How much of "commitment" and "promiscuous" is biological?

Hmmm - just to start things off - evolutionary psychology certainly is able to seek to explain (whether validly, or not) the apparent differences between the genders.

Thing is - by this explanation men want women to be "committed" - (so the genes which continue are half theirs) - while they are free to be "promiscuous" - which already sort of complicates the putative reality.

A second observation. Many species which were once thought to be either monogamous - either single male and female (like swans etc) - or, where the male was thought to have a "harem" with whom he mated exclusively - have proven, upon ethological investigation and DNA examination - to be far different: ie, the females are busy having sex with different males every chance they get! In species where animals mate "monogamously" for a reproductive season, some studies have shown that, again, the females are happy to mate with unpartnered males - again having the male mate working to raise offspring that have no genetic relationship with him.

One in the eye for biological determinism!

Of course, many other species, in the wild (so domestic critters like chooks cannot come into it!!!) have a system where, for each season, the female chooses the male with whom she will procreate from a a bunch of displaying males, who take no part in raising the young. Next season is a whole different ballgame - as it were...

It has, of course, been argued that human young, with their long and highly dependent infancy, require two parents to ensure survival - hence causing human females to favour having a permanent (or at least there for a couple of years) mate. (This is one way of seeking to explain the unusual non-cyclical receptivity of human females to mating and the existence of the potent, and roughly two-year long, chemical explosion known as being "in love" in our culture - ie it is a way of keeping a male there.) By this argument, however, the male ought also to have an investment genetically in staying to raise young, since he has a real investment in his children's survival.

There are also highly intelligent species, like elephants, whose babies have a long, highly dependent, infancy (not as dependent as the human baby's, of course) who have evolved a very different system - one where the females form a permanent, highly co-operative and supportive, female "clan", and the males live quite separate (fairly solitary) lives - only really coming together with the females to mate.

Our closest relatives, the chimps, have a clan - with males and females staying together - but as a group, not as mating pairs. Ditto with bonoboes.

There seems to me no absolutely convincing logic for monogamous females/promiscuous males to be found in biology (ie the "selfish gene") or evolutionary psychology (the successful gene expressing itself through behaviour) - since, as I say, if survival of the human baby really needs two parents, it would seem to me as reasonable a strategy for the human male to put his eggs, as it were, in a single relationship basket, as for him to scatter them around and hope the female can raise 'em successfully alone. However, the fact that females tend to be more trammeled by the process of child-bearing and raising than fellas, would certainly make us have more of an investment in having SOMEBODY around. I cannot see a really convincing argument for woman preferring, based in biology, to have that be a single male mate, rather than a group of females, or a mixed group, with strong co-operative ties, or a single male and a group of females - harem style - for that matter.

Of course, many still argue that ALL human behaviour is completely socially based - making all the stuff I have rambled amongst up above there a whole heap of irrelevant nonsense...

source: The evolution of female promiscuity

I am not up on my data here, but listening... woof.

can we leave rabbits out of it for ONCE?????

\\\
#-< : =
///

I think it's impossible to generalize when it comes to people since not all females and men think the same and peoples feelings tend to change over time if they have had certain experiences.

For example: When I was younger I dreamed of getting married some day, but since I ended up spending a lot of my younger years in bad relationships, my thoughts have changed.

I know many women who seem to have to have a man in their lives to feel secure, but then I also know women who are the complete opposite.

Montana- I think that your experiences illustrate the psychological and sociological ramifications of mating, not the biological.

There have been studies that show that women who have gone into surgical menopause through full hysterectomies, (the ovaries are removed, so that there is no estradiol produced) even at an early age, will exhibit a far lessened, or nonexistent, libido. Oftimes, estrogen replacement therapy, coupled with a tiny bit of testosterone, will reverse the problem.

Thanks Phoenix. I figured I might not have been getting the drift of the question. What else is knew, lol!