Monogomy; no.

If God/Mother Nature wanted monogamy, She would have put the clitoris inside, or otherwise made it so women cum as quick as men. As it is, things are designed so women get trained by many, gather semen, and don't cum until they get enough and preferably a big one.

Also, if bigger dicks were selected for, then we'd all have bigger dicks. Guess what? We do. Relative to other critter's body size, we have the largest dicks. Then came clothing. The more you hide the dicks, the smaller they get and more semen gets spread by aggressive nature, not dick size. Hence bigger dicks in Africa where there is less clothing, and more aggression up north.

What say you? Oh, and site your doctorate if you have one.

 

Ther is much truth to that statement. While we are designed to have many partners many of us stick to several. Plus the vast majority of us practice what us called serial monogamy (one partner at a time, but many over the course of life).

Women are geared to take many men and there is a theory that the vocals a woman makes in the moment are to attract other potential partners. True or not, bonobos do this as well as chimps. Whats more is that the male glands at the tip of the penis are shaped to remove sperm from other men. No other animal has the same high tech equipment that us men have.

 

Are these statements supposed to directly contradict each other? If they're 'designed' to be penetrated by many, why is the most easily accessed pleasure spot external, and why is it that so many women can't climax except through clitoral penetration. Also, there are numerous monogamous species in nature,

Um... Modern Africa has both pants and staggering amounts of violent rape, to say nothing of constant warfare and localized violence on a scale unimaginable to anyone living in a first world country. And by your own logic, why do we never hear of the exceptionable parts of native South Americans?

And what prestigious institute of learning did you develop this wonderful theory in?

 

Not contradictory at all. The longer it takes to get off, the more time (men) you seek to get off. If the primary stimulus spot was inside, they'd got off quick like men and go on about their business.

Our primary evolution took place over millions of years. The last 10,000 are an aberration. That answers your question about Africa. The people in South America had to go through northern climes to get there. That answers your question about South Americans (essentially from oriental stock).

School of observation. Apparently my facetiousness went over your head.

 

Sounds like you just need to find the right one still

 

After all that bull shit above Goofy sums it up in one sentence. :2thumbsup:

 

Interesting ideas. I don't think you can argue too much from physical characteristics, but certainly, monogamy is not biologically determined for humans.

The "site" of my doctorate is in the attic, if you mean the certificate. If you mean the degree itself, which is intangible, I guess it resides with me. But I think you mean "cite." I have a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University, which I received in 1980. It has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, but it beats yours.

 

Busted! You got me. My J.D. is U. of I., 1989. If there is one thing I should know better, it's "cite," not "site." Don't go all Blue Book on me now!

So, why can't you argue too much from physical characteristics?

 

I am Inuit and Amerindienne. There is much not mongamie in my cultures and there is not much clothings in my cultures. The penis still is in all sizes.

 

My girl cums at least 10 times to my once so I guess that theory is shot! Maybe you need to work on your foreplay and trying to last a little longer!

 

We are talking generalities, not anecdotal evidence. Since when do the Inuit run around naked all day every day for millions of years? They don't. They haven't even been around for that long.

 

One example (your girl; or if you think you are responsible, you) does not make a statistic. Nor is this about me. For all you know, I make my girl cum 20 times to my once and I last longer than you. This is not about me or my girl either. My request for analytical, critical reasoning (a doctorate?) was only partially tongue in cheek.

 

We have been here longer much more than white man.

 

I will stipulate to that. However, it adds *nothing* to the conversation. Based upon our best science, man arose in Africa six million years ago (Hominidae), two million years ago (Homo), four hundred thousand years ago (Homo sapiens). Your people arrived here, by some estimates, as early as 50,000 years ago, coming from Asia (i.e. oriental stock). This was after "black" people and "white" people and "yellow" people and "brown" people had already "evolved" or arisen long, long before. In other words, you are new-comers in evolutionary sense.

Also, your acknowledgement that there is not much monogamy in your cultures tends toward my argument, not against it. Someone before said there are many examples of monogamy in the animal kingdom. This is true. But Homo Sapiens is not one of them. On that it appears you and I might agree.

 

Perhaps you the white men evolved but Inuits and Amerindiens did not. The primates are our without nothing doubt our relatives but they are not ancesotors. White man alway ignore our evidence that demontres we are a people very older than them.

 

As far as I know, nature is not one individual mother and god isn`t a proven fact...so, there`s no "wanting" in evolution.

What there seems to be, again, from every information I was able to gather (only a B.A. in anthropology here though an inquisitive one), are organisms that (by mere chance mutation) adapted better to environmental pressure than others which died off.

I was recently told by a doctor that bacteria, and cancer-producing viruses have had an essential role in mutation and therefore evolution.

I have recently studied evolutionary biology, and it seems to me the present state of scientific evidence tends toward the idea that male primates (including homo sapiens) are polyamorous, and female primates are hypergamous.

