Originally posted by Nosred
I'm sorry but this theory is seriously flawed and has no scientific basis.
You mean you don't like it. There's plenty of evidence.
Only look at nature and you will see male animals competing for mates all over the place. Rutting stags, fighting robins, peacocks showing off their
tails, guppy fish flaunting their colours. The females pick the winners.
It's called sexual selection, and it has been known about since Darwin published his second great work, The Descent of Man
, in 1871. The work
was refined and placed on a solid basis of modern science by R.A. Fisher in 1930. It is not a new theory.
And anyone who thinks human males don't compete over mates has badly forgotten their teenage years, I think. Not that there isn't a ton of evidence
for human mate competition, too.
The OP article is just a report on a new statistical study showing that men in societies where mate competition is intensified by polygamy have
relatively shorter lifespans. It helps support the theory but is not essential to proving it. The theory is already widely accepted among evolutionary
biologists. There are volumes of observational data to support it.
If you'd like to read a simple but eye-opening explanation of the theory, I recommend The Mating Mind
by Geoffrey Miller, a book which shows
how the higher functions of the human brain may have evolved through sexual selection - that is, mating competition. My own view is a little more
conservative; whether or not mating competition made us what we are, it certainly created much of human culture.
Originally posted by andy1033
I have never wanted a mate in my life.
And look, you're not dead yet!
General statements like this are bull, as my life has proven these people are planks of wood.
A sample of one - in this case, you - is not statistically significant. Besides, would you call yourself an average person, Andy? I know you from our
encounters on ATS, and I certainly wouldn't.
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
It's not even about who's strongest. Many times the strongest DO NOT win, especially when there is corruption.
The phrase is 'survival of the fittest', not 'survival of the strongest'. Physical fitness is not necessarily evolutionary fitness. Evolutionary
fitness is measured in reproductive terms.
And no, we're not like most animals, we have a different kind of brain where we are supposed to be able to think with, and to make technology
and make use of what we got.
Both the brain and the technology it produced were probably created by mating competition in the first place. Getting hold of the best mates and
having as many grandchildren as possible are the reasons why those brains evolved in the
We also are supposed to have the brains to think that we are supposed to actually be picking mates with REAL good traits and not just mating
Your 'unconscious mind' is also part of your brain, and far stronger than the part that is conscious. Your conscious decisions are critically
influenced by it. Unfortunately, our unconscious minds judge mates mostly by the quality of their genes, not necessarily by their niceness or
faithfulness or performance in bed. Your unconscious mind isn't really interested in you. It serves your genetic agenda, not your personal one.
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
In a sense it is not just men killing men but women also killing men. You'll never see a good guy with a girl, you'll only see 'badboys' and 'bad
guys' with men but never the good ones with someone, only rarely. Every time he is left alone with nothing, there is no fidelity, or a girl cheats on
him, and he has nothing else, every time a girl is promiscuous with the "badboys" it kills him.
Well done; you've grasped the principle of how male mating competition shortens men's lives. It's even worse than you think, though. Women tend to
like what you call 'bad boys' because their 'badness' is a sign of good genes. Strong, self-confident, aggressive, sexually promiscuous males are,
in evolutionary terms, the fittest - they have the Genes Most Likely to Succeed. So women - unconsciously, perhaps - prefer to be impregnated by these
On the other hand, bad boys tend not to be good long-term relationship prospects. They tend, like the fellow earlier who was boasting about his looks
and car and how he maltreats his sexual partners, to do the dirty deed and vanish. This is not so good for a woman, who could use some help raising
the babies she's left holding - and some male protection from the big bad world too, if she can get it.
This puts nice guys in with a chance, too. Once she's had her fill of flashy bad boys who dump her, a girl may conclude that something more stable is
required for the long term. A good provider, a good co-worker in the business of life and child-rearing, someone who evidently cares for her and will
provide her with a secure and comfortable life - these things begin to have a greater appeal.
Now here's the twist in the tale: on average, women find both these kinds of men attractive, but at different points in their menstrual cycle
During the fertile phase, they tend to be attracted to macho men; for the rest of the cycle, they are attracted to good providers. This is a
well-established effect nowadays. It's not hard to see what it implies: women are genetically programmed to marry nice guys, cheat with bad boys,
bear the bad boys' kids and get the nice guy to help bring them up.
Terrible, isn't it? But you can't blame women, any more than you can blame men for competing over them. These things are genetically programmed into
us, and although we are not the helpless slaves of our genes, we are equally helpless to escape their influence altogether. However rational we are,
and however much self-control we may seem to ourselves to possess, all our behaviour is driven by instinct in the first place, and instinct comes from
the genes. Women, like men, are just doing what comes naturally to them. Unfair as it seems, this is the way human beings are made. It's not a moral
issue; it's a biological one.
By the way, do you know which category of men in Western society have the most mates per lifetime, on average? Creative types, artists, musicians and
the like. At the very top of the pyramid stand - believe it - photographers.