Bad guys get the girls

[CDarwin]

Paralith

You obviously have a good understanding, and I agree with your balance, or equilibrium, concept.

 

You should remember, though, that the 'hypermale' has two, not one, reproductive strategies. He is into sex with any woman that agrees, as well as his own well established relationship. Thus, he has his average 2.1 children with his wife, and another 0.2 children in illicit relationships. The 'good father' on the other hand, has 1.9 children with his wife, and none outside that relationship.

 

Clearly, the 'hypermale' strategy will win in the long run. Thus, whatever qualities are regarded as 'sexy' by women will be bred over time into the male population.

 

But consider, as PhDp did, birth control. Would modern hypermales really want children, especially with the woman they were having affairs with?

[PhDP]

Paralith,

 

I'm talking about humans, different animals have different mating strategies. But for humans, the "best of both world" hypothesis is a fairytale, by definition, it cannot work with genetic monogamy being so high. Can it work in some cases ? Yes, perhaps, probably, but it's not good enough to create a substantial pressure.

 

Nor does it require, as you seem to think it does, that genetic monogamy must be low.

 

Well, for humans, it does. If genetic monogamy is low, then males are going to pass their genes through by having children in more or less serious relationships, and hypermales are considered by women to be least attractive in this aspect. So, yes, the success of a strategy based on infidelity depends on a low level of genetic monogamy.

 

For many animals, males fight for females, the large one usually dominate the others and gets to mate with many females, in this case the "hypermale" strategy is going to dominate. It doesn't work that way for us, both social and genetic monogamy is too high (about sexual monogamy, it's harder to evaluate).

 

Have you ever wondered why so many traditional cultures are very strict on the behavioral rules for women? It's because these cultures are male dominated, and the men do not want to be cuckolded, and they formed cultural stigmas to aid in the prevention of EPCs.

 

I perfectly know that, males are scared to death of EPCs, they would have to invest a huge amount of energy for nothing if their wife would get pregnant by another male (from the point of view of evolution).

 

But whatever the reason; genetic monogamy is low, it doesn't mean men are not going to be scared of EPCs, it doesn't mean it won't shape several of our behaviors, but it does mean a strategy relying on EPCs is doomed to be weak, how on earth could it work if those EPCs aren't translated into children ?

 

The point about different mating strategies existing in one species is that these strategies exist in a stable balance with each other - if they didn't, one or the other would be completely selected out. Though I'm not sure why at this point, current human behavior and culture have probably created an environment in which the balanced frequency for the success of hypermales is relatively low - existent, enough to sustain itself, but low.

 

My point is only that the success of this strategy is low and has been low for a long time, and it's probably going to get ever lower.

 

Your lens is a bit ethnocentric. All of that refers to modern, more-or-less Westernized populations with birth control as a factor. Sexual monogamy would be much closer to genetic monogamy if there was no birth control.

 

Genetic monogamy, even outside Occident, is not very high. Birth control is, IMO, another problem for the hypermale strategy, but the evolution toward the "good father" strategy must've started a long time ago, I only think it's going to get a lot worst for hypermales in the coming centuries (also, the even greater importance of education is likely not going to help either).

 

I'm not necessarily cheerleading for the "ovulating females like hypermales" hypothesis. I'm just saying.

 

Actually, I'm not saying their findings are wrong, in fact I think they are right. I just think it's not relevant to our evolution because women have, most of the time, their children with their regular partner...

 

You should remember, though, that the 'hypermale' has two, not one, reproductive strategies. He is into sex with any woman that agrees, as well as his own well established relationship. Thus, he has his average 2.1 children with his wife, and another 0.2 children in illicit relationships. The 'good father' on the other hand, has 1.9 children with his wife, and none outside that relationship. Clearly, the 'hypermale' strategy will win in the long run. Thus, whatever qualities are regarded as 'sexy' by women will be bred over time into the male population.

 

Your numbers must be wrong, because the exact opposite is happening.

 

Mating strategies are very diverse, even within a species, some women certainly prefer hypermales, heck, some women are even attracted to serial killers or mathematicians (that's as crazy as you can get)...

Edited June 27, 2008 by PhDP

[SkepticLance]

CDarwin said :

 

"Would modern hypermales really want children"

 

What the hell has 'want' got to do with it, when we are talking about evolution?

 

To PhDP

 

Your arguments are a bit weak. If our hypermale uses both strategies (good father, and wild oats spreading stud), he gains benefit from both, in the form of extra offspring. Clearly better than relying on one only.

[PhDP]

SkepticLance.

 

We defined "hypermales" and "good fathers" based on their morphology. "Masculized faces" and "feminized faces", respectively. This simple trait is linked with several other physiological and behavioral characteristics.

 

You can't do both.

[Paralith]

To SkepticLance and PhDP -

 

PhDP - I understand you based your definition of the categories on morphology, but unfortunately, as you yourself pointed out, humans are not exactly like other animals whose different mating strategies are linked in a finite manner to a specific and relatively unchanging behavior and morphology. We are more complex than that. To SkepticLance, this is why I would hesitate attaching fitness numbers to a certain mating strategy, because you are making that assumption that some males just are in this category and this is what they do, always and only.

 

The roving bad boy male and the good father male are terms of convenience. When I speak of them I speak of a generalized, average behavior, but these are by no means the be-all and end-all of human male mating behaviors. I doubt these terms even represent the concrete categories we think of in most other animals. Humans are much more flexible within their lifetimes and across cultures and environments. Even during one man's lifetime he may act the bad boy roving male when he is young, and then take on the good father role when he is older. Other males may stick largely in one category or the other. Others may go in the middle with serial monogamy. In some cultures they'll go with actual polygyny. In point of fact, polygyny is probably the ancestral mating system for hominids and was likely quite prevalent during our evolution.

 

I have no doubt these various strategies exist in human mating behavior to this day, but I think attempts to start going into the rigid, strict analysis of them that you two are starting is inaccurate.

[SkepticLance]

To PhDP

 

Not only can you do both, but it is normal behaviour.

 

A 'masculinized face' person will take his opportunities sexually where he can. That does not stop him also getting married and having a full domestic life including nurturing his children.

 

Take an 'ultimate' case like Brad Pitt. I have no doubt that he has bedded hundreds, if not thousands of women. I seriously suspect that he continues to do so even today, whenever he can get away with it. Yet he is married, officially happily, to Angelina Jolie and has children with her.

 

Two tactics being used - both no doubt successfully from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

Paralith is also correct in saying that every possible reproductive strategy is likely to be used, and these will change during a man's lifetime.

[iNow]

To PhDP

 

Not only can you do both, but it is normal behaviour.

AFAICT, he wasn't talking about behavior. He was talking about morphology, and the concepts he was addressing focussed on masculinized faces versus feminized faces. So, when he said "it can't be both," he was quite right in the context where he was making that statement.

 

 

I'd like to thank Paralith for her illuminating contributions here. You not only understand the topic well, but you do a fine job articulating it for others.

[CDarwin]

What the hell has 'want' got to do with it, when we are talking about evolution?

 

Quite a bit if we're talking about the present course of human evolution, especially in Western countries. Again, contraceptives.

 

 

 

I'd have to agree with iNow, Paralith is pretty much the winner of this discussion in terms of the quality of her articulation of the issue. I defer to everything she just said.