Virgins

[ku]

From http://www.ballet.co.uk/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=happening&om=5262&omm=16

[T]here probably is a biological reason for the allure of virginity. According to Robert Winston in his book "human instinct" virginity was the only way pre-historic man could be sure that their mate was bearing his children and he is not investing time and effort raising someone elses children. it is pure instinct evolved over 1000s of years of natural selection. This instinct has been passed on to modern man.

Can someone explain Winston's reasoning? How would the desire for raising one's own biological children increase evolutionary fitness?

[swansont]

If you are raising someone else's children, you aren't passing your own genes along.

 

Lions (and/or some other big cats) kill off all of the offspring when they take over a pride; IIRC no longer having to nurse the young also tends to bring the female into heat sooner rather than later. I'm sure there are other examples related to this.

[john5746]

From http://www.ballet.co.uk/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&forum=happening&om=5262&omm=16

 

Can someone explain Winston's reasoning? How would the desire for raising one's own biological children increase evolutionary fitness?

 

Swansont answered it: Your genes get passed on with your offspring. But, I don't think pre-historic man or other mammels would be concerned about their genes getting passed on or a women's virginity. I think the obsession with virginity is completely social, it isn't very apparent physically as to wheather a woman is a virgin.

[Daecon]

It's a social thing. Men want to have "first dibs" on a lady, is all. Kinda like a status symbol, as in not having any other bloke's second-hand sexual partner.

 

Or am I being too cynical?

[Sisyphus]

it isn't very apparent physically as to wheather a woman is a virgin.

 

You mean besides the hymen? In any case, you could still be instinctively more attracted to someone you think is a virgin. Entirely plausible, as I don't expect there are many secrets in a society of nomadic hunter-gatherers...

 

It would also help explain the persistent double standard between the sexes. It is almost always more socially acceptable for a man to have previous partners than a woman.

[Daecon]

*in a pub*

 

"Hello miss, can I have a look at your hymen?"

 

*slap and/or lawsuit*

[john5746]

You mean besides the hymen? In any case, you could still be instinctively more attracted to someone you think[/i'] is a virgin. Entirely plausible, as I don't expect there are many secrets in a society of nomadic hunter-gatherers...

 

Yes - society, i.e not instinct. Now, if we were running around examining hymens then maybe that would be an argument.

[Sisyphus]

Why does society = not instinct? We're social animals, are we not? Unless you think fish swim in schools because of cultural values passed on through oral tradition.

 

Also, it may be wildly inappropriate today, but it also seems likely such hymen inquiries were all part of the mating process for most of our history. It might even help explain its presence: a woman able to unambiguously demonstrate her virginity would be more desirable.

[Daecon]

It would also help explain the persistent double standard between the sexes. It is almost always more socially acceptable for a man to have previous partners than a woman.

In a male-driven society it's regarded as a peer status symbol to be a "man of the world". Or something like that. Whereas women in the past were traditionally looked down upon and regarded as weak and feeble - and should therefore be considered delicate and innocent, as virgins are supposed to be. An expirienced woman would have been less likely to just lie back and be submissive to the man, because there's the possiblility that they could have actually developed a personality and/or backbone.

[Nashyboyo]

A non-virgin woman in caveman terms (or Newport city terms) would have several sperm samples present inside a woman at any one time. So how can you be sure that your DNA is going to be passed on if a woman is not a virgin. At least you could keep her at your side and make sure that she doesn't go a stray with another man until she gives birth, then your certain. Is that the definition of love ???

[Daecon]

A non-virgin woman in caveman terms (or Newport city terms) would have several sperm samples present inside a woman at any one time. So how can you be sure that your DNA is going to be passed on if a woman is not a virgin. At least you could keep her at your side and make sure that she doesn't go a stray with another man until she gives birth, then your certain. Is that the definition of love ???

You honestly believe that?

 

I guess the same thing must be common in primate society even now, huh?

 

After all, most female primates from chimps to gorillas are just walking sex free-for-alls, waiting for any male to have his way, no questions asked.

[Mokele]

Your genes get passed on with your offspring. But, I don't think pre-historic man or other mammels would be concerned about their genes getting passed on or a women's virginity.

