When the two gametes unite in fertilization they create an instant mixture of genes surrounded by the durable housing of the egg. By cooperating to create zygotes, the female and male make it more likely that at least some of their offspring will survive in the event of a changing environment. A fertilized egg differs from an asexually reproducing cell in one fundamental respect: it contains a newly assembled mixture of genes.
The anatomical difference between the two kinds of sex cell is often extreme. In particular, the human egg is eighty-five thousand times larger than the human sperm. The consequences of this gametic dimorphism ramify throughout the biology and psychology of the human sex. The most important immediate result is that the female places a greater investment in each of her sex cells. A woman can expect to produce only about four hundred eggs in her lifetime. Of these a maximum of twenty can be converted into healthy infants. The costs of bringing an infant to term and caring for it afterward are relatively enormous. In contrast, a man releases 100 million sperm with each ejaculation. Once he has achieved fertilization his purely physical commitment has ended. His genes will benefit equally with those of the female, but his investment will be far less than hers unless she can induce him to contribute to the care of the offspring. If a man were given total freedom to act, he could theoretically inseminate thousands of women in his lifetime.
https://medium.com/@NicoleBarbaro/why-men-have-more-sex-partners-than-women-8bc49baa6e6c
The resulting conflict of interest between the sexes is property of not only human beings but also the majority of animal species. Males are characteristically aggressive, especially toward one another and most intensely during the breeding season. In most species, assertiveness is the most profitable male strategy. During the full period of time it takes to bring a fetus too term, from the fertilization of the egg to the birth of the infant, one male can fertilize many females but a female can be fertilized by only one male. Thus if males are able to court one female after another, some will be big winners and others will be absolute losers, while virtually all healthy females will succeed in being fertilized. It pays males to be aggressive, hasty, fickle, and undiscriminating. In theory it is more profitable for females to be coy, to hold back until they can identify males with the best genes. In species that rear young, it is also important for the females to select males who are more likely to stay with them after insemination.
On Human Nature. E.O. Wilson, p. 124-125.
The anatomical difference between the two kinds of sex cell is often extreme. In particular, the human egg is eighty-five thousand times larger than the human sperm. The consequences of this gametic dimorphism ramify throughout the biology and psychology of the human sex. The most important immediate result is that the female places a greater investment in each of her sex cells. A woman can expect to produce only about four hundred eggs in her lifetime. Of these a maximum of twenty can be converted into healthy infants. The costs of bringing an infant to term and caring for it afterward are relatively enormous. In contrast, a man releases 100 million sperm with each ejaculation. Once he has achieved fertilization his purely physical commitment has ended. His genes will benefit equally with those of the female, but his investment will be far less than hers unless she can induce him to contribute to the care of the offspring. If a man were given total freedom to act, he could theoretically inseminate thousands of women in his lifetime.
The resulting conflict of interest between the sexes is property of not only human beings but also the majority of animal species. Males are characteristically aggressive, especially toward one another and most intensely during the breeding season. In most species, assertiveness is the most profitable male strategy. During the full period of time it takes to bring a fetus too term, from the fertilization of the egg to the birth of the infant, one male can fertilize many females but a female can be fertilized by only one male. Thus if males are able to court one female after another, some will be big winners and others will be absolute losers, while virtually all healthy females will succeed in being fertilized. It pays males to be aggressive, hasty, fickle, and undiscriminating. In theory it is more profitable for females to be coy, to hold back until they can identify males with the best genes. In species that rear young, it is also important for the females to select males who are more likely to stay with them after insemination.
On Human Nature. E.O. Wilson, p. 124-125.
