By whoredom I mean women who sleep around a lot.

You all know the evolutionary force behind guys who sleep around a lot; they get to spread their genetic material to as many women as possible, and this ensures that this behavioural trait gets passed down to the next generation. But what about women who sleep around? I can't really think of any reproductive gains for them, which then makes me wonder, how did this trait get passed down through generations? I know it did because there have always been "whores" throughout history, and not just in the contemporary society so you can't blame it on TV.

Modern human society is a self-constructed zoo, applying prehistoric evolutionary forces to modern day humans therefore makes very little sense.

That's bull, Slave.

We are still animals, whatever our surroundings. We've just domesticated ourselves, not removed ourselves from our ancestors.

Dogs are like us, domesticated for 25,000 years, but still capable of responding to the pressures of nature, still, at heart, wolves. Our hearts bear the imprints of countless past struggles and triumphs, and we still are merely domesticated apes.

Modern human society is a self-constructed zoo, applying prehistoric evolutionary forces to modern day humans therefore makes very little sense.

That's bull, Slave.

We are still animals, whatever our surroundings. We've just domesticated ourselves, not removed ourselves from our ancestors.

Our hearts bear the imprints of countless past struggles and triumphs, and we still are merely domesticated apes.

Pay attention, Ernie, 'cause I never said evolutionary forces had stopped.

Dogs are like us, domesticated for 25,000 years, but still capable of responding to the pressures of nature, still, at heart, wolves.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s137/trebunny/animal%20totem%20pics/Greywolf.jpghttp://api.ning.com/files/tlB4pKQX5mhQg842e--k1X9Lg5L8WZ5rCzWkQSXXy4w_/pug0507.jpg

Words fail me.

Dogs=wolves. They still have the pack mentality. They don't look like wolves, but they still think like them, or more closely think like wolf pups.

As for the OP. Women hoe around for the same reason guys do, to pass on their genetic code. Let's say a woman sleeps with just one man has 500 kids with him. Good chance the genes will get passed on, unless a disease pops up that kills everything with blue eyes (or some other trait like that). If she had kids with 500 different men then some of the offspring would carry on.

Put simply: A trait survives if it is not so immediately detrimental as to cause partial extinction of the members possessing it. Whores still thrive, and the diseases spread by them take generations upon generations to mutate and spread enough to cause mass extinction of the human species. Evolution isn't fast enough. Hitler was.

Dawkins had a lengthy discussion on this, read up on that.

Sperm competition.

Multiple partners may mean that the sperm of multiple men are competing to fertilize an egg. The most fertile sperm succeed, meaning offspring that is more likely to have this trait from the most fertile male. It sorts out those who are less fertile that will give children who don't reproduce as much.

It couldn't be sperm competition. Our cocks grew while our testicals shrank during out evolution. Smaller testicles indicates less need for larger numbers of healthy sperm.

Pay attention, Ernie, 'cause I never said evolutionary forces had stopped.

Ernie? That's just confusing. I know you never said they stopped. But past evolutionary pressures shaped our present, including our minds and psyches. To say that the past evolution of our species and the ways it needed to adapt are definately relevant to modern humans.

We are what we are because of where we came from, and examining where we came from and how we evolved can help us make a present molded more with our past in mind and thus more suited to the human animal. To use your word, we need to redesign the 'zoo' to give the inhabitants a more natural existence.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s137/trebunny/animal%20totem%20pics/Greywolf.jpg (http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s137/trebunny/animal%20totem%20pics/Greywolf.jpg)http://api.ning.com/files/tlB4pKQX5mhQg842e--k1X9Lg5L8WZ5rCzWkQSXXy4w_/pug0507.jpg (http://api.ning.com/files/tlB4pKQX5mhQg842e--k1X9Lg5L8WZ5rCzWkQSXXy4w_/pug0507.jpg)

Words fail me.

Wow. I don't blame you for your ignorance, but dogs are a subspecies of wolves. All dogs. They haven't drifted far genetically. In fact, when I lived back north, I had a dog that was quarter wolf.

Not only that, but some dogs can definately manage in wolf packs. It has been shown that the black colouring becoming common in North American wolves came from a dog's mutation. It got bred into a wolf pack from dogs, because females preferred the black colouring.

It could never have swept through the population of wolves as fast as it did if dogs couldn't revert their domestication.

BTW, do you know what a dingo is? ;)

Modern human society is a self-constructed zoo, applying prehistoric evolutionary forces to modern day humans therefore makes very little sense.

What do you mean prehistoric? That word was never used. His post was referring to human nature anyway, not a socially imposed characteristic.

I'm going to guess that 'whoredom' is the product of superfluous sexual drive - i.e. promiscuity is a product of desire for sex, because having sex does offer a reproductive advantage, and even though promiscuity doesn't, at this stage in our evolution sexual desire hasn't been optimized so that women are satisfied with a single partner. They want more sex, not more partners. Anyway, this is just what makes sense to me - it might not be the actual reason for it.

It couldn't be sperm competition. Our cocks grew while our testicals shrank during out evolution. Smaller testicles indicates less need for larger numbers of healthy sperm.

What would you know? You're an eskimo!

What would you know? You're an eskimo!


You know, that's hilarious, because you've not only proven your ignorance of my ethnicity, but also your ignorance of human migration, wherein populations of people move into areas where they aren't from. I mean fuck, there's only a 50% chance that I'd be Inuit in the population of Nunavut. You might as well have flipped a coin to get to your irrelevant and meaningless assertion.

But in all good fun, puff on the peace pipe, dude.

Evolutionary pyschology says that women are less promiscuous than men due to picking the best sperm.

