Quote: (11-07-2011 04:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:
Question: Can we assume that primitive man did not know how babies were formed and therefore, sex was not an idea based upon natural selection, but the act itself?
Primitive man in the absence of knowledge operated mainly on instinct, as animals do.
Quote:Quote:
Question: So, if the idea is that sexuality is directly linked to the purpose of procreation, why are millions of males having sex with random women who are not suitable? Is that part of natural selection, or is just sexual selection based on male instincts to have sex?
They are using the same ancient procreative instincts to select their mates (doing as well as they can with what they have).
The drive to fuck lots of random women is man's natural polygamous instinct. All we've done now (thanks our cultural and technological development) is continue this instinct while eliminating the culmination of the procreative act that, historically, would usually have followed as an end factor.
Prior to modernization, men still went around and fucked lots of women (the best and most fertile ones they could manage to attract and mate with). This is probably why our genitalia are designed the way they are (the mushroom head is apt for scooping out other men's semen): lots of men were trying to spread their seed, and women were trying to get the best possible seed they could find (and would allow sexual access to new males who showed the potential to fit that bill). We were all competing in a sense.
I would posit that the hookup culture today is essentially a return to this pre-modern state of things. Men still often go around and try to secure sexual access to many women, trying to pull as fertile and large a group as they possibly can (higher status guy = sexual access to a larger number of hotter[more fertile] girls, while lower status guys get less suitable (i.e. obese or otherwise less than ideal) women with poorer fertility cues). Women still try and secure the best seed they can, allowing renewed sexual access to any new male who shows the potential to fit that bill (this is what happens when you enter a relationship, beta-ize yourself/become complacent and she cheats soon after, or when another dude swoops your fuckbuddy, or when your hookup from last weekend blows you off at a party next week and gets with a new dude).
We're selecting on the same reproductive criteria as before, and we are picking the mates that are most reproductively attractive to us (men are trying to get the hottest/most fertile girls they can find and women are still hypergamously seeking the highest status men they can find). We're also fucking around in a bit of a free-for-all, just like before, with fewer of the constraints we put on ourselves after civilization (read: less monogamy).
What has changed, however, is the frequency of these reproductive instincts culminating in actual reproduction.
Because of our technology, we've been able to decide when we do and don't reproduce with more accuracy. Thus, we've simply taken what we had before and eliminated the end result (actual pregnancy) and its consequences.
We fuck for the same reasons, but have changed the results in most cases now.
Quote:Quote:
Question:Are all men programed to look for beauty, in order to have sex( as per the things you described as beautiful) because it correlates strongly with fertility? Does a particular culture dictate what beauty is?
Different cultures do have significantly different beauty standards, but I would posit that regardless of the locale, all of the different focuses correlate strongly with fertility.
Ex: To use a more simplistic/vague comparison, take a look at African-American society vs. European-American society.
Black men tend to put a much greater emphasis on waist to hip ratio and posterior depth (read: they're more likely to be "ass men").
In contrast, you can expect their white peers to put a greater emphasis on breast size and firmness, as well as facial appearance(smooth facial skin, symmetry, etc). They care more about hair length too.
Though these are different standards, all of them correlate with fertility. One focuses on posterior/waist form and structure, while the other emphasizes the breasts a bit more. Both of those things are cues for fertility.
So, to sum it up, the different groups and their different standards are really just taking different highways to the same town. At the end of the day, all of their standards tend to favor a fertility cue of some sort, just not necessarily the same exact ones.
Of course, guys can mix and match these traits (ex: plenty of black men dig white women who more closely match the white beauty standard and plenty of white men have historically procreated with black women who met the black beauty standard more closely) because at the end of the day, they all point to the same thing: fertility. That, and there is buried within many of us a natural desire for genetic variation (a useful inclination for preventing inbreeding of any sort-procreate with someone from a completely different "tribe" and you severely limit that risk by bringing new, unrelated genes into the local population pool, which in turn leads to fewer deformities down the line).
And yes, men look for beauty because of fertility. This is why they almost universally tend to favor younger, thinner women (under 40, relatively low body fat) when given the option (men without the status to make that choice take what they can get).
Quote:Quote:
#2 .. Would a male still have sex with a woman who does not have physical attributes that society says correlate to fertility?
If that is the best he can do, then yes. Men do as well as they can with what they have. If a guy simply doesn't have the status to pull a woman who isn't obese or close to it, then he'll make do with what he's got (even though obesity is conclusively shown to have a negative correlation with fertility in both men and women).
Similarly, women all desire the best seed due to their hypergamy, but only those with the most visible and attractive fertility cues (read: the hottest young girls) can reliably secure it. If you're a girl who lacks those cues for whatever reason (read: you aren't as physically attractive), you'll need to settle for less than Mr. Big.
This is why many posit that older women are "easier" or "less hassle" than their younger counterparts. Women rely on their fertility and its cues to secure the best men they can find. As they age, they lose the fertility cues (breast are not as firm, legs less toned, skin not as smooth, etc) and their fertility with it, so they can't pick and choose as easily.
