So you got trapped and released but your ex wasn’t that much of a ball-breaker? 
Sadly, behavioral traits don’t fossilize very well. So are we supposed to be looking into comparitive primatology in order to judge relative neoteny of men’s and women’s behavior?
Young primates - - let’s see - - ask for piggy back rides?
I’m real curious about what’s driving the OP’s questions.
They seem to start from the assumption that human females are more neotenous than human males, and in general that female critters of any type are more neotenous than their male counterparts. And that humans are more neotenous than other critters in general.
Three highly questionable assumptions stacked on one another. I wonder what whack-job website this bunch of (IMO) bollocks came from?
Adult human females are more similar to juvenile humans in some characteristics than adult males are, as witnessed by the fact that female roles in Shakespeare’s time were played by young males. Males usually develop stronger/heavier features than women, for example brow ridges and chins. Obviously though, this does not apply to other characteristics such as breasts or hips. However, in order to identify this as neoteny you would have to compare adult females of modern humans to adult females of human ancestors, not to males. Modern human males could be more neotenous compared to ancestral forms if they experienced less “masculinization” of features. However, I wouldn’t consider sexual differences to really come under neoteny.
As Blake indicates, this varies wildly between species.
Human neoteny is very slight compared to many other animals.
You are not alone, darling.
There are also other schools of theatre where handsome males are played by women (see for example Count Orlofski in Die Fliedermaus, Pichi in Las Leandras); I believe that Orlofski is supposed to be young, but nothing indicates that Pichi is. And of course, lots of examples where ugly women (of any age) are played by men.
I did so too, but I’m also thinking all this will be considered juvenile per the OP. :dubious:
I must say I have enjoyed Colibrí’s contribution and information. Thank you.
Neoteny, behavior: I was under the impression that human females are more physically neotenous than human males. As to sex-specific neotenous behavior in humans, I have no idea.
I wanted to know about other species. In other species, it is possible that sex-specific neoteny is both physical and behavioral and I didn’t want that second factor to be left out.
Well, he’s just a big stinky poopyhead. Also Colibri is amazing.
Thanks. I know you’re joking, but let’s avoid insulting remarks about other posters.
Since the OP has clarified he was speaking about behavior in non-human species, I don’t think people need to keep taking him to task for the remark.
I am sorry. I thought I should put in that it was a joke. It was indeed a joke.
Smilies help.
My favorite Straight Dope column, mainly because it was the first one I helped Cecil with. The question, “How do caterpillars have sex?”, was originally filed under “Questions too stupid for Cecil to answer.”
Your wish is my command.
Partly hypotheses I’ve heard about and things I noticed. I figure that if some of the premises were inaccurate this board would correct them which would itself be informative.
As for women and physical neoteny, I wondered about the evolutionary pressure it might have across species and sexes when I noticed that some neotenous physical characteristics are associated with attractiveness in women.
Not the OP, but seeing as the whole female population of the board is wondering what the OP meant by ‘including behaviors,’ I’ll take a stab.
I think there’s a hypothesis by people that talk about neoteny a lot that domesticated versions of animals keep lots of friendly playful behaviors that their wild versions lose.
So my guess is he means that humans, we’ve domesticated ourselves, and we’re more friendly and less aggressive overall than our ancestors. Also we still enjoy playing.
Or maybe he just got a whole lot of DRAMA in his life from a woman, and it’s TOTALLY because she’s SO IMMATURE. GOD.
Oh. The OP’s back. Hey, everyone’s wondering what you meant about explicitly including the ‘behaviors’ part.
That is such a sad tale … is crying over anothers misfortune neotenous?
I’m thinking the big difference here is that humans have a far longer “childhood” than most other mammals, relative to life span. (Yes, 12 or 13 is not uncommon for female puberty now, but years ago I recall reading it was typically 15 or 16) Human females then transition to menopause, or infertility, much sooner than many other species. If X is time to puberty, 2X or 3X is fertile time. Then, the “grandmother” adaption, they can last equally as long not fertile.
Thus human males need good clues as to who is a good choice as mate- i.e. still young (but fertile) but with plenty of breeding time left; and since fertility is less likely with age, the cues are those of youth. So women adapted with the cues that indicate youth - softness of body and face shape, lack of facial hair (debateable sometimes?) along with cues that indicate puberty has struck like breasts and hips. One suggestion I saw was that blond was a neotenous adaption, since for many Europeans children tend to start out fair and get darker hair with age.
So adult males look for younger mates, particularly older males do; hence the whole trophy wife thing. I suppose to find the same thing with any other species, you need to look at the life span versus fertile time.
I sort of wonder with a lot of more exotic species outside of the mammals and birds, their life span and life cycle is seasonal, so basically a female (and male) beyond the age of procreation probably does not make it into the next breeding cycle. In some of the above examples, the female or male only has to produce enough fertilizing material to complete the breeding cycle, so food, foraging, or other energy spent developing beyond that is pointless.
Plus, for a lot of species, they do not pair for life. If it’s a new partner each time up, who cares if they will be over the hill by next breeding cycle? When the extent of sexual selection is for the female to determine the male is a good specimen to fertilize her so she’ll rear the offspring solo, the male tends to have a display that emphasizes his adult capabilities - antlers, peacock tail - which is the opposite of neoteny.
Plus humans, unlike a lot of other species, are perpetually in heat (hidden fertility) and derive pleasure from sex (if they’re doing it right). This is different from many other species where female pheromones are the indicator of fertility, so the species does not need to read secondary clues (“She needs it now” vs “she’s young, many breeding years ahead”) to select a mate. In heat? Ready to breed. Plus, that first-mentioned long childhood? Most animals are weaned and able to survive on their own in a year or less, before the next breeding cycle; long-term care of offspring is usually irrelevant.
While there are obviously a few exceptions to the above, my main point is that humans have to deal with hidden fertility, long child-rearing cycles, and so long-term relationships. Most species don’t, so the evolutionary reasoning for female neoteny does not apply to other species.
I think it involves French fries…
I should add (too late) that another feature of human oddity is that human males can procreate well past the age when women the same age have stopped. Thus a male could have women around him who are probably not fertile, and without “in heat” pheromones, needs other clues who is a candidate for breeding, or at least making the attempt.
Which species are these?
Crabs is a scratchy enterprise.