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?

Related articles

• New DNA Product Simplifies Science and Gives Consumers Affordable Access to People and Places Their DNA Most Closely Matches (prweb.com)
• Carrying Extinct DNA (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• DNA Tests are Accurate and Reliable (socyberty.com)
• David Barash’s “Deflating The Myth Of Monogamy” (cathicarolblog.wordpress.com)
• Valen”twine” Chokes Marriages (my.psychologytoday.com)
• The Future Of … (beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com)
• At Home Tinkering of Bacterial DNA (medgadget.com)
• The New Paradigm of Responsibility (crowspeaks.wordpress.com)
• DNA Nanorobot Developed for Future Immune Responses Programming (medgadget.com)
• Technology’s Advance vs. Cultural Standards? (askoldjules.com)
• DNA robot could kill cancer cells (InnovationToronto.com)
• Chemotherapy in Parents May Make Offspring’s DNA Unstable & Riddled With Mutations (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Delivery Via DNA Nanobots (cen.acs.org)
• DNA Sequencing Via USB (robert.accettura.com)
• Nanorobots Destroy Cancer Cells (webpronews.com)
• DNA Origamis and How To Build a DNA Nanorobot (msamba.wordpress.com)
• The Smell of DNA (bellasugar.com)
• Too Much or too Little of something can be Bad! (georgefebish.wordpress.com)
• Genetic Genealogy: Genetics and Family Trees (geneticgenealogybasics.wordpress.com)
• Back to the bench (rrresearch.fieldofscience.com)
• nerve damage healing with dna cloned neurons (aersixb9x.wordpress.com)
• Replication (scienceandbelief.wordpress.com)

Tags: critical thinking, cultural evolution, cultural shift, culture shift, dna, elite, elitism, human, human DNA, marriage, marriages, mates, mating, maturing young women, organized coercion, possible mates, prospective mates, sexual selection, social dominance, social evolution, social function, social selection, socially dominant, socially dominant males, socially dominant men, sociobiology, the elite