That said, the fact that humans are mammals (with heavy obligatory investments of gestation in women) and because humans possess certain revealing patterns of sexually-selected attributes (e.g., men are larger, stronger, physically mature later, take greater risks, die much earlier, the list goes on), from a cross-species perspective is it likely that men probably possess design features that motivate them to seek and consent to indiscriminate sex more than women. Not a Mars-Venus type of gender divide mind you (with all men always promiscuous and all women always monogamous). Evolutionary scientists only expect men will, on average, seek and consent to casual sexual encounters more than women will. As all careful scientists acknowledge, evolved sex differences are rarely a simple manifestation of essential categories. Most evolved sex differences arise instead from degrees of hormone-related organizational effects on the brain, activational effects during adulthood, and sometimes direct genetic effects (McCarthy & Ball, 2011). Sex differences also undoubtedly result from processes of socialization and sex roles that are, themselves, derived products of our evolved biology (see Mealey, 2000; Wood & Eagly, 2007). Even though gendered sexual development is quite complicated, this doesn't nullify the ability of evolutionary psychologists to make accurate predictions about average-level behavioral sex differences in sexuality. And some of these sex differences are going to be remarkably robust (see).
OK, this part is important and many critics seem unable to understand it, so I'll repeat. The Trivers-based sex difference explanation often proffered by evolutionary psychologists does not expect that all men will always be eagerly seeking promiscuous sex, nor does it imply that all women always eschew causal mating opportunities. Just as not all men are taller than all women (and yet men are taller than women, on average), men are expected by evolutionary psychologists to be more eager than women for indiscriminate casual sex, but only on average. Factors such as a man's culture (including his religion...members of the Shakers religious sect don't have sex at all––no sex differences in promiscuity there!), his family history (unpredictable early childhood experiences tend to elicit more short-term mating; Simpson et al., in press), his phenotypic masculinity, his facial symmetry, his mate value, his testosterone level, his oxytocin receptor gene variants, his dopamine D4 receptor gene variants, and a host of other associative features likely impact his desire, ability, and general tendency to strategically pursue indiscriminate sex (see). Biological and social contexts matter for reproductive strategies in most species, this is certainly no less true for humans (yes, even male humans).
J♡R @jacnicrick 20s
I ALWAYS get a kick outta whore ass males calling females whores. Please explain to me what's the diff. between her 30 & your 90... 60. Sit.The Difference Is In Perception (How People Perceive The Sexually Promiscuous Male And How People Perceive The Sexually Promiscuous Female) And Our Perceptions Are Partly Based On Innate Psychological Biases And Partly Based On Sexual Mores. In Essence*, Females Evolved To Be The More Sexually Discriminating And More Sexually Restrained Gender Because They Have Fewer Sex Cells (Eggs) To Waste, Can Only Produce One Offspring Per Year For A Limited Number Of Years, And Endure Severe Mating Costs Per Pregnancy (9 Months Of Being A Host To A Parasite). Consequently, Over Millions Of Years, Males And Females Evolved To Perceive Females To Be This Way (To Be More Sexually Selective And More Sexually Conservative). This Coupled With The Mores That Society Has Created Over Thousands Of Years Regarding Female Sexual Thought And Behavior Leads Us To Expect Certain Sexual Thought And Behavior From Females And To Call Them Sluts Or Whores If They Violate These Expectations. So, To Sum It Up, Evolution, Because Of Reproductive Costs, Has Biased Humans To Expect Females To Be A Certain Way Sexually (More Choosy, Less Risky, More Sexually Conservative Overall) And If They Don't Conform To These Sexual Expectations We Criticize And Persecute Them (And Sometimes Prosecute Them).
"I'LL PROSECUTE A PROSTITUTE FOR ALOTTA LOOT" - RALO THA PIIIIIIMP
*ESSENCE MAGAZINE
As women's role in society and perceptions of women are changing, so are the gender differences regarding the number. When younger people are surveyed about their number of sexual partners, the numbers reported by men and women are closer together than in older populations. Vrangalova says changes in social norms, like access to birth control and financial independence for women, are probably significant factors in this. These days, women who desire more partners (as some women always have) have fewer social barriers dissuading them.
