So I was thinking - it's really amazing what boring classes can do for your thought life, pity they don't work that way for the sex life. Anyway, I suppose everybody here is familiar with the genetic theory of human mating strategies : Sperm is cheap to produce, so men seek sex with as many women as possible to maximise the amount of children. On the other hand, women can only have a few children, so they seek the best possible males, maximising the quality of their children.
On the other hand, humans are not completely products of our genes. If we judge by other primates, and oversimplify a little, the equilibrium state in a tribe is for an alpha male to have all the females, with a bit of illicit sex on the side. Clearly this does not favour the ninety percent of males who are not getting any, or very little. (As an aside, vestiges of this system can still be seen in high schools, not the most civilised of places, where a few males get all the sex, and most have none).
I wonder, then, if monogamy could be seen as a conspiracy of the beta males and the females, against the alpha males? The beta males get regular sex, which they would not have under the old system. The females get help in raising their children, which a single alpha cannot supply for the whole harem - not, at any rate, as efficiently as a beta who can concentrate his whole attention on one nuclear family. The alphas get nothing, but they are a small percentage of the population and cannot very well work together anyway, since they seek a winner-takes-all situation.
Is this theory useful for understanding our behaviour? I do not offer it as a replacement for the purely genetic theory, but a supplement.
Of course, the interests of betas and females are not totally identical here. The female would still prefer the alpha to be the father of her child; she just wants the beta to supply the resources and care to raise it. Which seems to fit in with the chaperonage systems seen in many patriarchal systems, the stigma of bastardy, and the absolute prohibition on adultery.
Much more interesting than astrophysics, for sure. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I can grok that. I'd like to have alpha males for "fun" and beta males for long-term stability. Works for me.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
"Have a child for warmth, and a baker for bread, and a prince for....whatever."
[ October 04, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands, by Jorge Amado. Proof that it should really be reversed, and women should have the multiple spouses.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: (As an aside, vestiges of this system can still be seen in high schools, not the most civilised of places, where a few males get all the sex, and most have none).
This is not the way it is in most high schools. Over half of all 16-year-olds had had sex ten years ago, and I know that the age for 50% virginity has gone down since then.
In my experience, most of the people that graduated high school as virgins did so by choice.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote: So I was thinking...
Welcome to the dark side! I'm not really doing that at this moment, so I can't give you any answer to that... Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is not the way it is in most high schools. Over half of all 16-year-olds had had sex ten years ago, and I know that the age for 50% virginity has gone down since then.
Sure, but there's a difference between having had sex once or twice in the course of three years, and getting a lot of sex. Also, I am always sceptical of those studies; it seems to me that they are inevitably going to be based on asking the teens involved, and if there's anything people are likely to lie about, it's sex. Recall that I am talking mainly about males, here, where supporting studies like pregnancy rates won't work.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:most of the people that graduated high school as virgins did so by choice.
As opposed to what, exactly? Don't most people keep their virginity by choice? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think he means that they could have been not-virgins, but didn't want to be. As opposed to the hypothesis that they wanted to have sex, but couldn't find a willing partner.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's also a big difference between having sex twice in the course of three years and having none, which is what you said, and is what I was arguing against.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: As opposed to what, exactly? Don't most people keep their virginity by choice?
I had one friend who graduated a virgin, but that was only because he was not able to get any. But most of us that graduated as virgins had the opportunity to lose our virginity.
[ October 04, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote: (As an aside, vestiges of this system can still be seen in high schools, not the most civilised of places, where a few males get all the sex, and most have none).
This is not the way it is in most high schools. Over half of all 16-year-olds had had sex ten years ago, and I know that the age for 50% virginity has gone down since then.
quote:There's also a big difference between having sex twice in the course of three years and having none, which is what you said, and is what I was arguing against.
Perhaps I should have written "little to none." But in any case, I don't think once or twice over three years is that different from zero. Especially considering that the first time is quite likely to be a quick rub against some drunk girl's leg (unclothed if you are lucky) followed by vast embarrassment and never speaking to her again.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
And yet another profound argument for the general merit of waiting for a more settled, secure, stable age in which to indulge in the pleasures of carnal affairs.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jenni, I don't know if anyone else got the reference, but I groked it....
Kwea
[ October 05, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was actually thinking about this subject in relation to human evolution. How have humans continued to evolve when the opportunity to pass on one's genes in this society comes so easily? I propose that (at least in this time) the males that are passing on their genes most are those that tend to be more "monogamous" by nature, more fatherly, more committed--thus increasing the chances that future generations will bring forth more such males. This would not be true in all economic levels or cultural groups, but I imagine history this sort of thing has happened in the more civilized of times/places where family structure was more stable.
Interesting theory, KoM. Some would say that our current civilization (based on the traditional family) is a female creation, you have introduced the idea that it is a beta-male/female creation.
[ October 05, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I guess I was wrong. The percentage of virginity has gone up in the last 10 years, and now slightly more than half of all high school students are still virgins.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
[Comic Book Guy] Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, The Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will mean much less breeding. For me, much much more. [\Comic Book Guy]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I personally have always subscribed to the theory that monogamy is the natural human condition. The basic idea is that raising a human child to adulthood is so much more complicated and involved a process than doing the equivalent for most other animals, that simply spreading your seed everywhere and then vanishing is actually wasteful. What good is it to sire large numbers of offspring if most of them die at an early age, or just barely survive, because they aren't getting the resources they need?
Quantity-breeding works fine for most animals, but humans are too complex for that. Our needs are too great, and there is too much we have to learn in the process of growing up. We are, of necessity, quality-breeders rather than quantity-breeders. So the males that stay with their females and assist in raising the offspring will, by and large, be the ones whose offspring make it to maturity and continue the bloodline. So the typical primate "alpha-male" behavior is counterproductive in humans; the most successful human males are the ones that have smaller numbers of females--ideally, only one--and can therefore afford to invest the time and energy to helping raise all their own offspring.
What's that? The so-called "beta males" are more successful at being human than are those who try to be "alpha males"? Absolutely so, in a biological sense anyway.
Of course, speaking as a gamma male, at best, I have to admit that, for my part, this is all largely theoretical. I speak from study here rather than experience.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Will bonobo males mate with any female? Does the alpha male in primates pick and choose?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A couple of important notes:
Once or twice does count. That's all it takes to get pregnant--once or twice.
A friend, "Yep, I graduated a virgin, and am darn thankful. See--I went to an all boy boarding school...."
I had a similar theory when I was in a boring class. Mine was "The idea that Brains are better than braun is pure propaganda started by the highly secret brainy conspiracy."
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: I personally have always subscribed to the theory that monogamy is the natural human condition.
If that were the case, then wouldn't humans always be monogamous, across times and cultures? How do you explain the variety of marriage/mating patterns found around the world and through time? I took an intro primatology class a couple of years ago, it was very interesting. The instructor said, and the reading material seemed to agree, that humans are biologically designed for mild polygyny--most males would have one female, a few would have two or three, and a few would have none. Makes sense to me, and I believe that's the most common non-monogamous mating pattern, but that's just my guess. And not particularly the way I'd choose to live, either I'm glad we're technologically advanced enough that women are less dependent on men, giving us more options about our relationship styles.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I'd like to have alpha males for "fun" and beta males for long-term stability
Jenny.
That fits well with a study finding that most women agree with that: when presented with pictures of men with highly testosteronized (is that a word?) features (i.e. cleft chin, hairy eyebrows, prominent bony eye rideges) and pictures of men with more average features, women tend to choose the ones with more testosterone for short-term sex, and the others for relationships.
edit:This study tends to support your interesting theory, KoM. Women might tend to get pregnant more with testosterone-laden males and cuckold the testosterone-deficient males.
[ October 05, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So the monobrow is supposed to be sexy?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Chiseled features, 90 degree jawline, kind of scruffy?
...yes.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The monobrow is sexy for lots of women, according to the study. At least for one night stands. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You got a monobrow, Morbo? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Madam, I am a scientist, and completely objective. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I also tend to duck the issue. Yes, I have a mild monobrow, but as I am blonde it is not prominent.
edit:On second thought, my eyebrows seem defined enough that even with black hair I don't think I qualify for a unibrow.
[ October 08, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Lucky blondes...their unwanted (or maybe wanted) hair isn't as noticeable as darker hair is.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm with you, Uhleeuh. My hair is nearly black and my skin is about as fair as skin gets. Hair on me is vewwwy conspicuous.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
My hair is completely black and my eyebrow does this weird vulcan thing at the end. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow, nice pic! Very hansome. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I still think the vulcan brow makes me look kinda freaky, but thanks! Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:I still think the vulcan brow makes me look kinda freaky, but thanks!
Spock always WAS my favorite..... =)
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a male model!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Quantity-breeding works fine for most animals, but humans are too complex for that.
I think I disagree. Let's make up some numbers and see what happens. Let the chance of a child growing up with only one parent to care for it be x. Let the chance with two parents be ax, where a is greater than one, possibly many times greater, though clearly it cannot be larger than (1 / x).
Now consider an ensemble of monogamous males; they each sire n children, meaning anx of them grow up. Hence anx is the target number that the promiscuous strategy has to beat. Let m be the number sired by a promiscuous male; then for promiscuity to be good strategy, we must have
mx >= anx
m >= an
Now, for a truly monogamous male, n is not going to be greater than fifteen. Let's take eight as a reasonable estimate. We are now ready to put in some actal numbers. Suppose x = 0.1 - a child with only a mother to care for it has a 10% chance of surviving. Let a = 5, so a child with both parents has a 50% chance. This would perhaps be a good approximation for the base state of humans. Then the promiscuous male has to sire forty children to do as well as the monogamous one with eight; not all that likely, I admit.
On the other hand, let's look at a modern society. I suggest that here x = 0.95, a = 1.02 is a reasonable estimate, perhaps even a bit high on a. Then, still taking n = 8, a male who has even one extra-marital child is going to do considerably better than the one who didn't cheat. (Assuming he doesn't pay child support, of course). With a more realistic n = 2, you have to have three children from one-night stands to do better. I know people who had that by age twenty.
I've chosen two extreme examples here, but clearly we cannot conclude that monogamy is the better strategy in all cases. In particular, a better strategy yet is to have children by your own wife, and in addition hump the neighbour's wife - the cuckoo strategy, as one might say.
[ October 05, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In the past, all male mating strategies have focused on who he had sex with and how often.
But today, sex is largely separated from breeding. Except in cases of extreme ignorance or apathy, and discounting the occasional accident, women generally give birth only when they have decided to do so. Even when birth control fails, there is always the option of abortion.
So in order to pass on his genes, a man today needs not only to have sex with a woman, but to have sex with a woman who wants to have a(nother) child.
Looking at it this way, promiscuous sex doesn't seem to be a very good mating strategy for the male. Let's say a guy can pick up a different woman at a bar each weekend and have sex with her. After ten years of this activity, how many children is he likely to have? While the possibility for thousands, my uneducated guess is that in all likelyhood, he would have less than one child.
Of course, promiscuous sex still works fine as a mating strategy for women.
So how does a man find women who will decide to give birth to his child?
I propose that one of the best male mating strategies today is to be either Mormon or Catholic (there are surely others that I'm not familiar with) and marry a devout Mormon or Catholic who wants or is willing to have many children. Ten years of marriage like this can easily result in 4 or 5 offspring -- far more than would probably be accomplished by somebody spreading his seed far and wide.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm glad we're technologically advanced enough that women are less dependent on men, giving us more options about our relationship styles.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Lucky blondes...their unwanted (or maybe wanted) hair isn't as noticeable as darker hair is.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)