reply to post by jimmyx
Ok. That was a nice fictionalization of evolutionary theory.
Guys did not go around sneaking up on and mounting and ejaculating into women. That sounds like some justification for raping women. While we do not
know for sure, it is much more likely (evidence bears out) that SOME men, (the powerful, the handsome, the dominant) got tons of sex voluntarily, or
as close to it as one can imagine in those times) while SOME men, the less genetically desirable got none or only what they could trick or force. If
rape has an evolutionary justification, (and it is believed to) it is a marginal one, for the marginalized males who were unable to draw or win
willing females. This was not unchallenged by the legitimate recipients of female favors, and dominant males as well as women actively sought to
You see this play out in our closest primate cousins. The idea that the males had no interest in making certain that females were protected from
these "mount and ejaculate" types is ludicrous. Even the chimpanzees do not practice this. Males have a vested interest in their offspring as
well. It may be a more general one, protect and defend the mother and child, rather than a detailed day to day groom, feed, supervise role, but they
had/have an interest in their offsprings survival. And in many primate societies they play a pretty engaged role, grooming, babysitting, etc.
Monogamy is, (as well as polygamy to some degree,) quite frankly more beneficial to males than it is to females. Particularly the way it was
originally devised, with the female having little or no choice but to comply and marry whomever was assigned to her. It served to placate the males
who would not be chosen by the females willingly, and keep them from mounting challenges to the dominant males as regularly. (As they do in primate
groups who have not yet devised such a strategy) Or, as power sharing arrangements and alliance building agreements between dominant males. In many
societies, the dominant males kept the option of sleeping with these females assigned to the less desirable males, and so kept the option of spreading
their DNA widely throughout the group. Jus Primae Noctis.
Why do I say it is more beneficial to males? It serves to placate the troublemakers to some degree. It isnt perfect, but imagine for a moment groups
of males not allowed to have the company of women at all wandering in packs the way they often do in social primate groups, always watching for their
chance to seize power. Or hump one another. (Prison, anyone?) It thus protects the position of the currently dominant at the same time the lower
ranking males benefit from the access to females. The females at the top end still tend not to gain monogamy, even if there is only one legal wife,
the most dominant males still tend to philander, but historically it could be fatal for her to do so as well. The lower end of the female spectrum is
stuck day to day with a less than desirable partner, and his offspring, and historically still subject to the whim of the dominant males.
Certainly, things have changed a bit since that time, in some places. In some places, they havent changed much at all.
I like the introduction of evolutionary theory into a discussion about male and female relationships, but I sure hate to see one just randomly
constructed with little or no research into the topic, created from some misunderstanding of male and female roles. It is a little more complicated
in fact than the 1970's-1980's version of evolutionary theory where women were portrayed as being protected by and randomly used sexually by noble
manly hunters wielding spears.
Polygamy could be a better option for females IF they were allowed to choose the male, at least they would get the good genes, but often they are not
allowed to choose. And, it does nothing to resolve the "extra male" problem. Which leads to war or internal conflict. Some Mormon polygamist
sects deal with this by "ousting" the extra males. It works much less well if large groups of people attempt this strategy.
Porn itself is problematic because it does tend to give men unrealistic ideals about what they can expect to find in a woman. As does the fantasy
that foreign women are more willing to be submissive little slaves than American women are. See how that plays out in practice. I know a few guys
who have tried that only to find that their angelic little fantasy woman turned into a normal woman with wants and needs after she escaped extreme
economic conditions. Surprisingly, it is the economic necessity that forces someone to feel that have to please someone in order to survive.
American women are not "pricing themselves out of the market" as someone theorized, they are less desperate economically, and less willing to accept
substandard conditions and treatment. They can afford to be more choosy, at least in their most "desirable" mating years. The tide tends to turn
as they get older, whereas for males those not genetically gifted in their youth can have the tide turn in their favor as they gain economic stability
and resources (power) as they age.
Of course, along that line, romance novels, movies, etc. tend to give women unrealistic expectations as well. Some of the unrealistic body image
issues women have are self imposed. Haute Couture and the super skinny fashion models? Dont blame the straight guys, women. The women in porn tend
to be much more "realistic" versions of femininity than the fashion industry standards. Not surprising since the drivers of the fashion industry
tend to be males that do not tend to prefer females sexually. It should be no mystery that fashion models tend to look like pretty adolescent males,
all skinny and flat chested.