Posted on 06/08/2005 3:40:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Lemme try to suggest a scenario. This one isn't human, so it's not personal. I'm thinking of the lovable walrus, who keeps a harem of females. With a species like that, where the female isn't always in season, the male wants -- for whatever reasons -- to assure that he's the one who impregnates her during those rare times when she's fertile. If the male is protecting his females, he's got an investment in them. And presumably they benefit from his benevolent (but authoritarian) devotion. So it wouldn't be in a female's interest to stray. Besides, if she's being kept by the dominant male, she wants his offspring, not some inferior's spawn. Make sense? It seems to work for them. Maybe not. It's up to you.
Only if done correctly!
I don't know anything about walrus reproduction, except that a quick google shows that it takes place "off the pack ice, remote from shore; breeding locations are thus largely inaccessible for observation." So, the only way to know whether female walruses (walri?) are actually monogamous would probably be DNA testing.
http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/walrus/reproduction.htm
I will point out that it's fallacious to assume that because the alpha male is bigger and meaner than the less mature males competing for the cows, that his sperm is, ipso facto, superior. His sperm may be aged, or otherwise inferior to that of younger males who have yet to come into their physical prime.
Sneaking off to reproduce with a younger but not-yet-dominant bull would then make reproductive sense, especially if it means that your offspring "gets the jump" on that of your less-adventurous herd mates.
Or to use human terms, why assume that the king's sperm is better than the prince's sperm? Especially if the king is old.
Or, to put it in even more human terms, given the choice between Prince Charles and Prince William, if the only goal is better genes for the offspring, human females would be stupid to prefer Prince Charles, even though he has higher social status today than Prince William.
Prince William is much stronger and better looking, seems to be more intelligent, fewer psychological quirks, and he will someday probably be king, while Prince Charles is a mess and will never be king.
It's not an argument, really, it's an explanation.
Another example -- stop any random female in a shopping mall -- would she rather reproduce with George W. Bush, the most powerful man in the world, or her favorite movie star? My guess is movie star (or rock star or sports star.)
Women and men just have different strategies. Which makes sense, given that on some level, we're competing, not just against others of our own sex, but even against each other.
You'll just start ranting about feminists and loose womyn and other evil females in your mental parade of horribles.
There's your indoctrination coming through again. Only in the fevered delusions of the feministas are "loose" women thought by men to be "evil." How many times do I have to tell you, men love loose women. We just don't marry them.
"Promiscuous" and "monogamous" are not opposites. Only a freaking idiot would suggest that humans or women are monogamous. That's not true, and I never argued this point. Humans are more intermediate; not as "pure" as, say, gorillas; not as "slutty" as chimpanzees.
My point in all of this is to show why women's reproductive strategy does not encompass promiscuity. (That is to say, they do not have sex indiscriminately, like the bonobos you hyped.) Of course I not saying female reproductive strategy is to be exclusively monogamous. On at least two occasions I mentioned that cheating is actually part of the female's reproductive strategy.
But even when females mate outside the pair bond, they are not being promiscuous like bonobos; they are choosy. It is sexual selection at work. It only makes sense, from a reproductive-fitness standpoint, if she cheated with someone who is or appears to be more fit than her current mate and not just some slob off the street.
But, as I also said, it would be done in very limited circumstances, such as when there is the opportunity to mate with a male who is or appears to be a genetically high-value male, where she can not "permanently" bond with this male, and that she can do so without jeopardizing her current pair bond.
The benefit which a cheating female gets is genetic. But she would be worse off if, in doing so, she losses the aid of the male who she must count on to help raise this child that is not genetically his.
So both female and male reproductive strategies work against and in light of the other. Just as pure monogamy doesn't advance the female's strategy, there has to be a base level of fidelity, otherwise there would be no incentive for males to stick around, and females would loose the benefit of having males around to help raise children.
On the other side, there is a benefit to be gained by the female by cheating with a higher quality male, if she can retain the pair bond, so she won't lose the advantage that gives her.
Basically, once the interactions work out, you get a situation where there is a basic degree of monogamy with opportunistic infidelity occurring. But you don't come anywhere near the promiscuous situation like with the bonobos you brought up.
Your perspicacity is only exceeded by your charm.
Have a nice day.
2. Statistics show that 87% of women do not have an orgasm with intercourse. (I read that statistic just this week...don't know where. I read too much online.) IMO, if you don't know how to drive the vehicle you cannot teach someone else to do so...
I've known a nympho or two in my misspent youth. They usually end up married to a dentist, or in one case a pharmacist. I donno why.
Because they both think they married up.
Requires more research. Obviously.
Later! Got to read this one for sure.
"Nympho" = someone who wants more sex than you do.
"Frigid" = someone who wants less sex than you do. ;^)
I was joking, but if you want to be serious, nymphomania and frigidity are NOT extreme ends of a bell curve.
"Nymphomania" is a subjective judgment that a woman has too high of a sex drive. A man with multiple partners over time isn't subjected to as much social opprobrium as a woman. It's a cultural judgment, not a medical term.
"Frigidity" doesn't tell you anything about how often a woman has sex, only that she doesn't enjoy it.
For that matter, a woman you call a nymphomaniac may not actually enjoy it, she might do it a lot hoping that someone eventually will "untangle her tingle".
So many things men could learn if they'd ask questions rather than give lectures . . . .
87%? That is a huge number! Unbelievable! They have my deepest sympathy.
It called testicular feminization, and Jamie Lee Curtis is ,supposedly, a perfect example. Technically, she's an XY male, but is, for all practical purposes, female. She sure looks all female to me!
TheWalrusWasPaul place mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.