Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Caveman Sex: How Evolutionary Psych Pushes Sexist Stereotypes

By Martha McCaughey, American Sexuality Magazine. Posted October 24, 2008.


The watered-down evolutionary psychology prevalent in pop culture enables some men to rationalize sexist double standards about relationships.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"You've got a great waist-to-hip ratio," my date declared, after which he went on to explain that men have biologically evolved to respond to just the right womanly proportions and also to react to large breasts, since both of these signify fertility. My date was not an evolutionary scholar, or a scholar of any kind. He was just a regular guy who, like so many others, had been exposed to and internalized popular magazine articles and television news programs that champion the science of evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychology uses contemporary Darwinian theory to explain, among other things, how human males and females evolved with different sexualities or, in the jargon of evolutionary psychologists, different "sexual psychologies." Read: men and women want different things in a mate and have different sexual styles. While the fairer sex is choosey about her mates, more capable of a lasting bond with a lover, and dedicated to her role as a parent, the harrier sex is sexually promiscuous, places an enormous emphasis on women's youth and beauty (which he ogles every chance he gets), either cheats on his wife or wants to, and can be sexually aggressive to the point of criminality.

Evolutionary theorists interested in human behavior reason that our human male ancestors were, back in the environment to which our bodies are adapted, constantly competing with one another for sexual access to fertile women. Evolution favored women who were picky about their mate choices, given the high level of parental investment required of the human female for reproduction -- months of gestation, giving birth, and then years of lactation and care for a dependent child. The human male's low level of parental investment required for reproduction -- after all, he need only ejaculate into a fertile body to reproduce and could father hundreds of children -- meant that human males evolved to be relatively sexually carefree or, less delicately, to be, by nature, wanton skirt chasers.

But having briefly outlined the evolutionary theoretical approach to sex differences in human sexual behavior, I want to talk about the popular spread of that theory, however distorted or watered down it winds up. For we find references to man's evolutionary heritage throughout popular culture -- in new science textbooks, pop psychology books on relationships, men's magazine, and even on T-shirts. (Picture the frat dude chugging a beer in a shirt with a picture of a caveman clad in a fur pelt holding a club and with the statement "Me Find Woman." You can actually buy these shirts on cafepress.com.) There are caveman fitness plans and caveman diets. Saturday Night Live's hilarious "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" and the affronted caveman of the Geico car insurance ads joke about the ubiquity of caveman narratives. More disturbingly, the Darwinian discourse also crops up when men need an excuse for antisocial behavior. One man, who was caught on amateur video participating in the Central Park group sexual assaults in the summer of 2000, can be heard on video telling his sobbing victim, "Welcome back to the caveman times."

Popularized evolutionary discourse, or pop-Darwinism, offers men a scientifically authorized way to think about -- and live out -- their sexuality. Indeed, popular attention to the evolution of human male sexuality has increasingly lodged American manhood in an evolutionary logic. Pop-Darwinism has become a sort of cultural consensus about who men are. Average American guys don't read academic evolutionary science, but many do read about science in popular magazines and in bestselling books written by enthusiasts of evolutionary psychology. Popular culture is a political Petri dish for Darwinian ideas about sex. As such, it is worth examining -- even when magazine writers and television producers intentionally "dumb down" or distort more sophisticated or modest academic claims.

An issue of Men's Health magazine explains "the sex science facts" to male readers interested in "the biology of attraction." We follow the steps of a mating dance, but don't quite understand that's what we're doing. Indeed, we must learn the evolutionary history of sex to see why men feel the way they do when they notice a beautiful woman walking down the street:

Of course, out there in the street, you have no thoughts about genetic compatibility or childbearing. Probably the farthest thing from your mind is having a child with that beautiful woman. But that doesn't matter. What you think counts for almost nothing. In the environment that crafted your brain and body, an environment in which you might be dead within minutes of spotting this beauty, the only thing that counted was that your clever neocortex -- your seat of higher reason -- be turned off so that you could quickly select a suitable mate, impregnate her, and succeed in passing on your genes to the next generation.
The article, "The Biology of Attraction" by Laurence Gonzales, proceeds to identify the signals of fertility that attract men: youth, beauty, big breasts, and a small waistline. Focusing on the desire for youth in women, the article tells men that "the reason men of any age continue to like young girls is that we were designed to get them pregnant and dominate their fertile years by keeping them that way ... When your first wife has lost the overt signals of reproductive viability, you desire a younger woman who still has them all." And, of course, male readers are reminded that "your genes don't care about your wife or girlfriend or what the neighbors will say."

Men, the popular account of evolution tells us, are rampantly heterosexual skirt chasers. (Anyone who's gay serves, at best, as evidence of the supposedly nonadaptive delights in which some humans indulge and, at worst, as evidence of what is unnatural and therefore immoral.) This understanding of male sexuality helps fuel a culture Michael Kimmel recently labeled "guyland," the life stage and social space in which teenage and twenty-something men cultivate a rude-dude attitude, resenting anything intellectual, politically correct, or smacking of either responsibility or women's authority. What better than the caveman narrative to help these guys avoiding the demands of adult life define themselves as, nevertheless, real men?

