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

[Greoric]

How are they different? And how am I wrong about monogamy being more natural for women than it is for men?

Their time to reproduction, state of vulnerability before and after term of their child, and ultimately greater scarcity of sex cells gives them much different mating strategies than men, whom have less risk of poor mate choice and an near infinite supply of sex cells.

Those foundations create more choosy females, certainly with an interest in gaining commitment from males to help raise her (and potentially his offspring), but as @MikeMcMann mentioned that's not synonymous with monogamy. While she's interested in locking down one male for his time, resources, and commitment, she also has an additional incentive to maximize the genetic contribution for offspring, which would likely come from males that aren't as likely to offer her their commitment.

 

[Rod1]

Other animals have other adaptations don't they? So what? The big evolutionary gamble for homo sapiens was our brains before we left Africa, and it paid off. Additional pressures further north just selected for it more. Maybe we could have and did develop more brown adipose tissue as adults? More hair? Maybe we did. The evidence in front of us though, is that we developed other social organizations and cognitive strategies to deal with the harsh foreign climate. Not sure what the controversy is. If your objection to what I'm saying is confusion over why we didn't come up with other brand new adaptations on top of an existing selective advantage we already developed, I don't know. It seems like a rather silly thing to be fighting on.

The social organizations and cognitive strategies needed to populate said places were already present when humans moved north, the more advanced neolithic social structures arose thanks to agriculture and not in harsh climates.

You have absolutely zero evidenced for your "winter = high IQ theory" not even circumstantial.

Look, excuse me Rod, but how about we stop with the silly gotcha games? Just like when I spent my exceedingly valuable time going over the pathogenesis of diabetes with you some months ago. You're outside your depth here, and instead of pretending like you have something to contribute, maybe ask more honestly and more deferentially?

Except that i was right when it came to the pathogenesis of diabetes?

http://www.jlr.org/content/45/3/507.full.pdf

Also if we are going for silly gotcha games, you could drop the act since you are peddling late XIX, early XX Aryan supremacy BS. There is zero evidence that this "Aryan race" developed in Northern Europe and then migrated south, ZERO evidence.

LOL, no. WTF is that?

More energy required for thermorregulation means that there is less energy available overall for the brain. But thats irrelevant and only conjectures, what we do know is that European Neanderthals didnt evolved into super geniuses despite living for hundreds of thousands of years on colder climates than Levantine Neanderthals.

And the fact still remains that our brains developed in Africa before we left the continent.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

Their time to reproduction, state of vulnerability before and after term of their child, and ultimately greater scarcity of sex cells gives them much different mating strategies than men, whom have with less risk for poor mate choice and an near infinite supply of sex cells.

Those foundations create more choosy females, certainly with an interest in gaining commitment from males to help raise her (and potentially his offspring), but as @MikeMcMann mentioned that's not synonymous with monogamy. While she's interested in locking down one male for his time, resources, and commitment, she also has an additional incentive to maximize the genetic contribution for offspring, which would likely come from males that aren't as likely to offer her their commitment.

That actually is very synonymous with monogamy. And if she can only reproduce at the rate of one child at a time, then there's no incentive to go and mate with several other people.

 

[Greoric]

Except that i was right when it came to the pathogenesis of diabetes?

http://www.jlr.org/content/45/3/507.full.pdf

I beg your pardon Rod, but the literature does not say what you think it says. If you're trying to make a primary causal link between hypercholesteremia to diabetes, and a down regulation of insulin receptors be my guest. LOL, good luck buddy. I'll give it to you. Your hubris is astonishing.

More energy required for thermorregulation means that there is less energy available overall for the brain. But thats irrelevant and only conjectures, what we do know is that European Neanderthals didnt evolved into super geniuses despite living for hundreds of thousands of years on colder climates than Levantine Neanderthals.

Do you have evidence that the Neanderthal populations in northern climates weren't more intelligent than in Africa?

And the fact still remains that our brains developed in Africa before we left the continent.

That's correct. I guess further adaptations from different and harsher environmental pressures just stopped because they wanted to save Rod on sherdog from his cognitive dissonance?

 

[MikeMcMann]

How are they different? And how am I wrong about monogamy being more natural for women than it is for men?

Women historically have been able to seperate the men they want to fuck and long for from the ones they think will make great fathers and providers. They will nest with the latter while still fuckig the former, thus the number of kids being raised by fathers who are not their biological dad.

There is a reason the number 1 womans literature by far is the Hallmark like Two Loves story where the woman is torn between her two loves. The nester guy who treats her and her kids great and the bad boy she wants to fuck.

