by William Penwell 78 Replies latest jw friends
Stacy,
Oh yeah, so much fun is in store for me. I am working; even on Labor day, but I get 3 days off next week. Woohoo. I guess I will go to the Greek festival and irritate the Orthodox. Should be a good time. I might attend the Irish fest and the Renaissance Fest is starting this weekend. Might be interesting.
Have fun in Tahoe. Don't forget to post pics so that I might live vicariously through you.
R
Robdar:
The above statement makes no sense. One child vs 5 or 6? It seems to me that the ugly, faithful guy wins if a woman is only a biological breeding machine.
In the short term perhaps. But their children won't be as good at surviving and reproducing as the children of a man who was good at surviving and reproducing. Raising one child of a "superstud" is more genetically profitable than raising several children of a "loser". Of course quality has to be balanced with quantity and the benefits of having a man around to raise the children, with having to raise them by herself. This actually seems to lead to an interesting scenario where women will marry the more dependable man, the "good provider" but will have affairs with the "bad boy" type, this way getting the best of both worlds, children with good genes and someone to raise them.
Are you saying that you believe that behaviour is a product of genetic programming? What do you provide as proof of your assertion, if so?
Not entirely, of course. Unlike most animals, we have large and complicated brains which enable us to make decisions that aren't necessarily in the best interest of our genes (for example we can choose to remain celibate, or use contraception to avoid reproducing) but for the most part, we tend - like all other organisms - to behave in ways that maximise our reproductive success. This is almost a tautology. Organisms that do not do this are far less likely to survive.
The burden of proof, therefore, is not really on me. It's on those who claim that humans are somehow exempt from this natural law. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support the claim that our behaviour is strongly influenced by our genes, so much so that it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The only real quibbling point concerns how much of our behaviour is directly controlled by our genes and how much influence culture and learning have (Often known as the nature/nurture debate).
Yes, a huge amount of time and energy is invested in her offspring so it would be a good idea if the father sticks around to help with the costs of such offspring. Again, genetically, the ugly, faithful guy wins.
But only if he's the real father. A woman who marries such a man and cheats with a more attractive man is increasing the spreading power of her genes. This is borne out by studies that show a higher rate of pregnancy from illicit sex.
Let's see, stability, companionship, help with the offspring is considered to be a loser? Not in my opinon. Not if it is only genetics and survival that is involved here. Again, the ugly, faithful man wins. At least until the kids are old enough to fend for themselves.
Stability may be enough now, but for our ancestors it wasn't. Every day was a struggle for survival. Pair-bonding with someone who can't protect you is not a good survival strategy, but it's (genetically) better than being alone.
Yes, women do make a conscious choice regarding mates. Unfortunately, some women are addicted to the high that the philanderer causes them. They can't see past the excitement to make a logical choice.
Exactly. Something overrides their rational thought processes. Like you say, it's not logical to behave in such a way but they're driven to do so anyway. Why does the excitement of the philanderer trigger such an emotional response? Because women are "genetically programmed" to maximise their reproductive potential by mating with such men.
They also want to save this bad boy because many women have a saviour complex and stupidly think that their love is gonna save him. Just the way Hollywood want them to think. After all, love did save John Nash, right? What a load of crap Hollywood produces.
I don't think Hollywood is entirely responsible for this. My take on the "saviour complex" is that it's just another one of those things we do to rationalise behaviour that we don't consciously understand.
If we are going to discuss the wisdom of genetics, doesn't it make more sense genetically that women would want a stable, loving, provider for them and their children?
The most successful strategy is to try to bag the "alpha male". If that fails, the best option might be to pair-bond with a male of lower status and reproductive worth, but to cheat with alpha males when ovulating. There is considerable evidence that this happens.
And what about the women who are past child bearing age? Who are they going to chose for a mate?
Doesn't matter a jot - from a genetic point of view at least. It will have no influence on their genetic heritage.
it is funny how these physiologists never mention that women have the same biological drive to provide genetic diversity. Could this be because it is socially acceptable, yeah, encouraged for a man to get out there and get all the gusto he can while not providing women the same opportunity?
Could be. It could also be because men reproduce in a very different way to women. A man can maximise his reproductive success by having sex with as many women as possible whenever possible. A woman cannot. A woman can, at the most, have one child every nine months (excluding multiple births of course). There is no limit to the amount of children a man can father in the same time, and becuase there's relatively little cost to a man to father a child they attempt to do so with almost any women.
Women have to be more picky. Not only do they have fewer chances to reproduce but the costs to them are far higher. They have to carry a child for nine months and then look after it for several more years. For this reason women tend to be choosier than men about whom they will have sex with.
This is because men do not want a level playing field. They want their cake and to eat it too. I really wonder if their fragile egos can handle having done to them what they love to do to women and so use science to support their randy behavior while denying women the same excuse. Also, until recently, the only way that society could ensure that the offspring produced in a marriage was truly the husband's was to insist that the wife remain faithful.
