Women choose. Men compete.
10 Oct 2013, 4:24 am
Discuss.
Hello, I'm "new" in the sense that I haven’t posted before; the fact that nobody gave a scientifically based response to this question has blown my mind.
I don't have sources to cite this (I'm too lazy), but go look up "parental investment" and I'm sure you'll find all this information.
It is observed across the animal kingdom that males tend to be highly competitive while females tend to be very picky. The reasons can be described entirely in terms of reproductive fitness.
Start with the biological constraints of the sexes. Note that females are far more investive in their offspring. First, they produce massive egg cells which are very expensive in terms of resources. Then also note the time they have to spend developing that egg in their bodies, and then the nursing that proceeds afterwards. Women are designed to be the sex which invests far more in their children.
Women can only produce so many children in a lifetime due to their constraints, while men's ability to produce children is only limited to his access to mates. Therefore, if she’s only going to be able to produce children with only a few males, then wouldn’t it make sense for her to try her best to find a male with the best genes possible?
Conversely, males are well documented to engage in combat in order to secure access to mates. In many animal populations, it is usually one or two of the biggest and strongest males who mates with all the females in the population, while everybody else is lucky to have even one copulation; often enough, this copulation may be a forced one (i.e. rape). Males therefore tend to be far less picky, since the 99% of males only have a chance of passing on their genes by accepting a single copulation offer.
Combining these two constraints, it is usually the toughest/sexiest/most extravagant males who do all the mating within the population. This explains why sexual dimorphisms can be so extreme in some species. Note that in many species, it’s usually the male that is usually the more aesthetically pleasing sex to humans. Peacocks are one example, but this can be seen across the board.
The opposite is true in species where males are the more investive sex, such as seahorses.
Now think back to high school. Remember those elitist males who lost their virginity at age 13, treat their girls like garbage, yet has no problem getting a new girlfriend every couple weeks? This is because they’re the most attractive males, the elitist males who all the girls go after by their natural, highly investive biology. However, females may lower their standards after all the elitist males get hitched; however, I haven’t observed this amongst my females peers yet.
It's scientifically proven that humans descended from species where males compete, even in combat form, hence why we have dimorphism, like height, but we are less "dimorphisic" (sp?) than most ape species indicating that our coupling system had been leaning more toward monogamy longer than previously thought.
Its as well scientifically proven that chimps wrangle upon the position upon the alpha chimps, which may be very interesting for the male chimps. But the moment the alpha chimp doesnt look, the female chimp go with the none alpha chimps of their personal liking into the bushes. ^^
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
10 Oct 2013, 4:31 am
Discuss.
Hello, I'm "new" in the sense that I haven’t posted before; the fact that nobody gave a scientifically based response to this question has blown my mind.
I don't have sources to cite this (I'm too lazy), but go look up "parental investment" and I'm sure you'll find all this information.
It is observed across the animal kingdom that males tend to be highly competitive while females tend to be very picky. The reasons can be described entirely in terms of reproductive fitness.
Start with the biological constraints of the sexes. Note that females are far more investive in their offspring. First, they produce massive egg cells which are very expensive in terms of resources. Then also note the time they have to spend developing that egg in their bodies, and then the nursing that proceeds afterwards. Women are designed to be the sex which invests far more in their children.
Women can only produce so many children in a lifetime due to their constraints, while men's ability to produce children is only limited to his access to mates. Therefore, if she’s only going to be able to produce children with only a few males, then wouldn’t it make sense for her to try her best to find a male with the best genes possible?
Conversely, males are well documented to engage in combat in order to secure access to mates. In many animal populations, it is usually one or two of the biggest and strongest males who mates with all the females in the population, while everybody else is lucky to have even one copulation; often enough, this copulation may be a forced one (i.e. rape). Males therefore tend to be far less picky, since the 99% of males only have a chance of passing on their genes by accepting a single copulation offer.
Combining these two constraints, it is usually the toughest/sexiest/most extravagant males who do all the mating within the population. This explains why sexual dimorphisms can be so extreme in some species. Note that in many species, it’s usually the male that is usually the more aesthetically pleasing sex to humans. Peacocks are one example, but this can be seen across the board.
The opposite is true in species where males are the more investive sex, such as seahorses.
Now think back to high school. Remember those elitist males who lost their virginity at age 13, treat their girls like garbage, yet has no problem getting a new girlfriend every couple weeks? This is because they’re the most attractive males, the elitist males who all the girls go after by their natural, highly investive biology. However, females may lower their standards after all the elitist males get hitched; however, I haven’t observed this amongst my females peers yet.
