A recent article tries to explain human promiscuity through the reduced fertility of this species. Humans have very low fertility. In fact, they come from an order of mammals with reduced fertility, primates, but also among their relatives are champions of infertility. Why? Why is there a tendency especially among mammals, but also other animals and not only, reducing fertility with increasing complexity. That is, evolution looks exactly the opposite of what Darwin would predict, but especially Dawkins, the author of the "Selfish Gene" who has no other plan than to replicate himself in as many copies as possible.
Let's think about which genes are the most: those of bacteria. What would be the point of organisms that are less fertile, which have fewer genes propagated in nature? If natural selection acts through more viable offspring, the chance of a more complex organism appearing, so less fertile, when they are near more fertile peers (let's not forget, it starts from the idea that speciation, so macroevolution is a continuous process of microevolution, given by intraspecific selection), was null. Or it could appear in isolation, and then natural selection was not the engine of its evolution, but isolation, as Gould and Eldredge say, the authors of the theory of intermittent balances. Or maybe selection was not the engine of evolution...
If the larger number of genes that a certain advantage, associated with complexity, was passed on to posterity, then complex organisms should have had as many descendants as possible. Indeed, their chances of survival increased with complexity, but we still don't count more genes passed on to the offspring. More about this in "Civilization..." But a lot about evolution in general, in the new book that will appear, I hope, soon, "The laws of evolution, laws of life".
The man is shamefully infertile even among his relatives. Why it came to this can be seen in "The Civilization of Famine". That the human race comes from sexually promiscuous beings seems very easy to deduce. If you've read "In the shadow of man" by Jane Goodall, you've seen how our relatives stand in terms of sexual fidelity. And it wasn't about bonobos, but of common chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Today's people would be the same, like the primitive ones (there are even tougher rules forbidding promiscuity in some cultures) again, it's not hard to deduce. But the trap of the utility paradigm for fitness appears again in this hypothesis. The best idea seemed to me that men should run away from multi-orgasmic women. Maybe he should leave and let them satisfy another woman in the interval between two orgasms, and the frigids would be the most successful women, according to this theory. All men would look for them and be ready to stay with them for decades until the first orgasm. Anyway, the hypothesis is contradicted by what happens to bonobos, very promiscuous beings, where there is orgasm.
I have not seen studies in this sense, but I tend to believe that things are exactly the opposite. Hard to believe that sexual selection would have bypassed exactly the ability of men to produce sexual pleasure. On the other hand, women capable of orgasms (as many as possible) they would have been more sexually active (although the nymphomaniacs are recruited especially from the frigids, but let's think that it is a culture of conscious search for sexual satisfaction) and would have had a greater participation in sexual selection. Not to mention that probably individuals of both sexes with "sexual talent" (but this remains to be verified) it could have other qualities whose secondary effect would be this. That quality would be sensitivity, among others.
FIDELITY, like sexual passion are just unnecessary human behaviors, which suit some, they imposed them, but for most people they are just clothes that are too big, like other culturally imposed behaviors.
