0
   

Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT

 
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:36 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
I wonder if Black Widow spiders have gang bangs. Bunch of headless guys piled up in front of an engorged female spider.

I wonder how many spider heads a female could eat before she started throwing up?


Bet the female spiders would love to find out! Er, do spiders throw up?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:37 pm
Well, I'm not sure that promiscuity is what men are looking for -- I think they (often -- again the not-always point that Slappy made too) are looking for women who like sex, and women who like sex might be promiscuous, but I think it's the liking-sex part more than the promiscuity part.

I think both of 'em, using the terms here, want their genes to carry on and will do what helps that along.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:38 pm
Well if Gus or Slappy can't think of a term for this (line 'em up), NOBOBY can!
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:40 pm
I like dirty, filthy, slutty, leather boot-wearing women who can suck a golf ball through a garden hose. Like this Penelope broad Gus speaks of. Wish they were commonplace.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:43 pm
sozobe wrote:
Well, I'm not sure that promiscuity is what men are looking for...


Aye, there's the rub...thus making your point about "keeping quiet about it" all the more relevant...
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:45 pm
So it's just possible that females themselves have purposely propogated the belief that they seek security while males seek multiplicity....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:45 pm
BorisKitten wrote:
And yes, all the terms for women seeking many men are negative

I've heard, "she's (like) a butterfly"...
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:47 pm
or a rabbit
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:47 pm
nimh wrote:
BorisKitten wrote:
And yes, all the terms for women seeking many men are negative

I've heard, "she's (like) a butterfly"...


Gee, I like that! But I've never heard it in the US.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:52 pm
Never heard the rabbit thing, either, unless you count many years ago, when a dead rabbit was used to indicate a pregnant or just promiscuous female. From the days when they actually killed a bunny to see if a woman was pregnant...
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:55 pm
It was the promiscuous thing....looking for terms...
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 05:05 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
How about "Young lady's row of sticks"


Or, perhaps her "woodies." That might work.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 05:07 pm
"The Woody Line?"
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 04:30 am
Re: Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT
BorisKitten wrote:
I think it's just as much an evolutionary advantage for women to seek multiple partners as men...for the obvious reason that, the more men a woman sleeps with, the more likely it is that ONE of them will believe he's the father.

I think your argument works if the average woman can expect to keep each of her multiple partners ignorant of her other engagements. But I would guess that in the stone-age environment evolution optimized us for, that would have been hard to impossible.

In the absence of secrecy though, to a first approximation, each of the n possible fathers would provide some amount of care for a child they knew was theirs. I would expect that they provide 1/n as much for a child that has one chance in n of being his child. Thus, under monogamy, the mother gets one father's worth of childcare; under promiscuity, she gets n times 1/n father's worth of it. There would be no difference either way under that first approximation. To a second approximation though, I expect that monogamy should leave the child better cared for, because the mother's promiscuity makes the care for it a public good: Each of the n possible fathers have an incentive to have their genes free-ride on the child care provided by the other n-1 possible fathers. Thus, their best reproductive cost-benefit tradeoff is to provide less than their fair share. Or in less pompous terms, child care would become a similar problem as cleaning-up is in an apartment-sharing community. Children conceived in monogamy will be better cared for on average, for the same reasons single-inhabitant apartments are better-cleaned on average.

Of course there still is the original argument for the opinion you are attacking: Men can father more children than women can mother over their lifetime. Therefore men can best maximize their reproductive success by going for quantity, while women can best maximize it by going for quality.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 07:05 am
Re: Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT
Thomas wrote:
I think your argument works if the average woman can expect to keep each of her multiple partners ignorant of her other engagements. But I would guess that in the stone-age environment evolution optimized us for, that would have been hard to impossible.

Thomas, I had never before pegged you as naive Razz
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:04 am
Re: Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT
Thomas wrote:
BorisKitten wrote:
I think it's just as much an evolutionary advantage for women to seek multiple partners as men...for the obvious reason that, the more men a woman sleeps with, the more likely it is that ONE of them will believe he's the father.

I think your argument works if the average woman can expect to keep each of her multiple partners ignorant of her other engagements. But I would guess that in the stone-age environment evolution optimized us for, that would have been hard to impossible.

