Setanta wrote-
Quote:If you have a basis for asserting a more complex definition of "fit," then present your evidence.
I think your ideas on "fit" are confused. You switch from individuals to species just as it suits you. It is already well recognised that advances in medical science risk endangering the species as a whole. How can someone with a weak immune system be deemed "fit" simply because they contribute to a birth?
You make no allowance for female submission driven by force, economic necessity, propriety or indoctrination. You can't mix up biological urges, which go in cycles, with any of those. Germaine Greer explained all that to justify her "All men are rapists" clarion call. Didn't Mr Mailer get his dick out and bang it on the table at a NYC public meeting in response? That's what the reports said. And Ms Greer also said- "Men are like carrots--cheap and plentiful and easily cooked."
By your definition a contributor to a sperm bank, even one mistakenly chosen due to a labelling error, is fit if his sample is used to start a pregnancy. The female could possibly be a virgin. Thus virgin birth.
A man may deem himself fit under your definitions where his wife is impregnated by another man without his knowledge. That is said to be more common than one might think. I know two cases. Also the man who is used is unfit by your definition despite him being the real father and having been chosen by the female on the "Phwooar" principle which is the only biological aspect of the matter. Many a lady has two, or more, lovers and if she becomes pregnant she simply chooses one to be the husband. Sometimes one of the lovers refuses marriage so she marries the other.
One has to stop oneself thinking of women as "living dolls".
Thorstein Veblen said that the illegitimacy rate represents the triumph of the hormones over the proprieties. That is what a "love child" is as opposed to a life-style choice birth which Mr Mailer disapproved of so much.
You are taking what happens under promiscuity conditions and confusing it with what happens under arrangements found in the Book of Etiquette which Stendhal said was the most important book in literature.
SET, dont you ever dare lecture me again for attempting to carry on a conversation to pry sense out of suspendius. Hes friggin hopeless. He nicely demonstrates his utter ignorance of biological fitness( amongsts a plethora of other concepts) , then he attempts to susbtitute items from his own dimension in theirplace. Hes a dim bulb parading as a budgie that has had a few blank phrases in his training program.