Studies show that women may "absorb" male DNA from sperm

strobe

spookymuffin wrote: »

These are good points, but other than STD risk, none of them are really reasons to avoid mating with a female who has had many previous sexual partners. Although a lot of them would definitely discourage paternal investment in any offspring produced.

That's a good point. Also humans, like all primates (?) are social 'pack animals', so surely 'in the wild' everyone is raising and investing in everyone else's children in the group? You don't just kill the antelope and drag it home and keep it for your own kids all on your lonesome, a gang of ye hunt and kill it and then split it up and pass it around all the children and their mothers, and a gang of ye chase off the wolves together protecting all the children and mothers too, not just your kids and their mother?

With wild humans/primates, on the whole it's usually group propagation rather than purely individual, isn't it?

I'm just guessing at things here.. Is there an anthropologist about? Bad as taxi drivers they are, tones of them about til you actually need one.

spookymuffin

strobe wrote: »

That's a good point. Also humans, like all primates (?) are social 'pack animals', so surely 'in the wild' everyone is raising and investing in everyone else's children in the group? You don't just kill the antelope and drag it home and keep it for your own kids, a gang of ye hunt and kill it and then split it up, and a gang of ye chase off the wolves together protecting all the children, not just your own.

?

This is the problem with comparing humans to some animal species that use the "harem" mating system, like gorillas, or animals that use the roaming and mate guarding systems, like orangs, or the ones that pretty much just sleep with everyone, like chimps/bonobos. We are also social primates, but unfortunately, we'll never know for sure what the "default" wild-type human society and mating system would have been like before the advent of complex culture (and shame/honour culture in particular).

Wibbs

spookymuffin wrote: »

We are also social primates, but unfortunately, we'll never know for sure what the "default" wild-type human society and mating system would have been like before the advent of complex culture (and shame/honour culture in particular).

Yes we're pretty different to the other great apes alright. We're also very adaptable. So you can have human systems where harems are in play, as well as lifetime monogamous systems elsewhere. Our "default" setting is most likely to be serial monogamy. We're also very different in other ways. Unlike females of the other great apes, women evolved to disguise oestrus. No red bums etc We also have sex outside fertile times. Bonobos do as well, but IMH the Bonobo comparison that can be fashionable is more about cultural projection than reality. Looking at men, they evolved the largest penis among the great apes(and lost the penis bone). They human testes are halfway in size between chimps whose are huge to produce enough sperm to compete with other males as chimp females are promiscuous and gorillas whose testes are tiny because they run harems which means competition is less(though not absent). This would suggest humans are not nearly as promiscuous as chimps, but are also not as sure of mate loyalty as gorillas.

Fabreo

spookymuffin wrote: »

This is the problem with comparing humans to some animal species that use the "harem" mating system, like gorillas, or animals that use the roaming and mate guarding systems, like orangs, or the ones that pretty much just sleep with everyone, like chimps/bonobos. We are also social primates, but unfortunately, we'll never know for sure what the "default" wild-type human society and mating system would have been like before the advent of complex culture (and shame/honour culture in particular).

I'd say humans default sexual behaviour is when where group sex is common more similar to the bonobo.

Fate Amenable To Change

Wibbs wrote: »

Well... why I would have zero confidence in the theory of the this thread, it could be argued that men could have a biological reason to avoid women with many sexual partners. Before contraception and reliable paternity testing the man could never be sure his children are his. The woman always knows. It makes less genetic sense for an individual to expend resources on offspring that aren't his. A woman with 200 sexual partners could be seen as more of a potential "risk" than a woman of 2 or none. Male mate guarding is seen in a fair number of other animals for just this reason. It can go to extremes too, so male lions when they take over a pride will often kill the cubs, in an attempt to end the previous males genetic legacy. Secondly there could be a disease aspect to it too. Women are more exposed to the risk of STD's from a sexual encounter, so the more sexual encounters the more risk to health, which could affect her fertility, so the male monkey brain again may see less as more. There may even be another possible reason. Before contraception a young fertile couple could expect to have a pregnancy happen in the first year of a sexual relationship. Maybe the monkey brain sees a woman who has had years of sexual relationships but no resulting children as possibly infertile. The higher brain knows it's because of contraception, but the monkey brain doesn't.

