Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 But how backwards are they? That has more to do with the fortunes of war, science and history than their choice of family structure. Let us not forget until the 1500s - 1700's the Islamic World and China (Both places where polygyny was practiced at the time) were FAR ahead of Europe. It looks like those places may be ahead in the near future if the economy does not pick up soon. Their failure was not industrializing their economies. So when the Europeans came to colonize with mass produced submachine guns and artillery borne on iron clad ships...they were toast.
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) First and foremost people who think bringing up the evolutionary origin of these behaviors is making an excuse are missing the point I am trying to make. I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT EMOTIONALLY MATURE MEN ARE ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR URGES.* The urges are there, they just control themselves. If you impregnate 100 women and 80 of your childeren die in poverty without reproducing, you'll still have 20 more passing your genes. Obviously there's never been a time where a child dies even close to 80% of the time when it's brought up without a father. Besides, women tend to not be naive and when they figure out they're pregnant they try to find a sucker, make him believe the child is his and have him raise it, which means the actual father has hit the evolutionary jackpot. What I bolded....that's not the case at all. Until relatively recently the infant mortailty rate was much higher. Take a look at this. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_imrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=infant+mortality That only goes back to 1960. This gives the infant mortality rate back to about 1900. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/2/401S/F1.expansion.html As you can see as we go back in time the infant mortality rate grows exponentially. Going even farther back look at the life expectancies over time, which are deflated due to astronomical infant, and mother mortality in ancient times. In ancient Egypt and simmilar societies the average life expectancy was 40 years. Many Pharo's died before 30. So they had to be as prolific as possible just to make sure there would be 1 suitable heir. When they failed their dynasty would end, and sometimes that meant a long period of chaos for their whole nation. In history men like Pharo's, kings, Chiefs, and other leaders had many women because they could. All men on Earth can trace their Y chromosomal lineage back to one particular male who lived about 140,000 years ago for the kinds of reasons I have described. TL;DR: Evolutionary biological imperatives ARE NOT, AND NO ONE HAS SAID THEY ARE EXCUSES. That said thinking that your man or your woman does not have them, does not have temptations is a mistake. These are born of the fact that in times past men had to be prolific to ensure that they would have any adult offspring at all. *Which meaning they can be true to whatever family arrangement they have, monogamous, polygynous, or polyandrous (There's a difference). Edited November 5, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What I bolded....that's not the case at all. Until relatively recently the infant mortailty rate was much higher. Take a look at this. I suggest you take a look at the statistics you're about to post first, to prevent looking like a fool. I said If you impregnate 100 women and 80 of your childeren die in poverty without reproducing which is obviously an extreme example. Your graphs show 16% and 2.5% mortality, afaik both 16 < 80 and 2.5 < 80 Hypothesis: If for some reason a few men in a small isolated community convinced 100 women to sleep with them (they were quite the charmers, what can I say? ) and impregnated them all then this would soon lead to inbreeding. I don't see any advantage in spreading your genes here. After a few generations this would lead to mutations and finally life-threatening situations. So, spreading your genes this way: not good for survival. Ok, ok... one could argue the men could travel to other villages. But as i said I'm speaking hypothetically for a closed system, which is always easier to study. That is an interesting experiment. Obviously the optimal strategy for gene survival would be quality over quantity for everyone. The reason it will end with a mass extinction is because our instincts evolved to their current state over millions of generations with a virtually unlimited population, and they're not gonna change in 10 generations of being locked on an island. Evolution simply doesn't work that fast.