This is when they'll begin to take what they can get.
Quote:Quote:
Question: Is there a difference between "intentional design" to ensure procreation, and the intention of the participants? If the intent is to just have sex, based upon the desired effects that sex produces, are we overriding the system to procreate? What is the purpose of an orgasm?
Yes and no on the first question.
The subconscious intent of the participants is always governed by the intent to secure the best procreative mate. When it comes to mate selection, men and women are always looking for cues that make for good mothers/fathers for progeny.
Because of our intelligence, however, we can often prevent this procreative instinct from reaching its full conclusion because we want the sex (which we usually only enjoy when it is with partners we find procreatively suitable) but not the baby that would result.
Ex: Player 1 selects Girl A. He picks Girl A because she is "hot" (read: she shows all of the right fertility cues-good waist to hip ratio, nice hair, youth, not obese, etc). She allows him sexual access because he is hot (read: she fits her hypergamous tests for a man who will provide the best seed).
The subconscious intent to procreate is always there (thanks to our natural design to ensure procreation) and it is what will result in their later intent to have sex with one another. They're only together because they meet one another's subconscious procreative standards (standard we term as "hot", "cute", "fine", etc).
However, these two can decide later not to bring this procreative insticnt to term, and prevent a pregnancy from happening. This is because of human intelligence and technology.
Procreative insticnt is what always drives the mating, but humans have managed to limit its results now and the consequences that come with it.
Keep in mind that this does not always work, as our instincts still have power over us. When we find a partner that really aces our natural procreative stress tests, we are more likely to lose our ability to limit the end results of the procreative instinct and prevent pregnancy.
Roissy and others have regularly talked of the increased desire to impregnate girls who are particularly hot (read: show more fertility cues). Roissy isn't exactly a man known to be gung-ho for fatherhood/marriage, but even he has felt the urge. Many more men succumb to it.
When women find a "good man" (read: one who fits the hypergamy test), they're more likely to slip up and allow him to impregnate them. JoeHoya recently
made a good post about just this type of thing-it is not rare at all. Even if she was a dilligent, smart, career focused girl, the right guy can have her losing her senses, neglecting to see that he wears a condom and forgetting her pills. The acquisition of "good" seed is far more important to women than they'll often admit-when she spots it, she will often do whatever it takes to lock it down for herself, even if it means using underhanded deceit(read: poking holes in condoms). Doesn't matter if she has a GED or is a Harvard grad-all are susceptible to this. The procreative instinct is fully capable of overpowering our more "civilized" senses.
Orgasms aid procreation. A woman is more likely to conceive when she cums (and a male orgasm, obviously, results in the release of semen).
We will never be able to fully override our own nature. That would take a god, and humans are not gods. We can tame our nature to an extent (as we've done with our procreative instincts by using our technology/intelligence to prevent pregnancy at a whim), but overriding/eliminating it is not an option.
Quote:Quote:
Comment/question:"Prior to modern times" could mean anything, but let's assume the evolutionary mechanisms that exist today , existed prior to modern times, is it possible that culturally induced desires, mimic those that are biological then, and now?
It is possible, since culture is, to some extent, tied to our biology.
Quote:Quote:
Question: Is it possible that based upon the understanding of hormonal and chemical processes, we can argue that sexual selection is not wholly designed for the purpose of procreation, (though that may be the outcome)?
I don't think so. If anything, I believe greater understanding of our bodies' chemical/hormonal processes over time will only make the procreative intent of sex more obvious.
We can take sex and make it about other things with our intelligence/technology. We can use it for other purposes, and we can decide when we procreate and when we do not(even if we're always having sex). All of this is because of humanity's intellect, not natural design.
The natural design and primary intent of the sexual act (procreation) is very clear, at least from what I can see. Sex has only become about other things with the rise of technology, which mitigated many of its consequences and allowed us to pursue it without the end result of pregnancy(and its costs). That's my perspective on the subject.
If men were not procreatively selective, there would be no stigma against fat or ugly women, and women like Rosie O'Donnell would be just as likely "tens" as the Kate Upton's of our world (their weight, age and complete lack of fertility cues wouldn't matter). If women were not procreatively selective, there would be no need for game (they'd simply fuck whatever guy, regardless of the relative quality of his seed).
Procreative selection is the foundation of sexual selection/gender dynamics as we know it. It is the root of our sexual behavior, and I posit that unless we transcend our status as humans and evolve into something else, it always will be.
Quote:Quote:
Question: If one is determined to be gay or lesbian, is this a fabrication of one's own intellect? What if one chooses to abstain, or is asexual? [b]Are these mutations, gene modifications, or choice?
I believe that the root causes of those conditions are inborn and genetic. This is merely my hunch-I don't know enough about the research on the matter to make any further conclusions, but I suspect that those who express those conditions are naturally inclined to do so.