cricket

And this pertains to our knuckledragger forebears, how?

How long have we had birth control?

I think promiscuity paid, for our male ancestors.

RufusAtticus

That's more than likely the result of a malfunctioning male-factor.

cricket

Certainly they aren't *trying* to have a number of children, whether we're talking about modern man or early man. (I think you know this but just want to clarify, for others who may be reading.)

Those among early man who behaved *as if* they wanted scores of children -- those are the ones who were successful in evolutionary terms. Those are the ones who shaped the psychological and behavioral tendencies of their descendents. It's not that there was a conscious desire for a particular outcome (our hominid ancestors didn't know where babies came from!)

That said, I do agree, Michael -- there is also the desire for variety, and the desire for the social status resulting from conquests.

SLD

Yeah, but, I think the standard view expressed above is too simplistic a view of male sexuality. Yes we men can sire a lot of offspring by jumping from woman to woman, but we really don't. And the reason is simple from an evolutionary perspective. While we might produce a lot of offspring jumping from woman to woman, how many would reach maturity in a hunting-gathering society? Maybe one - the one we cared for and from the woman we cared for during pregnancy. Men value love and affection as well as women and need emotional commitment as well (at least normal men do). Promiscuity might pay but only up to a point and not a very good point at that. The creationists keep arguing that if evolution were true, we'd all value rape. We don't for the reason I've just stated. Rape as an evolutionary strategy only works for species where females are independent and don't need men around to help with the reproduction process beyond copulation - mallard ducks for example.

SLD

Dr Rick

You're asking the wrong question: A more appropriate inquiry would be, "Why should we assume that the behaviors of 'our knuckledragger' forebearers can predict or explain our behaviors?"

And yet we do, so what justifies drawing comparisons between their behaviors and ours?

You are not alone:

"This principle of differential 'parental investment' makes Darwinian sense and probably does underlie some different, and broadly general, emotional propensities of human males and females. But contrary to claims in a recent deluge of magazine articles, parental investment will not explain the full panoply of supposed sexual differences so dear to pop psychology. For example, I do not believe that members of my gender are willing to rear babies only because clever females beguile us. A man may feel love for a baby because the infant looks so darling and dependent, and because a father sees a bit of himself in his progeny. This feeling need not arise as a specifically selected Darwinian adaptation for my reproductive success, or as the result of a female ruse, culturally imposed. Direct adaptation is only one mode of evolutionary origin. After all, I also have nipples not because I need them, but because women do, and all humans share the same basic pathways of embryological development."-Stephen Gould

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

cricket

Not a lot! but it's a numbers game, and our bed-hopping ancestor would leave more children than a celibate man would. In between are all the shades of grey. A man with a wife would leave x number of children. A man with a wife plus a mistress would leave xx children. A man with a wife plus two mistresses would leave xxx children. A man with a harem would leave xxxxx children. NONE OF THIS WOULD WORK IN REVERSE and that's the critical point: a woman employing the identical 'strategy' would NOT have more children.

I agree that the father's love and investment and resources are a part of the equation as well. AND, a man would do well to choose mistresses who he deems competent to be mothers. AND, certainly, a man's sperm-spreading behavior would mean less in an environment where everyone is starving. A man's behavior is selected for if he sires 10 children he can feed, compared to the man who sires 12 children of whom half starve. ALL of these things are important. Take these considerations and combine them with the bed-hopping behavior, and you have a recipe for evolutionary success.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]</p>

cricket

I am not "asking the wrong question"! I am challenging the assertion that the use or non-use of BIRTH CONTROL had any influence on evolutionary psychology!!!!! Who cares if guys who have one-night stands insist their lovers use birth control!!! We didn't have birth control when these behavioral tendencies evolved, and more importantly, THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS DESIRE FOR ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME!!!! dammit, this is reminding me of Helen on the baptist board the other day.

Dr Rick

Your argument is a strawman. No one on this thread has claimed that the use of birth control had influence on "evolutionary psychology;" at issue is whether or not our behavioral tendencies even evolved in the first place.

The correctness of evolutionary psychology is not a foregone conclusion, and excessive use of punctuation marks, capital letters, or references to female posters on other boards is not particularly persuasive in this regard.

cricket

eek &lt;rereading&gt; THAT was a low blow, and was uncalled for.. I apologize. I'll come back when I'm in a better mood, which will definitely be AFTER I have finished my taxes. So it's tax time for me, then I'm out of town through next tuesday, so I'll be back after that. 'later!

cricket

We posted at the same time; I didn't know you were here. When I said 'low blow' i meant the bit about helen at the Baptist board, not your words to me.

You were backing up Michael's post about the one-night stand and birth control... that's why I said that. I'll go re-read the post and see if I misinterpreted.