Woggle Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Are women really that bad that they want a jerk's sperm but want a good guy to raise the child and make him think it is his? This is the kind of stuff that makes me just not want to trust women. Also I believe the spread your seed crap is just an excuse some men come up with to cheat.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Are women really that bad that they want a jerk's sperm but want a good guy to raise the child and make him think it is his? This is the kind of stuff that makes me just not want to trust women. No. Why would you even consider such garbage? It's bs and you know it is. Some partially informed doufus can be relied upon to trot out such half-baked and lame "studies" to support their warped perspective just about daily here on our fine LoveShack. Don't pay them any attention. Also I believe the spread your seed crap is just an excuse some men come up with to cheat. Yip. My "reptilian brain" likes sparkly things, and if I were not an emotionally mature individual, it would have me swiping baubles at the department store every time I entered it. Right. You guys. Our "reptilian brain" has urges. They are all very remote to the majority of us. Maybe it helps many men be visual and want to look at all the pretty ladies. Maybe it helps many women to "nurture." So what. Actual action; social behavior is coming from different places entirely. A person does not have to be "emotionally mature" to avoid behaving like their inner beast.
Woggle Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I hear the whole get a bad boy's sperm and get a nice guy to raise it stuff quite frequently. It sounds just as dumb as the spread your seed crap to me.
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I believe that many men have the "urge"...more like pervasive thought, passing desire....to be sexual with many women. You see a nice body and the mind wanders....enjoyable thoughts. Guess what. Women do this, too But it is not a strong enough desire to come even close to outweighing all the other desires I have: protect myself, have the best marriage possible, feel like a good person, etc. So you look, you have a dirty thought, and you move on. Does this sound about right? Or do men have some greater struggle on a daily basis?
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I hear the whole get a bad boy's sperm and get a nice guy to raise it stuff quite frequently. It sounds just as dumb as the spread your seed crap to me. This doesn't even make sense. Women want the BEST genes. Why would a woman want a loser's baby?
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I suggest you take a look at the statistics you're about to post first, to prevent looking like a fool. I said which is obviously an extreme example. Your graphs show 16% and 2.5% mortality, afaik both 16 < 80 and 2.5 < 80 Those graphs go back to 1960 and 1900. Then I pointed out the rate of mortality in ancient times. In the 2000's 2.5/1000 in the 1960's 26/1000 In the 1900's about 50/1000 Extrapolating backwards about say 1000 years... whats that rate going to be? R(1000 YA)=(50/1000)e^(((50-2.5/1000)/100years)*1000years) R=80/1000 Extrapolate back 10,000 years and it's 800/1000 or 80% The argument is evolutionary, and evolution takes long time periods. Go back farther than 10,000 years and infant mortality was almost 90%. Mentally pull that steady increase in mortality rate backwards I suggest you learn how to extrapolate a curve backwards before looking like an even bigger fool than you thought I was.
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) This doesn't even make sense. Women want the BEST genes. Why would a woman want a loser's baby? TONS of peer reviewed research in psychology and anthropology has backed that observation up though. Changes in women's sexual interests and their partner's mate–retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Because ancestral women could have obtained genetic benefits through extra–pair sex only near ovulation, but paid costs of extra–pair sex throughout the cycle, one might expect selection to have shaped female interest in partners, other than primary partners, to be greater near ovulation than during the luteal phase. Because men would have paid heavier costs if their partners had extra–pair sex near ovulation, one might also expect selection to have shaped male's efforts to track their primary partners' whereabouts to be increased near ovulation, relative to the luteal phase. Women filled out questionnaires about their sexual interests and their partners' mate–retention tactics twice: once within 5 days before a lutenizing hormone surge and once during the luteal phase. Results showed that: (i) women reported greater sexual interest in, and fantasy about, non–primary partners near ovulation than during the luteal phase; (ii) women did not report significantly greater sexual interest in, and fantasy about, primary partners near ovulation; (iii) women reported that their primary partners were both more attentive and more proprietary near ovulation. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Women+men+menstrual+cycle&as_sdt=0%2C14&as_ylo=2000&as_vis=0 Preferences for variation in masculinity in real male faces change across the menstrual cycle: Women prefer more masculine faces when they are more fertile Anthony C. Littlea, , , Benedict C. Jonesb, Lisa M. DeBruineb In women cyclical shifts in preference have been documented for odour and certain physical and behavioral male traits. For example, women prefer more masculinised male faces when at peak fertility than at other times in their menstrual cycle. In previous studies, the face images used have all been manipulated using computer graphic techniques. Here, we examine variation in preferences for perceived masculinity in unmanipulated real male faces to address consistency with findings using manipulated masculinity in faces. We show that women prefer greater masculinity in male faces at times when their fertility is likely to be highest (during the follicular phase of their cycle) if they are in a current romantic relationship. These results indicate that women’s preferences for perceived sexual dimorphism in real male faces follow a similar pattern as found for manipulated sexual dimorphism, suggesting that manipulated and real masculinity in male faces generate similar results in preference studies. Cyclical preferences could influence women to select a partner who possesses traits that may enhance her offspring’s quality via an attraction to increased masculinity at times when conception is most likely, or serve to improve partner investment via an attraction to reduced masculinity when investment is important. http://www.springerlink.com/content/xh514w2101rg6rw5/ Effects of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Face Preferences Benedict C. Jones, Lisa M. DeBruine, David I. Perrett, Anthony C. Little, David R. Feinberg and Miriam J. Law Smith While many studies of face preferences have emphasized high agreement among individuals about the types of faces they consider attractive and unattractive, other studies have demonstrated systematic variation in face preferences. Here, we review the evidence that women’s preferences for masculinity, apparent health, and self-resemblance in faces change systematically during the menstrual cycle. Our review focuses on the proximate mechanisms that might underpin these changes (i.e., what changes in hormone levels are important for effects of menstrual cycle phase) and the possible functions of these changes (i.e., to maximize the likelihood that offspring inherit strong immune systems or to increase the likelihood of successful pregnancy by either promoting affiliation with individuals who will provide support and care during pregnancy or by promoting strategies to avoid contagion during social interactions). While evidence that differentiates between these two accounts of the function of cyclic shifts in face preferences is currently equivocal for masculinity preferences, there is compelling evidence that the function of the effects of menstrual cycle phase on preferences for apparent health and self-resemblance in faces is to increase the likelihood of successful pregnancy. TL;DR: All the science we have supports the idea that we humans are more controlled by instinct than we even conciously realize. While our most intelligent Neocortex tells us that these things are stupid...all too often it does not stop us. ______ One more point about infant mortality and life expectancy Vis. V. their effects on mating behavior. Consider the mortality rate of wild chimpanzee's. Assuming it's comparable to how our more recent ancestors such as A. Africanus, or A. Afarensis, would have lived 3-5 Million years ago. http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/jour_hum_evo_mort_rate.pdf In order to compare evolved human and chimpanzees’ life histories we present a synthetic life table for free-living chimpanzees, derived from data collected in five study populations (Gombe, Taı¨, Kibale, Mahale, Bossou). The combined data from all populations represent 3711 chimpanzee years at risk and 278 deaths. Males show higher mortality than females and data suggest some inter-site variation in mortality. Despite this variation, however, wild chimpanzees generally have a life expectancy at birth of less than 15 years and mean adult lifespan (after sexual maturity) is only about 15 years. This is considerably lower survival than that reported for chimpanzees in zoos or captive breeding colonies, or that measured among modern human hunter-gatherers. The low