It's scientifically proven that humans descended from species where males compete, even in combat form, hence why we have dimorphism, like height, but we are less "dimorphisic" (sp?) than most ape species indicating that our coupling system had been leaning more toward monogamy longer than previously thought.
Its as well scientifically proven that chimps wrangle upon the position upon the alpha chimps, which may be very interesting for the male chimps. But the moment the alpha chimp doesnt look, the female chimp go with the none alpha chimps of their personal liking into the bushes. ^^
and then later the alpha male would kill the other male's offspring -leading to the same output of the competition. Unlike bonobos, chimps are very bloody violent.
10 Oct 2013, 4:40 am
First of all Social monagomy =/= sexual monogomy =/= genetic monogamy.
We tend to be a socially monogomous species that has evolved serial monogamy as a reproductive strategy. Childbirth is inheritably dangerous in homo sapiens. Before modern obstetrics, there was up to a 25% mortality rate for females giving birth. This meant that the males could then move onto a new female and she would take over as his partner.
There are lots of species especially birds who are socially monogamous and incorporate strategies around this. They will bond pair with another individual but quite often the offspring will be from another individual. Kookaburra's are an example in birds and Tamarin's are a primate example.
We can see in our species more evidence towards social monogamy due to our nature to pair up usually with someone whom will privide best for the offspring. The high incidence of infidelity and the way that human hormones work tends to suggest against sexual or genetic monogamy. Most human's will raise the new partners offspring and develop deep familial relationships without genetic incentive.
_________________
I love diggin' in the dirt
With just a pick and brush
Finding fossils is my aim
So I'm never in a rush
10 Oct 2013, 4:50 am
Nope. They think they are theirs. ^^ They are only killing the little ones, if there was a change in alpha male hierarchy, so the new alpha chimp may try to kill the new infants, that were born during the alpha male before was ruling so that the freshly given birth female become conceivable again. While its proven by DNA, that the rest of an clan doesnt care that much for the alpha males position, as it seems. Its not only about chimp, but this has been discovered to happen in almost every other species as well. The existence of an alpha chimp gives stability to an clan, and does give some benefits when it comes to mating. But its proven a myth, that only because of some male banging their heads and coming to the conclusion whose head is the hardest, that all female species automatically agree with that. ^^
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
10 Oct 2013, 5:03 am
We tend to be a socially monogomous species that has evolved serial monogamy as a reproductive strategy. Childbirth is inheritably dangerous in homo sapiens. Before modern obstetrics, there was up to a 25% mortality rate for females giving birth. This meant that the males could then move onto a new female and she would take over as his partner.
There are lots of species especially birds who are socially monogamous and incorporate strategies around this. They will bond pair with another individual but quite often the offspring will be from another individual. Kookaburra's are an example in birds and Tamarin's are a primate example.
We can see in our species more evidence towards social monogamy due to our nature to pair up usually with someone whom will privide best for the offspring. The high incidence of infidelity and the way that human hormones work tends to suggest against sexual or genetic monogamy. Most human's will raise the new partners offspring and develop deep familial relationships without genetic incentive.
True that, I've mentioned the birds example in other threads.
But in humans, social monogamy can go two ways: the new husband might socially father the woman's children / the new wife might socially mother the father's children - maybe the latter is much less common in the West but it's not the case everywhere. In case of cheating, it would always lead to a social father / sexual scenario (probably without his knowledge).
10 Oct 2013, 5:20 am
We tend to be a socially monogomous species that has evolved serial monogamy as a reproductive strategy. Childbirth is inheritably dangerous in homo sapiens. Before modern obstetrics, there was up to a 25% mortality rate for females giving birth. This meant that the males could then move onto a new female and she would take over as his partner.
There are lots of species especially birds who are socially monogamous and incorporate strategies around this. They will bond pair with another individual but quite often the offspring will be from another individual. Kookaburra's are an example in birds and Tamarin's are a primate example.
We can see in our species more evidence towards social monogamy due to our nature to pair up usually with someone whom will privide best for the offspring. The high incidence of infidelity and the way that human hormones work tends to suggest against sexual or genetic monogamy. Most human's will raise the new partners offspring and develop deep familial relationships without genetic incentive.
True that, I've mentioned the birds example in other threads.
But in humans, social monogamy can go two ways: the new husband might socially father the woman's children / the new wife might socially mother the father's children - maybe the latter is much less common in the West but it's not the case everywhere. In case of cheating, it would always lead to a social father / sexual scenario (probably without his knowledge).
usually the sexual partner has no relationship with the offspring so it is still just social monogomy. In animals with genetic monogamy like humpback whales for instance, they will only ever have offspring with one other animal. They do not live socially monogomous nor exhibit sexual monogomy and will copulate with various other humpback whales but all the offspring the women produce will be to the one father.
