> From: "Chambers, Catherine" <CATCH92@psy.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:30:08 GMT
>
> I do actually have something to say on the previous lecture, on the
> issue of male/female incompatibility. It's more efficient for women to
> have one partner who supports in bringing up the children while for
> men, the best thing is to have sex with as many people as possible to
> ensure passing on genes and using as little energy as possible. This
> seems odd; like evolution has made a mistake, or got ahead of itself.
A bit of mixing up here of the factors you have to remember to keep
sorted, or none of it will make sense: Don't confuse (1) proximal and
(2) ultimate causes (1: satisfying your appetite or escaping the
feeling of hunger vs. 2: keeping serum nutrient levels high enough for
survival and reproduction) and (1) the present environment with (2) the
Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness [EEA] (1: sugar and fat abundantly
available in vending machines and restaurants vs. 2: rare sugar/fat
growing up on a Savannah 2 million years ago).
Evolution never gets ahead of itself; environments, and hence their
effects on proximal (pleasure) and ultimate (survival/reproduction)
needs change.
The theme was not male/female incompatibility, exactly, but male/female
conflict of (reproductive) interest. That means that what's best for the
goose is not best for the gander, and vice versa (even though it takes
two to tango, if you don't mind the mixed metaphor). First, in our
ancient EAA, the best strategy for the male (sow your seed widely) was
not the best for the female (save your few pregnancies for the fittest
partner and the one who commits to co-rearing your young. What men and
women came to consciously PREFER (sexually and romantically, i.e.,
proximally) then reflected this. What happened later is a bit like the
sugar/fat story with kids: The environment changed. Biggest change?
Birth control, which completely disconnects the proximal from the
ultimate (but the proximal URGES selected for back in the EAA, and any
male/female differences based on them, stay).
> Maybe in the beginning, you know in cave-men times, humans were
> pair-bonding, in that they mated for life. This would make sense as
> women were then unable to bring up children without the support of the
> male to provide food, so for a male to ensure his offspring lived, he
> would have to provide this support. BUT sex being the fun pasttime it
> is for humans has led to people not mating for life (just for
> Christmas!) and due to changes in our society meaning women (or even
> men for that matter) can bring up children alone, has led to us males
> and females being 'incompatible'. So the question is: Why is sex fun? -
> from an evolutionary point of view; Why not make it just like
> drinking? Of course I'm not complaining!! Apparently even in
> pair-bonded relationships, eg birds, the males are often unfaithful to
> the females (typical!); but for swallows, 24% of babies are looked
> after by a male who isn't their father! (ref Mike Beecham, 3rd year
> biology)
Not clear what you mean. Those for whom sex was not fun (and who hence
didn't bother to do it) never passed on their indifferent genes! The fun
factor, disconnected from reproduction, and also from the material need
for co-parenting, is what we are looking at now. Yet preferences and
sexual jealousy are still there (despite having no direct connection
with ultimate reproductive success, as they used to be).
You're right, though, the disconnection from the reproductive and
parental factors probably magnified the sexual conflict of interest
rather than reducing it.
> A quick point about homosexuals: I wasn't actually in the lecture so
> may have the wrong end of the stick, but did you say something about
> mutual promiscuity means male/male is more compatable? Isn't that a
> little stereotyped??
Male/male homosexual relations are FAR more multi-partnered (to use a
neutral term) than male/female. Symons's explanation was that male/male
sexuality reveals what male sexuality would be like if it were
unconstrained by female sexuality (which is based on different proximal
preferences).
It's not incompatibility, it's conflict of interest, of which there is
much less in homosexuality than in heterosexuality (according to
Symons).
Chrs, Stevan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:16 GMT