Learning evolution's significance for male sexuality can enable men to rationalize sexist double standards and wallow in their loutishness, as they do in guyland. Alternatively, it can serve to encourage men to control their caveman natures by becoming self-conscious, enlightened cavemen. But either way, the popular versions of man-as-caveman never question men's putatively natural shortcomings or innate aggressive heterosexuality. The caveman is certainly not the only form of masculine identity in our times. But the emergence of a caveman masculinity tells us much about the authority of science, the flow of scientific ideas in our culture, and the embodiment of those ideas. We live in a culture attached to scientific authority and explication. The popularity of the scientific story of men's evolved desires -- however distorted the science becomes as enthusiasts popularize it -- can tell us something about the appeal and influence of that story.

The influence of the evolutionary story cuts right to men's physically felt dispositions. In his book, Cultural Boundaries of Science, Thomas Gieryn comments on the cultural authority of science, suggesting that "if 'science' says so, we are more often than not inclined to believe it or act on it -- and to prefer it to claims lacking this epistemic seal of approval." To his observation I would add that we are also more likely to live it. Ideas that count as scientific, regardless of their truth value, become lived ideologies. In this way, a heterosexist form of male sexuality is naturalized. In her discussion of naturalizing male power, sociologist Raewyn Connell states:
The physical sense of maleness is not a simple thing. It involves size and shape, habits of posture and movement, particular physical skills and the lack of others, the image of one's own body, the way it is presented to other people and the ways they respond to it, the way it operates at work and in sexual relations. In no sense is all this a consequence of XY chromosomes, or even of the possession on which discussions of masculinity have so lovingly dwelt, the penis. The physical sense of maleness grows through a personal history of social practice, a life-history-in-society. (Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics)
We see and believe that men's power over women is the order of nature because, as Connell puts it, "power is translated not only into mental body-images and fantasies, but into muscle tensions, posture, the feel and texture of the body." The caveman becomes an imaginative projection that is experienced and lived as real biological truth.

We must challenge the convenient innocence with which men invoke science to understand and experience their bodies. The caveman mystique is, after all, a contemporary male counterpart of the feminine mystique so famously described by Betty Friedan in 1963. Women had to challenge the popular idea that they found fulfillment in keeping house and rearing children. It's time now to challenge the idea that men find true self-expression in boorish behaviors, sexual aggression, and chance sexual encounters. Indeed, it's time for men to take a great leap forward to develop a more sociological understanding of both science and their own sexuality.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: masculinity, sexuality, evolutionary psychology

Martha McCaughey is Professor of Women’s Studies and Sociology at Appalachian State University. She is the author of The Caveman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the Debates Over Sex, Violence, and Science (Routledge, 2008). Her research interests include gender, science, technology, and the body.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
only men?
Posted by: wwittman on Oct 24, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
those same pop science programs, watered down as they are, ALSO suggest that women are equally programmed genetically to cheat. Ostensibly in an effort to widen the gene pool 'just in case'.
But no one is suggesting those predispositions "excuse" their "boorish behaviour" either.
Most PEOPLE, of both sexes, seem to stray or desire to.


This article strikes me a bit as an agenda in search of a story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: only men? Posted by: shellac'd
» RE: only men? Posted by: annavan1
» RE: only men? Posted by: lizokitten
interesting
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Oct 24, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that these guyland people are the ones getting laid.

I would like to see a survey of how much sex frat boy jocks receive versus schmucks such as myself that wasted our time going to feminist philosophy classes and trying to be respectful and understanding while constantly being talk down to in class for even trying. While Quarterback Jack spent his evenings piling driving 6 chics back in his cock-cave.

Riddle me that batwomen.

PS Why were you on a date with that guy in the first place? Yes...there it is...quick, cover it up with fancy talk about double standards...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: interesting Posted by: SalB
» RE: Everyone will win! Posted by: Shehova
» RE: veryone will win! Posted by: obliu222
» Not necessarily... Posted by: liz_imp
» Nice guys can be hot, too! Posted by: Glasgow Smile
» RE: Nice guys can be hot, too! Posted by: antonius116
» Um... Posted by: obliu222
» Go figure. Posted by: obliu222
» Get sport, get politics... Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Get sport, get politics... Posted by: jananole2080
» RE: Get sport, get politics... Posted by: GuitarBill
» Kudos Posted by: obliu222
Fair enough
Posted by: talkville on Oct 24, 2008 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our contemporary usage of Darwin's thinking and investigations relating to species level mechanisms and behaviors, applied and mis-applied in lower-level aspects of organismic living and behaving is ubiquitous these days as an 'explanation' and description oh-so-well understood.

Fair enough in the uses by males of such popularized and superficially applied theories.

One supposes that the entire 'fairer-sex' simply ignores such things and understands them completely, never making use of such popularizations in, for instance, sometimes shopping around in sperm-banks making use of all the "dna"-determined 'qualities' most likely to provide them with the progeny they so wish for and desire. Far be it from the females in our 'evolved' society from falling for such popularizations of Darwinian and Spencerian theories as explanation, description or pretext-construction for much in our social relations these days! Women, it seems, are above such trifles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh that's rich
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 24, 2008 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to address one part of it because of space limitations...

> The caveman mystique is, after all, a contemporary
> male counterpart of the feminine mystique

Well, not really. Not only did Friedan and those who followed shortly after her question the traditional female role, they told women they have rights to what was then the traditional male role, and that the male role -- or at least the parts of it they liked -- might even be better and more fulfilling than the female role.

