discussion comment
17 years ago
David brings interesting ideas to the discussion of male/female relations. I don't understand why anybody here would want to to silence him; espcecially in this age of political correctness, where discussions like these almost never see the light of day except in scientific journals.
However, David poses two ideas which seem contradictory:
1) "...whereas men being more goal centric and having millions of sperm and an innate desire <to> disperse their seed widely - VOLUME is what matters."
2) "...Men, if let loose, following their evolutionary based desires, would have sex with nearly all young fertile attractive women..."
David, if VOLUME is all that matters to the seed-spreader sex, then why are you including "attractiveness" in the males' evolutionary based desires? Couldn't a young, fertile female with an ugly face bear children just as well as a young, fertile female with a beautiful face?
At any rate, I find myself agreeing with some of the things you are saying in general. One thing though - when you speak of primitive humans, you ascribe some sort of chemistry or "in-love" feeling to the pairing of the sexes. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Based on anthropologic studies, romantic love appears to be strictly a by-product of dyadic caregiver societies, which is a recent historical development. As far as I understand, romantic love would be entirely foreign to the caveman/cavewoman bond. We can save that for the movies, and those wonderful posters of Raquel Welch in leopard skins.
References:
Stone Age Economics, 1972, Marshall Sahlins
Wandering God, 2000, Morris Berman