How promiscuous women made men the shape they are

[tank girl]

SCIENTISTS claim to have discovered the reason that men’s testicles are the size that they are: it’s all to do with the infidelity of our female ancestors.

A study of the evolution of sperm has revealed that the average human female does anything but stand by her man: like many other primates, she is not at all averse to promiscuity if she can get away with it.

Research by a team at the University of Chicago, led by Bruce Lahn, suggests that men are more prone to stray than women, but the notion that human females long for nothing but a stable, monogamous relationship with Mr Right is wrong.

The study, published today in the journal Nature Genetics, examined the evolution of male sperm among 12 species of primate, including human beings. Sperm is useful for the investigation of a species’ sexual practices in the distant past, as its characteristics are largely determined by mating patterns.

In promiscuous species, such as chimpanzees, competition for mating privileges does not end with sex: once inside a partner’s body, sperm must often battle those of a rival to be the one that fertilises the egg. In order to maximise their chances of fatherhood, male chimpanzees have evolved huge testicles and sperm counts for their body size.

Among gorillas, however, females mate only with a dominant male, who collects a harem that will not entertain the idea of sex with a rival until he has beaten the alpha male in a fight. In this polygynous system, a male can be virtually certain that no one else has copulated with his partners — and thus gorillas’ testicles are tiny.

Human testicles are somewhere in between, suggesting that while women are nothing like as promiscuous as female chimps, neither are they as faithful as the female gorilla.

It is likely that our female ancestors cheated on their spouses often enough to leave men with room for doubt about their paternity.

“In species with promiscuous females, there’s more selective pressure for the male to make his semen competitive,” Dr Lahn said. “It’s similar to the pressures of a competitive market place, [where] competitors have to constantly change their products to give them an edge over their rivals — whereas, in a monopoly, there’s no incentive to change.”

Making more sperm is not the only way of boosting a male’s chances of fertilising an egg. If his partner might be cheating on him, he can improve his prospects by producing sticky semen that coagulates in the vagina, creating a “chastity belt” that stops rival sperm from getting past and his own sperm from leaking out. The theory suggests that the more promiscuous the species, the stickier the semen. It seems that human beings have a similar viscosity of semen to orangutans.

Turns out we're not the monogomous creatures we females were made out to be after all, huh. Kinda explains partly the incentive for patriachy, in a distant, far off way...

Anyways, interesting nonetheless.

comments?

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Turns out we're not the monogomous creatures we females were stereotypically made out to be after all, huh. Kinda explains partly the incentive for patriachy, in a distant, far off way... however thats not an excuse or justification by any means...lol

comments?

Did anyone ever actually believe that either females or males were naturally monogomous? I think not. If so i'd guess that they were raised by seamonkeys. You can hardly find monogomy in religious texts much less life today.

 

[BeardofPants]

No new insights. First, I've always known that women can cheat as much as their male counterparts, if only for slightly different reasons. Secondly, monogamy is a relatively new situation for homo sapiens, IMO.

 

[tank girl]

Did anyone ever actually believe that either females or males were naturally monogomous? I think not. If so i'd guess that they were raised by seamonkeys. You can hardly find monogomy in religious texts much less life today.

AH, I don't believe so...but look back and you'll find that the stigma around female sexuality has only been recently removed in comparison to that of male. The old slut/stud double standard. Think about it...And its more of a social/cultural standard than any reflection on reality: and this study proves it. In fact it is also positve as it helps to refresh many female attitudes that stereotype men as inherent "cheaters" as well as reinforce the artificiality of the construct of monogomy as 'natural'.

Other things can be said, however about respect and faithfulness which are purely out of the trust and love for your partner, on moral terms.

Historically, and to a somewhat lesser degree even today, women have been socialized to believe that women should not engage in frequent or promiscuous sex, although such activity is much more acceptable, and even expected, for men. This double standard generally exists in the minds of both men and women. Feminist writers such as McCormick are working to change the common perceptions that women should not desire, need, or participate in sexual behavior as much as men. But, in the mean time, research shows that women's engagement in sexual activity is generally seen as more immoral than men's participation.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

All i can say is that aside from the single women that are wrapped up at home taking care of children because their husbands left them, i've never know women to be less conservative in this area than men. I never needed a poll or study to tell me this however. Yes there has been the stud/slut stigma but that's only because men ruled over womon for so long and controlled popular opinion. Now that women have more power the clueless can know the truth. Not that women can be studs but that men and women are all sluts.

the artificial construct of monogomy as 'natural'

I don't think it was ever considered natural. I think that's a misinterpretation. Rather it was considered "good" or worthy of respect. Which i believe it is.

 

[tank girl]

mmm yes, that makes sense. My question is though.... If women are so promiscuous, where are all the male whorehouses??? lol

 

[Gato_Solo]

mmm yes, that makes sense. My question is though.... If women are so promiscuous, where are all the male whorehouses??? lol

Ummm...I'm open from 1700 until 2200 Mon-Sat...please send pics, and favorite positions...

 

[PT]

mmm yes, that makes sense. My question is though.... If women are so promiscuous, where are all the male whorehouses??? lol

Male whorehouse? Um, have you tried the planet? Seriously, you don't even have to pay.

 

[tank girl]

the female version would specialise in female services, if you know what I mean...teehee

 

[PT]

the female version would specialise in female services, if you know what I mean...teehee

We're nothing if not highly trainable. Just tell us what you want, chances are we'll do it.