Nothing, and most certainly not the "caveman mystique", tells men they have rights to what was the traditional female role -- rights to stay home full-time or part-time with the children while his wife supports him; not to mention the right to be asked out on dates, bought drinks in bars, pursued and courted, bought diamond rings, etc.

And nothing is telling men the traditional female role might be better and more fulfilling, because it would be pointless to do so when the number of women willing to make that possible is minuscule. Why? Because feminism was always more about rights than responsibilities, and because it was never very capable of appreciating the nurturing and sacrificing aspects of traditional male role. At least not when it was men who were doing it. Thus it couldn't drill those into its indoctrinatees.

Mating and reproductive systems are determined by the behavior of the females, not the males. Males follow the lead set by what the females are doing. So, when women in droves are reverting all the way back to the basic mammalian form of the "family" as being a mother and her offspring, it makes little sense to wonder why men are doing likewise and also reverting to behavioral patterns from the Stone Age (or even farther back). It's certainly not science's fault, pop or otherwise, when they do so.

Seeing as how feminism's long history of hatred towards male logic and science is not exactly a secret, nor is its penchant to always find men to blame for something, this article is little more than a professional complainer establishing her groupthink credentials.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Almost coherent Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: Oh that's rich Posted by: BreeMass
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
ideas in the form of words and images bombard us daily and all too many of them
Posted by: Suzon on Oct 24, 2008 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
give us bad ideas about our own sexuality and the characteristics of the other sex. Even our most personal and intimate moments are mediated by commerce of some kind or another these days.

The mating experiences of our parents and grandparents were likely to have been less than perfect for a number of reasons, including ignorance and fear.

Now, post-sexual revolution, there's not much of an improvement--if any! Yes, there are evolved women and men who can be both spontaneous and principled.

However, all too many corporate bodies use the human body for profit, taking what is naturally ours, distorting it and selling it back to us. What a sad and shameful legacy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think evolutionary psychology is really all that negative
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 24, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who bemoans the casualness with which evolutionary psychologists diagnose human behaviors needs to remember what it was like when Psychoanalysis was the ruling paradigm. I'll take evolutionary psychology over Freud's puerile fantasies any day. At least evolutionary psychology rests on proven physical facts about the real world and the human body, and can be verified to some degree through neuroscience and observation.

Evolutionary psychology isn't meant to make people think, "Whatever I feel like doing is OK, because that's how we're evolved." It's meant to make people realize that many of our ways of thinking and feeling were adapted to a different time and place, and that what worked then might not work now. Pop psychology generally holds that our emotions are the essential aspect of our being, and "being true to oneself," i.e., following your emotions wherever they lead, is the noblest thing you can do in life, consequences be damned. A popular understanding of evolutionary psychology should provide society with a way out of this disastrous infatuation with emotions and self-gratification, which has already caused such havoc and damage in our culture. It matches our intuitive sense that "acting like a beast" is wrong, and being called "an animal" is a bad thing.

Evolutionary psychology's not the problem. Getting people to understand that their actions have consequences is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bravo to McCaughey and Darwin
Posted by: MFG on Oct 24, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we approach the bicentennial of Charles
Darwin's birth this coming February 12, it
is worth our time to acquaint ourselves and
refresh our memories about the uses and misuses
of Darwin's thought.
Martha McCaughey is helpful. Just as social
darwinism was a distortion of complex original
concepts, so is pop evolutionary psych.
Evolutionary psychology and biology are serious
fields of study. But whenever evolutionary
predispositions get converted to ethical
determinism, we have taken an intellectually
fatal dive into shallow waters. The best way
to avoid this is to go back and read Darwin's
work and study his own intellectual struggles.
Marvin Granger
Billings, MT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"lived ideologies"
Posted by: socialpsych on Oct 24, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. McCaughey certainly is living HER ideologies through this muddled muck of anti-science and anti-men agitprop.

Too bad she couldn't have been bothered to actually read some evolutionary psychology or even interview an evolutionary psychologist. There are both female and male EPs who would have been happy to educate her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is welcome to her taste in menfolk, lol.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 24, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell is her problem with the choices of her XY contemporaries?

Lingering doubts over whether a truly pro-choice attitude works for her benefit perchance?

At the end of the day, when you choose to ask someone to be "mated" with you--whether for a night or for (in your head--hopefully theirs, too, at that point) forever, did it feel right? And why was that? Was it more special that this author might appreciate, at this point in her little life?

And then, how does the author's, and her pet straw-man's, narrative on "proportions" and "evolution" strike you? Did it even?

Utter bullshattery in my humble opinion. You're obviously entitled to yours, if you need such validation in your choice of lifetime partners.

I don't. I know I made the right choice, and I see it every time I see her, until she convinces me otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Granted most of this stuff is pop-culture b.s.
Posted by: MD1 on Oct 24, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just ignorant people misinterpreting scientific data they don't understand. However, this bogus nonsense cuts both ways... take it from a man who's been told by a woman that she wasn't interested because "your body proportions are asymmetrical, it's a sign of bad genes"... whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For Next Time Posted by: obliu222
Sexual Selection
Posted by: I-I on Oct 24, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd just like to remind the devotees of The Lady of Eternal Victimhood, that despite all the hate and condemnation thrown at modern-man for the resemblances he may hold to proto-man, Woman created Man through sexual selection to fill a set of survival needs. Even this article is an attempt to direct sexual selection. Thought it is bass akwards, repressing that which has largely been repressed, instead of highlighting and encouraging traits that women find desirable in emerging Neo-Man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male or female, it's like this
Posted by: bdunn1@tds.net on Oct 24, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I said you had a beautiful mind/body, would you hold it against me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Evolutionary psychology" not iron clad
Posted by: Tim V on Oct 24, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of things here:

It actually isn't true that prehistoric males had the ability to father lots of kids in a short time by rampant promiscuity. They didn't have the income to provide for a ton of kids (or else, the women involved had to take up the supposedly masculine roles of
hunter/providers.)