It was previously believed that female primates were monogamous, which is currently believed to be false. Rather, female primates are always looking for a 'trade up' for a male with more status/'fitness'.

Contrary to bonobos, homo sapiens are closer to chimps, in that our reproductive success is very much dependent on cohersion of the female. Hence, domestic abuse, etc. And, before one thinks this is a gender war argument, female chimps and homo sapiens very much encourage cohersion from males as a signal of a desirable male partner.

The evidence is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674033248/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk#reader_0674033248"]Amazon.com: Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females (9780674033245): Martin N. Muller, Richard W. Wrangham: Books

And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckinOhdtDw"]2. Sex and Violence Among the Apes - YouTube

Of course, there are counter-acting cultural factors that tend toward male-female cooperation, but that is the exception so far, and (my speculation) mutation itself.

------------

But, you`re basically right. From what I understand, homo sapiens are not monogamous evolutionarily and even sociologically, we can only say that we practice "social monogamy."

In other words, monogamy is socially accepted due to cultural factors, and yet we do not practice what we preach. I`ve seen infidelity figures running up as high as 88% for both men and women. And infidelity numbers in heterosexual encounters are exactly the same for men and women, I shouldn`t have to explain why to the mathematically inclined.

 

Second post here, just so the other one doesn`t look to crammed: the OP takes into consideration what is called "sperm competition" in evolutionary biology (see vid). But that is only one (and, a secondary one at that), of the reproductive strategies of the female primate.

The other two are more important:

a) to select male primates that bring them material resources;

b) to select males with the highest status/'fitness'.

There`s controversy about the copulation calls. Some scientists seem to believe it could very well be an announcement of a cohesive couple meant to ward off potential suitors, rather than a call for other males to 'line up' (competing theory) to run a train on the female primate.

 

I'm going to have to spend more time reading your post which preceded the one I'm responding to here. Thanks. As to this post, it seems that "sperm competition" and selecting males who bring you resources could work hand in hand, and not really be inferior to it. So would the status/fitness issue.

If every guy who lines up is bringing you something, then there would be little need to look for the one male that could bring you the most; especially if he's not inclined to bring you to orgasm or hang around and snuggle with pillow talk after copulation. Thus, the provision of resources argument actually would work for the sperm competition argument as opposed to the other way around.

Likewise the status/fitness argument. If the high status/fitness guy limits the use of his assets to attracting females and keeping other males away *before* copulation, but fails to hang around defending his woman *after* he cums (losing interest or running off to copulated with more women), leaving her open to other males, then he gets first shot but that's about it. For his status/fitness to trump the sperm competition argument, it would have him satisfying the female's sexual urges so she quit looking for more (lasting more that 3 minutes or whatever it is), and he'd have to keep other males away.

Just thinking out loud.

 

From what I gather, the 3 reproductive strategies I mentioned are indeed in the hierarchy I described. Your hypothesis is as good as any other, but the evidence I read about seems to suggest female primates do restrict the number of potential mates unless physically coerced or raped (rare among chimps, bonobos, and humans; common among gorillas).

Again, that is not to say female primates are monogamous. Rather, they are "selectively polyamorous" (my terminology) or alternatively, "serial monogamist" vs. male primates who aren`t evolutionarily as selective.

But, even in male homo-sapiens (and that`s where we differ from chimps), there is a tendency to protect offspring (and not only ward off potential competitors).

And, according to the vid, that is one reason why chimps have a much higher infant mortality-rate than homo-sapiens. Chimps typically don`t care for their young after copulation. They only keep an eye on the female (alphas).

Hence, the homo-sapiens populational boom in comparison with the stable decrease in the chimp population.

In other words, our tendency toward sexual selection (as opposed to full-blown polyamory) has proved an evolutionary success.

 

Follow up, re: cohersion. I've read about the female preference for different types of males during different times in their cycle. Macho characters when ready to conceive, not-so-macho types at other times. It seems cohersion would work for the latter. The not-so-macho type might end up raising the off spring of the macho type. However, if the macho type does not hang around after the act to prevent others from taking their turn, then we are again back to the sperm competition deal.

I think maybe the train occurs, with a pecking order among the males, each wandering off after they get off, with the female encouraging it until she gets off. When she is no longer interested, and neither is anyone else, the cohesion guy comes in and takes over the non-sexual pillow talk in the hopes he can get some. He does. But after the baby, or at other times when she's hot, she's still looking and getting resources, as well as sexual satisfaction from others. Particularly the back door man with the big dick who is neither macho or not-so-macho, but slips under the social radar.

It would also be interesting to see how the intrafemale interactions affect all this. Without a male around, other females could pose a threat to a popular female. On the other hand, females may bond and fulfill the cohersion roll. Mothers may assist daughters in their search for the males they think would best fit all rolls. Hmmmm.