Debating Christianity and Religion

So, according to evolutionary psychology, men are genetically predisposed to tend to want as many sexual partners as they can get, because their sperm is biologically cheap and produced plentifully, and the more offspring they can generate, the more prevalent their genes will be. Women tend to like a single, reliable sexual partner, because their eggs are biologically expensive, and few, and precious, and they 'invest' a whole lot of resource into the nurture and care of their offspring. They want a man who isn't going to desert them just when they need him.

So, in choosing sexual partners, men trade wealth (as an indication of social prowess, and proof of genetic superiority, and that they can support their partner while she is producing offspring) for looks. And women trade looks (beauty, glamour, etc) as proof of their genetic fitness to breed, for the wealth they cannot earn while pregnant and rearing children.

So, if you are a man, be a rich man, to be guaranteed a blissful love-life. If you are a woman, be beautiful, and trap your man before age takes it's toll.

If you are not rich, and not beautiful, then I guess you just have to do the best you can with the resources and talents you have.

The most one can say of romantic love, therefore, if one takes a global perspective, is that it moderates the male tendency to promiscuity, and excuses women from the charge of prostitution.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Good summary of the scientific empirical argument. I that vein, the reason for romanticism plays into this. It is a tool of the female to both control the male and at the same time remove responsibility. It presumes emotions, at least in women, to be sacrosanct. Relationships are not gaged on objective standards, but based on the emotional state of the female. The male is faulted if he does not recognize and cater to the female's emotional state and, at the same time, the actions of the female are excused as being beyond her control. The interesting thing is that anyone who points to an example of such behavior is not presented with an empirical or rational counter explanation of that example, but is labeled a "sexist" and is expected to just accept the example as justified, because there are cases where there could be an empirical or rational explanation. Thus, romanticism is not an outgrowth of sacrificial love, but a feminine tool that counters the masculine biological tendencies that you have pointed out.

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Indeed, but I don't want this thread to take a misogynist direction. I tried to make the OP balanced, because I think neither sex comes well out of the Evolutionary Psychology analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Indeed, but I don't want this thread to take a misogynist direction. I tried to make the OP balanced, because I think neither sex comes well out of the Evolutionary Psychology analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are making my point. You refer to a misogynist direction. I only referred to people making that accusation when some one presents an example of how romanticism works. If there is an alternative explanation of romanticism, that can be substantiated by how it actually effects human interaction, I would like to hear about it. However, as it is, mine was not a misogynist observation, but merely an observation without moral judgement.

bluethread wrote:

2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Indeed, but I don't want this thread to take a misogynist direction. I tried to make the OP balanced, because I think neither sex comes well out of the Evolutionary Psychology analysis.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are making my point.

So, I am not disagreeing with you.

bluethread wrote: You refer to a misogynist direction. I only referred to people making that accusation when some one presents an example of how romanticism works. If there is an alternative explanation of romanticism, that can be substantiated by how it actually effects human interaction, I would like to hear about it. However, as it is, mine was not a misogynist observation, but merely an observation without moral judgement.

I did not take it as such (a misogynist position). I was merely setting boundaries for the thread. Nevertheless, if one is to avoid any charge of sexism, one needs to treat both sexes equally well, or equally badly. One can say romance is merely our genes predisposing us to certain behaviours, but to prefer either the typical male or the typical female enactment of that behaviour would be biased.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2ndRateMind wrote:
I did not take it as such (a misogynist position). I was merely setting boundaries for the thread. Nevertheless, if one is to avoid any charge of sexism, one needs to treat both sexes equally well, or equally badly. One can say romance is merely our genes predisposing us to certain behaviours, but to prefer either the typical male or the typical female enactment of that behaviour would be biased.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Such is the problem with the "sexist" accusation. To not refer to the typical male or female behavior makes romanticism totally theoretical. To test this one could ask what constitutes a homosexual romantic relationship. Would you care to do so?

uh huh.

To tread on eggshells, one could wonder if male to male sexual relationships are inherently less stable than female to female. Whether the male tendency to promiscuity and female tendency towards fidelity persists even in homosexual relations. If it is found that it does, that would be supporting evidence for the cynical selfish gene's eye view of the world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

It is not a good summary of the empirical position. It is a statement referring to a few unverified hypothesis. The conclusions are also flawed. The male orgasm releases a blast of serotonin into the brain which creates a strong emotional bond to the sexual partner. We also evolved in small tribal groups now while genetic evidence shows habits of polgymay in our evolutionary history we are not exclusively poly and have shown monogamous habits. Suffice it to say our species is both monogamous and polygamous. Some males seek out many mates some females seek out many mates. While still others only seek out one mate.

The biggest flaws seem to be associated with desire. I.e. Women want rich men, men what beautiful women. This ignoring the entirety of human desire and attraction and distilling it into a trite and unrefined position.

Desire is complex, ideals of beauty are complex. Social habits of humans are complex. A couple of paragraphs ain't going to summarize the scientific position...

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Desire is complex, ideals of beauty are complex. Social habits of humans are complex. A couple of paragraphs ain't going to summarize the scientific position...

Indeed it isn't. Just set the context for the thread.

Best wishes, 2RM