Also, traditional practices such as cirumcision and female genital mutulation go against evolutionary biology because the alter the genital physical structures that have evolved over the eons. So perhaps evolutionary biology/psychology can be overridden for humanitarian/egalitarian reasons as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Caveman Ug no can think smart title...
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Oct 24, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(I couldn't resist that little bit of "dude-tude"!)

Our feelings of attraction, love, mating, and parenthood lie outside the bounds of reason, logic, and the scientific method (instincts and endocrinology are not rational). It is truly akin to trying to scientifically understand human being's religious impulses or describe a sunset to someone born blind.

That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to approach the truth through whatever science we might apply to the problem. The truth of the matter is that the closest we will ever come is an approximation. And these approximations will morph and change over time.

To take this image -- this approximation -- for "the truth" is to mistake the map for the territory, or the menu for the meal. To use this "menu" as a justification for boorish, loutish behavior is unjustifiable. We all have "lower impulses", but we all have higher aspirations too. We choose.

It's just too bad so many teens, "twen-teens", and "perma-teens" choose this Caveman myth. It show lack of maturity and refusal to accept responsibility for one's behaviour.

Hey "Dudes"; remember ZZ Top's Sharp Dressed Man and take a lesson. The Caveman ain't all that appealing. Imagine the image reversed. Would you want a loutish, unkempt, ignoramus for a woman?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article matches my observations.....
Posted by: bjandresen on Oct 24, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Say is ain't so," but I think it is. A friend of mine, who is also one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen, was married to a man who wanted her to give up her very successful business and stay home. He also enjoyed flirting with every pretty woman within sight. He would explain to his wife that, "This is just how men are." The implication was that therefore it was ok and she needed to adjust to his behavior. Well, she packed up the kids and divorced him. I'll never forget the big eyed look on her face when she said to me, "Well, yuk, who wants that??" I know of three women who divorced their husbands for the same reason. And from my personal experience.... My husband insisted I stay home at threat of divorce. He is a professional and he then stocked his office with a staff of the young and the pretty. I tried in every way to please him. Special meals, the house always clean, dinner always ready, home made lunches I packed in the morning. I even learned and did a strip tease. Now he enjoyed all that, but the roving eye continued. It got where I felt threatened by any pretty woman. Finally I had enough. I moved out and went back to school. I have lived alone for 15 years and I LOVE IT!!!! I have a many, many wonderful friends. The myth of the lonely single woman is, at least in my experience and observation, just that, a myth. I have never been so content and happy!!!! My life is so full! If that is what evolution has made of men, "Well, yuk, who wants that??"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americanrm
Posted by: americanrm on Oct 24, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was under the impression that Alternet's policy was not to tolerate, "racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language." Seems to me the good professor's article (aside from being vacuous, in terms of its true scientific relevancy)qualifies as both "hateful" and "sexist" and should therefore be excluded from this venue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Americanrm Posted by: obliu222
shut uppp
Posted by: tjc.cjt@gmail.com on Oct 24, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bitch out the people who misinterpret articles in mens health but dont make EP look bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pop science is not Science
Posted by: samba on Oct 24, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see several problems with this piece. These popular media interpretations of scientific reserch,are not science. It is very common for the sensationalisms by which modern media survive to fuel interpretations of scientific research which are premature,not really supported by the data and/or serve various subtexts ,pretexts agendas etc. The writer doesn't cite any actual scientific papers. She may be right that some young men use these ideas as justification for rude behavior.I think a deeper analysis of their motivations for seeking such justification would be worthwhile. Instead we seem to get more cliches.I believe most women are fully capable of handling most loutish behavior from immature males.
I'd like to invoke another biological concept,neotony,in which the metamoprhich ,stage of an organisms life cycle is extended,allowing for latent genetic potentials to be expressed. I think there is reason to believe contemporary society is neotonous,and perhaps the reason is we're on the brink of a hugde evolutionary imperative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: There is nothing new about human neotany at all.
Posted by: samba on Oct 24, 2008 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't say it was new. I do see us as being in a very new phase,as suggested by global human civilization drastically altering the habitats of many thousands of species including of course our own. Sometimes ostensibly educated people speak as if evolution is either something that already happened ,or is a matter of individual emotional growth . with our global communcations networks as nervous system, perhaps we're becoming a global colonial creature ,like coral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Human Coral? Posted by: liz_imp
Imp greets Gaunt
Posted by: liz_imp on Oct 28, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi, nightgaunt!

I like neoteny! (Even though the downside seems to be that men's "age of responsibility" (for child-rearing) seems to be put off ever more...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scientific?
Posted by: curiousdwk on Oct 24, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science is great at describing observations. It is good for describing "what". However it is not science when one starts to tell of "how" or "why" something happened. Those are not based on observation - to say nothing about scientific observation. The "how" and the "why" are in the realm of story - not science. And problems arise whenever a story is presented as science. The problem is that many shamans like to present things as science in order to resort to authority, and many listeners like to exploit what they hear when passing it on.