Your last sentence there is probably the key to the whole issue. A woman will always know whether she is the mother of a child. She doesn't have to trust the father. In fact, he can be having sex with dozens of other women and it doesn't really affect her. Her time and energy are going in to looking after a child she knows is hers.
A man whose wife cheats on him however may end up expending a lot of energy protecting and caring for a child that is not his. From a genetic viewpoint, this is the worst thing possible and we have clearly evolved to avoid such situations.
Of course, it's still advantageous for the woman to cheat with a "superior" male if she can get away with it, and it's to the man's advantage to cheat with as many women as possible. Getting away with it may be less important for the man, depending on the culture.
It bothers me that the sociologists look to other members of the animal kingdom to support their claims that we are all just a bunch of genetic breeders and that men are only doing "what is natural".
You mean sociobiologists.
It may bother you. It bothered Keats when Newton "unweaved" the rainbow by explaining it in scientific terms. It bothered Einstein when quantum theory seemed to show that "God plays dice". And it understandably bothers a lot of people when we are compared to other animals. But reality doesn't always capitulate to our prejudices. We are animals - we are hairless apes with large brains -and our behaviour reflects this.
While I do believe that genetic survival and genetic diversity do play into what makes us tick and that humans are bipedal animals, one of the thing that seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our well developed frontal lobes. Because of this, we need not be victims to mindless, biological impulses. We can make logical choices when it comes to breeding as well as a few other things.
Yes we can, we do and we should. But we don't always. Where we don't behave logically, it is because we are driven by other forces. I'm not sure what you think those forces are. I think most of them are genetic in origin. And i think there is overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion.
Suggested reading:
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Why Is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond
Sperm Wars by Robin Baker
The Red Queen by Matt Ridley
Derek,
Thanks for your response. Because I have a hectic schedule, it will be a few days before I can show you how wrong you are.
Yes, you were correct when you said sociobiologists. I was just refering back to a sociology class that I took some years ago where we discussed human sexuality. I haven't gotten to the class on sociobiology yet.
You make interesting points. However, they are not fact. I guess it all depends on which side you are on; and if you are like me, how contrary you are feeling that day.
Take care.
Robyn
Hi William P, :-)
I am not critisizing you, I'm simply contributing my opinion on just this part of what you said:
I don't want to speak for the rest of the guys here but I will admit that us men are more physical when it comes to relationships. In other words we put the physical attachment first. After which when a relationship falls apart we feel frustrated. Where as you women look to the emotional attachment more. Have I got this right? I am open for criticism.
I found throughout my life that once a relationship turns physical between a man and a woman, it is more often the men who get emotionally attached. If there is one thing I learned about men in life, it is that they ARE VERY emotional, period.
peace,
somebody/gwen
Hi somebody,
Thank you for your response. So I do make a little sense here? In my experience you are correct. Once it get physical for a man he is more emotionally connected. Then when the relationship is over it is usually the woman that can disconnect easier. The woman in this situation usually can't figure out what the big deals is, "we only had sex a few times, gee give me a break". "Didn't you enjoy yourself to?" Which my response is, "if all I wanted was sex with no attachment, I could have bought it."
Anyway that is my experience because I have never been one that could unemotionally jump in and out of bed with any woman that comes along. Its not something I take lightly. When I go as far as committing my self to sex, I am committing myself in a long term relationship. Then like I said the relationship ends I find it harder to walk away. Some woman think I am making a big deal out of it but I don't think I am.
Will
I found throughout my life that once a relationship turns physical between a man and a woman, it is more often the men who get emotionally attached. If there is one thing I learned about men in life, it is that they ARE VERY emotional, period.
Very true, but in my experience its usually younger more inexperienced men. The older more mature guys who have an understanding of women don't fawn over them like their less successful male counterparts. So, I think this varies with experience, age and maturity.
Becoming emotionally attached at the drop of a hat usually spells disaster and so these men learn how to conceal their feelings or else get stuck in a perpetual never ending cycle of rejection.
The woman in this situation usually can't figure out what the big deals is, "we only had sex a few times, gee give me a break". "Didn't you enjoy yourself to?" Which my response is, "if all I wanted was sex with no attachment, I could have bought it."
Again, if this is happening alot then you’re doing something wrong, maybe your choosing the same type over and over. Or maybe you’re coming off as desperate. Women can sense desperation and its a real turn-off.
I know guys who have so many women its ridiculous. And then I know some that can’t even find a date. In the band that I’m in there’s this guitar player who has women always flirting and coming on to him I call him a babe magnet. And then there’s the other keyboard player and he doesn’t seem to be able to hold a women’s attention. After my gig yesterday, I tried to introduce him to my cousin she is very beautiful has a masters degree, is very intelligent etc. You wont believe how he fumbled and dropped the ball. I turned around to talk to a few other people and when I looked back up he was sitting over in a corner by himself.
