Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam
(Post 652905)
no, women and men evolved on the same scale and timeline as each other. we wouldn't evolve to give advantageous traits to one sex and not the other, that would be counter-evolutionary. i do agree that other traits -- jealousy, for instance, are evolutionary in design (because it works best for both sexes). but an intrinsic desire to rape certainly doesn't have evolutionary merit; it creates a need for a protective characteristic (which again wouldn't serve any evolutionary purpose since it doesn't facilitate mating).
there are other female-male traits that have evolved over time, such as the tendency for humans to grow larger penises (in the absence of a penile bone) than other primates due to our erect postures. in addition, the human vagina has developed a more anterior orientation to facilitate mating. it's always interesting to notice why our genitalia look like they do. :D
|
Say, who's the one with a degree in biology here? ;)
I don't think you've read much evolutionary theory. Evolution within populations against exploitation tactics is a common thing and happens all the time. Think of how vampire bats may share blood which is a valuable resource to them. It would be easy to only take blood and never give any back, so a defence against that exploitation evolves.
Many males are promiscous because of what I wrote above. The parental investment is usually potentially very small. Hypothetically speaking, a mammalian male of a species can make perhaps make 100 females pregnant. Let's say out of these 100 single parents only 2 are able to raise their children to full maturity. That could still be a better payoff for the father than mating with 1 and spending a lot of time and effort fathering those children. Indeed, in many species, mothers are left to parent the children on their own.
However, if you're one of the 98 women whose children died because the father left, leaving you on your own, your genes are not gonna make it either. In other words, having sex with people who are gonna run off might not be a good idea, especially not for humans whose babies require considerable care. Their genes will do worse in a competition with those who have a counter strategy. The counter strategy here is trying to evaluate who you're gonna have sex with. You wanna know that your partner won't run off and if those who possess the counter strategy more often have sex with with fathers who are loyal and stay with the mother, that will ensure the survival and evolution of both the mothers counter strategy and the the fathers loyalty.
However, it's likely still a good strategy to be a little exploitative considering how little resources it might take to do so. "Strategies" like rape wouldn't make sense if everyone did it, but it might make sense when there's only a few doing it. That might be enough to keep such a strategy in a population, though at a low level.
Several species of fish are sexdimorphic meaning the males and females look different (different morphology). The bright coloured male of a specie might have a harem of women and protect it against other predators/male competitors, but there could also be a "sneaky ****er" in his harem, a male who also looks like a female and secretly sneaky-****s his harem girls. The "dimorphic" males who do best in the population are those that are able to sniff out these sneaky ****ers and chase them away so this ability evolves .. at the same time, the sneaky ****ers who survive and mate the most are the ones who are able to trick the other males into thinking they're female, so they are developing their exploitation strategy.
See? That's an example of evolution of exploitation strategy and counter strategy even within one sex. ;)
You really should consider picking up Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It explores these topics far better than I can in a simple post and it's easy to read too.
edit :
By the way, it might also be worth mentioning that any counter strategy is also likely to come at a cost. If there's no exploitation strategy, then there's no selection to uphold a strategy against it and losing or degrading the strategy might even be selected for if it comes at a net cost to the individuals posessing it.