A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women ...
There's this peculiar American form of feminism that teaches that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure. It's counterfactual, as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men. On top of that, everything has to be viewed through the lens of commerce. What's wrong with the nation?
The way you've formulated it, that's false. However, it makes sense in evolutionary biology that females are going to be more selective about partners than males. (Perhaps we'll rewire ourselves or develop pharmaceuticals that adjust our sex drives for hedonistic or practical purposes convenient to us?)
The fad of repurposing evolutionary biology to explain some current situation needs to go away. It's appealing because it's a convenient way for people to wrap their opinions in science, using such phrases as, "it makes sense..."
In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]: "bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple group males, increasing its chances for survival.
Bonobos are an edge case in sexuality. Far more mammalian and primate species behave similarly to stcredzero's conception.
Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure... as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of anti-feminist)
I'm not educated in the field, so I am happy to learn if I am wrong. But aren't bonobos one of the closest relatives to humans? That would indicate that the comparison is most relevant to human sexual behavior, regardless of what the rest of more distant ape relatives do.
Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with: "bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups offspring, rather than just his own."
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. This would change the cost/benefit equation for humans. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology.
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate?
If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.
Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology.
Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.
From a historical/global perspective, this is a bit of a "HUH!?" Religion of some form has played a major role in the majority of human lives for most of recorded history. Also, even when religion is absent, there are almost always some form of societal norms around sexual behavior. (Though, arguably less restrictive ones.)
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
I don't see any limitations highlighted. Please cite an example. I only see more data increasing the complexity of the discussion, but the products of natural selection are complex by nature. How is your above statement distinguishable from name calling and silencing-tactic FUD?
a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present. b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.
a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present.
This is another huge "huh!?" as the data for evolutionary biology is fundamentally historical. (Another piece of data which you seem to lack, is that we've documented evolutionary changes in large mammals in only a couple hundred years.)
b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.
You keep calling it a "limitation" but keep failing to explain how that is a valid label. What is this, the 3rd time I've asked now? This pattern is starting to look like FUD and dishonest labelling to me.
I wouldn't pin it on feminism, as this isn't written within the feminist movement. It's written by a psych prof and a marketing prof. (Few mentions of "feminist" in the paper, and it's even dismissed: "Indeed, many feminist analyses of sexual behavior (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975) suffer from reliance on the highly questionable assumption that men’s treatment of women is motivated by a primary concern with power, with sex being secondary.")
Furthermore, I've heard from anthropologists that inhabitants of more feminist societies tend to be more satisfied with their (more frequent) sex lives. After all, successful patriarchy movements turn sex sick. However, I'm not going to hunt a cite about sex for an HN post, so believe what you will. :)
Definitely agree with viewing everything though the lens of commerce though. Free market fundamentalism is the US's greatest religion. Its ivory-tower priests are forever trying to recast everything into capitalist theology. Its holy wars are primarily to secure economic obedience. (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-...)
There have been lots of studies demonstrating that men on average have a significantly higher sex drive than women. Of course there are exceptions, but in aggregate it's true. With that in mind, an economic treatment of the subject isn't really that strange, and I don't really see how it reflects on the nation.
> Man has much higher status than the woman - lowers
> Woman has high sex drive - lowers
Wait, what? It's an interesting list, but romantic/comedies (traditionally female oriented, see upcoming Amy Schumer movie) are the most common "women and men are of similar social status" which leads me to believe that these are equally false assertions.
As human beings, we long to be understood, accepted, and loved. Casual sex/relationships and the culture centered around it manifests this in short order and duration. The culture of casual sex and relationships benefits corporations the most and is thus heavily promoted by them via numerous media outlets. Divide and conquer... Isolate and manipulate via norms of manipulative games and economic exchanges dictated by corporations who set the dominant ideology.
The gold still remains in long term relationships in which there is mutual understanding, acceptance, love, and in which individuals build something lasting with someone and grow. The observation of Sexual Economics, at least in America, is that corporations have come to understand how to manipulate the 'market' such that it renders them max revenue by ensuring people are perpetually unsatisfied and against each other. In this model, the concept of a stable family is attacked and the supplier (woman) is convinced that it is in their best interest to be as manipulative and self-serving as they can (after-all, they are manipulated to falsely believe that's a man's mindset). In this model and on the demand side, the man is trained on the idea that they can do nothing to get the supply side to 'see the bigger picture'. As such, the demand side resorts to counter manipulation practices and removes feeling from the physical exchanges... Everyone against everyone for hollow experiences that need constant reinforcement.. all to the benefit of the corporations. It really results in a delusional, lost, and alone society.. Albeit, economically active.
3rd wave feminism centers on this very agenda.
Meanwhile, men have been pushed into a lessened state of being in which they game their lives and identity to acquire sex/women they have emotional checked out on (Taxing pursuits of empty experiences).
That's the bigger economic model... Focusing on what the participants have been trained on ignores the driving force and the real 'engine' which is pure capitalism and profit. So, try not wasting time on what system participants are doing in this forced and set environment and focus more on what's the goal of the environment that the participants are subjected to.
There's this peculiar American form of feminism that teaches that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure. It's counterfactual, as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men. On top of that, everything has to be viewed through the lens of commerce. What's wrong with the nation?