If A Female Hasn't Given Birth To A Child By Her Early Thirties Something Is WRONG With Her And The Something WRONG With Her Could Be Biological (SHE UGLY), Psychological (SHE MENTALLY ILL), Or Physiological (SHE UNABLE TO CONCEIVE) Resulting In Her NOT Having Given Birth To A Child! Therefore, She's NO G00D Reproductively Speaking (She's NOT A Female That You Should Be Interested In Having A Child With Because She'll Likely NOT Help You Achieve The Reproductive Success You Want To Achieve)! In Other Words, Either Her Biological Or Psychological Or Physiological Defect Or A Combination Of The 3 Is Preventing Her From Establishing A Relationship With The Opposite Sex, Maintaining A Relationship With The Opposite Sex, Conceiving A Fetus, Sustaining The Life Of That Fetus During Her Pregnancy, And Giving Birth To The Infant, So This Should Be A RED FLAG Indicating Her Inability To Have Great Reproductive Success. (Look At ME. I'm 42 And I've NEVER Gotten A Girl Pregnant. So What Does That Say? That Says What I Just Said Above, Which Is I Have Some Psychological And Possibly Some Physiological Defect (Impotency) That's Preventing ME From Establishing A Relationship With The Opposite Sex, Maintaining A Relationship With The Opposite Sex, And Impregnating A Female! So For Females That Are Interested In Having A Child I Should Be Someone They Should Avoid!)
THE SEXUAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MATING STRATEGY OF THE MANY WELFARE COLLECTING WOMEN OF HAWAII - THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION!
Getting a top job dramatically increases women’s chances of divorce, even in egalitarian countries. Promotion to a top job in politics increases the Divorce Rate of Women but NOT for Men, and women who become CEOs divorce faster than men who become CEOs
Mangan @Mangan150 · 2h
Trivers' parental investment theory predicts that when women depend less on men, they will dig jerks. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/292424/yes-chicks-dig-jerks-kevin-d-williamson https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201502/does-science-really-say-hot-guys-are-jerks
If Females Are Economically Independent They Won't Have To Rely On Men As Heavily To Provide For Them Financially, So They'll Be More Likely To Pursue Relationships With CADS (Sexy Sons) Who'll Be Inclined To Invest Little More Than Their SPERM In Their Relationships. (The Pressure For Women To Find A Male Who Can Provide Resources (Wealth) Will Lessen When Females Are Able To Provide Resources For Themselves (Generate Their Own Wealth) And Once They're Able To Generate Their Own Wealth They'll Be FREE To Choose Males With Good Genes (Sexy Sons) Who Tend To Be CADS And Who Tend To Invest Less In Relationships And Offspring! They Also Tend To Be Circle Jerks*!)
*Why Do They Tend To Be Jerks? Because Intrasexual Selection (Male-Male Competition) Drives Them To Use Manipulative And Exploitative Psychological Tactics To Win Mates, So The Most Psychopathic Inclined, The Most Selfish, And Least Empathetic Have An Advantage. And These Types Of Males Typically Treat Women Like Jerks (Take Advantage Of Them, Misuse Them, Mistreat Them, And Then Leave Them With A Baby And NO MONEY).
Zhana Vrangalova PhD @DrZhana · 2h
Y ppl get enraged when women have lot of sex? Women's economic dependency on men is partly to blame. http://nym.ag/1j9fs9A
@thescienceofus
3) Women can be quite dastardly too.The science of sex tells us that the romantic comedies lie. Sex is an area where nice guys do finish last:In one survey of men, Trapnell and Meston (1996) found that nice guys who were modest, agreeable, and unselfish were disadvantaged in sexual relationships. Men who were manipulative, arrogant, calculating, and sly were more sexually active and had a greater variety of sexual experiences and a greater number of sex partners. [Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy]Women are very often attracted to bad boys like James Bond. In fact, research shows young women sometimes prefer out-and-out jerks:In the end, young women may continue to claim that they find certain qualities in a “good guy” nice guy as highly desirable and that they want to be in a committed relationship with one man as their ultimate goal, but, at the same time, they seem content to spend “the meantime and in-between-time” going out with fun/sexy guys who may or may not turn into “jerks.”
