You implied it wasn't for females. It is, and all research points to its evolutionary benefits the same way it does for males. The difference is, its a harder pill for men to swallow after years of thinking that it wasn't natural for them to be exclusive to one woman, while expecting exclusivity from women.
I never implied that polygamy “wasn't for females”, I've made this clear multiple times during this debate. I said that due to the fact that females are the limiting sex they instinctively practice polygamy to a lesser extent - not that it wasn't natural to them - I even made that clear in the section you quoted, yet for some reason you chose to ignore it.
Yes the benefits of polygamy are the same for men and women, but the risks and costs associated with it are not, my point is evolution has discounted these discrepancies. As evolutionary discounting is the foundation of physical dimorphism, evolutionary discounting is also the foundation of behavioral dimorphism, any physiologist or psychologist worth anything understands this.
The idea that it should be considered shared isn't even true. Its solely a male risk. The males would take extra care to not involve the females because then their only means of propagating would be gone. You are trying to argue that the female would just happen to be in the area and the males attack her and kill her on accident? Highly unlikely. It would be like me saying while the male and female are copulating the male could be killed by another male since his awareness is down, so therefore its more risky for men to be promiscuous. Could happen, yes, but not an incident worth flagging as a true risk.
The risk of violence between male competitors is not shared by women. I have acknowledged it can happen, but it is not shared. It would defeat the entire purpose of competition for the men and thus it would.not.happen. and certainly not be selected for.
You've inadvertently agreed with me here. If the fatality risk due to competition is inclusive to both men and women, then the risk of fatality is shared between them. Now I’m not saying they share the risk equally, that’s obviously not the case, but it is shared non the less which is my point.
Again, of course most men did not intentionally harm women whilst competing for resources, but, as I stated many posts ago, women were still at risk of being collaterally damaged/killed especially during savage times where men where fought less intelligently and competed haphazardly.
Edit: By the way, aggressive resource competition has nothing to do with the intersexual selection. Homsapien competition regarding sexual selection is called intersexual ornamenting and is non violent for homosapiens, it simply invoves a man passively displaying his physic and mental capacity, for example, a man with a refined physical build and intellect attracted women nothing more had to be done. Unlike animals such as elephant seals our ornamenting process did not involve aggressive competition or domination. So really there was no mortality risk involved in homosapien male competition over females. My fault for not making this clear earlier.
Do you also find it hilarious that all your sources are incredibly old and mine new? That come from a time when female sexuality wasn't even studied, let alone any controversy about it allowed to reach print.
And again, if we acknowledge that historically society has used all manners of tactics to subvert female sexuality, why do you think it goes without saying that any evidence that they might have or do find would be readily available? Much the same way African societies were destroyed and/or not researched to the same extent as others.
No, but I do find it hilarious that you haven’t actually sited any “new” accredited scientific sources to support your position throughout this entire debate yet claim you have. I also find it funny that you think that unfounded charges of specific sexism are appropriate.
As for the last part of your quote; In our culture where women constitute a substantial part of a population in which traditional feminism and egalitarianism have grown to become a pivotal forces behind domestic policy, why would you think that any “hidden” aspects pertaining to women’s biology would not be revealed today? If what you are saying is true, you should be able to quote accredited sources that clearly disprove the specific aspects of the principles I've reference, but of course you've failed to because you most probably cant.
Choosy in terms of what? In comparison, females have a lot more qualifications that allow for mating than men. Men are rigid in that they only have physical requirements, whereas there are a wide number of resource and look requirements a male can meet that will make a woman want to mate. How does that make her more "choosy" if her requirements are more flexible?
I've already explained why more than three times already, I’m not going to again. if you don’t have any contradicting accredited empirical evidence that renders - the parental investment theory as pertaining to homosapiens, the Bateman’s principles pertaining to homosapiens and the Charles drawings limiting sex theory pertaining to homosapiens - improper, then with all due respect please don’t ask me why women are considered the limiting sex again.
Research already shows that women are attracted to different types of men based on where they are in their reproductive cycle at the time. This in itself doesn't even imply, but readily states that females are polygamous and not the "choosy" restricted sex you'd like them to be. At least, they aren't that way naturally, which is my point.
Yes the reproductive cycle is in part a causation factor regarding attraction, but this does not suggest or “state” that woman are not more discriminating than males when choosing partners to mate with, and again, you’re equating natural polygamy with sexual indiscrimination which is both unfounded and ridiculous.
3 of your pieces of evidence for women are the same thing, so let's actually call it what it is. And one of them is, I'll just be nice, and say is arguable. Women expend energy during sex? In what fashion do you mean? Because traditionally in mammal species, it is only the male that really physically moves during copulation. In addition, females do not release semen, which does have the exhausting, energy limiting trait. But this is exclusive to males.