 

Why not? Even flies and spiders demonstrate awareness of virginity and male preference for it. Sexual selection is a powerful force.

 

It's a social thing. Men want to have "first dibs" on a lady, is all. Kinda like a status symbol, as in not having any other bloke's second-hand sexual partner.

 

If that were true, one would expect it to vary between cultures to a great degree, since it's essentially arbitrary. Instead, we see it as being prized in just about every culture, with the only exceptions being very modern and permissive societies like Sweden.

 

It's a social thing. Men want to have "first dibs" on a lady, is all. Kinda like a status symbol, as in not having any other bloke's second-hand sexual partner.

 

Don't forget pheremones. Humans respond to them as well, and we're just beginning to figure them out. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a difference we can subconsciously detect via pheremones.

 

Also, it may be wildly inappropriate today, but it also seems likely such hymen inquiries were all part of the mating process for most of our history. It might even help explain its presence: a woman able to unambiguously demonstrate her virginity would be more desirable.

 

Plus in a small tribe, it's *really* easy to keep track of who's sleeping with who. Early human social groups have been likened to soap operas, and I don't think that's far off (except with better acting and plots involving hungry leopards).

 

Think about how quickly the sexual exploits of individuals become known in your (general you) group of friends.

 

In a male-driven society it's regarded as a peer status symbol to be a "man of the world". Or something like that. Whereas women in the past were traditionally looked down upon and regarded as weak and feeble - and should therefore be considered delicate and innocent, as virgins are supposed to be. An expirienced woman would have been less likely to just lie back and be submissive to the man, because there's the possiblility that they could have actually developed a personality and/or backbone.

 

And where did these ideas come from? Is it just coincidence that these ideas are the most common around the globe, even in common between cultures long isolated from each other?

 

You honestly believe that?

 

What, that females will cheat and thereby endanger paternity? There's no 'belief about it; various genetic studies that have relied of family history for totally unrelated genes (like breast cancer genes) have turned up evidence than in the modern US up to 10% of kids aren't really the kids of the purported father.

 

After all, most female primates from chimps to gorillas are just walking sex free-for-alls, waiting for any male to have his way, no questions asked.

 

Actually, you see a range of variation supporting the biological origin of much of sexual behavior. Sexual dimorphism is greatest in gorillas, who monopolize entire harems, but least in chimps, where even "loser" males can sneak in enough copulations not to be totally devoid of descendants. The female choice aspect also vaires, from little in harem-based structures to very picky in more balanced groups (though the female may deliberately mate with many males in order to create confusion about the baby's paternity and thus reduce the risk of infanticide).

 

Mokele

[Nashyboyo]

Thanks Mokele. I thought my suggested was reasonable enough to desreve a sensible reply, rather than sarcasm. I wonder if 'transdecimal' has ever been to Newport ?

[john5746]

And where did these ideas come from? Is it just coincidence that these ideas are the most common around the globe' date=' even in common between cultures long isolated from each other?[/quote']

 

Obviously from men. It's a man's world. Sacrificing people and animals is seen throughout many cultures, I don't think it is instinct to do this.

 

Making sure a woman is a virgin keeps you from getting killed in some cases. I think this would make more sense. Groups and societies that found ways to keep men from killing each other would do better than inferior cultures.

 

 

Don't forget pheremones. Humans respond to them as well, and we're just beginning to figure them out. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a difference we can subconsciously detect via pheremones.

 

That would make sense to me. I was looking for a real physical attribute that would make the female more attractive. I don't see cavemen worrying about their great-great-great-great...grandson becoming the President of the US, there would need to be a physical spark. If men are more attracted to virgins instinctively, I think that it is the effect from some other cause, not the other way around.

 

I guess I can see it being instinct, but I can also see it being cultural. Is being suspicious of a used car instinct or culture?

[Mokele]

Obviously from men. It's a man's world.

 

And where did men get this idea that virgins are preferrable?

 

Making sure a woman is a virgin keeps you from getting killed in some cases. I think this would make more sense. Groups and societies that found ways to keep men from killing each other would do better than inferior cultures.

 

How does that work? How is violence linked in any way to whether a female is a virgin? Logically, I'd expect the preference for virgins to *increase* violence, due to males competing for an artificially reduced number of mates.

