[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Not at all. Many animals compete for sexual access to females with no idea whatsoever why they’re doing it.
[/quote]
Of course. That’s why I made my statement in terms of “instinct.” In the same way, humans can be said to know at an instictual level that it’s a bad idea to eat spoiled food. I’m not trying to say that there is necessarily knowledge in a high level cognitive sense.
I don’t see how that follows.
[QUOTE=Xema]
But, as you note, there is no need to be aware. If the behavior confers an advantage, it should tend to be present. Males can be expected to attempt to impose strict sexual standards long before they have any cognitive awareness of what’s really happening. (To put in in brazil84’s terms, the awareness is instinctual).
[/QUOTE]
Instinct is not awareness. Instinct is mindless behavior. Instinct drives males to find certain females attractive and compete for access to them. This is where we get jealousy. Instinct is completely ignorant of the causes of pregnancy, thus a cuckolded male has no reason to assume that his mate’s new pregnancy is not caused by his own genes. And excess sexual control may not necessarily be the best reproductive strategy… the women may find it too restrictive and reject controlling partners, and it may cause a shortage of females in the group, which can cause internal strife that reduces the fitness of everyone in the group.
You have to remember that there’s no overriding principle of what is the best reproductive strategy, and that everyone in the group is in no way motivated toward the betterment of the species. Everyone is in competition to spread their own genes and there are several competing strategies in play. Humans have the capacity to employ a vast array of reproductive strategies, but the prevalent strategies change depending on the abundance of resources, sexual partners, and external threats.
There’s a book by Stephen Pinker called “How The Mind Works” which goes deeply into these subjects. It sounds like a dry tome on psychology or neurobiology but at least half of it is about the biological reasons for the evolution of instinct and behavior, and how much of what we consider advanced society is really just the logical mind’s rationalization of these older instincts.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Instinct is not awareness.
[/quote]
You are free to define “awareness” any way you like, but the point is this: Most human males act AS IF they were aware of the potential problem that could arise if another male has sexual relations with their mate.
But it’s not really a matter of what he thinks – we are descended from males who didn’t like to be cuckolded - whatever they thought might happen.
Possibly. And the same thing could said for most emotional responses.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
That is one example of cuckoldry in nature, and there are numerous others. It’s not a very original strategy.
[/QUOTE]
That’s where we get the term “cuckoldry,” as a matter of fact.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Instinct is not awareness. Instinct is mindless behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Right - but it can produce behaviors that resemble those caused by cognitive awareness. An acorn woodpecker isn’t “aware” that winter is coming, but will instinctively cache food against the coming shortage in much the same way as a human.
I’d argue that males of most species instinctively know how to cause pregnancy.
Correct. But has good reason to take what steps he can muster to prevent this - specifically, he is descended from men who were disproportionately good at ensuring that their genes were the ones propogated.
I don’t think this argument works. Female mammals are reproductively successful when they mate with fit males often enough to produce good numbers of offspring that themselves survive to reproduce. I see no advantage to a female who “rejects controlling partners” - she is likely to have lower reproductive success.
In a general sense, there is: the strategy that maximizes the number of offspring that themselves successfully reproduce.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
But it’s not really a matter of what he thinks – we are descended from males who didn’t like to be cuckolded - whatever they thought might happen.
[/QUOTE]
Actually that’s wrong, according to the definition of cuckolding, which is one male unknowingly raising the offspring of another male. To be precise, we are descended from males who possessed some instinctual behavior that would tend to protect them from being cuckolded. But keep in mind that this is not the only reproductive strategy in the block; the preferred strategy tends to shift according to the availability of women and resources. When both are widely available, different instincts take over and the jealously instinct is not as prevalent. It’s only one variable in the whole equation, and it’s inaccurate to try to generalize it to all humans in all situations.
“Old ugly” men may not be what women lust for, but a quick perusal of romance novels will show that there is a large percentage of women out there who sexually fantasize about men who are older, “weathered” in appearance, and have some powerful position in society, either due to wealth or prestige. Evidence would point to there being a very large group of women (perhaps the majority) who desire a powerfully masculine, older male who dominates through wealth or social esteem.
This is one article that touches on sexual fantasy as it relates to evolution. Here’s another on mate choice from an evolutionary perspective (warning: PDF).