You are wrong because a woman can make a pragmatic decision to take the Nester, knowing that is what is good for her, while longing to have sex with another.

That is also why women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Like 75% of them when the guy is often not at the same place. With divorce laws as they are she no longer requires the Nester as she can take half the stuff and make her own nest and then pursue the men she is passionate about.

 

[Greoric]

That actually is very synonymous with monogamy. And if she can only reproduce at the rate of one child at a time, then there's no incentive to go and mate with several other people.

That's correct, however the male she's pair bonding with to gain commitment and resources from to help raise her offspring isn't necessarily the same males she's getting the genetic contribution from. If that's your colloquial definition of monogamy then I guess so. For one data point for you, in relationship surveys they admit to cheating slightly less than men.

 

[Greoric]

Women historically have been able to seperate the men they want to fuck and long for from the ones they think will make great fathers and providers. The will nest with the latter while still fuckig the former, thus the number of kids being raised by fathers who are not their biological dad.

There is a reason the number 1 womans literature by far is the Hallmark like Two Loves story where the woman is torn between her two loves. The nester guy who treats her and her kids great and the bad boy she wants to fuck.

You are wrong because a woman can make a pragmatic decision to take the Nester, knowing that is what is good for her, while longing to have sex with another.

That is also why women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Like 75% of them when the guy is often not at the same place. With divorce laws as they are she no longer requires the Nester as she can take half the stuff and make her own nest and then pursue the men she is passionate about.

This post made me depressed.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

Women historically have been able to seperate the men they want to fuck and long for from the ones they think will make great fathers and providers. The will nest with the latter while still fuckig the former, thus the number of kids being raised by fathers who are not their biological dad.

There is a reason the number 1 womans literature by far is the Hallmark like Two Loves story where the woman is torn between her two loves. The nester guy who treats her and her kids great and the bad boy she wants to fuck.

You are wrong because a woman can make a pragmatic decision to take the Nester, knowing that is what is good for her, while longing to have sex with another.

That is also why women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Like 75% of them when the guy is often not at the same place. With divorce laws as they are she no longer requires the Nester as she can take half the stuff and make her own nest and then pursue the men she is passionate about.

So because people sometimes behave differently from their biological instincts, that makes me wrong about what their innate biological instincts are?

 

[MikeMcMann]

That actually is very synonymous with monogamy. And if she can only reproduce at the rate of one child at a time, then there's no incentive to go and mate with several other people.

Wait are you limiting monogamy to saying if she only has children with one man at a time then that is monogamy, even if she is having sex with many and not necessarily marrying or settling down with the father but rather the best provider. Even if after settling with a mate she is still having sex with many but just having her next child with one?

I ask that sincerely as I may be misunderstanding your point.

For the record my POV is this

- as instinctual creatures driven by evolution over multiple millennia both men and woman are driven to not be monogamous in terms of getting pregnant
- Men will fuck many to spread their sperm wide and woman will fuck many to ensure they have the best chance of the healthiest sperm fertilizing their egg
- woman also have a competing need to find a good nester and provider and while that may be the same guy who impregnates her, currently and more so historically, that was not always the case. Particularly when there was little chance of proving she had strayed in the past

- that said we are now more intellectual creatures than instinctual so certainly we can over ride that natural and evolution driven drive and instinct realizing that there is value in a stable home and such activities may jeopardize that. But it has to be a conscious effort to offset the instinctual drive.

So what is evidence this is true?

- Science has shown that was once thought of as lazy or retarded sperm and which in too much abundance makes a man infertile was actually defensive sperm. The most successful males passing on their genes developed sperm that had a certain percentage of sperm that did not race up the woman's cavity seeking the egg to fertilize it and instead stayed behind to block the EXPECTED coming sperm of the next man to cum inside her. Those 'lazy sperm' would come to life when other sperm was introduced, and attack the invading sperm trying to block them and kill them.

That evolutionary trait would have never prevailed unless competing sperm during a woman's fertility cycle was not only expected but very common.

It is also why they say men tend to want to sleep after an orgasm and yet a woman tends to be wide awake and ready to talk (or go for a walk) and also why the woman often does not get an orgasm during vaginal sex and thus may not be fully satisfied or frustrated after a singular sexual encounter where her man is now sleeping.

 

[Fedorable]

women don't have a Bushido.

 

[Greoric]

Also if we are going for silly gotcha games, you could drop the act since you are peddling late XIX, early XX Aryan supremacy BS. There is zero evidence that this "Aryan race" developed in Northern Europe and then migrated south, ZERO evidence.