The animal kingdom is full of lots of diversity and it is quite interesting.
_________________
I love diggin' in the dirt
With just a pick and brush
Finding fossils is my aim
So I'm never in a rush
10 Oct 2013, 5:34 am
The Dark Triad
In a 2008 survey of 35 000 people from 57 countries, researcher David Schmitt of Bradley University in the USA similarly found that “it is universal across cultures for high Dark Triad scorers to be more active in short–term mating.” Jonason believes that there is “some evidence that these [Dark Triad] traits may represent a successful evolutionary strategy”, representing one way for a male to maximise his reproductive potential by sowing his wild oats with as many females as possible.
http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Man/Y ... y-20120721
10 Oct 2013, 6:22 am
In a 2008 survey of 35 000 people from 57 countries, researcher David Schmitt of Bradley University in the USA similarly found that “it is universal across cultures for high Dark Triad scorers to be more active in short–term mating.” Jonason believes that there is “some evidence that these [Dark Triad] traits may represent a successful evolutionary strategy”, representing one way for a male to maximise his reproductive potential by sowing his wild oats with as many females as possible.
http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Man/Y ... y-20120721
You all live in a hopeless dream world.
_________________
comedic burp
10 Oct 2013, 6:33 am
Discuss.
I have chosen Johnny Depp. So something in your theory has to be wrong. ^^
You'll have to beat your chest and chase off Vanessa Paradis, then.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6eLBqqHwM[/youtube]
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia
10 Oct 2013, 6:52 am
I think it's the other way around. Maybe the OP is a bit miffed that he has trouble getting a date (I've been there) but the hard part for men, especially aspie men, is that they have to initiate the relationship without foreknowledge of whether or not they will be rejected in a humiliating fashion (and that they can't read people so they don't know if the women is interested). It's true that for men who lack confidence (such as some aspie men, taking the first step can be intimidating. It may seem women have the better deal. e.g. I've met aspie women in long term relationships more often than aspie men in long term relationships. It seems like all they have to do is weight for some NT man to come and start things off and they don't have to put in any effort. Nothing could be further from the truth...
Although some men may feel shortchanged that they have to gather up the confidence to ask the woman out and not the other way around, their moment of anxiety will be brief. But women have to put in a life time of effort. Consider that although asking women out can be hard for shy men, they still get to choose who they ask out. If a women is interested in a man, she doesn't ask him out. She puts all her effort into making herself look more attractive in hopes that she will be noticed. Women wear more elaborate clothing. Women wear high heals. Women spend much time on their hair and makeup. Women are more likely to get cosmetic surgery. Some women are so concerned with looking attractive that they even develop eating disorders. And a woman's window of opportunity can be shorter than a man's.
In our society, women have become the peacocks just because it's frowned upon for a woman to ask a man out.
10 Oct 2013, 9:48 am
Yeah, that is quite a shift from the rest of the animal kingdom, isn't it?
The difference seems to be that the peahen takes whoever puts on the best display, and the peacock just follows through. Whereas the human female is more apt to say "You CREEP! THIS display wasn't for you!"
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia
10 Oct 2013, 12:51 pm
Yeah, that is quite a shift from the rest of the animal kingdom, isn't it?
The difference seems to be that the peahen takes whoever puts on the best display, and the peacock just follows through. Whereas the human female is more apt to say "You CREEP! THIS display wasn't for you!"
That can happen but I like you have to get over the fear of rejection. If a girl thinks your a creep it's not as though you'll get arrested unless you did something really bad. Sometimes I'm still held back by a fear of rejection even when I know that logically it will only be a few moments embarrassment and not cause me any hardship further down the line.
10 Oct 2013, 4:28 pm
I think it's difficult for women also. I'm not just speaking for myself here, but based on the experience of my NT female friends. The whole dating world is very confusing and it sort of changes depending on how old you are and stuff like that.
And also people change their minds mid situation. Men and women alike and for variety of reasons. I am genuinely astonished that anyone ever gets together, it's so damn complicated.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Random Women |
22 Apr 2024, 12:11 pm |
| Reasons women do not date us! |
15 Apr 2024, 4:05 pm |
| International Women's Day 2024 |
09 Mar 2024, 3:32 pm |
| Women are less likely to die when treated by female doctors |
Yesterday, 9:59 pm |