For every Ray Rice who knocks a loving wife out, there’s a loving wife who chose to be with a Ray Rice. It takes two to tango. Someone tell that to Rod Dreher and Ross Douthat.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/beautiful-minds/200910/do-assholes-really-finish-first
Empirically, evidence for the benefits of being bad keep popping up in my datasets and in my literature reviews. I first noticed it in 2006 while I was analyzing a dataset for a presentation I gave at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference that year. While I was doing all sorts of fancy mediation analyses to see how schizotypy, creativity, and mating success were linked, one striking direct path to mating success stood out to me: low agreeableness; the lower the agreeableness, the more sexual partners. Interestingly, this link held only for the men in my sample. When I looked into the literature, I saw others pretty much found the same thing. Daniel Nettle
has reported a significant negative correlation between agreeableness and number of sexual partners in a sample of 545 people. And other researchers such as David Schmitt and David Buss have found across cultures a relation between low agreeableness and more infidelity, more sexual partners, and less loyalty to mates.
Things don't stop there. When you branch out and look at all the other traits comprised in the construct "asshole" (I am here and now operationalizing this word!), you see they also do a good job predicting number of sexual partners. Like conscientiousness. In the words of Nettle, "Less conscientious individuals favor immediate opportunities, with little regard for their future consequences. They are impulsive about pleasures and procrastinate about work. In mating, they are more promiscuous, more likely to be unfaithful, and more likely to have impulsive, unsafe sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs." Tucker Max. Tucker Max. Tucker Max.
...
This seemed like the biggest mystery of Bouchard's career (I'm not even going to speculate why Bouchard found this topic so fascinating). Matt responded that perhaps being a jerk is a fitness indicator: those who take-risks and and are bad despite the costs do so because they can afford to. And this is a signal of good genes. I think there is definitely something to this: bad boys tend to have lots of positive traits that come along for the ride of the badness such as good looks, confidence, creativity, humor, charisma, high energy, and good social skills-- all things women find attractive (my research with Glenn Geher and other researchers on Mating Intelligence does suggest that these traits by themselves along with some other skills of the asshole such as mind-reading, self-deception and other-deception can be predictive of number of sexual partners as well as college "hook-up" behaviors). And for the jerk, these traits can mask the shallowness that lies beneath (although the truth almost always eventually comes out).
Daniel Nettle has argued that it's all about mating strategy tradeoffs. Since being good and being bad both have their advantages (and disadvantages) in the mating game, this is enough to keep both traits and the preference for those traits in the gene pool. For example, high conscientiousness can increase trust, fidelity, and parental investment but also can decrease opportunistic matings. Jerks take advantage of every sexual opportunity in sight. Likewise, those high in the related trait agreeableness can increase cooperation, joint investment, sympathy, and fidelity but they too can decrease opportunistic matings and status-seeking. These strategies are fluid across the life-span: the long-time womanizer may decide to finally settle down, and the agreeable nice guy who has been burned one too many times may decide to become a pickup-artist.
From the perspective of sexual selection theory, many men become cult leaders as a mating strategy. Totally unsurprising that they 'abuse power to get sex'. That's the whole point of getting power. Immoral? Yes. Expected given biology? Also yes.
Cults are fascinating. But it always comes back to some dude's grand strategy for building a harem
Do we see fewer cult leaders these days because sociopaths can just use Tindr to get tons of sex rather than going through all of the effort of making a cult?
As I explain in my forthcoming book, Alpha God, our evolutionary history can be traced through male proto-humans, to powerful men, to man-based gods. In the end we have God, particularly in the Abrahamic religions, behaving like a dominant male primate. Considering this point has great utility in understanding the religious oppression of women. We can start simply with comparative zoology.
Many male apes and monkeys will go to great lengths to stake their sexual claim to as many females as possible, and to police them from other males—as a male reproductive strategy, this has its advantages. But they also tend to attack females as punishment for sexual “infidelity,” or for even flirting with other males, such as by grooming them. Dominant chimpanzees will bypass the male of a tangoing pair and thrash the philandering female. Male apes chasing, restraining, biting, hitting, or dragging females all have been widely documented.
Men follow similar patterns of behavior. Research world-wide reveals that sexual jealousy is the primary driver behind domestic abuse and spousal homicide, which is almost always committed by men against women. Because men have historically been the makers of law, they have often coded law to favor male evolutionary strategies. For instance, until staggeringly recently (1974), it was legal in Texas to kill your wife if you caught her horizonalizing with a rival male.