This "evolutionary psychology" is such an animal. It isn't science at all because it isn't based on observation. It is a story which is generated to present current behavior (or desires) "as if ..." And has no more merit than if I were to say "It's as if Atlas was standing on the back of a tortoise and ..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scientific? Posted by: stagger415
Turn my back for a couple of weeks and we get THIS?
Posted by: stellabloo on Oct 24, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow ...

Talk about your knee-jerk faux-feminist pop psychology article and the envitable ensuing slew of misogynistic/misunderstood comments ...

Society as we know it falling apart and this is the earth-shattering insight du jour?

None of this knee-jerking helps matters, of course. All political correctness aside, fact is that there's certain something about a woman who is a technical consultant AND an avid backcountry skier, just as there definitely something to be said about a man who can saddle a packhorse AND change a diaper. Well-rounded, self-realized humans of either sex generally are more attractive to others than the needy slobs, sorry.

The real false assumption underlying western sexuality is that sex is somehow linked to ALCOHOL - a disservice for both men AND women. For women, wrinkles and increased chance of breast cancer, sexual risk-taking (which is the point, I suppose) and date rape (which is the other point, from the man's POV). For men, sexual risk-taking, pot-bellies, breast enlargement, and impotence. Sexy, no?

If we are going start rationalizing our sexual imperatives, it has been shown that intelligence is linked to the X chromosome, meaning that a son inherits from his mother and the daughters have an equal chance of inheriting from both parents. Fortunately my daughters inherited my intelligence and their dad's good looks ;.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Your agenda was obvious
Posted by: blynn on Oct 24, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at the second paragraph: fairer sex vs harrier sex. My word! are such puns applicable in scholarly work? Sorry, answered my own question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If thatr darwin had not been british he would have been discredited long time ago.
Posted by: avatar_singh on Oct 24, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that fellow only justified what the british were doing to the world at the time-looting. and darwin gave an excuse for that loot.
we forget that civilization means ablity to live in cities in other words plaiing and civility. that means going beyond basic insticnts.
whole great civilization has been in establishing norms of behaviour opposite to basic insticnts.
ofocurse religion like HInduism realize about that destructive power of basic instiicnt and try to sublimate it. but this darwisnims and neao darwinism glorify about thos aneicam insticns and talk of civilization at the same breadth!.
the basic insticn is what is called reptilian insticnt for surviival but we humans have progressed from that.
whole concept of neo darwinism and evolutionary biology and pschucology has been pushed by apologists of british attemopt to restablish empire through american arms .
that is why this bogus theory is not going away quiclkly because the english race controls the propaganda in this world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar
Posted by: Libertine on Oct 24, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am one of those promiscuous males the author writes about. However, I don't consider myself "loutish", nor do I have sex with anyone who is not entirely willing.

I find the assertion that men like me are looking for the most fertile women to impregnate laughable at best. Believe me, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in siring children. Rather, I take great pains to avoid doing so. In 30+ years of my active and varied sex life, I've managed to only sire one child -- and that was during the very brief time I was married.

Nor is my choice of partners dictated by what the media tells me I should find attractive -- I use ALL my senses when choosing partners, not just my eyes. I've been with women of all types: short, tall, fat, thin, in-between, stereotypically "beautiful", average, plain, and "homely". Essentially quite a few women between 18 and 65 are game to me. My ideal partner is open minded, intelligent, and, obviously has a healthy interest in sex.

Nor do I believe that women are necessarily "coy" and choosy. I've had several hundred lovers over the years and I think I'd have had a harder time finding willing women if the "coy" theory was uniformly true. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous that men are, but rather, they've learned to be that way because they've traditionally been punished more severely for straying than men have been.

In conclusion, I'd say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that some people, male and female, are promiscuous simply because we like frequency and variety in our sex lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Libertine, are you a tranny? Posted by: lexicon
» Not just no, be HELL no! Posted by: Libertine
» Isn't it the media.. Posted by: liz_imp
» RE: Isn't it the media.. Posted by: laoma
And what about men who actually want to be a little soft? Nothing but PERSECUTION !! :=(
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 24, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know what? As much as I feel sorry for some of the issues that are degrading women these days, I am beginning to feel less sorry for a lot of them because they still take things for granted. Thank God my wife is a whole lot saner and thinks that men and women should not blame each other but should instead unite and work out each other's differences. My wife and I are proud to have done that for 15 years and we're still happily married. When I was young I used to get laughed at and teased at for not wanting to be as macho egotistical as the rest of the guys in my classroom and often times I'd be ridiculed as "fighting like a girl" ! The reason a lot of men in society turn out to be anti-social is they are left out not only by the over-macho headstrong guys but women too laugh at and even condescend those of us guys who are even moderate. You would think that more women would show their gratitude towards men who went through all this trouble to be decent. Nope, instead all too often, more women still had the knack to choose a macho bully over a reasonable guy.