I should address this point also though. Nothing about what I'm saying has anything to do with supremacy. That term has no meaning in a biological context, unless you are to mean species that are extinct and those that aren't. Even then, again, that's environmentally and temporally dependent. If anything, descendants of equitorial populations are the superior population, because they're the ones taking over descendants of the northern populations as we speak, regardless of lower mean IQs and lower deferred gratifications.

In any event, yes, from the hundreds of thousands of data points that we have, people from northern climates tend to have higher mean IQs than people from equatorial climates. Sorry, not sorry. That's just a fact of life, and the different environments of both those broader populations selected for that difference. Unless, you'd like to offer up another explanation? Perhaps you'd like to take on the cornerstone of psychological studies by taking on the validity of G factor IQ? Or perhaps take on the theory of evolution?

 

[Willy Womack]

I should address this point also though. Nothing about what I'm saying has anything to do with supremacy. That term has no meaning in a biological context, unless you are to mean species that are extinct and those that aren't. Even then, again, that's environmentally and temporally dependent. If anything, descendants of equitorial populations are the superior population, because they're the ones taking over descendants of the northern populations as we speak, regardless of lower mean IQs and lower deferred gratifications.

In any event, yes, from the hundreds of thousands of data points that we have, people from northern climates tend to have higher mean IQs than people from equatorial climates. Sorry, not sorry. That's just a fact of life, and the different environments both of those broader populations in their respective ecologies selected for that difference. Unless, you'd like to offer up another explanation? Perhaps you'd like to take on the cornerstone of psychological studies by taking on the validity of G factor IQ? Or perhaps take on the theory of evolution?

Aw hell naw. Shit just got real.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This post made me depressed.

Yup. you had women holding marriages together historically even with a cheating or abusive husband because divorce laws used to be horrible to women. So if she left she would go with nothing and could lose her kids because she had no income.

The pendulum has swung far the other way to the point where women are actually incentivised to leave the marriage as then half the wealth becomes truly hers as opposed to within the marriage where she likely still has to account to even a generous husband on spending if he earns the bulk of the money.

The good news is that the pendulum will swing back soon as women are now graduating into the high paying jobs more than men and we've started to see the first males suing the women for support in divorce. The system hates that. The idea that 'lay about men' would 'stay home and play video games' (as the emerging stereotype grows) while their hard working lawyer or doctor wife went to work and then has to send them money. Mark my words the law will change due to this. No one ever cared about the bon bon eating wife stereotype being taken care of by the ex husband though.

The bad news however is that High Income earning women tend to be even more picky with regards to men. They won't settle as they don't need to and would prefer to stay single or adopt or use other methods to have a kid rather than settling. What this has meant is that high earning women still seek equal or higher earning men generally which is putting stress on the wealth gap in society. Prior male high earners would not look at the wealth or position of the female they wanted to mate with. Men would marry the waitress or retail clerk or receptionist and thus income split lifting her up.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So because people sometimes behave differently from their biological instincts, that makes me wrong about what their innate biological instincts are?

Sometimes?

'Sometimes' drove the evolution of sperm wars in the entire male population that has this mix of sperm?

Sperm Competition in Humans:

 

[Greoric]

Yup. you had women holding marriages together historically even with a cheating or abusive husband because divorce laws used to be horrible to women. So if she left she would go with nothing and could lose her kids because she had no income.

The pendulum has swung far the other way to the point where women are actually incentivised to leave the marriage as then half the wealth becomes truly hers as opposed to within the marriage where she likely still has to account to even a generous husband on spending if he earns the bulk of the money.

The good news is that the pendulum will swing back soon as women are now graduating into the high paying jobs more than men and we've started to see the first males suing the women for support in divorce. The system hates that. The idea that 'lay about men' would 'stay home and play video games' (as the emerging stereotype grows) while their hard working lawyer or doctor wife went to work and then has to send them money. Mark my words the law will change due to this. No one ever cared about the bon bon eating wife stereotype being taken care of by the ex husband though.

The bad news however is that High Income earning women tend to be even more picky with regards to men. They won't settle as they don't need to and would prefer to stay single or adopt or use other methods to have a kid rather than settling. What this has meant is that high earning women still seek equal or higher earning men generally which is putting stress on the wealth gap in society. Prior male high earners would not look at the wealth or position of the female they wanted to mate with. Men would marry the waitress or retail clerk or receptionist and thus income split lifting her up.

I'd like to read your conjecture on why you think that male stereotype is intolerable for society as opposed to the lazy female stereotype....