mortality rate of human foragers relative to chimpanzees in the early adult years may partially explain why humans have evolved to senesce later than chimpanzees, and have a longer juvenile period. Edited November 5, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Those graphs go back to 1960 and 1900. Then I pointed out the rate of mortality in ancient times. In the 2000's 2.5/1000 in the 1960's 26/1000 In the 1900's about 50/1000 Extrapolating backwards about say 1000 years... whats that rate going to be? R(1000 YA)=(50/1000)e^(((50-2.5/1000)/100years)*1000years) R=80/1000 Extrapolate back 10,000 years and it's 800/1000 or 80% The argument is evolutionary, and evolution takes long time periods. Go back farther than 10,000 years and infant mortality was almost 90%. Mentally pull that steady increase in mortality rate backwards I suggest you learn how to extrapolate a curve backwards before looking like an even bigger fool than you thought I was. I'm speechless... You found a graph that showed the result of advancements in knowlegde and medical technology in modern times, decided the spectacular rate of declining child mortality has been the same through history, came up with a flat out ridiculous conclusion and didn't even think about secondguessing yourself? Let's go back to the point in time were infant mortality was exactly 90%. To not extinct and assuming an equal amount of men and women each woman needs to give birth to 2 childeren who survive. Now since there's a 10% chance of survival, the average woman needs to give birth 20 times to keep the population steady. Do you honestly believe this? Then let's go back to where the mortality rate was 95%. Here a woman needs to give birth 40 times. Assuming fertility at the age of 12 and 1 child per year, she needs to live till 52 (hint: cavemen didn't) and have 1 child per year. You still believe your numbers? Your post does show exactly what I dislike about soft sciences: the math education is a joke and comes down to "insert these numbers in your calculator, then press this button and you see the result". I find that sad, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. What does keep me awake at night is knowing that people who are clueless about the actual concept of something as simple as a standard deviation (awesome at calculating it tho) will be hired as experts in certain fields, come to ridiculous conclusions because of their incompetence, will not analyse the results because they're sure they typed in the right numbers and they're incapable of figuring out what happens between input and output and influence important decisions made by even more clueless politicians (who happened to come to power because he was the guy who looked the most jovial on a ****ing billboard in the first place), which influence the life of the rest of the people including me. [/rant]
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm very grateful for the rant above.
Wolf18 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 This doesn't even make sense. Women want the BEST genes. Why would a woman want a loser's baby? What do you think of the similar biological determinist argument that men must be able to have sex with numerous different women? I doubt you would like that. But why would a man want to be with just 1 woman?
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What do you think of the similar biological determinist argument that men must be able to have sex with numerous different women? I doubt you would like that. But why would a man want to be with just 1 woman? I already answered that upthread. A man would choose sex with just one woman because he has the best sex with her, and he can only have sex with her within the agreement of monogamy. Another benefit of his monogamy is the promise of her monogamy. In other words: the one woman is worth sacrificing all others in his eyes.
Woggle Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 This doesn't even make sense. Women want the BEST genes. Why would a woman want a loser's baby? They don't consider the bad boy to be a loser though. They consider him to be prime genetic material but they know he won't stick around so they get a good father type and convince him the baby is really his when it is not.
Wolf18 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I already answered that upthread. A man would choose sex with just one woman because he has the best sex with her, and he can only have sex with her within the agreement of monogamy. Another benefit of his monogamy is the promise of her monogamy. In other words: the one woman is worth sacrificing all others in his eyes. awww, wishful thinking. But evolutionary biologists disagree. Men are wired to have sex with as many women as opportunity dictates, no matter how special and unique of a snowflake you are.
