists predict trends like these- or at least interpret them. Again, all of this- even how we dress- is an expression of genetic impulse (filtered through culture).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: