This comment doesn’t even make sense. It is phrased as if you are disagreeing with me but contains no reasoning as to why. I told you that something that is not natural in human nature wouldn’t require any concerted effort to ensure it didn’t happen. I didn’t suggest that things in society weren’t derived from human nature (although I’d certainly argue that everything is derived from it), in fact I said the polygamous nature of females is why institutions and culture rules exists to temper it.
How doesn't it? I reiterated the fact that society has erected these standards, in which you then retorted, quote, “Society does a lot of things. It subjugates one group, usually for the benefit of another. Nothing surprising there, it happens throughout history and has zero to do with anything that is natural biologically.”, what you implied is that the subjugation of a group by society has nothing to do with anything biologically natural, now if this isn't want you meant then you need to work on expressing yourself more coherently. If what you where trying to convey is that polygamy itself is natural you could have just said that, even then, I had never suggested or implied that polygamy isn’t natural.
This comment actually shows it is you who has little understanding of the topic. Collateral damage can/does happen in any act. It is irrelevant in this discussion unless it is a direct and purposeful result of the promiscuity.
Even in the event that death happened to the female or child as a result of male competition, it would NEVER be intentional on the male part according to evolutionary psychology. How could the male pass on his genes if a direct and intention consequence of his promiscuity is the death of the only vessel he can do so with? He has no incentive to do it, it could happen, but it’s not something he actually wants or a direct result of promiscuity.
In terms of women investing more into producing offspring, again, I have never disputed female investment. What I pointed out to you was your wrongful disregard/understatement of male investment. Males have to exhaust a lot to even be allowed to mate PERIOD, women exhaust a lot during the incubation process. Your ignoring of that fact is what sparked that part of my post.
Just as a side note, it is ironic to me that in threads where men see the opportunity to blame all their lives failures on women they can acknowledge the costly effects of their pursuit of mates, but in a conversation that gives facts about the biological nature of female promiscuity, all of a sudden male investment in mating is immaterial and female risk paramount.
It's very relevant. You bought up the fatality risk of intra-species competition between males over resources, in response to me talking about exclusive risks limited to females such as child birth. I simply pointed out that they are not comparable because the mortality risk of incubation is not shared between males and females, whilst the risk of acquiring resources is a risk shared by male and female (at times through collateral damage).
Whether death is intentional or not is irrelevant, the point is that the risk of mortality in terms of gathering resources is shared, not exclusive, unlike the risk of female incubation, pregnancy and child birth. The whole concept behind the parental investment principle is understanding the risks that are shared and risks that aren’t.
I’m not disregarding any of the risks or investments involved in reproduction that male mammals face, what I was saying is that female mammals invest a lot more into the process, the likes of Charles Darwin, Robert Trivers, John Bateman and the majority of the accredited scientific community seem to agree, yet you hilariously dispute with vigor.
What "choosiness" means in terms of male and female is often changed depending on the gender of the person/animal in question, so I guess you should expound on what specifically points to females being choosier?
I’ve already talked about how the limiting sex is reversed for a few species, but that is neither here nor there, the point is that the limiting sex within the homosapiens species are females, this is basic evolution principle. Women are the limiting sex in terms of the homosapien species and are the “choosy sex“ (which is a scientific term by the way) because they risk and invest more into the process of reproduction.
In fact ill go through the basic investment process during successful mating to make it clearer for you. Men expend energy during ornamenting (displaying attractive features in order to be chosen), and men expend energy during sex. These are two basic risks and cost men experience in order to help produce a child.
Now, women expend energy during sex, women are at risk whilst in a less mobile state during pregnancy, women expend energy during gestation, women are at risk of maternal complication during gestation, women are at risk during child birth, women expend ridiculous amount of energy during child labor. Here are six basic risks and cost specific to female mammals, four more than males, there is no question that women invest and risk more during the process of producing offspring. Look at the lists comparatively, if you still disagree then you’re honestly to bias (or you lack the intelligence, which I doubt) to see the fact of the matter.
caution you if you are going to say women are more "choosy" because of their resource requirements to mate, because that only points to the label issue I spoke on. A woman would be called choosy for desiring to mate with men with resources, a man would not be called such for desiring to mate with women with certain physical requirements. Hmmm I wonder why that could be and what that alludes to lol
Again, they are labeled "choosy" due to the fact that they invest more into the reproductive process and have evolved to be more efficient in choosing partners than men, I have already explain how in sufficient detail and quoted three accredited evolutionary scientists and foundation theories in order to attest to this fact. Yes men also selective, but it is a fact that women are more discriminatory when it comes to choosing mates, hence why scientists call them the “choosy” or “limiting” sex.