Now of course culture and our massive brains will offset this, but I would imagine it plays some part.

I like the ideas. I always assumed it was something to do with a social perception or rank ie.if that girl is sleeping around with everyone she must not picking alpha males and therefore a bad choice to pass on my genetic material with (possibly thinking alpha males must be finding the best and this mustn't be it). This makes sense to me because some guys won't go out with a girl who has "slept around" yet would have no problem going out with a model or famous actress who have undoubtedly done the same. This could be because the famous person is of a high status anyway and therefore must be a good match.

Going forward I'm mixing your ideas and mine.

Can't men pick up female hormones from drinking alcohol in puberty or is that rubbish?

Fate Amenable To Change

Fabreo wrote: »

I'd say humans default sexual behaviour is when where group sex is common more similar to the bonobo.

I think its a mix. Some have developed tendencies to be more laissez faire with relationships and having several partners while others tend towards monogamy.

Wibbs

Fabreo wrote: »

I'd say humans default sexual behaviour is when where group sex is common more similar to the bonobo.

IMH the bonobo model when applied to humans is bogus in the extreme. First the chimp connection was pushed as a human model, but they were too warlike, vicious and male. When research on the bonobo came out it showed them to be caring sharing and female having lots of sex and that appealed more. IMHO it's more a political/cultural bias that looks to the bonobo. In any event we're very different to both chimps and bonobos. Hell we're pretty different to previous humans that were around. Modern humans are real outliers and that likely applies to our sexuality and reproductive strategies.

For a start previous humans seem to live in small family based groups. Not unlike wolf packs. That would likely have one or two monogamous main mating pairs with different aged kids, who would when mature forge out and kick off their own groups. Modern humans come along and they seem to build much larger groups that grow over time. Larger groups would need more systems in place to select for mates and to reduce mate aggression. When farming comes along and populations grow even more and aren't nearly as mobile new pressures would come into mate selection. The notion of property and inheritability of property pressures more mate selection and protection of the line in the male.

Fate Amenable To Change wrote: »

Can't men pick up female hormones from drinking alcohol in puberty or is that rubbish?

Never heard that one. IIRC beer contains chemicals that can mimic female hormones(from the hops content IIRC), but I'd imagine you'd have to consume a shedload of it over time to have any effect and other health issues would come along first. Though I have heard the theory that a "beer belly" is more likely than a "wine belly" because of the presence of such hormones. Testosterone tends to build muscles and burn calories, Oestrogens tend to conserve/build fat. From a personal and anecdotal angle, I find "performance issues" with a feed of beer on board, but not with wine. Maybe there's something to it?

vibe666

Well I for one won't even consider mating with any woman until I've thoroughly mapped her genome and scanned it for potential male DNA.

It does make for some very awkward dates and nights out clubbing are very tiresome lugging around DNA sequencers and all the equipment needed, but you just can't be too careful these days with all the potential stray male genetic material floating around in their bodies just waiting to contaminate your potential offspring.

vibe666

Wibbs wrote: »

Never heard that one. IIRC beer contains chemicals that can mimic female hormones(from the hops content IIRC)

I think I just discovered why I keep crashing my car after a feed of pints!

ancapailldorcha

vibe666 wrote: »

Well I for one won't even consider mating with any woman until I've thoroughly mapped her genome and scanned it for potential male DNA.

It does make for some very awkward dates and nights out clubbing are very tiresome lugging around DNA sequencers and all the equipment needed, but you just can't be too careful these days with all the potential stray male genetic material floating around in their bodies just waiting to contaminate your potential offspring.

I find it so annoying when nightclubs refused to equip themselves with laminar flux cabinets.

vibe666

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find it so annoying when nightclubs refused to equip themselves with laminar flux cabinets.

That whole "if your genomes not down, you're not coming in" attitude seems really discriminatory if you ask me.

ancapailldorcha

vibe666 wrote: »

That whole "if your genomes not down, you're not coming in" attitude seems really discriminatory if you ask me.

Suppose I'd better put paid to my bloodborne pathogens and drugs of abuse screening program for potential partners then.