This guy has no confidence. Believe me if you don’t have it they know and they hate it.
Merc'
Geesh, funkyderek, we're a bunch of baboons as far as you're concerned! LOL
Really, I find much of what you say to be quite depressing! My dad was a loser guy who married a woman who couldn't land anything other than a loser, and I'm the loser's loser offspring!
Guess I'd better find a hobby.
Geesh, funkyderek, we're a bunch of baboons as far as you're concerned! LOL
Not quite. But we can learn a lot about ourselves from observing other primates (including baboons).
Really, I find much of what you say to be quite depressing! My dad was a loser guy who married a woman who couldn't land anything other than a loser, and I'm the loser's loser offspring!
No, you're the offspring of winners. All your ancestors managed to survive and reproduce. Trillions of people who've never been born are the real losers. However, you're right in a sense that your mother probably picked the best mate she could. If she was a beautiful intelligent woman (as I'm sure she was) then the chances are she was able to "land" an attractive, intelligent man (or a rich one). There's really nothing new or shocking about this. People mate with the "best" person they can find; what constitutes best is largely determined by our genes.
But their children won't be as good at surviving and reproducing as the children of a man who was good at surviving and reproducing. Raising one child of a "superstud" is more genetically profitable than raising several children of a "loser". ...this way getting the best of both worlds, children with good genes and someone to raise them
Again, the above statement makes no sense. The "loser" is not only good at surviving, he is also able to help his children survive. And I really must ask you, what is so "good" about the genes of a philanderer who does not stay at home ensuring the survival of his offspring? And let's not forget that the mother's genes are also passed along to her offspring; not just the father's.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support the claim that our behaviour is strongly influenced by our genes, so much so that it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. The only real quibbling point concerns how much of our behaviour is directly controlled by our genes and how much influence culture and learning have (Often known as the nature/nurture debate).
Yes, this debate is still raging. However, there is very strong evidence to support that sexual behavior is highly influenced by social restrictions and cultural conditioning. Look at the Dani of New Guinea who have sex only for reproduction and almost became extinct because of it:
http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/dani.html
Or how about the Mangaian culture where men are taught how to please women, the women are taught how to achieve sexual satisfaction and when both sexes leave young adulthood, they experience a rapid decline in sexual desire and activity:
http://www.swimmingly.org/archives/000105.shtml
And then we have Victorian culture that still influences our society. They are also mentioned on the above link.
And it understandably bothers a lot of people when we are compared to other animals. But reality doesn't always capitulate to our prejudices. We are animals - we are hairless apes with large brains -and our behaviour reflects this.
I never said that we are not animals. Being bipedal animals does not bother me in the least. We are animals, with well developed, large frontal lobes. This gives us logic. We can make choices. There are other factors involved here that are brought about by our own, individual, human evolution.
Why cant we also accept that even though we are animals, we are not like all the other animals? Opposable thumbs, walking upright and frontal lobes are some of the differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. What I am saying is that if it is advantageous for men to sow their seed for genetic diversity, it is also advantageous for women to have multi-partners although male sociobiologists rarely want to admit that. Here's a new one that is going to cause a stir amongst the sociobiologists who think that it is natural for a man to fool around and less natural for a woman to do so:
http://my.concordhospital.org/HealthNews/Reuters/NewsStory0708200325.htm
A man whose wife cheats on him however may end up expending a lot of energy protecting and caring for a child that is not his. From a genetic viewpoint, this is the worst thing possible and we have clearly evolved to avoid such situations.
What about step parents? I am so glad that most step mothers and step fathers do not feel this way.
It seems to me that you are saying that it is okay for a man to cheat, to leave his children fatherless and not have to pay for or expend energy towards the consequences just as long as he gets a chance to sow his seed. But God forbid if a woman causes him to take some responsibilty. That is not okay. Especially if the child is not his.
So, let me see if I have this correct, the woman is the one who must pay or be responsible for the sexual choices of both genders while the man gets to do whatever his penis tells him to do, without any sort of responsibility. And a man who does take responsibilty to protect his offspring is considered to be a genetic loser?
Ah Derek, the sociobiology that you subscribe to has Victorian prejudices. I guess we can debate all night over this and still be no closer to the actual truth. Like religion, science has many beliefs and each branch is doing it best to prove the other wrong.
Robyn
ROBBAR and WILD HORSE ... TAKE TICKET ... COME ON HERE ... I NEED TO GET TO KNOW YOU MORE !!!
FBF, I just saw this message. What a sweetie you are. If I ever get to France, I'll look you up. Please, if you ever make it to the States, you must look me up and stay with me. I'll be pleased to show you around.
Rob