Well, let me tell you something. I stood my ground and while it cost me a lot of rejections, through years of practise and keeping firm and cool, I found the right partner who accepted me for who I was. Some people can keep calling me effeminate while others call me misogynist but neither of those groups realize that this kind of labelling causes more social problems. In fact, even when I got dissed by a girl who really wanted to get to know me in high school before she came across a rough neck, I actually saved her life against that abusive partner of hers and she still thought I was the culprit ! Luckily, her parents defended me against her because they understood me better. For the most part, I just gave up dating until my late 20s. Just like society is on its way towards recognizing, or at least partially, women showing independence, society needs to wake up and start showing tolerance towards men who want to moderate and stop labelling them as "not manly enough" just because they don't want to be bullies. Do this and society will stop going to resource wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

misuse of science doesn't equal dismissing the science itself
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 24, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A fun read. My favorite line was the conlusion: Indeed, it's time for men to take a great leap forward to develop a more sociological understanding of both science and their own sexuality.

That's wholly appropriate, AND there will still be many women who will not agree with the results of any such enlightened understanding as long as men are in charge of their own self-discovery. Their disagreement doesn't negate the underlying data from which such an enlightened understanding might spring.

In gender conflicts, I have often found that going to the homosexual POV reveals much more than the conflicting hetero POVs. Gay men are straight men's vital allies in honest self-appraisal.

What I've learned from this piece is dismissal of underlying serious data because of how someone abuses that data is a fool's errand and a source of much unnecessary pain and delusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science is not inherently good
Posted by: upperaccess on Oct 24, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it so hard to understand that our evolution through the ages has been completely amoral and does not, in any way, excuse bad behavior? Yes, evolutionary theory may well explain why some men rape and kill women, among other terrible things. But the amazing and beautiful truth is that we have ALSO evolved to know right from wrong. Please, don't suppress science. That's inherently self defeating. If science were to show that, say, cavemen had evolved with a desire to stuff excrement up their noses, that discovery might be interesting and humbling. But it would not justify doing that today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» These days it's coke.. Posted by: liz_imp
Why do stories like this one bring out ALL the 12 steppers and personal anecdoters?
Posted by: lexicon on Oct 24, 2008 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geez...guys, gals...I suppose if it makes you feel better, share your personal pain and demons with us anonymous internet cynics...


...don't, now don't you even worry...don't worry...if there's no actual POINT to that sharing...


...share away. Witness it! Shout it! Own it!


...If'n it makes you feel better, that is. Because for certain sure, it ain't adding to the sum total of human knowledge!

with love and support,


lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disgusted with the Anti-Feminist Backlash
Posted by: vivachavez on Oct 24, 2008 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the poor helpless man, who has ruled the world with an iron fist and enjoyed a severe sexual double standard for thousands of years is threatened that the numerically superior sex has advocated for greater equality in the public and private sphere.

Women are not baby factories and caregivers. The old Victorian social norms were dead wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Logic Posted by: moflard
» RE: Logic Posted by: lizokitten
Sigh... ignores what has been discovered in cognitive science...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Oct 24, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Most human thought is unconscious beneath the surface of awareness. The last 30 years has brought to the forefront that most of how we act and what we do is 98% unconscious.

Everyone should watch the video below, for the quick version, skip to 15 minutes in and watch to 24 minutes... when you have the time watch all 3 videos.

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hmmm the knee jerk response to gender articles is quite surprising for a liberal site
Posted by: Juschka on Oct 24, 2008 3:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am always surprised by the responses of readers to articles intersecting with gender on this site. Typically they are rather vicious and really quite knee-jerk. Of course women as well as men are shaped by gender ideology - duh. And neo-social Darwinism is a particularly powerful discourse that both men and women (primarily white and straight, but not always) have bought into - much as they did in the past concerning race. Furthermore, I figured liberals had better sense than to continue to disseminate misinformation concerning feminisms - but from the numerous vitriolic responses to Professor McCaughey's article I guess not. Too bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having babies is a money making enterprise where I live...
Posted by: eeezzz on Oct 24, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Young girls are basically thrown away as soon as the parents think they can get away with it around these parts- and the only way these girls can get money, health and dental care and foodstamps, etc. is to become pregnant. At that point the state jumps in with housing, vouchers, medical benefits, and you name it. Young women with no resources and very little education are CRAZY if they don't get pregnant as soon as they can because it is really the only survival mechanism they have. Unfortunately, these teenaged girls don't want their babies any more than their parents did and so as soon as the kid becomes too much trouble, the cycle begins all over again. It's truly sickening what goes on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will This Be as Close To the Original FREE As Possible?
Posted by: opmoc on Oct 24, 2008 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All they need now is KOSS to be reborn and write some new material

I heard some really good news today when we visited one of our guitarist friends.

He was talking about all the traumas of all the bands that he had recently been playing in and that THEY had to lose their vocalist for reasons I won't mention and the Band's Name is NOW DEAD

So they had been trying to find a new vocalist

And this guy had done a demo with them and really wanted to join the band

So I said what was his name?

And he told me - it seemed to mean nothing much to him.

I said WHAT?

He actually wants to sing in your band?

I Know Him

He's FUCKING BRILLIANT

I've seen him sing

He just turned up as a guest vocalist for one of the bands who turned up at our local pub

I instantly knew he was brilliant so I chatted to him and asked his name

And then the next day I put his name in Google

And he's only about 25

I guess if they actually pull him

They will have to think of a new name

How about

FREE

It must have expired by now

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evol. Psych. is a Tool to Understand, Not an Excuse
Posted by: vision on Oct 24, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad the author mentioned that understanding evolutionary psychology can be to better rise above our "caveman natures." For indeed, this is the history of civilization -- break with, or rise above, our wild natures. In diet, for example, very few advocate going back to eating gathered and hunted food. But understanding what our digestive systems were designed to do helps us eat and live healthier in modern society.

