Evolution's Role in Mate Selection

First off - the rules of my thread.

1. No emoticons, and no IM-speak, e.g. "OMG, LOL." Use proper grammar, spelling and punctuation.

2. No personal attacks or name calling. If you disagree with another poster's point, explain why. Keep it impersonal.

My theses:

Men are primarily interested in sex. Women are primarily interested in long-term relationships.

Ten or so million years ago, males and females figured out that, in order to propagate our lineage, we had to pursue diverse strategies when it came to mate selection. Men tried to find as many healthy mates as they could and impregnate them all, whereas women tried to find the best man to help raise the child and protect the family. Hence, we see today that men tend to be relatively satisfied with a sexual relationship without more, whereas women have a more difficult time enjoying a purely sexual relationship.

Men are all about looks. Women are all about power.

This is largely a product of the first thesis. Males only cared about a female’s health, because their only interest was whether, if impregnated, she would be able to carry to term and produce a healthy baby. Of course, Stone Age man wasn’t about to give Stone Age woman a physical, so he used the cues available. How did her hair and teeth look? How symmetrical were her facial features? And, of course, did she have a well-proportioned body, especially the proportion between her waist and hips?

Women only cared about a male’s ability to provide and protect. Could he outfight and outsmart other men? Could he keep her and her children fed and sheltered, safe from predators and the elements? Thus, women preferred smart, strong, and big men. As man came to live in villages, those who were able to outdo their rivals were seen as powerful.

Today, we are a bit more sophisticated, but unable to reverse or negate ten million years of evolution. So, men still look for healthy (hot) women and sex, women still look for powerful (rich) men and relationships. Everything else remains, and always shall remain, secondary.

Agree or disagree, and support your position.

I agree for the most part, but I try not to think about it too much, lest I succumb to paralysis by analysis.

Much better to be the shark making the kill than to watch it doing so on television. Or maybe I need to change the channel...

"So, men still look for healthy (hot) women and sex, women still look for powerful (rich) men and relationships. Everything else remains, and always shall remain, secondary."

disagree

Every single aphid behaves in the same way in their search for food, existence, reproduction, every single human does not. 'Evolution' has been overridden in terms of individuality - each person has different goals for their life.

If, by your above post, every woman thinks .... 'Could he outfight and outsmart other men? Could he keep her and her children fed and sheltered, safe from predators and the elements?' But no man wants a family - they just want to reproduce but not have an evolutionary strategy to bring up children to maximise their possibilities of reaching maturity - because 'Men are primarily interested in sex' and not staying behind to care for those children he has produced. Its an evolutionary oxymoron that hasnt been duplicated in any other species.

If our behaviour makes us victims of evolution, then if all men want is procreation, then women wouldnt all want relationships - they would eat the man after sex to feed her new embryos, be bigger than the male and take on any mofo that happened across her. Oh, well that may apply to some.....

Originally posted by BigBelm

If, by your above post, every woman thinks .... 'Could he outfight and outsmart other men? Could he keep her and her children fed and sheltered, safe from predators and the elements?' But no man wants a family, because 'Men are primarily interested in sex' and not staying behind to care for those children he has produced, its an evolutionary oxymoron that hasnt been duplicated in any other species.

I foresaw the oxymoronic argument, and tried to address it, albeit subtly. It's not that men don't want a family to raise - they often do. But, it is secondary to the sexual impetus. I think that part of the reason that men enter into committed relationships is that, given current social climes, it is their most efficient method to secure optimum (quality, quantity and outcome) sex.

Originally posted by BigBelm

If our behaviour makes us victims of evolution, then if all men want is procreation, then women wouldnt all want relationships - they would eat the man after sex to feed her new embryos, be bigger than the male and take on any mofo that happened across her. Oh, well that may apply to some.....

I think this is a disturbingly apt metaphor for what actually happens. Bottom line - if they could, they probably would.

Second: Bunk! It sounds like an excuse for men who feel guilty about catting around to stop feeling guilty, and a justification for ignorance.