An example of the archetypal romance novel fantasy figure:
[QUOTE=True Heart, by Peggy Nicholsom]
Trip wasn’t film-star handsome as Richard was, and the regularity of his features was forever marred. But the scar that he hated added so much character. Edge. And he had something better than glossy perfection–an aura of strength and presence a woman couldn’t ignore. He wasn’t an image, handsome or otherwise, he was a…a force. A man in motion, striding through life.
[/QUOTE]
One study cited in the Geary paper I linked to above found “the same themes across 25 contemporary romance novels and six classic novels that have traditionally appealed to women more than men.” These stories involve a male protagonist who is usually an older, socially dominant, and wealthy man who ultimately marries the woman. Some of the stories cited are from the Old Testament, implying this has been the case for at least a few thousand years.
The preference for culturally successful men is complicated, however, with social realities. Someone who is particularly powerful in society is more likely to be arrogant and self-serving (he can afford to be) and pursue his own reproductive interests, which will involve engaging as many mates as possible. That isn’t very desirable from an evolutionary standpoint, as the woman would desire a man who is going to invest in her and her offspring, rather than move from fertile young female to fertile young female. Because of this, personal and behavioral traits may end up being more important than success and wealth. Geary et al. found that emotional stability and family orientation were found to be even more important than the Ugly Old Rich Guy factor. They state that “reproductive potential is determined by the ability to parent and the ability to invest social and material resources in children.” There is, then, the constant struggle between the powerful male for his ability to provide and the healthy genetics he offers and the Beta male for his (potentially) more nurturing nature.
It seems to me that these tastes in men haven’t changed that much since the dawn of the species. What constitutes power may shift culturally over time, but the underlying desire for someone who will provide well and father healthy offspring remains. I would think that there is the potential for women to begin shifting more towards having their emotional needs (and those of their children) met now that they don’t need to rely on the big strong fertile male for survival quite so much, but there would be a massive amount of cultural inertia. It seems there’s still that drive to procreate with the powerful, older Alpha, even if the family unit might be better served by the Beta.
[QUOTE=Xema]
I’d argue that males of most species instinctively know how to cause pregnancy.
[/quote]
You’d argue wrong. Most males of most species have no idea that mating results in pregnancy, or what causes pregnancy. What they have is a driving instinct to mate and the instinctual capacity to do so.
Controlling sexual access or having high status are not the only successful male reproduction strategies. Mating indiscriminately with large amounts of females also works, hence you see this tendency among males as well.
A female who prefers a less controlling partner to a more controlling partner may have the opportunity to mate with other, more fit males, and have them raised by her established high-status partner. The cuckolded partner does not necessarily lose out in the deal… if he is high enough status, he doesn’t lose any resources from caring for the extra offspring, and he gets more numerous opportunities to mate with the female.
For a given niche, yes. Arctic krill have famously maximized the number of reproducing offspring, but you could argue all day whether that strategy is superior to the human strategy.
[QUOTE=Gozu]
Women think Brad is sexy.
[/QUOTE]
Some do, some don’t. And those that do have more than likely seen him in several movie roles that have fostered the attraction (rather than just glancing him in a pic), so they’re basing their perception of hs sexiness on more than just his (relative) youth and bone structure.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Actually that’s wrong, according to the definition of cuckolding, which is one male unknowingly raising the offspring of another male. To be precise, we are descended from males who possessed some instinctual behavior that would tend to protect them from being cuckolded.
[/quote]
Fine, but I don’t think your nitpick affects any of the statements I have made.
The same could be said for a lot of “variables.”
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Most males of most species have no idea that mating results in pregnancy, or what causes pregnancy. What they have is a driving instinct to mate and the instinctual capacity to do so.
[/QUOTE]
… which directly causes pregnancy. Which is to say that they instinctively (though not cognitively) know how to cause pregnancy.
Indeed - and I see no one making that claim.
Indeed, it’s common in species where the female needs little or no help from the male to successfully raise her progeny.
Yet it’s essentially always going to be to his genes’ advantage to ensure that the females bear his children, rather than those of another male. Behavior that tends to ensure this will thus be selected for.
It works well in their niche. If baby krill needed the parental attention that many baby mammals require, it probably wouldn’t.
[QUOTE=Xema]
… which directly causes pregnancy. Which is to say that they instinctively (though not cognitively) know how to cause pregnancy.
[/quote]
I agree. And what’s interesting is that even today, even among thinking humans who go to college, instinct informs peoples’ actions to a large degree.