 

[tank girl]

.....alriiiight

 

[Gato_Solo]

.....alriiiight

Guess I'll have to extend my hours.....

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

mmm yes, that makes sense. My question is though.... If women are so promiscuous, where are all the male whorehouses??? lol

Women don't need whorehouses. Men will sleep with anything that breaths. One So-called myth is true, men want more sex than women. They don't necessarily have sex with more people but they definetly want more sex. Hense the shortage of women and as a result whorehouses are created.

 

[tank girl]

Women don't need whorehouses. Men will sleep with anything that breaths. One So-called myth is true, men want more sex than women. They don't necessarily have sex with more people but they definetly want more sex. Hense the shortage of women and as a result whorehouses are created.

...yeah, I guess that would seem the obvious answer.

 

[freako104]

Turns out we're not the monogomous creatures we females were made out to be after all, huh. Kinda explains partly the incentive for patriachy, in a distant, far off way...

Anyways, interesting nonetheless.

comments?

I think in general we can be. But that does not mean we are. But we certainly can be and in many situations are monogomus

 

[tank girl]

thats why I ascertain that

"Other things can be said, however about respect and faithfulness which are purely out of the trust and love for your partner, on moral terms."

 

[PostCode]

\looks down


*sigh*


I wanna be a chimp.

 

[tank girl]

It’s similar to the pressures of a competitive market place, [where] competitors have to constantly change their products to give them an edge over their rivals — whereas, in a monopoly, there’s no incentive to change.”

I don't know much about evolutionary psychology and natural selection, but I found a few links that analyse the fact that Darwins evolution theory, for all its accuracy, overwhelmingly prefers a 'masculinist' point of view and points out that there are reasons to think

that the hard-core evolutionary psychologists have got a lot about women wrong -- about some of us, anyway -- and that women want more and deserve better .

(which is hardly surprising given the time it was construed). This chimp study is interesting because it shows that females probably have had the upper hand all along when it comes to evolution and are in fact entiryly responsible for the continuation and health of species in the tendency to basically, 'root' in order to produce the strongest, healthiest offspring.

The cardinal premises of evolutionary psychology:
1. Men are more promiscuous and less sexually reserved than women are.
2. Women are inherently more interested in a stable relationship than men are.
3. Women are naturally attracted to high-status men with resources.
4. Men are naturally attracted to youth and beauty.
5. Humankind's core preferences and desires were hammered out long, long ago, a hundred thousand years or more, in the legendary Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation, or E.E.A., also known as the ancestral environment, also known as the Stone Age, and they have not changed appreciably since then, nor are they likely to change in the future.

This is taken from an interesting article from the New York times about this issue,I have it attatched if anyone can be bothered reading it, very long and slightly biased, but an interesting read as far as evolutionary theory goes, (from a feminist point of view.) It certainly raises interesting points.

It also brings up this saying which is apparently well known, though I've never heard of it - i thought I'd include it cos its funny...
:

''Hoggamus, higgamus,/Men are polygamous,/Higgamus, hoggamus,/Women monogamous.''

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Women are naturally attracted to high-status men with resources.

Just what I suspected. Gold diggers.

 

[tank girl]

AGH never fear, there are still some non-materialistic females out there ....

However, it is a pervasive myth that arises from a social truth, so it seems - because part of the article I posted does point out that although this fact is true, it hasn't really got anything to do with instinct anymore the opposition of polygamy/monogamy between men and women has with 'human nature'. For instance:

all this means is that men can earn a living wage better, even now, than women can. Men make up about half the world's population, but they still own the vast majority of the world's wealth -- the currency, the minerals, the timber, the gold, the stocks, the amber fields of grain.

I mean, because there is still an unlevel playing field as far as women and men in the workforce are concerned, men are more able to prosper fnancially, and so there is a bias and therefore women are attracted to men with "resources" but there is a lot of evidence to say that its more likely to be a socially defined choice, (in a western culture that revolves around money) rather than a natural evolutionary one....

The article then goes on to point out that;

Virginia Valian, a professor of psychology at Hunter College, lays out the extent of lingering economic discrepancies between men and women in the United States... In the United States the possession of a bachelor's degree adds $28,000 to a man's salary but only $9,000 to a woman's. A degree from a high-prestige school contributes $11,500 to a man's income but subtracts $2,400 from a woman's.

This is interesting, although there are a lot more chances out there for the many skilled, intelligent women in the workforce there is still an attitude that tends to favour male over female on purely practical economic[??] terms... for example a big business that wants to be sure they aren't going to loose an employee for maternity leave or something...so job and income security isn't what it should be, even today.The examples of successful women are still few and far between although their status is amplified and recognised in society and rightly so, as an achievement; yet nevertheless masks and works against the continuing disproportion of the general workforce of high-earnining men over women by giving us a false sense of security and sense that equality has been 'won', due to these few achievements.

Therefore, women have a good incentive to be "gold-digging" so to speak, as it ensures their security and survival in a consumer-capitalist society that continues to discriminate and reinforce structures against her from prosperity.She continues:

If women continue to worry that they need a man's money, because the playing field remains about as level as the surface of Mars, then we can't conclude anything about innate preferences. If women continue to suffer from bag-lady syndrome even as they become prosperous, if they still see their wealth as provisional and capsizable, and if they still hope to find a man with a dependable income to supplement their own, then we can credit women with intelligence and acumen, for inequities abound

source: [Natalie Angier, The New York Times, Feb 1999]

(sidetracked again, but I find all this intriguing )