I think I now see what the problem is, you are looking at it from a standpoint that is based on research and knowledge of biology that we know now, rather than focusing on actual motivation standpoint of the males and females in question. Females did not know and still do not know even now when they are pregnant until several weeks the pregnancy. So they have no motivation to simply stop mating or only mate with one partner during any ovulation period. As I said in my previous post, the more sperm the better, because the more likely she would be to absolutely ensure she becomes pregnant. And it has been scientifically proven that mating with more than one male increases chances of getting pregnant as opposed to mating with the same male multiple times, since each concurrent ejaculation for men contains less sperm. Not to mention the benefits of genetic variety, getting the best possible genetic material, etc. that comes with having multiple partners.
You cant be serious, do you honestly think established evolution sciences have not taken into account the motivation behind mating? Again, iv'e already acknowledged that polygamous mating can be beneficial. For the fourth time, I am not, not, arguing against polygamy nor implying that it is unnatural, I am simply stating that women are the limiting sex and are more discriminatory when choosing partners.
As far as the cost of lactating, nurturing of the child, etc. etc. none of these things are actual requirements for the mother to fulfill any more than the father when you get down to it. So if the male can be excluded from having that as a cost, so can the female. And I have already addressed the gestation part. Female investment comes during gestation, male investment comes well before that just to get to the point of even having the opportunity to mate.
I’ve already shown via the above example how female risk/ investment a outweighs male risk/investment by a large margin. You really have no legs to stand on here.
So now we get to the meat of your bias @ the part in bold. It is not ‘picky’ for a woman to require resources in which males use to qualify themselves for females unless it is equal ‘picky’ for males to choose to mate with females of specific physical qualities.
What you are using as evidence is simply male bias that is often embedded in these conversations and even in scientific writings then and now. You still have a bunch of scientists referring to female sexual behavior as 'passive' and only in response to male sexual advances, as if female arousal is dependent on male advances.
What “bias” are you talking about? This is established evolutionary theory ratified by the likes of Charles Darwin, Robert Trivers, John Bateman and most of the proper scientific community. They are not just “a bunch of scientists” as you so aptly put it, they are the most respected authorities in the field of current evolutionary science world wide. I'm surprised you called my understanding on evolutionary science to question when you seem not to understand the basics, nor respect its history.
I’m ignoring nothing, you are. Ask yourself, what reason would any group who is self proclaimed to be polygamous by nature actively be against the group whom they’d be polygamous with also having a similar mind set?Logic tells us that if men are polygamous by nature, a world where females viewed sex in the same light would be a dream come true. Because it would mean more access to SEX. But we see the exact opposite attitude of this now and throughout history. Why?
This is where a lot your confusion stems from. The truth is most men are picky to an extent, it's a common misconception to think that men just pick mates indiscriminately and are entirely driven by sex. By the way, "polygamous" doesn't mean innately driven purely by sex.
Just put bias aside and think logically for a minute. What would they have to gain by actually LIMITING their access to the thing they claim they desire biologically? It would have to mean that either men ain't as polygamous by nature as they claim, or there is some other benefit gained by them to policing their partners numbers.
So the likes of Charles Darwin, Rober trivers, John Bateman and the rest of the accredited scientific community are illogical and harbor a bias against females huh, ok I hear you
you must not hang around women.
out there. You spose to be my Queen right? fukk kinda Queen is you when 72 other dudes done fukked you? 
it's not like women are voluntarily saying "his dikk is bigger than yours" "he beat it better." these are interview answers because someone chose to ask those questions