For example, imagine some guy who is a fast talker, good with the ladies, who goes into politics, rises to a high position, and starts getting action 6 ways to Sunday. Because of birth control and abortions he may very well end up having only 1 child (let’s call her “Chelsea”). According to his instincts, he’s completely satisfied. And yet the point of those instincts has been completely perverted.
[QUOTE=athelas]
Incorrect. At the very least, we do know that women are attracted to men who are immune to different stuff, as shown by differences in their MHC, a genetically-coded protein complex.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a thought-provoking article. I’d be interested in reading the references, but it seems they were omitted. Nonetheless, it does trigger one of my pet peeves in the debate about genetics. Most of the article is based on the idea that you can take surveys of modern-day Americans, and whatever a majority of them feel is taken as proof that all humans have a genetic predisposition to feel that. In fact, nothing in such a survey determines whether the respondents are influenced by their genes or by their social upbringing.
[QUOTE=Xema]
… which directly causes pregnancy. Which is to say that they instinctively (though not cognitively) know how to cause pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]
Look, you’re missing the point I’m trying to make with this distinction. Say a woman is married to an investment banker and has 2 children, and their sex life has dwindled to nothing. If she suddenly comes up pregnant, there’s going to be some 'splainin to do. Or if a sexually active woman suddenly bears a child that looks exactly like the milkman. In either case the husband may leave her and get off pretty favorably with the terms because of the adultery factor. Or unfortunately there may be violence or even murder. This is because humans are aware of the facts of conception.
Animals lack this awareness, hence cuckolding is a more viable strategy for them. That isn’t to say that their instincts don’t help to protect animals against cuckolding, but male contests of strength for sexual access are no match for a female slipping off to the bushes for some clandestine copulation with the young stud who shows leadership potential. Nonetheless, since we evolved from more primitive species, we do have the capacity for these behaviors.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Or unfortunately there may be violence or even murder. This is because humans are aware of the facts of conception. Animals lack this awareness, hence cuckolding is a more viable strategy for them. Nonetheless, since we evolved from more primitive species, we do have the capacity for these behaviors.
[/QUOTE]
When new lions take over a pride, females spontaneously abort any unborn they’re carrying and the new reigning males will kill the cubs. It isn’t a cuckolding situation, of course, but an intriguing phenomenon nonetheless…retroactive retribution, if that isn’t redundant.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Animals lack this awareness, hence cuckolding is a more viable strategy for them.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed - humans are likely to be somewhat better at detecting this than are most species.
From the young stud’s point of view, this is clearly a good deal. From the female’s, it’s less so: as between being impregnated by the alpha male or the young stud (who’s clever enough to avoid detection by the alpha male but not capable of defeating him), which gives her offspring the better chance of success? It’s relevant that an aging alpha male has the same genes as when he was at the peak of his powers.
[QUOTE=Xema]
From the young stud’s point of view, this is clearly a good deal. From the female’s, it’s less so: as between being impregnated by the alpha male or the young stud (who’s clever enough to avoid detection by the alpha male but not capable of defeating him), which gives her offspring the better chance of success?
[/QUOTE]
Why do you think her only option is to choose one or the other? Her best option is to bond and mate with the high-status male, and also exploit any opportunity to mate with a fitter male as long as it does not jeopardize her status. Especially if it looks like the young stud looks like a good candidate for the next head-gorilla-in-charge.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
Why do you think her only option is to choose one or the other? Her best option is to bond and mate with the high-status male, and also exploit any opportunity to mate with a fitter male as long as it does not jeopardize her status.
[/QUOTE]
It takes time to bear and raise a mammal. She does well to emphasize quality over quantity.
She’s probably better off to wait until he actually is in charge. The guy who’s good at looking good but can’t really back it up is all too common.
[QUOTE=Gozu]
I know all about all humans.
[/QUOTE]
Cecil ?? Is that you ?
I would love to give women of our age credit for being able to overcome 100,000 years of genetic imprinting and make choices based upon the reality presented to them. They are not beholden solely to the uterine chronology that had dominated the species for the previous, say, 99,850 years.
Having said that, I am damned grateful I look nothing like Bill Gates. 
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
I would love to give women of our age credit for being able to overcome 100,000 years of genetic imprinting and make choices based upon the reality presented to them.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder what percentage of men consistently succeed at this. I suspect it’s a tall order for most humans.