Condom, schondom

[HandsInTheDark]

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016...oms-with-more-attractive-women/8121466781471/

Apparently, we've been writing it right all along.

(The news is admittedly in the same category as "water is wet", but it was interesting to see the numbers.)

 

[sr71plt]

Yet another one of those scientific studies on unscientifically available data. "But we got a grant."

I don't think the reproduction instinct ranks all that high--or all that often--with men seeking sex, no matter what the woman looks like. I can see women believing this, though. But I don't have scientific data for that belief either.

I think most men who give this a thought have already settled down with a mate and know what she looks like.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

I don't think the reproduction instinct ranks all that high--or all that often--with men seeking sex.

We'll disagree on that one. As far as evolution is concerned, if sex doesn't make a baby, you wasted your time. EVERY instinct a straight guy or girl has ties back to reproduction (whether they know it or not and like it or not), from what he finds attractive, to when he wants sex with a particular woman (females put out much more appealing cues when they are fertile, also like it or not, and often like a different kind of man when they are), to this whoops-no-protection tendency in both genders.

I get the impression you bat for the other team (don't know if I'm right, don't care either way, etc) and as such may not hear the same drumbeats the folk ranking 0 on the Kinsey scale do. Personally, I'm entirely certain they got this one right (especially since the same appears true of women for handsome men; handsome and pretty translate directly to "healthy mate" as far as the hindbrain knows.)

We often write on Lit as if sex has nothing to do with babies. Over the rainbow in gay land that's presumably reality, but over here in straight land reproduction is the undercurrent to every single encounter, because evolution has been tuning that sexual behaviour above all other behaviours, for obvious reasons.

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, man.....

Sex was only about procreation and only procreation back when there weren't many people in the world or the kids grew up to work the farm so wanted a lot of them or when religious zealots ruled society and no one could be on birth control ever...

In modern times the only time people think about sex for reproducing is when a couple actually sits down and decides they want to try to have a baby.

Otherwise....how would so many people say they didn't plan on being pregnant? Well if every time you fucked you thought I'm getting knocked up, it would not be a surprise.

Sex outside the puritanical realms of some churches is about fun and pleasure and satisfaction and maybe a primal urge, but that urge is lust not baby making.

 

[Bramblethorn]

We'll disagree on that one. As far as evolution is concerned, if sex doesn't make a baby, you wasted your time... over here in straight land reproduction is the undercurrent to every single encounter

Bit more complicated than that. Yes, any species that never reproduces will die out, but that doesn't mean all sex needs to be driven by reproduction. Plenty of non-reproductive sex and masturbation in the animal kingdom, from lions and dolphins to our close relatives the b*nobos.

Some of that is adaptive behaviour; sex can help establish social cohesion. But it's also quite possible to have non-adaptive behaviours.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Bit more complicated than that. Yes, any species that never reproduces will die out, but that doesn't mean all sex needs to be driven by reproduction. Plenty of non-reproductive sex and masturbation in the animal kingdom, from lions and dolphins to our close relatives the b*nobos.

Some of that is adaptive behaviour; sex can help establish social cohesion. But it's also quite possible to have non-adaptive behaviours.

No, I get that. But there's a strong tendency to pretend that none of it is about reproduction. Yes, sex has other fringe benefits - the existence of gay sex alone is proof. But given the amazing amount of stuff that happens to a woman's appearance and emotional response in her cycle, and the radical amount of male behaviour which at root is nothing more than a peacock fanning his tail, I bristle when people act like sex isn't *for* reproduction and we (and some other species) just happen to have found some other benefits in it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, I get that. But there's a strong tendency to pretend that none of it is about reproduction. Yes, sex has other fringe benefits - the existence of gay sex alone is proof.

Careful there. I believe sex does have other benefits, but it's unsafe to assume that every trait that persists in the population must be beneficial. Evolution indicates that in general beneficial traits will be favoured, but there are various mechanisms that allow for neutral or even harmful traits to persist in a population, e.g. heterozygote advantage, hitch-hiking, spandrels.

But given the amazing amount of stuff that happens to a woman's appearance and emotional response in her cycle, and the radical amount of male behaviour which at root is nothing more than a peacock fanning his tail, I bristle when people act like sex isn't *for* reproduction and we (and some other species) just happen to have found some other benefits in it.

Depends what you mean by "for".

A designed object will have components that were included because the designer wanted them to fulfill a specific purpose. My pocket knife has a corkscrew, and it's there because somebody wanted "get corks out of bottles" as a use case. I could use it for other functions, cleaning my nails or scratching my back, but those aren't the purpose for its design.

In evolution, there is no design purpose. Exaption is rife: a trait arises by chance, it becomes common because it gives an advantage for one function, then the context changes and that trait becomes useful for some other function.

Take that peacock as an example. His feathers are useful for thermoregulation, for flight, and for sexual signalling. Probably thermoregulation preceded those other functions in the evolution of dinosaurs and birds... but I doubt anybody would argue that the One Fundamental Purpose of a peacock's feathers is thermoregulation, and they "just happen" to have some side benefits.