No big surprise—men have also overwhelmingly been the makers of religious dicta, and its more chilling content often reflects distinctively male evolutionary concerns: “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her…stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help” (Deut: 22:23–24). Men, in other words, have projected their inherited reproductive worries onto God. In the Old Testament God turns out to be particularly obsessed with infidelity as when he erupts against his wives Samaria and Jerusalem:
And I will direct my jealousy against you, that they may deal with you in fury. They shall cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors shall fall by the sword…They shall also strip you of your clothes and take away your beautiful jewels…Your lewdness and promiscuity have brought this on you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols. (Ezek. 23: 25–30)There are many more passages such as this, which beg the question: Why would an omnipotent being who can crush any potential rival, or, as the purported Creator, even prevent them from ever existing, have a need to punish the infidelity of his females? Why does God so persistently seem to have woman trouble? And why is he so uptight about other people’s sexual behavior? A God who is everlasting and immortal, and who therefore never needs to reproduce himself into the future, needn’t to be so concerned with who inserts what into whom.
But across human history, religious men have claimed alliance with the most dominant male in the Universe, and used the authority of this evolutionarily intuitive male figure to justify a nasty menu of inhumanities against women, inevitably as a means to control their sexuality, not to exclude acid attacks, burning, death by stoning, or even cutting off noses and gouging out the eyes. We might expect this kind of abject brutality from the Dark Ages, but this is simply a description of what goes on today. One offshoot of this behavior is so-called “honor” killing, which today is concentrated in Muslim countries. But the Quran is certainly not unique among the Abrahamic scriptures in containing passages like this one:
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other…Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them…Surely God is high, supreme. (Quran, 4:34)
ALL PRAISES DUE!
What explains worldwide variation in veiling?
Pazhoohi & Kingstone find that men are more likely to support veiling in countries where child survival is uncertain
They suggest this is bc they want to be sure the child is theirs, before heavily investing
What Do Hijabs, Burkas, Veils, Purdah, Honor Killings, Female Circumcision, And Mate Abuse All Have In Common? They're All Strategies Created And Incorporated By Islamic Culture To Monitor, Control, Motivate, And Dictate
Female Sexuality And Female Reproductive Success.
READ LINKS BELOW.
READ Rei Murasame COMMENTS. THEY'RE SPOT ON.
"Above all, there is birth control, which permits a woman to consciously override her ovaries and choose when, or if, she will bear children...The politician who naïvely assumes that motherhood, like apple pie, is still a safe topic quickly learns otherwise. The topic was safe only so long as people took the centuries-old view of self-sacrificing motherhood for granted. This view rested on mankind's assumption that women were designed by nature to be mothers and that they instinctively want to rear every baby they bear. Self-sacrificing motherhood was what women were for, and women in many societies have believed this was their destiny...Passionate debates about abortion DERIVE FROM MOTIVATIONS TO CONTROL FEMALE REPRODUCTION THAT ARE FAR OLDER THAN ANY PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, OLDER THAN PATRIARCHY, OLDER THAN EVEN RECORDED HISTORY. MALE FASCINATION WITH THE REPRODUCTIVE AFFAIRS OF FEMALE GROUP MEMBERS PREDATES OUR SPECIES. Young women of my daughters' generation take for granted a historically unique situation. They regard birth control, precautions against sexually transmitted diseases, women's education and athletic teams, as well as open-ended professional opportunities for women, as innovations here to stay. They view the antiabortion movement in the United States, along with the emergence of powerful political lobbies seeking to substitute "abstinence only" for practical knowledge about human sexuality and reproduction, as too irrational to take seriously. Reports from far-off places like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where Islamic fundamentalists seek to deny women personal autonomy (forcing them to stay sequestered in their homes, keep their faces and bodies veiled, and marry as instructed) seem exotic and remote." -Sarah Hrdy https://www.euvolution.com/neoeugenics/mother-nature.htm
"H0 TAMIN' NIGGA. KEEP MA BITCH ONNA LEASH!" - LIL O
No comments:
Post a Comment