dasein Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I'm speechless... Apparently not. You found a graph that showed the result of advancements in knowlegde and medical technology in modern times, decided the spectacular rate of declining child mortality has been the same through history, came up with a flat out ridiculous conclusion and didn't even think about secondguessing yourself? Isn't the above something of a red herring? So what if the regression back from modern times was not smooth and exact, is his point premised on the precision of the regression? or simply on it's general trend? In other words, you seem to be nitpicking. Was there some dispositive conclusion in your rant based on the exact predictive accuracy of the regression? What have I missed? Go slow now, I'm not too bright. Let's go back to the point in time were infant mortality was exactly 90%. I smell straw. I don't see how the validity any of MrLO's claims are premised on the exact correctness of the mortality rate. Would a rate of 80% completely discount everything he has posted? 75%? 70%? What is the magic number discounts his premises? What conclusion are you asking us to draw here? You realize that your "reproduction required to avoid extinction" numbers vary drastically with even a relatively small change in the assumed ancient mortality rate? To not extinct and assuming an equal amount of men and women each woman needs to give birth to 2 childeren who survive. Now since there's a 10% chance of survival, the average woman needs to give birth 20 times to keep the population steady. Do you honestly believe this? Then let's go back to where the mortality rate was 95%. Here a woman needs to give birth 40 times. Assuming fertility at the age of 12 and 1 child per year, she needs to live till 52 (hint: cavemen didn't) and have 1 child per year. You still believe your numbers? Are we playing at Zeno here? Going back to a 99.999999% mortality rate? Or is that what you are accusing MLO of doing? I don't see it. What's your point? That MLO's numbers can't possibly provide for a currently existing human race? OK then. Here's a point, even us lowly laymen know that universal mortality rates statistics are means of many smaller, localized data sets, Factors such as food availability, predation, climate and parasites, etc. affect the mortality rate in various locations. One area may have a dreadful 100% mortality rate, another 50%, and lots of areas in between. That's really how it works isn't it? The 70% mortality Joneses eke their way out of the evolutionary hole while the 95% mortality Simpsons only make it 25 years or so before extincting out? Should we knock on the cave door of the "fire possessing" cavemen with lots of berries and mammoth meat stored up who scared off the sabretooths, keep their babies warm and fed, and tell them "Hey, you guys have too many babies, you should be dead?" Or should we go to the unfortunate cavemen whose local delicacy is "baby liver with fava beans and a good chianti" and tell them, "hey guys something is wrong, I know you ate all your babies, but dammit this curve here dictates that there should still be 10% of a baby somewhere around here!" Sorry to belabor the point unduly, but this is LS after all. the math education is a joke and comes down to "insert these numbers in your calculator, then press this button and you see the result". I find that sad, Me too. I wish I was better with math and statistics. but it doesn't keep me awake at night. What does keep me awake at night is knowing that people who are clueless about the actual concept of something as simple as a standard deviation Couldn't agree more, same for the folks who don't understand the basic statistical functions, their uses and limitations.
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 awww, wishful thinking. But evolutionary biologists disagree. Men are wired to have sex with as many women as opportunity dictates, no matter how special and unique of a snowflake you are. My life experience supports my pov. Research also demonstrates that men in relationships have more sex, on average, than single men (who theoretically could have sex with multiple women--if they'd consent). Don't feel too bad for monogamous men.
Woggle Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I don't think that men are hardwired to do anything but I want to know if many women really feel that they need a jerk's sperm even if he has no part in raising the kid.
Author quietGuy13 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Posted November 5, 2011 "I don't think that men are hardwired to do anything but I want to know if many women really feel that they need a jerk's sperm even if he has no part in raising the kid." Apparently yes. that's why i see many women getting impregnated through sperm banks. I saw a documentary about women doing this to get Genius babies.
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I don't think that men are hardwired to do anything but I want to know if many women really feel that they need a jerk's sperm even if he has no part in raising the kid. No. NO. No. Only a messed up woman-child would romanticize such a thing. Even then, I doubt it is common. I agree that men aren't hardwired to screw around, although I think a season of sowing oats is normal in adolescence. Problem today is, both men and women resist growing up and leaving adolescent behavior to the adolescents!
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 "I don't think that men are hardwired to do anything but I want to know if many women really feel that they need a jerk's sperm even if he has no part in raising the kid." Apparently yes. that's why i see many women getting impregnated through sperm banks. I saw a documentary about women doing this to get Genius babies. Single women? Or married? Some women have given up on finding a good man, and decide to have a baby on her own.
