ABSTRACT
In their provocative chapter on the evolutionary origins of conflict in couples, Wilson and Daly argued that there was an advantage to individuals who closely monitored for threats to their proprietary claims and who defended their claims. In particular, in our evolutionary history, there was a survival advantage conferred on males who were more aware of and sensitive to threats of sexual infidelity in a mate. Therefore, questions about the sexual fidelity of a female partner arouse violent inclinations that, at least in the past, functioned to control and protect the male’s claims. That is, the use of coercive control and violence with a female partner was effective in reducing covert extra-pair mating, and thus improved the male’s inclusive fitness. Certain characteristics of a partner, such as her youth or attractiveness, or characteristics of the relationship, such as its exit costs or its stability, act as cues regarding the likelihood of threats to male propriety claims. To a nonexpert like myself, this reasoning makes sense. Most family researchers would agree with the assumption that “the reason why marriage exists has first and most basically to be understood in terms of its reproductive function.” Moreover, there is certainly clear evidence that threats to sexually based proprietary claims are anger arousing, instigate aggressive tendencies, and sometimes even lead to violent behavior (just as other threats that arouse anger can do). The fact that men’s feelings of jealousy based on sexual proprietorship are a motivational factor in some cases of marital violence is indisputable. However, Wilson and Daly assumed that threats to proprietary claims are the major source of violence in marriage. Two types of evidence are presented in support of this claim: the increased risk of homicide in de facto marital unions relative to registered unions, and age patterns of risk.
