We know that men want to have sex with lots of women to spread their seed far and wide, but women invest more in their offspring and therefore are selective. This makes women the chooser in the sexual game. However, women what different things at different times. I鈥檝e read that ovulating women want square jaw, high testosterone hotties when they鈥檙e ovulating to give their children the strongest genes, but want a man with softer features who are more likely to stick around and be a good dad during the rest of her cycle. Studies show that women are pretty good at picking out between the two. And women are more likely to cheat during monogamous relationships.
In other monogamous animals, like birds, females do the same. They have flings with high testosterone, usually younger, males, but continuously mate with life partners that have every reason to assist in rearing the chicks since it鈥檚 a good likelihood they鈥檙e the dad.
So what if we were socialized to accept behavior more in tune with these instincts? We were ok that some men get many short term partners at some point in their lives, other men get to be super dads and get steady sex 鈥?and maybe a fling or two if they can pull it off - and women get both the mates and flings with no regrets?
Would it be good or bad? And if you can put yourself it such a world, is it good for the guys? Is it good for the girls? And how do you see yourself going about in such a world, and why?Would it be good or bad? A hypothetical about sexual relationships?
good informations..
...
i dont know...but to see if ur hypothesis is realistic
lets ask ourself
what does sex means to man %26amp;
what does sex means to women
whats the deep motivation which leaded us to sex?Would it be good or bad? A hypothetical about sexual relationships?
You must have seen the '; Today '; show today. Well, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Ideally we would all be with the ONE and only them forever and be totally ecstatically in love forever too. But that is somehow so uncommon nowadays. Maybe if we had not become people that psychoanalyse things so much we could have lived the life you are explaining and it would all make sense and no one would have problems with it. It seems like everyone would get their needs met. But, yeah, you'd end up with fathers that never saw their children grow and other men raising the kids. Yet that is not so different from what we see now much of the time. God, that is a tough one . Good Luck with that!
If we were socialized to accept behavior more in tune with the animal kingdom, we would be animals. People are animalistic enough in their tendencies. Your hypothetical situation is a reality in some places, where 80% of the births are out of wedlock, 7 out of 10 homes are fatherless, single mothers give birth to multiple children with multiple fathers, and single men are fathering multiple children with multiple women, and supporting none of them. I know a lady who has 5 different children with 5 different men. All of the kids are big and strong and healthy - and fatherless, poor, and unhappy. She's on welfare, has no education, and isn't looking real attractive to men who have the means to support them all. I don't think that scenario is working very well.
i cant read all that so ill just say maybe
we discussed this in psychology class
scientifically, a successful species is one that can reproduce successfully and efficiently, so it would be a good thing
but then we have our mind, our conscience and from that the come the morals and higher emotion that governs society, I wouldn't prefer an instinctual society, even if it does benefit humanity, I don't mean to sound selfish, but that's why things are not the way you described them, the way things could be, people do like the emotional aspect of relationships sometimes, it depends on the person though, it REALLY depends on the eprson, there are a lot of people who wouldn't mind a society like the one you described
but like I said, I don't like the idea
Can you say ';plagiarism';?
We are human beings and have an evolved history. Your take on socialization is a social science perspective; completely backwards. Societies emerge from human interaction and are shaped by humans; they do not arbitrarily shape humans. I can barley get a bit of coherence from reading your question. I think you may have totally misunderstood findings of evolutionary biology.
PS WE are Homo sapien and are basically monogamous with some polygamous behavior. We are not birds, monkeys, or any other species.
I disagree. High valued males are the choosers. The rest of the beta males have the females choosing among them, simply due to the sheer mass in number of betas. But that's not even on the same level as the alphas. In society, they'd be known as high profile people of importance, say moviestars, social connaisseurs, or politicians, or just flat out big spenders. Popular people, within their circles. They're the choosers. Like Hugh Hefner. 3 girlfriends are nothing to him, and they all know about each other. You can't put a price on Alpha. And to be it, is simply a matter of standard, and consistancy. Standard, meaning one accepts nothing less. And consistancy meaning that you are constantly in that state of being, even when it seems unpleasant or inconvenient to be it. As though when one is first being recognized and challenged to prove they are that position. All very primitive really. Basic instincts.
No not really. I dont' agree it would be good for either, gender let alone the kids. Basically it makes sex a matsturbation with another person rather than about the connnection between people, emotional and spiritual reflected in the physical.
No comments:
Post a Comment