That leaves us with the risks for females being: lowered mobile state during pregnancy (pregnancy risk), and risk and energy expense of child birth (child birth risk). That’s 2 and 2. Seems equally risky to me.
So the mortality risks due to gestation, the energy expended during gestation and the mortality risk due to delivery are the same? Of course not, the energy expended during gestation, the morality risk during delivery and the mortality risks during gestation are completely different (as well as every other risk/cost I listed). So no, it’s not two and two.
Also, energy expended by males and females during sex is not just kinetic as you seem to imply, exothermic chemical energy is also expended as well, but this is neither here nor there because both sexes expend energy during sex not just one (unlike energy expended exclusively during gestation or child birth by women for example).
On a side note though, all your focus on risks during pregnancy have no logic basis really. In evolutionary psychology, the purpose is to reproduce, and risks will be taken in order to do so on both sides (male and female). The difference is, you are trying to equate having multiple partners with amplifying the two main risks females have, thereby forcing them to be more choosy. On the contrary, if you knew about the process of pregnancy you would not be so fixated on this aspect.
Because, regardless of the amount of partners a woman has, SHE CAN ONLY BE IMPREGNATED ONCE AT A TIME. Therefore the risk of gestation and childbirth, the only two of your claims that hold up, are irrelevant to the numbers of partners she has. She is not increasing her risk somehow by having more partners, or decreasing it by being what you call 'more choosy'. So unless you are saying women will just stop having sex period so as to avoid pregnancy and gestation all together, you have no point.
A woman won't even know she is pregnant in nature until after 3 or so months, and she won't know who it is by...really, ever. The only thing she can do is have lots of sex with lots of different partners to ensure she gets pregnant and to ensure that the sperm that finally does impregnate her lasts as the 'most fit' among various competitors.
Let me ask you this simple question; If a woman has, lets say, fifteen children over a thirty year period and another only has one, which one is most likely to suffer due to maternal complications of pregnancy or child birth?
Long-term unprotected polygamous sex is invariably linked to high rates of pregnancy and high rates of pregnancy is also invariable linked to higher occurrences of maternal complications, it doesn't take a genius to understand this. Also, I’d never suggest women should stop having sex, don’t be ridiculous.
Edit: Just to make things clearer. Although you are correct regarding short term polygamy, you've failed to acknowledge long-term polygamy. For women, yes, short term polygamy did not pose much additional risks/costs, but long-term polygamy did. The net cost of polygamy (short and long term) is less for men than women because in total women face severe mortal risk via pregnancy, whilst men basically face no mortality risk at all, even whilst ornamenting. (the latter is the basis of sexual-behavioral dimorphim by the way).
And none of this even begins to speak on the male risk you left out, which is getting multiple partners pregnant at a time and having to provide resources and protection for all of them.
You’re not paying attention. The reason you don’t add the cost and factors of post-reproduction is because they have nothing to do with the actual cost/risks necessary to reproduce a child.
For example, a man does not have to provide resources for his family or protect it in order to have child (he can simply have a child and move on to the next female completely disregarding his previous child/woman, it happened very often, it even happens today as you know) whilst a woman must under go the risks of child birth, gestation and relative immobility in order to have one. There’s a huge difference.
I respect the history of evolutionary psychology. But I'm not going to latch onto old, disproved theories because they make me feel reminiscent
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or not, but you are dismissing aspects of foundational theory due to the fact that it was written years ago, whist siting no accredited and established evidence to the contrary, this indicates that you have absolutely no respect, or understand, for scientific process at all.
I know what polygamous means. It means having a natural propensity to mate with multiple partners. In evolutionary science it implies a propensity to mate with multiple partners because it has a benefit to reproduction. I am saying this propensity is present in males and females, you are attempting to say its only or more present in males, but you haven't given good reason to make that claim. Other than quotes from 60+ year old research that has been updated to actually include the perspective of females that it never did before.
Please site any accredited empirical “updates” you know of that directly disprove aspects the Robert Trivers parental investment theory as pertaining to homosapiens parental investment, aspects of the batemans principles as pertaining to homosapien parental investment and Charles Darwins limited theory pertaining to homosapians. I don’t think you realize how ridiculous you’re stance is honestly, just because a principle is "old" does not mean its irrelevant or discredited.
Their research was done at the time it was done and you are trying to pretend that bias is not only not extremely probable, but impossible?
Again, quote any accredited and respected evolutionary theory contrary to specific aspects of the studies I’ve references, then ill begin to take you’re contention seriously, until then, I don’t see any point in continuing this argument, because we are no longer building as two intelligent people should, instead arguing in circles.
i already said i'm not marrying anyone.
at scolding me when the amount of married and guys in relationships here admit to cheating. go scold them. tell them they are hoes and not marriage material.