I think I respect MAN a little more than that. You are leaving out emotions entirely. Animals have emotions. Emotions did not spring up at the dawn of civilization -- they were always there. Animals form attractions for others and care for others even if they do not express it the way we do. There are other animals who are monogomous and that doesn't fit in with the 'evolution' theory.

It's hormonal anyway.

Nice post, but there's not really anything new in it.

I am not powerful. I am not rich. It does not mean that the woman I take an interest in is not hot. Or that "hot" women would not be attracted to me.

Power and resources are socially mediated. There is no 'American' gene in our body, just as there is no gene that causes men to stand or sit on a toilet, when they have to pee. Almost all of the things we think common, are social constructs. Competition is normal in Western capitalism. It by no means implies that it is normal in all societies.

50,000 years ago, "hot" women were those with more body weight than average. Why? Because it signifies health. Now, if a woman starves herself to death, it signifies health. The two don't make sense, do they? Of course not. Health is a socially mediated concept.

Of course that allows the same men to go after "hot" women. But evolution can't account for why we believe "hot" to be so different in 50,000 years, or even less. If our perceptions of "hot", "rich", "powerful" have changed so drastically in the past couple of thousand years, and in a way that it is in no way attributable to evolution, what does it tell about the strength of our genetic programming?

I was watching a documentary on the evolution of sex and they claimed that, proportionally, human males have the largest penis of all primates.

In size or in weight Tanbark? I remember following a course on evolutionary psychology, in which it was debated that humans are not entirely monogamous, but also not entirely polygamous. Testes size (in weight), was used as one of the indicators.

Originally posted by tanbark813

I was watching a documentary on the evolution of sex and they claimed that, proportionally, human males have the largest penis of all primates.

i saw it too!

it was in proportion to body size.

gorilla's have huge testicles but a mini penis...... and, conversely, They do not seem too preoccupied with it.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

I am not powerful. I am not rich. It does not mean that the woman I take an interest in is not hot. Or that "hot" women would not be attracted to me.

You are smart, which is one method of communicating power. It's unlikely that, all else equal, a woman would be as attracted to you as to somone who is richer and more powerful. Whether you're attracted to them is an altogether different analysis.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Power and resources are socially mediated. There is no 'American' gene in our body, just as there is no gene that causes men to stand or sit on a toilet, when they have to pee. Almost all of the things we think common, are social constructs. Competition is normal in Western capitalism. It by no means implies that it is normal in all societies.

Competition is innately human. Capitalism is but one system under which humans can compete. When sperm swim to an egg, they race, and the competition continues from there.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

50,000 years ago, "hot" women were those with more body weight than average. Why? Because it signifies health. Now, if a woman starves herself to death, it signifies health. The two don't make sense, do they? Of course not. Health is a socially mediated concept.

Sure it is a socially mediated concept, based less on what's in vouge than what science and technology allow. It does make sense that it changes as information and access to resources change.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Of course that allows the same men to go after "hot" women. But evolution can't account for why we believe "hot" to be so different in 50,000 years, or even less. If our perceptions of "hot", "rich", "powerful" have changed so drastically in the past couple of thousand years, and in a way that it is in no way attributable to evolution, what does it tell about the strength of our genetic programming?

I think we may have to agree to disagree with respect to how "drastic" the changes have been. I'll always refer back to the timelessness of the 0.7 waist-hip ratio.

It's certainly an argument most plastic surgeons would wish to promote.

I think the aim of education and socialisation is to raise us from being mere animals, and the ability to feel love in a more spiritual form is part of that. Some people believe in that sort of emotion, think that it matters and have the ability to care deeply about other people. Others don't want to believe in it - and I suppose there are some people who just can't. A bit like the Tin Man. Personally, I think life's more fun and worthwhile if you do believe in it - but I suppose it's less difficult and complicated if you don't.

Oh - and because you told us not to...here's a few perfectly bland and symmetrical little faces for you...

Originally posted by d'Arthez

In size or in weight Tanbark?

I'm pretty sure they were going by length.

