Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 2:59 am
Many of the friction points between genders (and between generations) have been well explained by evolutionary game theory: [url]http://www.nielsen.sites.oasis.unc.edu/soci111/m6/soci111m6.html[/url]
The link contains a fantastic summary of ideas that are common currency in the manosphere.
Bateman wrote:
Main results of A. J. Bateman's experiments with fruit flies: females gain nothing by mating with more than one male; males gain by mating with many females.
Female promiscuity is some kind of useless depravity that does not make sense. It is the hallmark of a sick society.
Bateman wrote:
Greater dependence of males for their fertility on frequency of insemination [is] an almost universal attribute of sexual reproduction" leading to the evolution of "an undiscriminatory eagerness in the male and a discriminatory passivity in the female.
In humanity, rapid sexual tension build-up is also a way of making the male return to the female. He will indeed get sexual tension relief, but the real biological purpose is that she will be able to extract financial tension relief.
Researchers wrote:
The absence of estrus (= distinct period of sexual receptivity, or "heat") in the human female reduces her mate's ability to monitor her sexual activity; an influential theory is that estrus has been lost in humans because its absence gives a female more control over the paternity of her offspring.
Disagreed.
In my opinion, this is not the reason why the female body hides the fact that she is fertile ("estrus"). The woman needs to man to come back more often than a just a few days a month. Lots of women (and dependent children) would go starving, if the female did not hide her estrus. Hence, the man will build up sexual tension all throughout the month and have sex with the woman, even if she is not fertile, because she possibly could be. That gives the woman more opportunity during the whole month to extract financial tension relief out of the man.
Researchers wrote:
Some studies using genetic testing have found high rates of illegitimate paternity in contemporary human populations
Agreed. Modern women in the West make their own money and are not dependent for their survival on a providing husband. When a woman actually is dependent for her survival on her man, she is effectively walking on egg shells. Hence, she will more carefully hesitate to cuckold him. If you can instantly cut her off financially, you probably won't have to.
Researchers wrote:
These clues suggest that the Madame Bovary strategy has evolved to be part of the behavioral repertoire of human females.
Yes, the problem can never be fully reined in. But then again, that is why you must always be ready to repudiate both her and her fake offspring.
Daly & Wilson wrote:
The assumption that it may be better for a female to be the second wife to a wealthy male than the first wife to a poor male is part of what theory?
83.4% of human societies allow polygyny (as either a usual or occasional marital arrangement); however, the majority of human marriages are monogamous (can you see why?)
This can be explained by a massive shortage of wealthy men at the top of the income scale. Most women will have to settle for latching on to a much poorer monogamous workhorse.
Daly & Wilson wrote:
In 67.4% of 860 societies in Ethnographic Atlas, the groom or his kin "pays" for the wife through bride-price, bride-service, or direct exchange of women; dowry exists in only 2.6% of societies.
Similarly as during the mating season in the animal kingdom, a group of human males may attack the male relatives of the females that they want to mate with ("the origin of war"), as these relatives (father, brother, ...) prevent them from mating with the girls that they protect. The more civilized solution to getting hold of these females is to bribe the family of the maiden with a bride-price instead.
The dowry is the solution to completely different problem.
The higher, entitled and noble classes in society actually prefer to breed with the prettiest girls in the lower classes. The fathers and brothers of the girls in the higher classes do not like this. As a form of protectionism, these noblemen will bribe the other noblemen with a dowry into accepting their noble daughters as wives. They will also insist that the offspring with girls from the lower classes cannot inherit from a nobleman: neither his wealth, nor his titles, nor his social status. Only the offspring of a noble daughter qualifies for that. This system is specifically meant to prevent the social mobility of pretty girls in the lower classes. Furthermore, the bride price is usually outlawed in this kind of society, because it would too much facilitate the practice of noblemen turning to pretty girls in the lower classes for higher-quality sexual tension relief.
The existence of a bride price suggests that such society is fundamentally egalitarian. The absence of a bride price (along with the existence of a dowry) suggests that such society is organized along a hereditary caste system.