Monogamy May Be Even More Difficult For Women Than it Is For Men

Vice ^ | September 19, 2018 | Justin Lehmiller, PhD

[Allegra]

So, you're saying…

Oh dear. The dreaded “So you’re saying…”

You might as well say “I’m going to put these words in your mouth so that I can argue them while thumping my chest.” 🙄

[alexander_busek]

In the case of peacocks, the tail IS a good indicator of genetic fitness. To have survived with that ridiculous tail, the male had to be exceptionally fit and disease-free -- qualities that get passed on to her daughters (minus the tail overhead). Peacock males do not stick around to raise their offspring, they only supply sperm, thus the males are totally expendable.

Yes, I'm aware that my summarization was terribly superficial and that my actual point was a little off-center.

The point is:

1. Females have to somehow "test" their potential mates.

2. "Testing" is hard! It costs resources, requires time, patience, and effort! And mistakes can be made! Thus, it is far easier to simply observe how other females "test" a given male and to adopt their evaluation. -> "Nothing succeeds like success!" Or: "Valentino-like men are popular because Valentino-like men are popular!" (Until they suddenly aren't, and a new fashion - say Clint Eastwood-like men - takes hold.) It's circular logic!

The "Peacock's Tail" example shows perfectly why, in a stable, monogamous society, such fashions don't really hold sway: Apart from minor fashion trends (like Clark Gable-like pencil moustaches or the like), women don't want the fathers of their children / the breadwinners of their families overly investing in flamboyant tail feathers or such that actually impair their long-term fitness!

Since the monogamous fathers stick around to provide for their families, it would be disastrous if they were to heavily invest in some "signal" that, in actual fact, reduced their mortality / survivability.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

The best that nature appears to be able to do hermaphroditically, is earthworms. In anything more complex, there is specialization of the sexes.

Snails and some other gastropods (much higher on the evolutionary ladder than annelids) also display hermaphroditism.

Even some vertebrates (e.g., the famous example of the Clown Fish) can change sex in the course of their life cycle (in some cases both heterologous germinal tissues coexist during a certain period of the animal's life cycle and can be separated mechanically from each other).

However, I'll grant that it's patently obvious that this is relatively rare in Nature among higher animals.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

The site could then give people feedback where it displays the rating of the desired person versus the rating of the selecting member. The sites would never do that, because their women members would all walk away offended.

I just assumed that one could simply infer that one was being rejected by a majority of the site members. That if a woman posted her profile on a site with upwards of a million members, and then waited, say, two weeks, to then discover that she had gleaned a grand total of two "likes," that she could safely assume that the male site members had rated her somewhere south of, say, Curly Howard of the Three Stooges.

Isn't that the way it works?

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

To bed? Yes, many though not all, are willing to have sex with women who frankly, do not meet their standards. To marry? No. She’s going to have to be much closer to what he truly wants or he won’t marry her. Look at rates of marriage for women over 30 vs under 30.

For us males, the situation is ridiculously clear and obvious:

Am I willing to pay $5 to ride a beat-up bumper car at the county fair for a ten-minute, fun spin? Sure!

Am I willing to make a life-long commitment to that bumper car, forsaking all others, till Death do us part?

Hmm...

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

So you are saying that adult males are incapable of commitment?

Would have been nice if you had quoted that portion of my previous post (of which there are now several in this thread) which would lead you to infer that.

As it is, I can't think of anything I've ever written to imply that.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

TBP: Once I was married—very happily, I will add—I found myself wondering: Is monogamy going to suit me and my husband forever? How do other couples handle this? What's the evolutionary prehistory of pair-bonding—and specifically of female sexuality—and what can it tell me about my conundrums now?

Albion Wilde: Seriously? Once I was married, I found myself wondering what dentists were nearby where we moved, how long it would take us to renovate the house [...]

Come on, Albion! Now you're just being nasty! Hah-hah!

Some people struggle with survival, and are consumed by the day-to-day problems of existence, while other people have the time and composure - and especially: inclination - to occasionally reflect about abstract issues.

TBP seems to be one of the more-contemplative types. You, on the other hand, seem to be one of the more-hard-scrabble types.

Jedem das Seine!

Regards,

[Chickensoup]

A legal separation is a legal event occurring in the courts with court enforcement and court paperwork resulting.

A marital separation is when a marital couple seperate their domiciles and live life separately either under mutual agreements or unilateral choice.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

All you have to do is look at the bottom of my post to see what post of yours I was replying to.

In your post 79 you can read what I was replying to.

[SauronOfMordor]

As long as it isn’t shoved in their faces, women have a huge ability to rationalize.

And a woman, no matter how unattractive, is unlikely to only get two likes.

There are lots of guys who will swipe “like” on everyone. Some will figure even if she’s older and unattractive, she might have a cute daughter.

[Albion Wilde]

LOLs! What people did before the Internet!

[alexander_busek]

All you have to do is look at the bottom of my post to see what post of yours I was replying to. In your post 79 you can read what I was replying to.

Thanks!

(SIDE NOTE: I hate those telegram-style computer blurbs. Electrons are cheap, and my computer screen is big enough to handle an auto-label like "This post is a response to your post #79.")

You (Harmless Teddy Bear) originally wrote: On the other hand I do not believe that either sex finds it difficult if they have made their minds up to be faithful.

To which I (Alex) responded: Were you ever 18? I mean: An 18-year-old male? It ain't easy!

NOW I understand the context of your question, "So you are saying that adult males are incapable of commitment?"

No, I was not saying that ALL adult males are incapable of commitment. I should think that my referencing 18-year-olds should have made that obvious!

Rather, I was strongly implying that it is silly to fail to differentiate between the two sexes, and positively criminal to neglect the differences between the sex drive at different periods of life. I was implying that 18-year-old males have a very hard time being faithful.

Does anyone here dispute that, of the entire world's population, 18-year-old males have the greatest difficulty being faithful? That's all that I was saying.

Regards,

[TBP]

I didn’t write the article, just posted it, but I did find it interesting.

[grey_whiskers]

Zoomer college girls are asked how much money their boyfriend or future husband needs to make.

You can probably guess how this goes. pic.twitter.com/Pr4b1XprPA— GAE underground updates (@GAE_USA) October 13, 2022