Might be a replicant
- Jul 7, 2014
- It's a desert out there
- Basic Beliefs
Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.
This is where the evolutionary angle of sexual selection comes into play. Attraction is generally going to be different for males versus females of almost every mammalian species. For males, 'make good children and don't die in childbirth' is a core reproductive drive. For females, who bear the burden of childbirth, it's more like 'make good children and protect me while I gestate and then provide for and protect me and my children while I rear them'.
I think this is Christian nonsense. It's not even old. It's Victorian nuclear family post industrial Christian nonsense.
Our instincts and drives for sexual attraction developed when we were hunter/gatherers. Our brains have not changed much since the.
1) A man's ability to take care of his woman and the child is a non-factor in a tribal society. Since they all help each other out. All the moms of the tribe, in effect act as a single super mom. All the dad's act as one super dad. They all take care of each other.
2) Who you have sex with is everybody's business. Since the number and ages of children has an impact on the mobility of the tribe. This would be true no matter if people understood the link between sex and pregnancy. Since it can be subconscious/instinct control.
3) Primates use sex for a range of things other than getting babies. Our closest relatives, the bonobo, use sex primarily for social bonding and social control. By limiting sex and punishing slutty females the matriarchal alpha-female group maintains control of the entire tribe.
There's also stuff that assumes tribalism. Like domestic violence. When we were hunter/gatherers I assume it was a non-issue since other men would instantly stop men who beat their wives. As would women stop women engaging in toxic behaviours.
I think the men collectively were a stronger bonded group with each other than they were with their wives. As were women bonded with each other more than with their men. And the emotional life we have is evolutionarily designed to compensate for that. To quickly create strong bonds, assuming that your opportunities to strengthen them were limited.
Not to mention that our social emotional brain is adapted for limited new people. It assumes a stable social group where everybody knows each other incredibly well and they know that we're all stuck with each other.
You've stuck together a post from me and a post from rousseau. I don't know which of us you're responding to here.