Firstly, i was hoping to be told off for saying 'mofo'

Secondly:

'It's not that men don't want a family to raise - they often do. But, it is secondary to the sexual impetus. I think that part of the reason that men enter into committed relationships is that, given current social climes, it is their most efficient method to secure optimum (quality, quantity and outcome) sex.'

Men dont enter into committed relationships to secure optimum sex. I dont know a single man who would say thats the primary reason for it - its a secondary reason for a relationship - a bonus IF they get 'optimum' sex - . The difference between an aphid and a human is conscious thought. Conscious thought has no bearing whatsoever on evolution. What evolutionary strategy would be more effective with the subject thinking' why am i here?' 'is there a God?', 'whats the meaning of life?". I do agree that evolution has paid a part in our creation, but i disagree with every swear word i know that it is our primary drive.

'I think this is a disturbingly apt metaphor for what actually happens. Bottom line - if they could, they probably would.'

Its a completely inappropriate metaphor - thats why i used it.

'There are other animals who are monogomous and that doesn't fit in with the 'evolution' theory.' monogomous animals DO have an evolutionary strategy - they produce fewer young and look after them properly, maximising their chance of survival.

Originally posted by scratch

You are smart, which is one method of communicating power. It's unlikely that, all else equal, a woman would be as attracted to you as to somone who is richer and more powerful. Whether you're attracted to them is an altogether different analysis.

It is not unlikely. It happened. And I think most human will testify that they prefer certain psychological qualities over power and resources. If you would follow, say 5,000 women from the age of 15-55 you would find ample proof of that. Sure there are gold-diggers under the women. Just as there are mommy's boys under the men. Behaviors that are more than likely learned at the parental home - an institute of society, to perpetuate that particular society.

Competition is innately human. Capitalism is but one system under which humans can compete. When sperm swim to an egg, they race, and the competition continues from there.

I have seen some research suggesting that the female does the sperm-selection. Not the male. It will be interesting to look at it, from the other angle.

You assume that competition is natural. Even possession is not natural. In all the languages known in the world, most of them do not have a word for "to have", as in to possess something. Languages which we have exterminated for a large part in the past 200 - 500 years, with the tribes and the people who believed differently. With our ancestors ideas of dictating progress to those who were not as advanced as our ancestors were.

Sure it is a socially mediated concept, based less on what's in vouge than what science and technology allow. It does make sense that it changes as information and access to resources change.

No, it does make sense. Information is moot in evolution. Evolution does not know a thing. It just goes with what works. So if fatness worked 50,000 years ago, evolution does not teach us that starving to death skinny is more attractive. It is what we are led to believe. For instance, we have to realize that media partly shape our preferences in a partner.

'I have seen some research suggesting that the female does the sperm-selection. Not the male.'

Sperm competition is entirely female led, except that a penis is effectively shaped to displace another males sperm. apart from that - us girls rule the sperm roost. cock a doodle doo.

Originally posted by scratch

Men are primarily interested in sex. Women are primarily interested in long-term relationships.

I think humans have evolved to the point where we each seek and value different things in life. Although I feel you make a good point and it is important to know the history of stuff like that.

And the roles you mention seem to make patterns in gender today as well, but definitely a pattern and not completely accepted way of life.

Originally posted by scratch

Agree or disagree, and support your position.

You are reinventing the wheel SCRATHC. There is nothing new here. Hundreds of studies have supported this for decades.

Originally posted by BigBelm

Men dont enter into committed relationships to secure optimum sex. I dont know a single man who would say thats the primary reason for it - its a secondary reason for a relationship - a bonus IF they get 'optimum' sex.

I think you're not thinking about this transitively enough. If you walk through enough steps, you can show a path between the expectation of optimum sex and the man making a decision to enter into said relationship.

Originally posted by BigBelm

The difference between an aphid and a human is conscious thought. Conscious thought has no bearing whatsoever on evolution. I do agree that evolution has paid a part in our creation, but i disagree with every swear word i know that it is our primary drive.

I agree that conscious thought doesn't affect evolution, but perhaps subconscious thought does. Who told us that symmetrical faces are more attractive? We just...know. Evolution isn't a drive, but successful continuation of the species, or survival, is pretty darn close to primary.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

It is not unlikely. It happened. And I think most human will testify that they prefer certain psychological qualities over power and resources.

