Ierrellus

It was in the 1970s. My wife and I had taken our daughter to the pediatrician. While waiting, I found a science magazine with an article about E. O. Wilson's SOCIOBIOLOGY. The article referred to those Charles Atlas ads that appeared in comic books in the 50s and 60s. If you do not remember those, they portrayed a skinny man who is trying to enjoy a little sunshine on the beach with a voluptuous woman. While the two are sunning on a blanket an athletic "hunk" runs by, kicking sand in the eyes of the skinny dude. The woman goes off with the hunk! So the skinny dude decides he has had enought derision and begins the Charles Atlas fitness course. In a few months he is muscle-bound dude. He returns to the beach, punches out the hunk and takes the woman.

The article went on to say that our genes prefer
the ultimate possibilities for survival, that the woman's preference was a genetic desire for strong, survially equipped offspring and that her preference for hunk over skin-and-bones was a biological mandate.

Is anything wrong with this picture, all personal prejudices aside?

Ierrellus

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

I thought the story started too late. The sand-kicking hunk had a 69 mustang which muscled past the love-bug the skinny loser was parking with the girl2s direction. NO!

OK. She was so full of genes that her brain had no time to evolve. NO!

Was'nt she a blonde (this is a historic joke).

To be serious. I have witnessed women bounce back and forth between men depending on their fortunes AND their willingness to compete for her (work harder, gain more and fight like hell). Note this is a South American story.

Other than this, I can only remember the dribbling of tears in my juvenile eyes after the under-dog story. Anything else is a mystery to me.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

fando

I say that the picture is right. The catch is that this particular woman is no higher than an animal. She has none of the cognitive capabilities that distinguishes wild humans from highly educated humans. So if it were in her interest to mate with the muscular ape, then so be it. The skin and bones will go on to mate with a smarter, more deserving female. Life will go on. In the long run, evolution will favor smaller, skinnier humans with larger brains (something that has actually happened). The Neanderthals will yield the Earth to the geeks, and us geeks will have the last laugh.

fando

Come to think of it, maybe a sociological study on the geek vs. jock phenomenon will yield insights into how the Neanderthals interacted with Homo Erectus.

Ierrellus

In the 40s and 50s, the superheroes, just like Hercules, were muscle bound males who defended the weak and the oppressed. In the 70s, we get Dirty Harry, Steven Segal, Arnold Swartzeneger, et. al. to fill the male fantasy position. Is this not a bit like Nietzche's idea that the weak only do detriment to society, while the strong, hopefully with humane ideals, are the only progressive force that can strengthen the races?

On the evolutionary, sociobiological position, the geek really wants to have sex with the voluptuous woman; and the plain woman desires the hunk. Does might make right? If so, intellectual might does not stand much of a chance against brute force.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

One of the last sane

fando, I think you mean CroMagnon man, not Homo erectus

phaedrus

I think the "might makes right" notion originates out of our primordial origins and ensuing evolution and the medievial years, that to "survive" one requried physical supermacy either in terms of strenght or relfexes. But I think in today's world the muscle is being replaced by the mind very fast, and the current knowledge economy rewards the mind. And "money" has come to replace "muscles" as the new parameter for selection i guess. *generalization cap on*

But do guys and girls continue to stick to the age-old sexual standards? I dont know, but i would take the representations in popular culture of the same with a "huge" pinch of salt.

One thing hasnt changed though, the hero "wins", whether due to might, courage, mind or a combo is something which is undergoing a change.

snatchbalance

Bumper sticker that I read today:

"Be nice to nerds - you'll probably end up working for one." Or something to that effect.

SB

emphryio

Might makes right if you believe you shall always have the might. Or if you have no concern for your happiness over any particularly long term.

NialScorva

I read something a while ago talking about the competition between male and female genes, where the female genes force the offspring to be smaller in order to aid in reproduction, and the male genes encouraged larger off spring. The female strategy would obviously encourage larger numbers of offspring from the female at the expense of individual mortality, while the male strategy would encourage fewer, more robust individuals at the expense of numbers. The females obviously preferred their strategy because it maximized the spread of their genes due to the time constraint and investment, where as the male strategy benefitted the male due to his ability to impregnate multiple females. I wish I could find it, but I can't remember any real keywords.

Anyway, this would probably get better response in E/C.