Sexual Selection Is The Female Function

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Scattered

Well, it's all pretty complicated in terms of biology and besides this is a philosophy forum anyway. Then it even gets more complicated for humans. I'll put a couple generalities from biology.
Whoever can get stuck with the young is going to use beauty as a strategy. In mammals (internal fertilization) it is the females. In egg layers such as fish and birds, it is the male so the male has more colorful diplays.
The degree that any species focuses on those strategies often correlates to their sexual dimorphism. How different are the sizes of the male and female? The more different, the more there is sexual selection in that specie.
Then again, it seems to be somewhat different for humans. We are a highly sexually dimorphic mammal. But we are not in an ecology we are adapted to. In most mammal species, the females raise the young. THey look for the fitest mate and may provoke competition to find out who that is. Various species of mammals use a monogamous strategy in harsh conditions where to parents are required to raise the young. Humans seem to use monogamy because of the long and demanding child raising requirements.
All that said, humans are rather unusual and there is a fair amount of male beauty, though it is impossible for me to make much of a judgement on that. Women having the final say, is in some ways novel and restricted to location and culture. Then again, arranged marriages are common as well.
Looking at it all, it seems like humans are a specie in transition occupying various niches, using a variety of strategies.
It's a nice answer, but not closely related to your question. The answer to that is probably accomodation and conflict avaidance. If you tell a guy the truth that he has no part in a wedding besides showing up, he may get annoyed. Say nothing and there will be less friction.

Scattered,

Excellent post, most informative, though I believe that the topic is relevant to thought, to philosophy, as the rise of femenist philosophy so indicates. Seems apparent, a difference in ones biology would infer a difference in thought, in the perspective of that thought. Biology is the bases or foundation of all philosophy. At anyrate I am most impressed with your knowledge on the topic, please feel free to take the lead here in the examination of said topic, it would be most appreciated. I think it is safe to say, that today where the power of sexual selection is not taken from women, through political oppression, it remains the function of the female.

NATURE'S HOLISM: coevolution within ecosystems and the holistic principle

0f Nature's Holism - coevolution in ecosystems.

[Scattered]

Tell ya what, how about I start another topic that sort of supercedes that some. I'll probably start it under religion and I think you will find it interesting. You say "Biology is the bases or foundation of all philosophy. " I'll be examing that.

[charles m young]

sexual selection is the female function, unless of course your name is charles m young, then sexual selection becomes your function.............,

[OntheWindowStand]

Or if you are chuck Norris

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Scattered

Tell ya what, how about I start another topic that sort of supercedes that some. I'll probably start it under religion and I think you will find it interesting. You say "Biology is the bases or foundation of all philosophy. " I'll be examing that.

Scattered,

Why would you doubt that biology is the foundation of philosophy, biology is the foundation of reality itself, are you not your biology? In the absence of yourself in the form of your biology, how would you even entertain an idea, it doesn't make any sense. Well, if you dare to present it as so, I shall be glad to respond.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by boagie

Scattered,

Why would you doubt that biology is the foundation of philosophy, biology is the foundation of reality itself, are you not your biology? In the absence of yourself in the form of your biology, how would you even entertain an idea, it doesn't make any sense. Well, if you dare to present it as so, I shall be glad to respond.

As I understand it Biology is the study of living things. It has a special place as a branch of science. I can not understand how it can be the foundation of philosophy unless its a mater of Semantic where dear Boagie has his own definition of the term.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by midas77

As I understand it Biology is the study of living things. It has a special place as a branch of science. I can not understand how it can be the foundation of philosophy unless its a mater of Semantic where dear Boagie has his own definition of the term.

midas,

Ask yourself from where does the question arise? What is it that descerns reality, what is it that constitutes half the equation of reality.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Y'all!,

Sexual selection is the female function,why is it not talked about in polite company,better still why is it denied with a passion,by a great many,I would say the majority of people.What purpose does the denial serve? Any insights would be appreciated.

... possibilities, possibilities:

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection is socially adaptive in and of itself to the working class

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection lends coherence to a worldview that is socially adaptive to the working class (but the aversion is not socially adaptive in and of itself)

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection is a vestigial (and neutral, in the adaptive sense) element that lingers on from a time when it was socially adaptive to the ancestors of the working class

- other possibilities ???

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... possibilities, possibilities:

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection is socially adaptive in and of itself to the working class

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection lends coherence to a worldview that is socially adaptive to the working class (but the aversion is not socially adaptive in and of itself)

- the aversion to acknowledging sexual selection is a vestigial (and neutral, in the adaptive sense) element that lingers on from a time when it was socially adaptive to the ancestors of the working class
- other possibilities ???

paulhanke,

I am really not sure what you are saying here, are you saying it was once to our benifit to deny that sexual selection is the female function, and so we carrie it on from there out of habit? Although most all the biology text books acknowledge the fact of female sexual selection, I have found it is not really accepted as truth in much of my own limited society, surely it is more than a habit of denial. Perhaps it is a threat to the idea of romantic love, both genders tend to deny the reality.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

I am really not sure what you are saying here, ...

... sorry ... I'm not actually asserting any of these as the cause of the denial you observe - I'm just trying to illuminate a number of places where the answer you seek could be hiding ... the first seems relatively straightforward; but the latter two demonstrate how obscure (and hard to find) the answer you seek might be (worse yet, maybe it's some combination of these!) ... as you eloquently stated: ...