First of all, I used the ceterus paribus qualifier, so it's not a matter of preferring other qualities. Second, to the extent they do prefer other qualities, they are proxies for power. For example, if a man has a sense of humor, women are attracted because it indicates that he can outwit other men to secure resources.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

You assume that competition is natural. Even possession is not natural. In all the languages known in the world, most of them do not have a word for "to have", as in to possess something.

You think that there are societies or cultures where the survival instinct doesn't consistently lead to competition? Posession may not be natural in every instance, but it is when it comes to food, water and air.

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Information is moot in evolution. Evolution does not know a thing. It just goes with what works. So if fatness worked 50,000 years ago, evolution does not teach us that starving to death skinny is more attractive. It is what we are led to believe. For instance, we have to realize that media partly shape our preferences in a partner.

Fatness nor skinniness never "work." Again, you're overestimating the variability between times and cultures. Someone who is too fat or thin to survive will die, and the further away you get from either pole, the more attractive the person will be. Reubens' models, for example, were quite healthy, as are the beach volleyball players today.

If you agree with me about the constancy of the 0.7, I think you agree with me that the extent to which tastes change are rather limited.

First of all, I used the ceterus paribus qualifier, so it's not a matter of preferring other qualities. Second, to the extent they do prefer other qualities, they are proxies for power. For example, if a man has a sense of humor, women are attracted because it indicates that he can outwit other men to secure resources.

Wow....what a stretch! humor has no direct bearing on resource procurement.

Originally posted by scratch

You think that there are societies or cultures where the survival instinct doesn't consistently lead to competition? Posession may not be natural in every instance, but it is when it comes to food, water and air.

food and water are nessesities for life, and do not reqiure possesion of, just the ability to obtain what you need to live.

Originally posted by scratch

Fatness nor skinniness never "work." Again, you're overestimating the variability between times and cultures. Someone who is too fat or thin to survive will die, and the further away you get from either pole, the more attractive the person will be. Reubens' models, for example, were quite healthy, as are the beach volleyball players today.

 

If you agree with me about the constancy of the 0.7, I think you agree with me that the extent to which tastes change are rather limited.

But we humans are not born fully developed, and skinny or fat or just right.

some characteristics may be set, but the majority will result from the choices the individual or their parent make, other factors include: what resources are readily avaliable, what is known or has been taught to the individual.

As several posters have implied, human culture, behavior, intelligence, reasoning, and emotions are PART of the forces of evolution, every bit as much as DNA. It's not just about crotch sniffing. I don't see big heavy males clubbing others on the street corner to eat their flesh.

Here's some cultural biology for you: Among humans, the female is fertile once a month, and it is impossible for the male to know when she is fertile. (Compare to many other mammals and birds, where the female comes into season only once or twice a year, and the male can clearly detect her readiness to reproduce.) Hence, the human male has to stay close to the female for an extended period of time, copulating frequently. I'm talking 10-12 months, going at it several times per week, to be reasonably sure of a pregnancy. I believe that this fact is related to human pair bonding. The male and female imprint with each other via the action of oxytocin, dopamine and ethanol (fermented berries etc.).

If the male is not able to stay close to and on copulating terms with the female for that period of time, he will not be able to reproduce. Sure, he could have violent sexual encounters, but he will put his own survival at risk, each individual act has a low chance of passing on his genes, and any offspring of those violent acts will have a lower survival rate. Advantage: to successful hunters who are fun to cuddle with under the mammoth skins in a chilly cave, over an extended period of time. The male, with his ample, warming body hair, goes out into the frozen landscapes of the Ice Age and brings home chunks of meat, and animal skins, to share with the female and keep her close to him. He needs to have energy even after hunting to go for a quickie with his grunting mate (or mates - I don't think the biology implies monogamy, just extended partnerships). She cares for the offspring and in many climates would provide the majority of the calories consumed via gathering of wild foods. Women with small children would be less able to hunt and access the high-calorie, high-fat, nutrient dense meat that the male can supply. Hence, interdependency and partnerships that last the length of time necessary to conceive, bear and rear a child to a state of lesser dependency (maybe 7-8 years total)..

