Sexual Selection Is The Female Function

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... 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: ...

paulhanke,

Thanks for the input, I think probably it will have to remain a mystery, though there does seem to be a difference between working class views on the subject and the more profession element. I once post the problem on a site where a great many of the associates were professionals, there was not one person that had a problem with the said fact that sexual selection was the function of the female, after six months of responses not one stated that this is not so.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by boagie

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.

I've always agreed with the premise here. Biologically we're very much indistinguishable from species where females are sought by the males (based on aspects of fecundity, mainly); the female chooses from her pick. Life goes on. Why this isn't more openly acknowledged (and extolled! as I think it should be) comes back two issues: 1) The psychological complexity of the human animal -and- 2) Inculcated Cultural and/or Religious mindsets that try to "remove" the animal, from Human Animal.

Psychologically: Development of intelligence (self-awareness, sentience, sapience) brings forth a species that modifies its own behavior. It's awareness of self and ego mitigates, exaggerates and suppresses natural inclinations based on intellectual or emotional aspects. I believe had we only our drives/instincts to guide us, and not intelligence, conscious will and emotions, the natural sexual dominance innate to the female would be more prevalent. By the way, I see what we are - in this way - as neither good nor bad, only that "it is".

Culture and Religion: Given our nature as social beings (cooperatives, whereas the one finds it exceedingly difficult to survive and thrive not in numbers) cultural views based on that culture's values, and religious taboos/mores play, also, a huge part in supressing (and even denying) the drives of the natural animal. This, too, is neither good nor bad but simply "is". I don't like it, but it strikes me as a natural permutation.

Another note here are economical and practical considerations - all these bring influences to bear on us that color our perceptions of what sexual is and what should take place. I've read a lot on the various matriarchies that various cultures (past and present) exercise, and it's always struck me as very 'natural' when females take their place as 'judges' in the selection process. We, too, judge, but that's a different side of the same coin.

Neat topic and great tickler.

[boagie]

Khethil

Well I do not think it is an adaptation, more likely a psychological anomaly. I am aware that there is a new theory trying to breakthrough, called, "Shift Theory". I believe it challenges Dawinian theory on this. I cannot say that it has no credibility, but I suspect that the motivation to challenge Darwinian theory is political, perhaps this public workingclass denial of the sexual selection of the female is political also. Besides do we not require the truth to properly adapt to the society we are part of, does it not make for a rather schizophrenic dance of it this mating game.

This is more recent development with me, but rather than look for one cause as source of this reaction we should perhaps look at the different contexts in which this divergence of opinion emerges, this is more complex perhaps, but, more realistic don't you think?