Origins of Sex and Power

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
Frued was a sick, crooked, twisted freak. He only did sessions with upper-class women, and slept with most of them.

sounds pretty smart to me!!!!

reply to post by Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by Astyanax
In what respect am I wrong?

I already addressed that in my response to you.

You didn't. You posted some irrelevant rubbish about ancestor sex ratios.

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by Astyanax
Any man who thinks women want to be concubines is severely addled.

Go ahead and tell me where that was said in this thread.

Here you go:

Originally posted by Edrick
As far as Lesbianism, I would agree that it is nessecarily linked to the earlier sexual Hierarchies of human (and primate) society. With the "Alpha" having supreme sexual access (There is your Harem), and all other males being cast to the wayside (So to speak). Females are necessarily Hypergamous in this fashion, (as an attempt to secure provisions, alpha genes, and social status upon their offspring).

What do you think all that means? Or did you simply not stop to consider the implications of your words?

Originally posted by Edrick
You are also lacking in a fundamental understanding that Women are attracted (As a Whole) to a VERY SMALL GROUP of the "Best" men.

The fact that most men find mates without undue difficulty gives the lie to this preposterous claim. Sexual selection doesn't work quite the way you think it does.

Originally posted by Edrick
Listen, for the good of yourself, you have to stop being led by the mainstream media "Political Correctness". You are mentally ENSLAVED to this system, and it is so patently obvious, that I can smell your shackles from here.

From a fanatical misogynist's perspective, I dare say that is how it looks--and smells. Enjoy the view, and try not to gag on the odour of normality.

[edit on 7/1/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

Any man who thinks women want to be concubines is severely addled.

Go ahead and tell me where that was said in this thread.

Here you go:

Originally posted by Edrick
As far as Lesbianism, I would agree that it is nessecarily linked to the earlier sexual Hierarchies of human (and primate) society. With the "Alpha" having supreme sexual access (There is your Harem), and all other males being cast to the wayside (So to speak). Females are necessarily Hypergamous in this fashion, (as an attempt to secure provisions, alpha genes, and social status upon their offspring).

What do you think all that means? Or did you simply not stop to consider the implications of your words?

Hypergamous does not mean "Want's to be a Concubine" it means "Attracted to a higher class" (Social, Financial, etc) for breeding purposes.

Just because women are attracted to wealthy males, does not mean that they want to "Share" them with other women...

This situation creates itself because men who are attractive to a good amount of women have no incentive to settle down with one, and thus END their promiscuity.

This "Concubine" status is not something that women seek... it is the end result of WHAT they seek...

So, once again, you are completely wrong, and you have not answered my original question about the legitimacy of your statement.

The fact that most men find mates without undue difficulty gives the lie to this preposterous claim. Sexual selection doesn't work quite the way you think it does.

I already proved you wrong, and you just refuse to admit it...

*AGAIN*

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...
The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

Now, if genetic records indicate that 80% of women reproduce, while only 40% of MEN reproduce, how do you arrive at the conclusion that most men find mates without undue difficulty?

In FACT, genetic research proves the OPPOSITE, that most... *MOST* men die without reproducing.

why are you so violently opposed to knowledge?

From a fanatical misogynist's perspective, I dare say that is how it looks--and smells. Enjoy the view, and try not to gag on the odour of normality.

I speak on Factual Truths that you do not approve of, and all of the sudden I am a Hater of Women?

If you are going to throw baseless insults that appeal to emotions instead of actually ARGUING the TOPIC, then it is clear that you have not a Leg to stand on in this particular battle of wits.

What are you going to do for an encore? Call me a "Poopy head"?

-Edrick

Just read my blog book naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com... or study the Bushmen culture.

reply to post by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by Astyanax
What do you think all that means? Or did you simply not stop to consider the implications of your words?

Hypergamous does not mean "Want's to be a Concubine" it means "Attracted to a higher class"... Just because women are attracted to wealthy males, does not mean that they want to "Share" them with other women...

Right, that answers my question. You didn't stop to consider the implications of your words. And you still haven't considered them, have you?

If genetic records indicate that 80% of women reproduce, while only 40% of MEN reproduce, how do you arrive at the conclusion that most men find mates without undue difficulty?

I look around me. For every married woman I know, there's a married man. Every child that has a mother also has a father. Apart from a few no-hopers whom no woman would look at, we men do pretty well with the girls. I'm no macho alpha male, but I've had numerous sexual relationships in my life.

It may be true that such wide disparities existed in the past. They do so no longer. I should very much like to see the science on which those statistics are based. In the meantime, I reject them.

