Biologic imperative for females to pick a partner

IMO the most successful prehistoric enclaves were those manned by protective nurturing males. Their offspring were much more likely to survive. The big error I see made in these genetic discussions is thinking the male who reproduces the most is the winner. No its the male whose offspring survived who was the winner.

And after 250000 years it hasn't frickin changed. The most nurturing, family protective and providing male still has the most successful offspring. Thats why women want the whole package even today. Penis size could likely be the least accurate measure of having successful offspring. Women are way more drawn to powerful men than well endowed men, whether it be on the savanna or the boardroom.

So then why do promiscuous, commitment-avoiding studs still exist? If it weren't a viable reproduction strategy, any such disposition to this behavior would have been bred out of humanity through natural selection and we would be perfectly monogamous. Obviously that's not the case, so being a promiscuous male must be at least a somewhat successful strategy.

I don't want to get into a treatise here -- especially on material I'm far from expert in -- but you may want to check out some texts on evolutionary biology. A good primer is called (for real) Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker. It's a pretty eye-opening look at the evolutionary theory behind human behavior. I'm not saying it's got all the answers, but he makes a lot of compelling arguments.

Warning: If you're a hopeless romantic, you probably won't like it, and you might even violently disagree with the conclusions he draws, many of which are not flattering to the idea of monogamy.

Just look at the rest of the animal kingdom. Not much monogamy among them, is there? Most animals are promiscuous. They have been around for quite a while.

I didn't say that monogamous society is unsuccessful. I merely said that we are not perfectly monogamous -- we cheat, we have one night stands, we have threesomes. If those activities weren't successful reproductively, natural selection would have ensured that we don't do them.

In fact, there are arguments that monogamy was put in place by lesser-status males to ensure that they have access to women; without societal encouragement of monogamy, women tend to flock to very high status men -- "alpha males," though I think that term is reductive -- leaving lower-status men alone. You can see this with the groupie phenomenon -- as soon as a male achieves a high level of fame or riches, wouldn't you agree that he has access to a much higher number of women? But if a rock star is married, it leaves more women for the "rest of us."

I'm not saying that's an indisputable fact. That's just the theory.

As for Western Christian society's domination, you might want to check out Guns, Germs, and Steel (man, I'm a regular book club over here) for an excellent explanation of why this came to be. In a nutshell, the author argues that the initial environment of the birthplace of Western society, the Fertile Crescent, was much richer in food and livestock resources than anywhere else, and that this advantage gave the Western world a huge head start. Successful agriculture led to food surpluses which led to thinkers and inventors having time to think and invent rather than being forced to grow their own food, which led to superior technology and strategies for using it. With these superior elements (with a lot of help from epidemic diseases that developed as a result of having close-packed city populations and to which most native societies had no immunity) they went on to conquer the world. In the book, monogamy doesn't figure into it too heavily, but I agree that it probably played a part.

Interesting thread, Wildguschaz. I do think it more likely that there were two or three women who trusted each other to one man. A woman who has just had a baby (or in her last trimester) cannot hold up her end of the bargain (sex) and also may not be so attractive to the man. I think it likely that sisters or cousins were willing to share the protection and provisions from one man, just to insure that a younger, more accessible woman could not lead the man away from his family. While one or two of the women gave their full attention to a new baby, or waddled around too pregnant for sex, or too tender from PMS or a menstrual period, there would be another woman who was sexually available, and loyal to the family.

I read G,S,G. He is full of shit and anyone with some credibility has savaged that book. He has also written another piece of junk science about ecological collapse. He said the American bison is undomesticable but i live about 1/4 mile from a bison herd of some 1000 head.

AlteredEgos premise about a couple females to one male does have merit,IMO.

Biologic imperative for females to pick a partner .

Depends on where she is in her menstrual cycle :)

Interesting. Could you point me toward some of that criticism? [Edited: Never mind, found some.]

Your point about the bison is a good one, although I might point out that it's only with the aid of modern technology that bison have been brought under control. Native Americans never accomplished that feat over thousands of years. And they're genetically identical to wild bison, so you could make the argument that they haven't really been domesticated in the true sense like pigs or cattle. But I'm probably splitting hairs, and at any rate I'm no expert, as you can tell.

Now, back to penises!

it's refreshing to hear debate and alternate views on this forum

Wyldgusechez is wise.

But Guns, Germs and Steel was still a great book.