Surely one of the most troubling ideas to come out of evolutionary psychology is the idea that rape is a strategy to pass one genes on, one that could be successful. But this doesn't mean that society should countenance rape any more than it should countenance the killing of a leader the tribe has grown wary of, as monkeys do. But it does give us additional tools to understand the psychology of a rapist and better deal with the problem at a society-wide level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Muslim women
Posted by: Von on Oct 24, 2008 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that dress modest or cover themselves ( for me ) show alot of class. I hear alot of Average Joe "American" making comments about Muslim women's conservative styles of dress and public conduct. I guess they just must be irritated cuz they cant look at these
women's 'assets'.

All Muslim women do not 'cover'...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alternet's sexist double standard
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Oct 25, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you read the comments in this section, you will see that there are many many sorts of words used, some to attack the writer of the article and some to attack other posters.

THEY EVEN CALL EACH OTHER NAMES.

What is a ridiculously transparent double standard is that the alterweenies removed my post which was so much less "volatile' than many of the others.
Perhaps the one who removes certain comments is an "alternette".

My comment, which was wrongly removed, appears below.
Someone who CHOOSES to see something objectionable in it is creating the objection for their own purposes.
"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Oct 24, 2008 9:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

If large breasts are a sign of fertility, it explains why I've always prefered smaller, pert breasts on a woman.
I never wanted to be a father and have no idea whether I have been.

Also, a female who thinks like this article is not only absolutely boring and falsely selfcentered, she's also the bitch who gets angry and whines when a man opens a door for her.

REAL women understand this common courtesy and appreciate it.

I have AKWAYS found that the most interesting women are those who understand their owmn realities and allow me to be me as I am able to allow them to be them.

I never needed a book of phony pop psych to tell me how to please a woman whether sexually or otherwise.

Garbage like this article does a disservice to females however, REAL WOMEN will laugh at its nonsense.

BTW-Ask a woman what she thinks of a man who understands afterplay."

I forwarded this article to several women, a teacher, a department manager and a few others.
They agree that the article is nonsense and also agreed with my comments.

As I originally titled my comment:

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evol. psych. *can* do good things
Posted by: reuniting on Oct 25, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolutionary psychology is useful when it shows the unconscious programs we run on - so that we can use our free will to maneuver around them when alternatives would serve us better. This article is primarily about what I call our "mating" program. Yes, both men *and* women possess a program that causes us to habituate to a partner with whom we (repeatedly...usually) exhaust ourselves sexually - and then to find novel partners especially attractive.

But as pair-bonding mammals we also have another subconscious program: bonding. This program runs on "cues," that is behaviors, which lovers can use to strengthen their unions without saying a word. The cues are based on the behaviors that bond us to our kids and our parents (because our pair-bonding program evolved from that infant-caregiving program). Lovers use these cues a lot at the beginning of their relationships...and *could* learn to stick with them to strengthen their bonds indefinitely (and quiet the "move on" program mentioned above). Typical cues are kissing, skin-to-skin contact, eye gazing, generous, comforting touch (not foreplay), and many others. These calm the nervous system and therefore make unions seem safe and comforting. This is but one example of how broader knowledge of our evolutionary programming can help us steer for happier lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Censorship on AlterNet?
Posted by: Elurby on Oct 26, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#######
#######

Dear AlterNet Editors:

Why'd you remove my comment?...too on the mark
for you?

Liberals' liberalism - your liberalism - is
as indefensible as conservatives' fascism.

Here' the comment you've removed - that is,
censored (( notice that all the book burners
on college campi are liberals trashing any-
publication not to their liking )):

When you take the sacred out of sexuality, you expose the base instincts inherent in the reptilian brain. // Liberals' liberalism (aka FEMINISM) has effected this disease-spreading, sex-is-fun degradation of women, which badly impacts the children they may have and raise; and it has given men exactly what their reptilian nature lusts after: SEX. // We're witnessing the decline and fall of high-culture (pre-Sixties) civilization. // Thank Leftism for what you're about to suffer in this coming GREATER DEPRESSION, which it effected by its something-for-nothing welfare programs (sub-prime loans are Leftism at work!, which were designed to put poor people in homes they could not afford, let alone maintain). // Liberalism is a mental disease (non-classical liberalism).


#######
#######

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Censorship on AlterNet? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» Elurby - WTF? Posted by: laoma
Nurturing Needed
Posted by: txbodhi on Oct 26, 2008 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are a social species rather than a species where the solitary male impregnates the female and wanders off alone. Even in social species where the adult males don’t spend much time taking care of the pre-adolescent, adult males usually mentor the adolescent males who are kicked out of the family group. Among the African elephants where the older males were killed off the adolescent and young adult males did unusual delinquent behavior because of not having adult male role models. I think one big factor in family disintegration was the industrial revolution that reduced the amount of time the fathers and uncles spent with their sons/nephews. It is not only that there is greater instability in marriage, the quality of male-male friendship has deteriorated. Men who jump from woman to woman and don’t want children usually also have very superficial relationships with other men. This wouldn’t have worked on the African Savanna where the survival of a Homo erectus and early H. sapiens adolescent or adult male depended on his relationship with the other hunting males of his extended family group and the cooperation with the females. The anti-nurturing type feminists whose goal was to get all gals to strive to be type A Capitalistic bosses or brutal military officers is not a solution either. Merely ape-ing unenlightened male behavior doesn’t produce a better society. Masculine lesbians beat up their lovers about as frequently as males do their women. We must tame the worst in our beast nature while accentuating the best in our mammalian nature to produce a person who is both adventuresome and inquisitive yet compassionate. Stop drinking alcohol, be more charitable, and meditate to alter your consciousness and your relationships will improve over time. - A gay male

