It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Males and Females

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:38 AM
Hello all

I just remembered somthing which came up in a discussion with a friend and myself a couple of months ago.
Please don't bring religion into this, just base it on what it is.

Male - Has sex and can move on to impregnate more females.
Female - Has sex, falls pregnant and carrys child for 9 months.

Would this mean that males were "designed" to mate then move on ? If we did not have feelings towards one another.....

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:50 AM
No males are mobile to hunt and gather for the female and offspring since the female cannot. So it is evidence of monogamy. Male finds woman, knocks up woman, feeds woman, then feeds woman and child.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Jamesprototype
Would this mean that males were "designed" to mate then move on ?

Not completely. Its all about maximal survival stratagies for getting your genes into the next generation, and (remembering that the overwhelming vast majority of human evolution took place in 'primitive' hunter gatherer societies) a father that does not stay to help the mother and child has a less likely chance of that child surviving. This is counterbalanced by the increased number of children.
the prospective mother who has a child with a father that doesnt stay around has a less likely chance of passing the genes to the next generation as well (and also put them out of having another child with a good father for along time), so the survival strategy is to take the time to check if the father will stick around.
Because of this, the best strategy for the male is to *appear* to want to stay around, but later move on to another female. The female also has the counter strategy of finding a male that will stick around, but actually getting pregnant by a male with 'better' genes. Males counter this by killing illegitimate children and then getting the female pregnant again.

Its all quite complex with strategies and counter strategies.

I recall reading a few years back that there is a value about 1.2, which describes the number of women a man optimally tries to be with for maximal gene transmission to the next generation. One female, a "banker", to give that child a chance of surviving, but also try to get other females pregnant.

Its all about the "selfish" genes anyway, its not about the people.

edit - found a random reference for that 1.2 number...
if you graph mammals logarithmically, with the size ratio of males to females on one axis and the harem size on the other, it forms a straight line. We humans have a natural harem size of 1.2 women per man
edit on 20-6-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:53 AM
Under a mere biological perspective it would certainly seem so.

But pregnancy state requires help and attentions to keep the mother and baby alive. If pregnant women were fully assisted by the "tribe" instead of by themselves or their partners probably the model would go on as you suggest. If once the baby was given birth the "tribe" took care of him probably women would go on too to get pregnant again.

I think I wouldnt like it that way,
but it's interesting.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by Jamesprototype

Here is my own take on this:
A man gives a woman his love in return for comfort.
A woman give her love in return for security.
Males and Females are 1/2 of the same thing, a Divine Spiritual Essence. They need each other. When one abuses the other, it throws the balance off. Same thing is one hurts the other. Forgiveness is Divine, and everything, every thought and action is based on one of two things only, there is no other choice.

Choose wisely. And always remember, a relationship is like a garden, it must be hoes, weeds pulled out, watered, fertilized, and nurtured every single day.

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:24 AM
Thanks for the replies everyone


posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:42 AM
Biologically speaking, it would seem that monogamy is not the evolutionary plan. If we look back to historical times, we see many instances of men with means taking multiple wives. Heck, in some cultures this still happens.

The male "wandering eye" is another hint of it. Socially, however, we've been conditioned for it to be the norm in modern times. So, our social values are overwriting our genetic tendencies.

new topics

top topics


log in