In the absence of secrecy though, to a first approximation, each of the n possible fathers would provide some amount of care for a child they knew was theirs. I would expect that they provide 1/n as much for a child that has one chance in n of being his child. Thus, under monogamy, the mother gets one father's worth of childcare; under promiscuity, she gets n times 1/n father's worth of it. There would be no difference either way under that first approximation. To a second approximation though, I expect that monogamy should leave the child better cared for, because the mother's promiscuity makes the care for it a public good: Each of the n possible fathers have an incentive to have their genes free-ride on the child care provided by the other n-1 possible fathers. Thus, their best reproductive cost-benefit tradeoff is to provide less than their fair share. Or in less pompous terms, child care would become a similar problem as cleaning-up is in an apartment-sharing community. Children conceived in monogamy will be better cared for on average, for the same reasons single-inhabitant apartments are better-cleaned on average.

Of course there still is the original argument for the opinion you are attacking: Men can father more children than women can mother over their lifetime. Therefore men can best maximize their reproductive success by going for quantity, while women can best maximize it by going for quality.


Thank you for your thoughtful post, Thomas.

First, I don't think it was necessarily true that females made a secret of multiple engagements. I base this partly on the fact that it's unlikely a single male will bring a female to orgasm, especially in the presumably "rough & tumble" sex of our ancestors. She may be MADE for multiple partners in succession. If she were built for a single partner, a single partner would probably cause her to orgasm (thus helping along conception) much more QUICKLY.

Given the assumption that we didn't have time for long & leisurely love-making sessions, only a series of male partners would be able to satisfy her. And when we think about it, this is a great deal safer than one long session, as more people are looking out for predators in this case.

Second, if females are "made" for monogamy, why do sperm compete and kill one another?

Third, we do not even know if our ancestors were aware of the concept of fatherhood.

Fourth, a male can only TRY to impregnate many females in the year it'll take a female to bear a child. He will only succeed if his sperm is able to compete with that of other males.

Fifth, I believe we are overestimating the importance of a "known" father for a given child. Given the high death rate during birth, we must note that ONLY ANOTHER LACTATING FEMALE will be able to assist in raising the abandoned infant. A male is utterly useless to the infant in the common event of the immediate death of the female.

Thus, community matters a great deal more than fatherhood to our survival, and this is true in other areas, such as scaring off predators, hunting, keeping watch, and the like. We did not live in couples; we lived in groups.

Sixth, we are also underestimating the importance of females' ability to scavenge meat and to procure small game. The presence of males may well have been incidental to the survival of the group.

There is no doubt a very good reason that females all ovulate, when living together, at almost exactly the same time. Presumably, sex would be more lively during these ovulating days of the month than during other times. No doubt this served other purposes of which I'm not aware.

Now there is no doubt in my mind that children conceived in monogamy TODAY will be better cared for than those conceived in "the woody line." But I'm speaking of our sexual natures, not our society, and our sexual natures are the product of millenia.

I think what's important to me here is to question our assumption that it is males' nature to wander and females' nature to seek a single mate. To me, there is very little real evidence to support this assumption.

Thanks for helping to enliven this discussion.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:18 am
Quote:
She may be MADE for multiple partners in succession. If she were built for a single partner, a single partner would probably cause her to orgasm (thus helping along conception) much more QUICKLY.

Given the assumption that we didn't have time for long & leisurely love-making sessions, only a series of male partners would be able to satisfy her.


Generalizing again, though. A bit of rough and tumble (well, not too rough) works fine for me.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:40 am
Boriskitten this is a brilliant discussion.I havnt read it all as it will either amaze me too much or really wind me up with the whole 'unfairness' situation.

-I agree with you , men put women down for doing the EXACT thing they want us to do.WOULD SOMEBODY PLEEEEASE EXPLAIN THAT ONE TO ME!!!

-Its not fair that girls names are all negative when men get called studs for acting the same way.

-You say the multiple partner thing is about pregnancy and having lots of fathers for the child.
I dont think guys nowadays have sex solely to have children, they do it purely for enjoyment.

-A ladies row of sticks should be renamed 'A mans dream'.It has more to do with men than women.

- i dont think a guy would care if a women had multiple partners therefore she wouldnt need to keep it secret.
I dont know why guys call girls names as they deny it has anything to do with jealousy or being upset which are the only reasons i can think of.

I for one would sleep with a hell of alot more people if it could be promised that I wouldnt be called names and wasnt made to feel bad about it.
Also the invention of the pill is a wonderful thing,as is most contraception.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:45 am
My oxytocin is in overdrive. One man is enough for me. Currently.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:57 am
Dong-a line.

Carry on.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 02:18:29