Originally posted by scratch

First of all, I used the ceterus paribus qualifier, so it's not a matter of preferring other qualities. Second, to the extent they do prefer other qualities, they are proxies for power. For example, if a man has a sense of humor, women are attracted because it indicates that he can outwit other men to secure resources.

In the US I can't see how wit would be helpful, as there are so many guns around - I don't have one. The sheer possession of a gun would be considered more attractive, as it is a more powerful means of coercion?

You think that there are societies or cultures where the survival instinct doesn't consistently lead to competition? Posession may not be natural in every instance, but it is when it comes to food, water and air.

Yes there are cultures like that. Most of them are becoming extinct, or are already extinct, because of the impact capitalism has on these cultures. And competition over food is more artificial in the modern world than most people realize.

Fatness nor skinniness never "work." Again, you're overestimating the variability between times and cultures. Someone who is too fat or thin to survive will die, and the further away you get from either pole, the more attractive the person will be. Reubens' models, for example, were quite healthy, as are the beach volleyball players today.

I don't think obesity causes people to plainly die, evolutionary speaking. Roughly 30 percent of the Americans simply would not reproduce by current standards of obesity. The birth-rate of the US would decline so spectacularly. Somehow I have the feeling that that is not the case.

If we look at fatness and look at the causes of it, you might come up with the suggestion of fastfood. Fastfood which is predominantely eaten by the people who don't have the time to cook dinners for themselves, their partners and their kids. Lower class citizens if you like. The causes of that are purely economical - and those that are in power are okay with it, as they have made the laws that make things like that possible. Sure you could say that those in power enhance their evolutionary power in this way. But can those in power, who do the following, then please stop with all the moral bashing of minorites and homosexual people? They are no shiny examples of morality themselves, are they? Or is hypocrisy okay, from an evolutionary standpoint?

To add on Solemate:

Hunting is not the only means of acquiring food. Humans are omnivores, which means that they will also eat fruits and vegetables and such. Collecting of which normally does not require the swiftest of feet.

Originally posted by scratch

Agree or disagree, and support your position.

Hmmm....fascinating.

Right now, I'm of the mind-set to AGREE with you - because it could explain a lot about how I was lied to, and cheating on, in my past relationship.

On the other hand...is this REALLY the message you wish to convey to women?

That men are only interested in ONE thing....?

Because if that's the case, then what are you going to do if : if you finally find the love of your life, BUT she doesn't take you (or anything you do, or say) seriously at all - because she believes you are just 'playing' ???

I think you're not thinking about this transitively enough. If you walk through enough steps, you can show a path between the expectation of optimum sex and the man making a decision to enter into said relationship.

I agree that its a valid part of why a man wants a relationship - just not the primary reason necessarily. But regardless, it doesnt match with your original post - which implied men will willy nilly have sex with women because they are programmed to have as many women as possible to have as many children as possible. I don't agree thats the case, i dont agree that its the best strategy for men to have the most possible viable offspring. Theres a number of available options, humans are omnivorous in terms of sexual strategy

I agree that the subconsious plays a part - there are a number of possible options for a man to take as a strategy and both his subconscious and conscious play a part in making the decision which of the number of options he has available. The individual takes the option he decides is the best for him, (monogomay, promiscuity or abstination from reproduction) based on his levels of hormones (men with big b*lls & a square, testosterone laden-face are more likely to stray), his past experience and what he has to offer to attract the ladies. Why would a man or woman decide never to have children? It could be so they can nuture their own personal genes because they see reproducing them as too big a risk, relationshipwise or reproductionwise?

I responded to this thread because i have been internally struggling with my own arguments - i am just biology, or is the biology is a vehicle for a soul. I know thats off topic, but i am starting to veer towards the biology - much to my dismay.

I was hoping that humans spiritual challenge is (amongst other things) to overcome the pull of biology. Someone convince me please.