Why is it natural and evolutionary for men to pursue sex, yet it's conditioning for women to avoid it? I know you are aware of the dire consquences that indiscriminate breeding has on women and children. Why are you arguing that women go against our "natural programming" and calling our evolved defense strategies the result of conditioning? To this very day, the children of chaste and choosey women still have better outcomes.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
At the moment we’re mainly debating slaps on the ass, where no chance of pregnancy is involved. But regardless, at the risk of being highly offensive to humans who think themselves to be so far above the “beasts”, let’s compare the sexual habits of our nearest relatives for a minute. Female bonobos are notoriously promiscuous. Bonobo society is in fact constructed around this very trait. And it works great for the bonobos. Yes, they are still choosy (they don’t mate with the genetically unfit, for example), but among the genetically fit (which is the majority of males) they make little distinction. Regardless, they are not terrified of their male brethren and don’t feel violated or threaten when one approaches with interest.
Chimps are similar but different. Female chimps are “protected” by the Alpha Male. It’s really only the terrorising by the Alpha male that keeps the female “chaste”. But when a suitablably healthy would-be usurper to the alpha male makes sneaks through unobserved by the Alpha, the female usually doesn’t hesitate to offer up their rump for his and her enjoyment. Regardless, female chimps don’t fear the the sexual interest of their male bretheren and seem to feel “violated” or threatened when one displays that interest physically.
I invite you to read the book “Sex at Dawn” for much, much more on this subject. It makes a very compelling case (from studies of male and female anatomy and social behaviors) that female humans have been evolutionarily programmed to be relatively promiscuous—less so than bonobos but far more so than chimps.
In sort, there’s tons of evidence that human females are naturally promiscuous. Virtually all biologists of every flavor, and also evolutioanry psychologists, agree with this. By contrast there’s little to no evidence that they are innately chaste.
Lol, I got all excited. I thought I caught you and was stoked for my "gotcha!" moment. I scrolled up to the comment that I partially quote below KNOWING there was a major contradiction. Alas, I was wrong. Pair bonding with a good provider does not exclude cucking him and being choosey in a sea of available males does not exclude promiscuity. Dang it!
Hopefully I can come back at lunch and I'll get ya then. I'm at a disadvantage using my phone as I can only see about 20 words of what I'm composing at a time and navigating through the comments isn't easy. Despite that, I hope to power through because I'm having a good time. This is a fun discussion, so thanks.
Excerpt below just so you know what huge comment I thought I had you cornered with. 😉
The genetic differences between males and females are attributable largely to two simple facts. First, female eggs are very rare and precious (coming along at the rate of only one per month) while male sperm is cheap and plentiful (coming along at the rate of millions per hour). Second, energy is not unlimited in nature. Consequently, those genes that compel or induce people to spend large amounts of energy on things that don’t confer a reproductive advantage are generally selected against and disappear. By contrast, genes that compel or induce people to pursue activities that confer a reproductive advantage are obviously selected for.
Given that energy is not unlimited, the rare in nature generally doesn’t waste precious energy pursuing the plentiful. But the plentiful in nature generally does pursue and compete for the rare, and those among the plentiful who pursue and compete better have better reproductive success.
Thus, in nature, its generally the males (plentiful sperm) who pursue and compete (often unconsciously) for the females (rare eggs). Males who are better competitors, more innovative, more industrious, etc. have had slight greater reproductive success than those males who lacked these traits. Consequently, evolution has selected for exactly these traits in males.
By contrast, evolution has generally not selected females for aggression, competition, pursuit, ambition, etc., at least not to the same extent as males. Why? Because females need to complete for sperm about like they need to compete for air, which is to say virtually not at all under normal circumstances. Given that energy is limited in nature, it makes no sense for evolution to program females for such wasteful behaviors.
LOL. Yah, cucking a man can be a great strategy from an evolutionary perspective. :-)
I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I am too! It's nice to have an honest debate and conversation without resorting to labels and ad hominem. I'm grateful for that!