What are you going to do for an encore? Call me a "Poopy head"?

I have never been excessively fond of stating the obvious. Or of using nursery euphemisms where good old four-letter words will do.

[edit on 8/1/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

Right, that answers my question. You didn't stop to consider the implications of your words. And you still haven't considered them, have you?

You are not listening, you never have, and in all likelihood, you never will.

Your argument is quite puerile, useless, and uninformed.

I look around me. For every married woman I know, there's a married man. Every child that has a mother also has a father. Apart from a few no-hopers whom no woman would look at, we men do pretty well with the girls. I'm no macho alpha male, but I've had numerous sexual relationships in my life.

It may be true that such wide disparities existed in the past. They do so no longer. I should very much like to see the science on which those statistics are based. In the meantime, I reject them.

Hey, If you want to keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, I will of course hand you the shovel.

"Genetic Evidence for the Unequal effective population sizes of human males and females"
mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

You finish reading that, and *THEN* you respond.

Responding before that will automatically earn you the title of "Willfully Ignorant"

You need to Grow Up.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick
If you want to keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, I will of course hand you the shovel. You finish reading that, and *THEN* you respond.

I read it. Absolutely nothing in the paper supports your thesis that women are preferentially attracted to a certain kind of male. The research indicates only that differential reproductive success among men may account for differences of degree in the action of natural selection on mitochondrial DNA (always inherited matrilineally) and the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (always inherited patrilineally). No explanation for this differential is suggested by the data itself. Read the paper again and you will find that it is so.

At the end of the paper, however, the authors do propose two mechanisms that might explain this differential reproductive success. These do not arise from research conducted by the authors, but are suggested by other studies.

The first mechanism is the one I cited earlier--namely, the use of force by dominant males to subdue and mate with large numbers of women.

The practice of polygyny, in both the traditional sense and via ‘effective polygyny’ (whereby males tend to father children with more females than females do with males—a common practice in many contemporary western cultures) would tend to increase the variance in reproductive success among males... This effect... can have extraordinary consequences if male mating success is inherited patrilineally. An example of this phenomenon was recently described in central Asia, where Y chromosomes likely to be descendents of Genghis Khan and his male relatives can be found at exceptionally high frequencies, indicating a vastly disproportionate contribution of male members of this family to the contemporary gene pool.

The authors also suggest another mechanism--again, one that has nothing to do with women being genetically programmed to join rich men's harems:

For instance, the widespread phenomenon of patrilocality (defined anthropologically as the tendency for a wife to move to her husband’s natal domicile) could contribute to the observed pattern if it resulted in higher rates of mitochondrial DNA than non-recombining Y-chromosome gene flow between genetically distinct
populations.

The authors go on to add that in real life, both factors are likely to contribute to the phenomenon you describe.

The study you quote does not support your position. You misused and misrepresented it, just as I suspected; it isn't the first time I've caught you doing it. Disgraceful.

reply to post by dragonsmusic

I think I would have to agree with SteveR. I too find bisexuality a turn off as a heterosexual.

Although I can see the evolutionary benefit of producing as much as possible, thus the appreciation with the notion of multiple mates, (which may possibly destroy evidence support the "gay" gene for those of you who believe in survival of the fittest but that's for another thread) it fails to explain what you outline; a males interest in a females bisexuality.
Or maybe we're assuming females who consent to a "threesome" are bisexual because they take interest in intimacy not only with their male counterpart, but the secondary female?

Regardless, if you are rich and powerful and can reproduce, successfully providing and protecting your multiple offspring, then great. You're populating this earth. However, this is not the case in western society, and generally the most successful of children grow up in stable homes whereas a male and female are in a binding relationship, act responsible, care for one another, supply for and protect each other, along with their offspring.

The male's desire for what I would call (personal opinion) mostly un-natural sexual situations is a product of subtle fantasy exploited and magnified by societies corporations who can sell sex.

Society will continue to decay at an alarming rate if males continue to lose appreciation for single, healthy, and stable committed relationships and instead purse temporary excitement, pleasure, and self-fulfilment. It's selfish, really. My $0.02 CDN anyways.

reply to post by Astyanax

I read it. Absolutely nothing in the paper supports your thesis that women are preferentially attracted to a certain kind of male.

Stop moving the goalpost....

My claim, that you asked for PROOF of, was the figure of 80% female reproduction, and 40% male reproduction.

The research paper was satisfactory in that capacity.

No explanation for this differential is suggested by the data itself.

I already KNOW that.

THAT is not what you asked for proof *OF*

So stop being so snide.

