The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:50 pm
Haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.
A standard principle in evolutionary biology is that the sex that invests the most in reproduction is the most choosy when it comes to picking suitable mates. In most mammals, this means females because of the heavy cost of gestation. In humans, the huge reproductive investment difference between 9 months for females and 9 seconds for males makes the imbalance quite pronounced. Okay fine, let’s say 9 minutes for the male evolvify readers out there. It would hardly make a dent if that was 9 hours or days or weeks. The order(s) of magnitude cost disparity predicts that women should have evolved to exercise ultimate “mate choice” in terms of human sexual selection. That’s a pretty easy case to make from a biological standpoint, but how does that translate to our modern world?
Last edited by Zute
on Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly known as Panamah
- Posts: 369
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
- Location: San Francisco
Some legal structures are such that males are liable for 18 years of financial investment set against 9 months of biological investment by the woman. Granted, this is an oversimplification as time investment needs to be factored in as well. Again, the variability of circumstances and legal differences makes it difficult to generalize. And, all of this is amplified by the cultural and religious imperative toward lifetime monogamy.
Honestly, this is just stupid.
Humans are NOT monogamous, and the modern legalities of parenting are recent events that could not have possibly affected instincts.
Human males are a little choosy by general male standards, but overall they are still not very choosy, meaning they would be inclined to have sex with any female that is even remotely attractive.
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am
"In fact, we have seen a rise in male propensity to make mating judgments based on physical characteristics..."
There has been no rise of this in the last 10,000 years. It has been bred into us for at least 200K years.
What we do see in recent and contemporary time scales is more akin to a decadence(or indulgence). We are more free now, both male and female, in our culture to express our individual whims and wishes. Those things which are feelings based, have more freedom to express now. But they are only in there, or exist as feelings in the first place, because evolution placed them in there. You can have wiring in a house that does not get used for a while, then the environment changes, and you are using that part of the house, and its wiring. But the wiring was always in there, behind the walls, and above the ceiling. You just get to use it now.
I agree with Tudamorf in his assessment. Any baby mama or baby daddy will be able to attest to this. When the whole society devotes itself to raising other men's children, then that gives many men the freedom to eschew their own responsibility. And the women let them do it(because they are able to feed and clothe their children from money from the welfare state). Of course today stating the truth is borderline racism. And that is frowned upon much more than hitting it and splitting, and leaving the mom and kids on her own.
For every male who is 'trapped' and gets hit with coerced 18 years of support, there is another male who runs, not paying a dime. Your paleo people on the site neglect that.