Woggle Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I think it is resisting growing up and also the fact that many men become players because they were hurt. Not many men will admit this but the player lifestyle is very much a defense mechanism. I am sure women who have been hurt have their own defense mechanisms as well but men who become players have given up on finding a good woman. I don't condone but I wish women would know how it is for some men trying to have a healthy relationship with modern women.
eatNrM Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Well, it looks like I'll have to create a new account after this (still dealing with the spam issues..) but MrNate is reporting in again: First of all, sleeping with a different woman a day, doesn't even sound good to me mentally because I would be sore and would need rest at some point! Now every 3rd or so day, now we're talking. It's so funny how when one person contributes an idea, he gets flamed and attacked, told how 'wrong' he is, leading to yet another flame war. I think if it was really common, then there wouldn't be that much of a demand for porn. I think what you're describing is what most men probably dream about. And you know what, Ross? You are absolutely correct. The reason is that most men don't get to have the amount of sex they would like for several reasons. And yes, women are much more likely to get that need met much quicker and with the quality they desired. There's a reason why this who idea of 'men want sex more and women want relationships more' holds true. Women have the sex department on tap. Men have the relationship department on tap. So naturally, both want the opposite thing. Easy. So, Ross, don't let people make you feel bad about your opinion, and stand by it. Many people in life will try to push their ideals on you if you let them. Why? Well, because most people don't like being wrong. (Dale Carnegie touched up quite a bit on this in his popular book) My opinion: I agree that MANY men would have sex with a different women at least every other day if given the option, and less would be likely to settle in a relationship soon. I am a man. I'm not going to argue this. But if it makes you feel better, create a survey, hand it out to 100 men, and enjoy the results. Of course men in relationships have more sex, because they're well..in a relationship. But that's as far as the statement goes. I wouldn't dare ask what if that study included a question that said: "If given the ability to have lots of consistent sex with beautiful women outside of a relationship, would you be in one'? Mind blowing sex with the same woman can be awesome, but the keyword here is same. I could also go into how one would define mindblowing, but that's a whole different can of worms. People find different things to be 'mindblowing'. I mean you can ask your man if it was after every single session to make sure, otherwise, you won't know. Even then, being with the same person can get stale regardless of how good the sex is. He/She already knows what's in your jeans. But what about that stud/goddess over there? Her booty is a bit bigger than yours/ That man is absolutely intelligent...and ripped. Hm. Food for thought. And 'quality' sex? I would say define 'quality' but there's 7 billion people on this earth, which would come with a wide variety of answers. One true answer however is: 'Quality' differs from person to person, and your definition does not define how someone else views it. Not even Webster can..so you know that's saying something. Damn. Emotional maturity is different from a physical, carnal, drive. I think people spend way too much time trying to please other people's ideals, or not going after what they want in life. The day we move away from this is the day we will really understand each other, and how we really operate. But alas, our time will probably continue to be spent telling each other how we're wrong. How what acts others do don't fit into emotional maturity. Flaming others. Pushing our agendas. Pressing ignore buttons. Rinse, repeat. Instead of just hearing others out and talking calm. But of course, the easy solution often involves swallowing a lot of pride, which is a pretty heavy one. I am a man full of testosterone. Full of wants and desires. I fervently believe my make up is the reason why I want to have sex with a variety of women. And I know with 100% certainty, that I'll feel this way into my later years. It's the same reason why you never see me call a woman a 'slut', whore, ho bag, etc. Because I understand there are simply wants and desires that they want to get met. And I don't get mad at her whatsoever for getting hers. Nor do I get mad if her number is many times mine. She needs lovin' too. Maybe it's time we all chilled out and considered others' opinions, instead of telling them how wrong, immature, ignorant they are. Or maybe I'm ahead of my time. Hm. This is the longest post I've ever written. (Pats myself on the back.) Edited November 5, 2011 by eatNrM
xxoo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Maybe it's time we all chilled out and considered others' opinions, instead of telling them how wrong, immature, ignorant they are. Or maybe I'm ahead of my time. Hm. When you are describing a preference that tends to be common in younger men, and less common as men age, immaturity seems to be a fair description. Curious, Mr. Nate, has the first time in bed with a woman always been the best sex you've had with her? You've never had the experience of sex getting better as the relationship deepens?
Recommended Posts