The authors also suggest another mechanism--again, one that has nothing to do with women being genetically programmed to join rich men's harems:

For instance, the widespread phenomenon of patrilocality (defined anthropologically as the tendency for a wife to move to her husband’s natal domicile) could contribute to the observed pattern if it resulted in higher rates of mitochondrial DNA than non-recombining Y-chromosome gene flow between genetically distinct
populations.

That is correct... the author of the research paper was not researching WHY they saw this genetic discrepancy, only THAT the discrepancy occurred...

If you want proof of *THAT*, then you should look here:

cat.inist.fr...

We have revealed not only that females were more likely than males to prefer resources in mates, and that females offering cues of physical attractiveness made higher demands than those who did not, but the better physical conditions the females offered, the greater the financial and occupational status they required in potential mates.

The study you quote does not support your position. You misused and misrepresented it, just as I suspected; it isn't the first time I've caught you doing it. Disgraceful.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
-Robert McCloskey


I am not responsible for your misunderstanding.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick
My claim, that you asked for PROOF of, was the figure of 80% female reproduction, and 40% male reproduction.

You are not telling the truth. I asked you for no such thing. I rejected the claim that such is the case at present--and I do so still. Certainly the paper does not prove or even indicate this. It says only that it is statistically likely--and no more than likely--over the whole history of the human species. Which is quite probable, since men have oppressed and overpowered women for nearly all of that history.

Originally posted by Edrick
If you want proof (that women are attracted to good providers), then you should look here

We have revealed not only that females were more likely than males to prefer resources in mates, and that females offering cues of physical attractiveness made higher demands than those who did not, but the better physical conditions the females offered, the greater the financial and occupational status they required in potential mates.

You need science to prove this?

Did you think I was contesting it?

Could you kindly point to the lines in any of my posts that gave you that impression?

Just to restate my position: whether you can see it or not, your statements, as well as dragonsmusic's, imply that women are genetically programmed to wish to be, or at least accept being, concubines of powerful men. Dragonsmusic goes further and implies that all women are latently homosexual, precisely in order to facilitate this response. I say this is pernicious rubbish.

And if it is not your position, what exactly is your point here? That women are attracted to the men most capable of protecting and providing for their children? That is obvious, normal, and natural. And it certainly isn't news.

reply to post by Astyanax

You are not telling the truth. I asked you for no such thing. I rejected the claim that such is the case at present--and I do so still.

*AT PRESENT*, yes, with that qualifier your statement is closer to accurate.

While it is certainly difficult to prove one way or anouther, I would presume that the reproductive rates of men and women are nearer to parity (In the west) than at any other time in the history of the species.

This is not to say that I believe that the rates ARE at parity.... many men still die before they have a chance to reproduce, due to workplace hazards, military service, etc...

My POINT, was that this inequity of reproduction has been a part of humanity since early times.

IT may not be the case *NOW*, this is true, but it *WAS*.

Certainly the paper does not prove or even indicate this. It says only that it is statistically likely--and no more than likely--over the whole history of the human species. Which is quite probable, since men have oppressed and overpowered women for nearly all of that history.

Now, you see... you are being mysandrist...

Your end statement here about men oppressing women clearly indicates a hatred of men.

Allow me to elaborate by way of this video.


(Not *my* video, but it is a GREAT retort for your statement.)

You need science to prove this?

Did you think I was contesting it?

You did give that impression, but regardless... I think we have reached an understanding with each other as to exactly WHAT our mutual positions on the topic is.

I trust that our future correspondence will be free of misunderstandings.

Just to restate my position: whether you can see it or not, your statements, as well as dragonsmusic's, imply that women are genetically programmed to wish to be, or at least accept being, concubines of powerful men.

Desire to be concubines?

No...

Desire (collectively) a small group of men that predispose the concubine status, since the supply of these men is less than the demand for them?

Yes.


Women *WANT* exclusivity of the "Best of the Best"

They cannot *MATHEMATICALLY* actually have this.

Thus, My position is that women "Settle" for being concubines of powerful men, as opposed to having the exclusivity of "Beta" men.

Dragonsmusic goes further and implies that all women are latently homosexual, precisely in order to facilitate this response. I say this is pernicious rubbish.

Well, since that specific part of the discussion was theory and opinion, then it is your right to disagree.

We were trying to reconcile our perspectives to how reality functions.

And if it is not your position, what exactly is your point here? That women are attracted to the men most capable of protecting and providing for their children? That is obvious, normal, and natural. And it certainly isn't news.

Yes, that is correct.

-Edrick