Sexual Selection Is The Female Function

[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.

[chad3006]

It certainly seems true for humans. However, it may very well be more complex than it seems on the surface. There are cases when males make sexual selection, sometimes it's called rape. It hasn't been that many years ago that women would have not been able to speak of it, thus an aspect of human sexual selection would have remained "invisible." History is full of loveless marriages as well. Women may have made the decision to accept the proposal, however, there were social and economic factors which may have dictated that choice. Women's rights are relatively new to our culture, so it could be we are currently in a period of adjustment. Anyway....just some rough thoughts I had on the topic.

Here's an interesting link (on many levels) about bonobos who are genetically just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees, however, bonobos are matriarchal, while chimp society revolves around the typical dominant male model.

[boagie]

Chad,

This is a topic I have played with over some time,it seems both men and women of my working class circle all deny with a passion this reality.When I have had the opportunity to step out of this circle into that of a middle class circle,I found total agreement.So my question is then, what function is this denial serveing my working class circle?There are all kinds of biological written material to substantiate the reality of this premise, besides what one can observe for oneself in the world about them.The interesting thing about it is, when first confronted with the statement sexual selection is the female function,the response in the negative is almost instantaneous,a knee jerk reaction.There has obviously been no thought really put into it and with some people the mere proposition is offensive.I guess if acknowledged it might prove significant in the sexual politics of the day but that still does not explain the instant thoughtless response---no time to measure the pros and cons of the situation.It is still very much a puzzle to me.

It is a dreamy moveing not quite thing,only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

[chad3006]

I'm just thinking out loud here. I wonder if working class circles deny it because economics plays a bigger role in this selection process for them, or at least their perception of this selection process. So, they feel more like pawns in the process.

I've known several poor women who have apparently made their sexual selections based solely on their partner's ability to provide. It's selection of course, but it's not hard to see how they may feel like their choice was not their own. Their choice was limited for sure. I suppose a woman of upper class can technically choose from all the classes, but one from a lower class is more limited to just her class.

A lot of lip service is paid to moving up in class here in the US, but the reality is the US is very class conscious and most people die in the class they were born in. I don't know if that's the case in Canada.

[boagie]

Chad,

I think your on to something in them feeling like pawns in the process,I think people like to think that their modivations are of a high nature,it is the romantic myth.I to know women who married simply to improve their status of living,the guy much of the time has a passable personality, but sometime not,he just has the money.

From my obsevation it is rare for a women to married down economically,while there is lots and lots of examples of working class women marrying working class males.Perhaps they believe these males have potential.In any case people do not want to think of it as anything but romance.She married me because she loves me,but being a money maker is part of the reason she loves you-------its an age old theme.

It is a puzzle though,that even confronted with the evidence,the most you can get from people holding this view is a grudgeing silence,they do not want it to be true.

From what has been said however, it has to be a diserves to both men and women,better still to boys and girls to hide the realities of life from them,how is one to adapt if one is told lies.It seems a simple truth,I have no idea what society might look like if people were force to acknowledge this truth,perhaps nothing much at all.

Just an added thought,through the late seventies and eighties there was a wide spread group thought among women,and that was of the eternal sufferer,victum mentality,it was as if it was a club they all wanted to join.If this truth was accepted it would be much much more difficult to claim victum hood.So,there would be from a womens perspective a great loss of power.If you do not think victumhood powerful --------think Christ,the suffering son of god-powerful stuff! In the eighties I had the definate feeling that the women I was living with at the time,felt she was sleeping with the enemy---that is how crazy this stuff got for a time.

Canada is much like the states,Canadians tend to be a little more conservative,most born and raised Canadians I think see the States as a big brother--------in the positive sense.I grew up worshipping American heros from Davey Crockett on up.Canadians strongly identify with Americans,that is not to say at times they do not disagree on some matters.

[chad3006]

With all that I've said, I'm not convinced that there are great differences in behaviors of the sexes. Or I should say, there are not great differences in the drives behind the behaviors, when men and women are honest with themselves. The differences are trained roles that people play, and the more unconsciously an individual lives his or her life, the more apt they are to play that role. This, of course, creates internal conflict and unhappiness, when there are differences in what an individual needs and what the role requires, which may be perceived to the individual as victimhood, as you mentioned. In some cases, these roles may very well be victimhood. It depends on the culture, but women's roles frequently seem more inflexible. My wife despises the traditional women's role, but is honest enough with herself to free herself from that role, without needing to find blame.

Perhaps another way to say it is: sexual selection is the function of the femanine role, and the difference between the individual's wants/needs and the expectations of wants/needs the role demands creates the confusion and denial by some.

There are all sorts of roles and behaviours that stem from those roles. Entire class systems, are of course, roles too.

[boagie]

Chad,

The politics of the day do present problems,it has been difficult for women in this society to gain an equal stance.Every few people,women as well as men really try to understand the polarity between the male and the female.

The way I see it is there is this natural relationship between the sexs which needs both sides of the equation to honour and respect it.If one is respecting this relationship in ones thoughts and behaviours one is already respecting and honouring the opposite sex.Look in some of these Muslim countries,the horrendous status of the women.Most people in this culture agree the oppression is such that it violates the womens human rights.No one is going to get excited about that statement.However look at what happens in a culture that is completely liberal.Women here have no such pressure,and feel apparently public demonstration of their sexuality is their innate right,it is simply the opposite pole of the oppression of women in the middle east.Do women in this culture feel they are honouring the natural relationship between men and women.I think as a culture we have missed the mark.

The differences in behaviors are apparent,different because males and females are different.In many countries this function of sexual selection is taken out of the hands of the women, reinforced with violence and murder.Certainly if one has a choice one would chose this culture as the civilized culture.My point I think is that women in their new found liberation do not honour the basic relationship between the male and the female.Maybe its payback time.Never the less it is a biological reality that sexual selection is a power,and due to this standing relationship between men and women victumhood is a very real maniulative tool and has historically worked.

Personally if you choose not to believe that victumhood or even sexual selection is a reality,its your pleasure, but perhaps you do not believe in these things when they are in the hands of males either.I really don't know how much further this topic can really go anyway,unless someone out there has a slant on this neither of us has thought about.

Time is not,for it self emplodes it rejoins itself in its inner folds it streams it edds it flows,all cycles within contained in whole.

[Scattered]

According to Darwin, sexual selection is related to beauty. Women have more beauty than men by most standards, so I think you are not completely correct. Beauty is to attract those that do the selecting.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Scattered

According to Darwin, sexual selection is related to beauty. Women have more beauty than men by most standards, so I think you are not completely correct. Beauty is to attract those that do the selecting.

Scattered,

It has often been said, beauty is in the eye of the beholders.The female's attraction seems to be of a general nature thus attracting numerous suitors from which to select from. The actual contest is then between said suitors to display there feathers so to speak. How strong are you, how healthly are you, how well can you provide. Indeed in much of the animal world at this point the male competition decides, the female does not much care who the winner is, the strongest healthest generally takes the day. When this happens in human selection, selection remains in the hands of the female, it is not surprizeing though if the true element of romance is then questioned, materialism is most always a consideration, accept perhaps in the very young and naive. It may not be, the deciding factor, but it most certainly is in play.

[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.