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An article well chosen for a female only audience
Posted by: Andrew_S on Oct 27, 2008 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether the author delves into the depths of some internal schizm or self justification for a few applause, or just a simple desperate cry for help is not quite clear especially in this article. Whatever it is, professional welfare for harridans of the newer clarion class are desperately needed. Let's see how feminazm does without the underpinning of state power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just go out in the real world
Posted by: antonius116 on Oct 27, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no need for theory and philosophy here when it comes to sex....Just go out and live it. For example, men are 10,000 times more likely to be turned down by a woman for his sexual aggression. Why? How come women aren't as sexually aggressive as men? i.e. For you guys out there, don't you ever wonder why you are usually the one who has to make the first move?? The double-standard exists because men and woman are as different as apples and oranges.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"evolutionary psychology" is all speculation
Posted by: NYCartist on Oct 28, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a feminist, with a scientist spouse, together for 29 years, so I am pre-locked in evolutionary psychology. It's speculation. Fed more by popular sociology that's been antiwomen since Susan Falludi documented the "Backlash" in the media for over two decades, in her book with title using "backlash". I first saw the theory about hip to breast size on the BBC News website, and I think their medical articles are bad as in stupid. There are "breast guys" and "legs guys" and "back"(aka buttoms/buttocks)guys. I sometimes wonder if it doesn't have more to do with their mother's shape.

I am a senior citizen, twice married plus other long term relationships. And, like Miss Marple, I pay attention. But I don't make my guesses into pseudo-science. Altho, the funniest example I can give of media influence is: I was single again, did ads, one guy met me and said, "Do you know why I don't find you attractive and I only like blonds?" I said, "No I don't want to know. Left money on the table for my beverage and walked out." Surely all those guys who only want blondes fit in here somewheres? (besides tv news)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waist to Hip Ratio and the Willendorf Venus
Posted by: Alsu on Nov 2, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two artefacts of the paleolithic age come to my mind: one, the paintings on the Altamira cave, where men and women are depicted in such a way no one can discern any waist to hip ratio and two, the Willendorf Venus, and well - you wouldn't call her very young and slim, would you? As she is seen as a fertility goddess one could argue that maybe the ideal of the so called caveman wasn't the playboy model, or he would have painted it on a wall or sculpted it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science does not support the popular myth of male 'seed-spreading'
Posted by: Dayaan on Nov 10, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, people as reflected by pop-culture, only use science to endorse behavior when it suits them. Evolutionary biology does not support the claim that the male behavior pattern of having sex with as many young fertile women as possible ensures that they have more progeny than men who are monogamous. Monogamous men tend to have more children who reach maturity and then go on to propagate the species carrying their genes into the succeeding geneerations.
Why is this true? Well, for one, it's the reason given for women being choosy in selecting their mates: it takes a long time to raise a child to maturity and while a women is pregnant and caring for an infant she is very vulnerable and so are her children. She needs a male (and probably an extended family) to protect her during these vulnerable times. If the father does protect her, then it is more likely that his children will reach maturity and his 'genes' will be present in the next generation.
Second reason: disease. Certain sexually transmitted diseases, which occur most often in the highly promiscuous, limit fertility of both men and women causing them to have lower probability of their genes being present in the next generation. Over the millions of years it took to evolve the humans of today (pre-antibiotics), any lowered probability has a great effect on genetic outcome.
A very nice essay on this is found in Chapter 18 of Natalie Angier's book 'Woman.'
As much as it pains me to say this (being a feminist as much as I am a biochemist), serial monogamy or divorcing your middle-aged wife in favor of a younger woman does increase the man's odds of passing more of his genes on to the next generation; unless of course he is so old that he does not live to protect his young wife's children.
While the science of evolutionary psychology is certainly allowed to use the findings of evolutionary biology, it is not appropriate to point to the animal kingdom and effectively say "see the monkeys, that's why we act this way!" even if the language is much more scientific. There is no parallel for our civilizations or religions in the animal kingdom; nor is there any parallel in our ability to think and reason that comes close in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees, gorillas & dolphins may be intelligent animals, but they do not come close to us. Our intelligence gave us an evolutionary/historical survival advantage and it pains me to see that the relatively easy lives of the majority of Westerners is providing a vehicle for us to toss out intelligence in favor of giving in to our 'animal' selves.
I doubt the 'cavemen' involved in the Central Park incident would like to be responsible for providing all of their own food, clothing and shelter without any modern technology. However, if these males could be transported back to the real 'caveman days', it is quite likely that they would come to appreciate the contribution of women in the family or tribe's survival; that is if any cavewoman would accept a man who would be so lacking in survival skills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

troll
Posted by: lizokitten on Nov 18, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: troll Posted by: lizokitten
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement