Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
...and if so, how limiting are they?
Bateman's principle basically says the sex which invests the most in producing offspring becomes a limiting resource over which the other sex will compete. For most animals the female invests the most into reproduction, so males compete for them. The males are the unlimited resource. There are exceptions though. For example, in some species of birds (like the 3 species of Phalarope) the males spend the time incubating the eggs and the females compete for nesting territory and pursue the males.
If you accept this so far, then you would also accept that men and women must have developed traits that give them the highest probability of passing on their genes. Men developed the trait of being sexually aggressive to compete against other men for (the limited) women. Women have the luxury of being passive and choosy because they have traditionally been the limited resource. Women will choose aggressive males (along with other desirable traits) since their male offspring will be more likely to share the same traits as the father and pass on their genes to the next generation.
Since sex is less about reproduction and more about pleasure now (with birth control and such), it would seem women are less of a limiting resource than in the past. Women do still invest more into reproduction though. For example, there are still single mothers that spend more time caring for the kids and are somewhat "off the market," but the father is free to look for new sexual partners. But overall, women are less of a limited sexual resource now than ever before.
So it seems as though the sexual revolution has confused a lot of people. We don't know what is right or wrong and what is expected of us anymore. Our sex drives tell us one thing but the dynamics of sex in our current society expect something else. Men's instincts drive them to be sexually assertive, but society tells us that men and women are equal so men shouldn't be as aggressive. Some women have become more sexually assertive and other women feel like they are left behind if they don't put out.
Do you think the modern role of sex in our society and our genetic makeup are now in conflict? Are men's and women's sexual instincts at odds with the current sexual expectations?
How do you fit into all this? Do you feel like you are a limited, valuable resource or an unlimited resource so you must compete for sexual partners?
Discuss :smile:
Great post.
Yes, I think men and women have a cultural imprint that is way out of alignment with their genetically driven sexual behavior.
Women intellectually 'want' more sensitive guys... but are not as biologically drawn to them as they are to more assertive or powerful guys.
Men intellectually want women to be far more sexual... but when they meet a woman who is as sexual as they fantasize, they are put off and fearful of her fidelity... willing to screw them, but unwilling to commit to them.
We can all imagine a much better world than we are, as yet, evolved to achieve.
We can, to a certain extent, combat these ancient instincts with intellectual discipline... but its a constant pressure on all of our interactions...
But really... a great post and a great question.