Its funny you mention that though, because originally I kind of wanted my fiancee to consider taking a break from her business career when I got into medical school. Now that I'm realizing she's going to be making just as much as I am as a physician, and the shit storm I'd get hit with if we were divorced and she didn't have a job has made me think twice.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'd like to read your conjecture on why you think that male stereotype is intolerable for society as opposed to the lazy female stereotype....

Its funny you mention that though, because originally I kind of wanted my fiancee to consider taking a break from her business career when I got into medical school. Now that I'm realizing she's going to be making just as much as I am as a physician, and the shit storm I'd get hit with if we were divorced and she didn't have a job has made me think twice.

Two main reasons.

First there is a naturally tendency to see men as aggressors and women as either their charge (or protectee) going back to a patriarchal view.

Second is that historically many men did have all the power and unfortunately it was abused horribly. A very successful aged man could and would leave a wife (for a new younger hotter one) and not have to give her a cent of support and since she had no job and income she would often lose custody of the kids as well.


So due to that there is typically little sympathy for men in the relationship arena and now as men take advantage of the lopsided support laws as women graduate from STEM and other areas in much higher percentages and many men struggle to find careers and good jobs and instead continue to play video games there is a growing visceral reaction being raised to this idea the woman should care for that lazy male.

I actually met one gal who is in this spot last year. A dentist who married a childhood beau. He never developed a career, calls him self an artist (don't think he actually sells any of his art) and is a demotivated lump who literally sits at home playing video games all day while taking from her about $80k/yr in spousal support. Now in fairness to him, while she was in dental school he was doing many manual labour jobs and paying most of their joint bills (outside of her direct schooling costs which she got loans for) but I still struggle with him now getting income for life for that.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

Wait are you limiting monogamy to saying if she only has children with one man at a time then that is monogamy, even if she is having sex with many and not necessarily marrying or settling down with the father but rather the best provider. Even if after settling with a mate she is still having sex with many but just having her next child with one?

I ask that scinceraly as I may be misunderstanding your point.

For the record my POV is this

- as instinctual creatures driven by evolution over multiple millennia both men and woman are driven to not be monogamous in terms of getting pregnant
- Men will fuck many to spread their sperm wide and woman will fuck many to ensure they have the best chance of the healthiest sperm fertilizing their egg
- woman also have a competing need to find a good nester and provider and while that may be the same guy who impregnates her, currently and more so historically, that was not always the case. Particularly when there was little chance of proving she had strayed in the past

- that said we are now more intellectual creatures than instinctual so certainly we can over ride that natural and evolution driven drive and instinct realizing that there is value in a stable home and such activities may jeopardize that. But it has to be a conscious effort to offset the instinctual drive.

So what is evidence this is true?

- Science has shown that was once thought of as lazy or retarded sperm in men and which in too much abundance makes a man infertile was actually defensive sperm. The most successful males passing on their genes developed sperm that had a certain percentage of sperm that did not race up the woman's cavity seeking the egg to fertilize it and instead stayed behind to block the EXPECTED coming sperm of the next man to cum inside her. Those 'lazy sperm' would come to life when other sperm was introduced and attack the invading sperm trying to block them and kill them.

That evolutionary trait would have never prevailed unless competing sperm during a woman's fertility cycle was not only expected but very common.

It is also why they say men tend to want to sleep after an orgasm and yet a women tends to be wide awake and ready to talk (or go for a walk) and also why the woman also often does not get an orgasm during vaginal sex and thus may not be fully satisfied from a singular sexual encounter where her man is now sleeping.

Choosing the right mate with the best genetic material possible to provide is up to the woman to decide on her own. I mean, she doesn't need multiple mates to accomplish this, her natural level of attraction towards men should already be sufficient enough.

And dude; Your sperm story just proves my point - There can only be one. No man's sperm wants another intruding in its territory.

 

[Greoric]

Choosing the right mate with the best genetic material possible to provide is up to the woman to decide on her own. I mean, she doesn't need multiple mates to accomplish this, her natural level of attraction towards men should already be sufficient enough.

And dude; Your sperm story just proves my point - There can only be one. No man's sperm wants another intruding in its territory.

I think you're missing the point that the adaptation for blocker sperm would have never been selected for if women weren't sleeping with multiple men within short periods of time.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

I think you're missing the point that the adaptation for blocker sperm would have never been selected for if women weren't sleeping with multiple men within short periods of time.

I ain't buying that.

 

[IDL]

I think you're missing the point that the adaptation for blocker sperm would have never been selected for if women weren't sleeping with multiple men within short periods of time.

Taking this blocker sperm at face value, this is a male adaptation to compete with other males. It could be that there was, um, non consensual sex going on. Ye Old rape and pillage