The Old Mating Game - Biology 101

[glorfindale39]

Ok, so I was involved with a discussion with someone who was complaining about why woman always have control in sexual situations. They choose who, when, and where etc. I have heard other men complain about this so often and it is really irritating, so let me vent for a moment. The human animal (yes animal) follows most of the same basic restrictions and patterns of reproduction animals do. The most fundamental has to do with the cost of reproduction. In the natural world, who ever bears the highest cost, makes mating decisions. There are actually a few cases where male birds sit the nest after the female lays the eggs, and it is the males that are courted by the females, but I digress. So obviously, who has a higher cost for humans, a man and his 30 minutes of fun, or a woman and nine months of pregnancy, and many years of raising the offspring. Of course woman control the act of mating. This also drives many of the behaviors of men and women. Men are driven to mate many times to try to produce offspring, because males never truly know if the offspring our there's, especially in species that take several mates in a breading season. Females however, know that if they have offspring it carries their genetic make up. So though the cost is higher for them, they are assured of passing on there genome. Thus part of the drive for males to mate with many females, and for females to find one stable male to help support her genetic offspring regardless if it is that males offspring or not. One side note to this though, some animals mate for life. These are typically in situations where the female receives some support in raising the offspring from the male, and in return the male gains a higher chance that her offspring carry his genome.

As humans though, we cloud all this basic biology with the fact that we are thinking beings, and that we are one of the few species that have sex for pleasure. So take all this with a grain of salt.

Cheers,
G.

 

[juicylips]

Only 30 minutes?

We need to have a serious talk.
JL

 

[glorfindale39]

I'm a scientist dear, I always speak in averages. Besides, it is rude to brag on ones abilities, no mater how amazing they may be.

Though of course with you, who knows how long any man could last.

G.

 

[juicylips]

I'm a scientist dear, I always speak in averages. Besides, it is rude to brag on ones abilities, no mater how amazing they may be.

Though of course with you, who knows how long any man could last.

G.

You never know till you try.

I'm always available to test out these "amazing" abilities.
JL

 

[cutie pie]

Only 30 minutes?

We need to have a serious talk.
JL

That's really my only comment about this. . . Oh, and I'm always willing to help test theories for the betterment of science.

 

[takingchances42]

Hiya Glorin and welcome to the boards, you are starting out with some thoughtful posts. Evolutionary biology and how it affects human sexuality is pretty fascinating stuff. Hard to prove anything, but fun to look at and debate.

DNA analysis is really changing some assumptions in looking at these things. In taking a close look at the species that "mate for life" it turns out that aren't any. Swans are a well known example of a species that is supposed to be monogamous -- but it turns out that both males and females do in fact diddle around with others quite regularly, they just try not to get caught.

I wish I had saved the link, but there was the recent study in Britain that showed that within the population examined, DNA analysis showed the husband was not the father with 15% of all children born to married women. I've also seen some study results that say that women are more likely to conceive when cheating, though I didn't see the study methodology and how good the science appeared to be. From an evolutionary biology perspective, some would say that what is in a woman's genetic code is to find the best man to stand by her and raise her children, and the best provider of genetic material for her offspring -- which is not necessarily the same person.

But of course, we are more than our genes, and it is superceding our genes that makes us fully human. If that is possible...?

 

[glorfindale39]

Thanks takingchances for a very thought provoking post.

I completely agree that species that mate for life are not guaranteed to pass on there genetic code, only enhances the chance the male will assure his offspring. There are some species of birds that once they mate the male never leaves the females side and attempts to prevent mating with other partners.

I would love to read that article about the British study. I would be very curious to see how they went about the science of it, and what the statistical methods are.

Interesting point about the best mate not necessarily being the best provider. That raises some interesting questions. For evolutionary theory to work, we have to assume fitness is the ability to produce offspring that have the highest chance to survive to a mating age. Producing lots of offspring that die out, won’t continue the line. So we would have to assume that the mates genes somehow provide a better viability then the providers. I thing that would only be in rare occasions since a good provider would ensure that most of his offspring reach reproductive maturity. Many small animals reach reproductive ability shortly after they are weaned, so to care for them to the point when they strike out on there own, ensures better fitness.

Anyway, like you said it is all a bit speculative, but fun to think about. Thanks for the welcome as well.

Cheers,
G.

 

[takingchances42]

Interesting point about the best mate not necessarily being the best provider. That raises some interesting questions. For evolutionary theory to work, we have to assume fitness is the ability to produce offspring that have the highest chance to survive to a mating age. Producing lots of offspring that die out, won’t continue the line. So we would have to assume that the mates genes somehow provide a better viability then the providers. I thing that would only be in rare occasions since a good provider would ensure that most of his offspring reach reproductive maturity.

Start with the basic premise that what underlies human sexual attraction is twofold: the ability of the children to reach reproductive age (which is enhanced by having a stable mate there to help out), and the children themselves having the best genetic material available. In an ideal situation, a female has both in a male. But in the real world, there is competition among the females for the best males, and the best males are not available for most females. So, they settle, and get the best man they can. Once they have settled, however, and the mate is there to help them raise the children -- then that half of things is taken care. And if the woman can get the more desirable male to meet her behind the bushes for fifteen minutes ( ), then the female gets the best of both worlds.

There is also the case to be made that having a diversity of genetic backgrounds among the children increases the chances of one "line" having the characteristics that allow it to survive and prosper.

So, I would argue that there are indeed strong reasons from the viewpoint of a woman's genetic material surviving and prospering, for a woman to cheat on her mate. Which some women (as well as men) certainly do, and have been for as long as there have been humans, and our ancestors before.