3 ms·
What's great about evolutionary biology is that there is a science that explains sex differences and thus traditional social constructs that have existed for mi
by zxcvvcxz 10y ago
What's great about evolutionary biology is that there is a science that explains sex differences and thus traditional social constructs that have existed for millenia.
> Because in humans fertilization occurs internally within women, men can suffer a lack of certainty in their paternity. In contrast, women are always 100% certain that their offspring are their own. Sexual infidelity, of course, is the event that can compromise a man’s paternity in offspring.
> Although women have never confronted the problem of maternity uncertainty, an infidelity by a woman’s mate can be extremely damaging. The woman whose husband is unfaithful risks losing his time, resources, and commitments, all of which could get channeled to a rival female and her children.
> For these reasons, evolutionary theorists have predicted that men, more than women, would get upset about signals of sexual infidelity. In contrast, women, more than men were predicted to get upset about signals of emotional infidelity
> In an American sample, 61% of the men, but only 13% of the women judged the sexual infidelity aspect of the betrayal to be the most upsetting. Conversely, only 39% of the men, but 87% of the women, judged the emotional attachment to the other person as more upsetting. Similar sex differences have been obtained in Korea and Japan (Buss et al., 1999), China (Geary et al., 1995), and Sweden (Wiederman & Kendall, 1999). In studies of memory, men can more easily recall cues to sexual infidelity, whereas women can more easily recall cues to emotional infidelity.
Men and women are not the same, and this is why they place differing values on sexual fidelity and the often-correlated concept of promiscuity.
And as female promiscuity increases in various developed parts of the world, you will absolutely see a decline in marriage rates, as men subconsciously process a greater evolutionary risk to their genetic investments.
EDIT - oh boy, this article really is full of gems that would offend the sensibilities of the egalitarian crowd:
> Married men tend to engage in especially vigorous mate retention efforts when their spouse is young in age and physically attractive. In contrast, women tend to engage in especially vigorous mate retention efforts when married to men who have good jobs, high incomes, and devote a lot of time to status striving.
What we value in a nutshell, whether we want to admit it or not.
- koder2016 10y ago>> In contrast, women tend to engage in especially vigorous mate retention efforts when married to men who have good jobs, high incomes, and devote a lot of time to status striving. That is unless government steps in to guarantee 50% claim of men's resources regardless of retention efforts.
- danieltillett 10y agoIf only it was 50%.
- theparanoid 10y agoAmericans are less promiscuous now than any time in the last 40 years.
- therein 10y agoI've never heard of that claim before. Anything to show for it?
- theparanoid 10y agoA couple studies are cited in http://www.dailywire.com/news/8054/do-millennials-live-hookup-generation-stereotype-amanda-prestigiacomo http://www.dailywire.com/news/8054/do-millennials-live-hooku... and http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-less-sex-20160802-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-... Its widely known in the literature.
- spacehacker 10y agoI think the tournament vs. pair-bonding spectrum [1] might be very insightful with regards to this debate. The observation is basically that animals have different manifestations of sexual dimorphism and that there are very clear behavioral patterns that correlate with them. In some species, e.g. gorillas, males are big and muscular and you reliably get a lot of aggression and males that care little about their offspring. In tournament species also only few alpha males have reproductive success. On the other hand, in other species, e.g. bonobos, there is very little sexual dimorphism, little aggression, females select partners that display parenting behavior and most males reproduce. It turns out that humans are somewhere in between tournament and pair-bonding species and this is probably root of a lot of confusion. The rules are not as clear as in the two extremes, and in addition there is a lot of variability in behavior anyway because the generality of the neocortex basically allows us to adopt arbitrary rules. Some cultures are more puritanical, some are less. Some males get more excited about parenting and cute animals, while others are rather focused on achieving high status and thus fare well with traditional gender roles to achieve that. But what status means is itself variable, e.g. high status can include the appeal to some egalitarian paternal parenting meme. A lot of the results, e.g. gender-specific appreciation of good jobs, high incomes might reflect both cultural and genetic factors. [1] https://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=5035 https://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=5035
- static_noise 10y agoWhat most people fail to realize is that we are pieces in the game of life. Our emotions have been shaped by eons of evolution. Emotions are part of the game, leading the mind into specific directions governed by genetically programmed and environmentally activated reflexes. At times they overrule the rational mind and result in behavior that is "not my real me" that the subject identifies with. We should at least try understand the basic rules that shape our lives and not give in to simplified (and often misleading) models presented by ideology. Society and its picture of the human person will (and must) change fundamentally upon the results we concieve by proper scientific study. This will not go down easy.