 

I was looking for a real physical attribute that would make the female more attractive. I don't see cavemen worrying about their great-great-great-great...grandson becoming the President of the US, there would need to be a physical spark. If men are more attracted to virgins instinctively, I think that it is the effect from some other cause, not the other way around.

 

Well, sexual selection can act upon the rest of the body as well. But that doesn't mean it's not selecting for men with a preference for virgins.

 

I guess I can see it being instinct, but I can also see it being cultural. Is being suspicious of a used car instinct or culture?

 

Both, in a sense. The particular situation is cultural, but it's actually been postulated that the need to deceive others and detect deception was a major factor driving the evolution of the human brain. As such, we've been selected to become quite good at it (and before noting the gullibility of some humans, compare it to that of other species, like dogs who'll run to get a non-existent ball you pretend to throw).

 

I also don't see the two as isolated. Human evolution is what set the stage for our cultures to develop, and has influenced how they develop, but culture also defines the context in which selection (natural or sexual) must now act, and can thus influence selection.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

I'm sorry, and I can't help but putting this bluntly, but virgins, and the thought of the associated busted hymen bloody cooch, disgusts the hell out of me...

[john5746]

And where did men get this idea that virgins are preferrable?.

 

When a girl becomes a woman, she menstruates. That is a clear signal that she can conceive and is a virgin(or should be?) ready to be mated. When the hymen is broken, there is blood - another indication. This is true in all cultures. It behoves the culture to peacefully pass virgins off as soon as possible to a male for mating, you then have marriage so there is less fighting between males. So, it might not be best for an individual male, who would want to screw every female, but it would be best for society, where the number of males satisfied are maximized

 

How does that work? How is violence linked in any way to whether a female is a virgin? Logically' date=' I'd expect the preference for virgins to *increase* violence, due to males competing for an artificially reduced number of mates.[/quote']

 

You know that she more than likely doesn't belong to another male.

 

I also don't see the two as isolated. Human evolution is what set the stage for our cultures to develop' date=' and has influenced how they develop, but culture also defines the context in which selection (natural or sexual) must now act, and can thus influence selection.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Agreed.

[john5746]

I'm sorry, and I can't help but putting this bluntly, but virgins, and the thought of the associated busted hymen bloody cooch, disgusts the hell out of me...

 

This topic was much more important to me when I was a teenager. I think I was concerned about the girl having more experience then me. I don't think I was more attracted to a virgin, but I didn't want to marry a slut. Insecurity in both cases I think.

[Mokele]

It behoves the culture to peacefully pass virgins off as soon as possible to a male for mating, you then have marriage so there is less fighting between males. So, it might not be best for an individual male, who would want to screw every female, but it would be best for society, where the number of males satisfied are maximized

 

Except that this is blown out of the water by the fact that AFAIK all extant polygynous cultures place a high value of virginity, and certainly don't distribute the femals equitably for ensuring peace.

 

There's also the problem than men will pursue additional matings even if 'given' a permanent mate, so this wouldn't do anything to stop conflict due to cheating.

 

Not to mention that I'm not aware of a single culture which actually enforces anything like the equitable distribution of females, and even if it did, females vary in desirability, so you'd *still* have conflict.

 

Also, why give them away young? If its equal mate distribution society wants, why not wait until they're 20? or 30? In a culture with a stable population, that shouldn't cause any shortfall at all, merely shifting who marries whom.

 

Basically, you're having to stretch way too far to attribute this to culture or something other than simple sexual selection. Sexual selection explains why males desire virgins, youth, and physical indicators of fitness such as breast size and symetric faces in a nice, simple, consistent manner than fits the observed data.

 

Mokele

[jeskill]

Except that this is blown out of the water by the fact that AFAIK all extant polygynous cultures place a high value of virginity' date=' and certainly don't distribute the femals equitably for ensuring peace.

 

There's also the problem than men will pursue additional matings even if 'given' a permanent mate, so this wouldn't do anything to stop conflict due to cheating.

 

Not to mention that I'm not aware of a single culture which actually enforces anything like the equitable distribution of females, and even if it did, females vary in desirability, so you'd *still* have conflict.

