Perhaps a better way to say it would be that pleasure seems to be a major motivator for humans to have sex, early and often. Many other species don’t “rise to the occasion” unless in heat.
When I first read the OP, I thought it was a joke. Then I read the Wikipedia article and that confirmed my notion this is a joke. But I’ve given it some thought and did some looking around and this idea really does make a lot of sense. Natural selection towards younger looking women would increase the number of babies born, in general.
There’s just one thing that doesn’t fit at all …
The OP very cleverly and eloquently says that every last thirty-something and forty-something woman on the face of the planet looks like jailbait …
… and now you’re mad at him. I don’t understand.
I don’t believe the women who have commented on the OP were referring to appearance, but the mention of behavior, with the implication that human females were behaviorially similar to juveniles.
Since the OP has clarified that he was not referring to human behavior, but that of other species, in case you missed it I have requested that this tangent be dropped in post #30.
Such as…? Big eyes are something babies and some women considered attractive share, sure. But what else?
As males mature, they develop stronger facial features (on average) than either women or juveniles - heavier brow ridges, more prominent jaws, larger noses, etc. - as well as heavier bone structure in general and heavier musculature. Adult females are more similar to adolescents in these features than adult males are. Delicate facial features are generally considered more attractive. Women with masculine facial features are considered unattractive; males with excessively strong facial features - really large jaws or noses - are considered ugly.
However, there are other features in which they differ from juveniles more than males do (hip width, breasts). The respective sexes have to be compared to juveniles of their own sex to assess degree of neoteny.
Facial hair on a man typically indicates that he is mature, almost a right-of-passage into manhood when he starts shaving. Women generally never grow facial hair and this theory would say this is selected for through evolution.
On the other hand, how does this play out with the respective behavior patterns. It’s said that girls mature faster than boys. Is this selected for, where the man need not mature past being obedient to his mother/wife/sister figure? The are plentiful example among the higher mammals where the male has no part of the juvenile-rearing process. With bears and lions, the male is an actual danger to the offspring. The comparisons are unfair though, human reproductive strategies are unusual if not rare among mammals. Bears mate more randomly, lions (gorillas and chimps) use a harem style and humans tend towards serial monogamy.
The degree of development of facial hair in adult males varies drastically between populations, being best developed in some Europeans and others, and slight in some Asian and many Native American populations. The evolutionary reason for the development of facial hair remains speculative. If it is intended to be attractive to females, then the fact that it’s routinely artificially removed in many human cultures is puzzling. Some have speculated that its main function is to be intimidating to other males, rather than directly attracting females.
Human behavior varies so much culturally in this respect that I doubt one can speculate very productively about its evolutionary causes. In some cases males are hyper-aggressive, in others much less so. Since I’ve already asked that human behavior not continue to be discussed in this thread, I would suggest opening a new thread in Great Debates if you want to speculate on this.
Yeah, but then in a subsequent post by OP (#34), he brought it right back to strictly being about human females…and their exclusiveness in displaying ‘neoteny’ amongst the species and the genders.
To those who’d previously noticed - and questioned - the tone of the OP from the get-go, I sensed it, too.
Not to worry, OP…according to many online men, once a female human hits the age of 40, she becomes an “old dried-up hag, with whom no man will have sex”, while most men over the age of 40 retain their juvenile ability to strut around shirtless, showing off their more mature beer ‘kegs’ where their ‘six packs’ used to be.
So, your original hypothesis is disproved, just on empirical data, alone: human females are not the more “neotenous” of the human/any species.
I didn’t bring it back strictly to female humans or their exclusiveness in displaying neoteny, I explicitly fucking said:
Bolding mine. If I thought female humans had exclusiveness in displaying neoteny among species and genders, what would be the point of wondering about the evolutionary pressure of neoteny across species and sexes?
How you got that I think female humans have exclusiveness in displaying neoteny from “I noticed that some neotenous physical characteristics are associated with attractiveness in women.” is a mystery.
Ah, this isn’t really about me, is it? It’s about your anxieties and frustrations about getting old.
Seriously, if anyone has something to say about me or the thoughts you impute me, pit me already.
I got that you specifically brought it back to female humans when you re-interjected the wording “women”; “women” refers exclusively to “humans”, as we don’t call female bitches used for breeding “women in heat”.
I got that your hypothesis is ‘human females display the most neotenous characteristics of the species and of all the species’ by the wording in your OP (i.e., Post #1 in this thread), which included ‘behavior’ as a component, which is what prompted my previous reply in which I introduced the concept that empirical data rebukes the hypothesis;
thanks for providing more empirical data, completely debunking the notion that human females have a monopoly on neoteny amongst the species.
Moderator Instructions
mrldii, knock it off with the snarky comments. And MichaelEMouse, you don’t need to respond with personal comments yourself.
Quit the hijack or you may be subject to a warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
You’re right, I was over the line.
But to get back to the OP -
As I said, the key factors are:
-long childhood and early menopause, so some roughly-adult-sized females could be incapable of breeding
-hidden fertility also, so to ensure offspring, must mate relatively often
- tendency (anecdotes notwithstanding) to form single pair long term bonds for both breeding and child-rearing - thus the mate chosen is generally the one and only choice for much of her breeding life.
Very few other species exhibit this collection of factors that would influence mate choices. It seems to me these are the factors that would encourage a male at selection time to select for a female with long term breeding potential, and thus the evolutionary pressure would be to select for females who can appear to be young and appear to exhibit potential for being able to produce offspring for a longer time.
There’s no evolutionary advantage, for example, for a mature bitch to look like a puppy or that she’s just hit puberty. Just going into heat is sufficient cue. In heat - can reproduce. Not in heat, no male will bother her. Without long-term pairing, each time the male comes across a female in heat, so to speak, a new opportunity arises.