In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, psychologists from Arizona State University submitted a new paper on women and behavioral nature and that explains their ‘super power to protect their sexual partners from other ovulating women’. The paper follows like this,
For women, forming close, cooperative relationships with other women at once poses important opportunities and possible threats—including to mate retention. To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of same-sex social relationships, we propose that women’s mate guarding is functionally flexible and that women are sensitive to both interpersonal and contextual cues indicating whether other women might be likely and effective mate poachers. Here, we assess one such cue: other women’s fertility. Because ovulating (i.e., high-fertility) women are both more attractive to men and also more attracted to (desirable) men, ovulating women may be perceived to pose heightened threats to other women’s romantic relationships. Across 4 experiments, partnered women were exposed to photographs of other women taken during either their ovulatory or nonovulatory menstrual-cycle phases, and consistently reported intentions to socially avoid ovulating (but not nonovulating) women—but only when their own partners were highly desirable. Exposure to ovulating women also increased women’s sexual desires for their (highly desirable) partners. These findings suggest that women can be sensitive to subtle cues of other women’s fertility and respond (e.g., via social exclusion, enhanced sexual attention to own mate) in ways that may facilitate their mate retention goals while not thwarting their affiliative goals.
Adhere to this if check what the 21st century men do for this same territory marking business.
A man in the 21st century would have to be pretty retrograde to consider a woman his “property” or “territory”(!) Maybe some men in extremely conservative societies think this way? But in a fast moving liberated society this would be profoundly stupid, as a woman has the sole right to determine whether or not to bear the child or have an abortion. If she gives birth to the child, then he’s on the hook for child support for 18 years. So if anything, that it is *women* who are incentivized to allow a man to impregnate her (“I’m on the pill,” “I can’t get pregnant this tine of the month,” etc.) in order to claim at least partial “ownership” of him. Again, this is a profoundly stupid idea since we’re dealing with the life of a child, here. But it happens, particularly if the guy is very wealthy and/or famous. How much of a payoff do you think she could get for offering to keep her mouth shut and/or have an abortion under such circumstances?
But this may be a part of evolved emotional intelligence, and still the nature orders will keep on ‘social animals’ to game of territory.