 

Also, why give them away young? If its equal mate distribution society wants, why not wait until they're 20? or 30? In a culture with a stable population, that shouldn't cause any shortfall at all, merely shifting who marries whom.

 

Basically, you're having to stretch way too far to attribute this to culture or something other than simple sexual selection. Sexual selection explains why males desire virgins, youth, and physical indicators of fitness such as breast size and symetric faces in a nice, simple, consistent manner than fits the observed data.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Expanding on this ... We live in a sexed up society, where good intimate relations seem to be an important aspect of relationships and *some* people don't want to put the effort into "training" their partners. . What about the hypothesis that whilst sexual selection makes virgins desirable, modern culture makes non-virgins desirable?

[badchad]

As most have already stated:

 

Our goal is to pass along our genetic material in the form of offspring.

 

Consider your "average pregnant woman". If she has slept with hundreds of men, the chances of the baby being "yours" decrease dramatically.

[jeskill]

As most have already stated:

 

Our goal is to pass along our genetic material in the form of offspring.

 

Consider your "average pregnant woman". If she has slept with hundreds of men' date=' the chances of the baby being "yours" decrease dramatically.[/quote']

 

 

Yes. My question (which was probably unclear) asks if cultural evolution is occuring in the opposite direction of genetic evolution. But maybe that's the wrong way to phrase it. Maybe it's better to say this: the phenotype is affected by genes and environment such that our genes program men to want virgins, and our environment programs men to want women who are experienced.

 

Of course, the way behaviours are genetically wired also affects the phenotype. I don't know much about behavioural evolution save for what E.O. Wilson said -- that the learning patterns of behaviours are genetic but actual behaviours aren't. So from that point of view, one could suggest that men are more likely to learn to want virgins, but in our society where women don't always get pregnant due to birth control and sex being very much a recreational activity, men go against their genetic predisposition to want virgins.

 

Does that make more sense?

[Mokele]

What about the hypothesis that whilst sexual selection makes virgins desirable, modern culture makes non-virgins desirable?

 

Enitrely possible and likely; sexual selection is bound by context, and if the context changes such that "experienced" females are the most likely to reproduce, sexual selection will favor them. I don't know of any animal speces that select based on mate experience, but many will select larger females (thus capable of laying more eggs) who are older and thus had prior partners in past seasons.

 

As for the conflict, cultural forces that make us, say, want blondes, produce sexual selection (in the strict sense of "differential success between genotypes at achieving fertilizations"). This new sexual selection regime may not gel with our prior one (in which case there will be ambiguity and conflict between instinct and social desire), and may not be to the species long-term benfit, but who's actually getting laid and reproducing is what's important.

 

It's often hypothesized that a contributing factor to numerous social problems and oddities of human behavior is that we have a brain which evolved in the African savannah and which has suddenly (in an evolutionary timescale) been dumped into a totally different situation.

 

Mokele

[Baldur]

This discussion seems very much based on the assumption that virgins are more desirable. This was true amongst the ancient Jews, and has been passed on through similar cultures, such as those of the Arabs, but has never been as strong elsewhere. Although Europeans adopted the religious idea of sexual fidelity, it was never enforced to the degree it was among these groups, and as for how evolutionarily useful it has been - well consider this. Despite the wild popularity of the religions they spawned, the actual number of Jews and Arabs in the world is quite small. Perhaps given the severely limited resources of their traditional territories, this insistence on virgins was actually a sort of population control?

 

In any case, I can also think of two counterexamples - an American Indian tribe described by John Lawson, wherein girls (at least the desirable ones) became prostitutes about the time they entered puberty, and then would retire and get married off a few years later. The introduction of foreign diseases (notably smallpox) eliminated that tribe, but apart from that they seemed to do well enough. The other counterexample was described by Marco Polo, and IIRC was in or around Tibet, where a girl was not considered marriageable until she had evidence of having slept around with a number of men - the more the better. Apparently in those parts sexual experience, and/or the evidence that many men found her desirable, was considered an asset. Notably, however, in both cases these girls mostly had sex with men who were not members of their own group. Lawson also indicated that the American Indian tribe had means of birth control, and in case of failure would perform an abortion.

 

 

Baldur

[Baldur]

Darn! double post! sorry!