And in our society, women have been forced to be very selective due to religious factors and more importantly, because of lack of rights. For example, in laws were made to stop men having harems largely due to women being so dependent on their man to survive as she had no rights without him. This also meant that if a woman was unfaithful, she was royally fucked.

Now, with a safer society, contraception, less strict religion and fair laws, the old systems are simply irrelevant, which means women are freer to have sex. The evolutionary reason for that? Because it feels good.

Of course, that is a generalization. Some other reasons may include more temptation in every day life, drug and alcohol regulation, etc. The list could go on and on.

One semi-plausible explanation for counter-intuitive female promiscuity is that it in a primitive society it is beneficial for a woman to cultivate the affection of multiple men. To put it simply it makes sense for a primitive woman with children to feed to have a little something on the side with Ogg just in case her main meal ticket ZugZug gets stepped on by a mammoth while out hunting.

You know, that's hilarious, because you've not only proven your ignorance of my ethnicity, but also your ignorance of human migration, wherein populations of people move into areas where they aren't from. I mean fuck, there's only a 50% chance that I'd be Inuit in the population of Nunavut. You might as well have flipped a coin to get to your irrelevant and meaningless assertion.

But in all good fun, puff on the peace pipe, dude.



Okay, I get it, you eskimos don't believe in sperm competition because it interferes with your belief that sperm is just magic man juice that turns into babies inside of women.

But that said, I will not be insulted by an eskimo. Good day sir.

Okay, I get it, you eskimos don't believe in sperm competition because it interferes with your belief that sperm is just magic man juice that turns into babies inside of women.

But that said, I will not be insulted by an eskimo. Good day sir.

Dont worry your enough of an asshole im sure plenty of people will insult you. Because your a fucking cockhead.

Your getting too far away from the chemistry here - sex feels good, sex releases endorphins and sexual repression is a societal trait rather than an evolutionary one.
If a woman sleeps alot with the one man is that still whoredom?

If the answer is no then 'whoredom' is just society changing, and people are doing what comes naturally.
if the answer is yes then you need to rethink the basics of survival as a species.
A species where the women dont want to fuck is a dead species, look at panda bears - its a pretty simple staple of fittness that the species want to recreate.

Yall got alot of surprises coming if you decide to do biology at university.

Dont worry your enough of an asshole im sure plenty of people will insult you. Because your a fucking cockhead.

Don't be angry, I was just teasing the eskimo

Unless you actually were a prostitute, sleeping with more than 10 men was probably practically unheard of until modern day contraception was invented. Now, women can sleep with 50 plus men and not catch anything serious, and never get pregnant. Total sluts however never get the best men, so actually moderate promiscuity seems to be the winning ticket for women. My observation is that women only sleep around until they get the best they can, and then they squat.
For me, I only sleep with women who aren't sluts, cause I don't want to catch anything, but women who want to hold out till marriage can find someone else. I need to know a woman is compatible on all levels, including sexually, and I'll want to know in less than a month. So women today have to put out to find a suitor. I'm sure I'll end up fucking well over 10 women before I find one I want to fuck for life. I'd like two, but that won't likely happen.

Wanting sex is why all of you are here; it's just one of the evolutionary traits that made your family successful in past generations.

Both sexes are programmed to maximize the number of their genes that get passed down through the next generations. Historically speaking, the most efficient way for women to do this was to become selective because it requires a lot more energy to produce, carry around, and nurture a baby than it does to make a load of sperm. They wanted to best possible traits in males in order to help ensure grandchildren.

As was mentioned earlier, men are programmed for promiscuity because making sperm requires relatively few resources and the more women they fuck, the more children they're likely to produce, the more of their genes passed on.

Now days we have things like birth control pills and condoms, so women can have sex without the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

That is not to say all women are evolutionarily programmed to behave like whores, but the risk vs. reward (so to speak) for female promiscuity has changed in modern times. And centuries ago many of the women who became whores really didn't have a choice.

Sperm competition.

Multiple partners may mean that the sperm of multiple men are competing to fertilize an egg. The most fertile sperm succeed, meaning offspring that is more likely to have this trait from the most fertile male. It sorts out those who are less fertile that will give children who don't reproduce as much.

This is the correct answer. Was going to post it, but you beat me to it.

No, it's not the correct answer.

The male with the healthiest sperm is not necessarily the male with the best DNA overall.

Sperm competition is about a specific type of fitness, and you might not get the strongest/smartest/most-viable-surivivor offspring from the male with the most capable sperm. He could be inferior in other ways.

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

Here's the answer:

There is no evolutionary force.

Simple as that.

Women whore around because it's exciting, fun, and probably feels good (self-esteem + physical pleasure)

...

You're welcome. :rolleyes:

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

Here's the answer:

There is no evolutionary force.

Simple as that.

Women whore around because it's exciting, fun, and probably feels good (self-esteem + physical pleasure)

...

You're welcome. :rolleyes:

You need to read up on evolution.

You need to read up on evolution.

You can't be serious...

By whoredom I mean women who sleep around a lot.

You all know the evolutionary force behind guys who sleep around a lot; they get to spread their genetic material to as many women as possible, and this ensures that this behavioural trait gets passed down to the next generation. But what about women who sleep around? I can't really think of any reproductive gains for them, which then makes me wonder, how did this trait get passed down through generations? I know it did because there have always been "whores" throughout history, and not just in the contemporary society so you can't blame it on TV.

i read this, and nothing else.

this subject was taken on in the book sperm wars. the theory is that by fucking around, and assuming multiple creampies, it creates a situation where the females reactions, as well as the fighting between the sperms, results in the strongest man winning, so to speak.

so they are trying to get the best genetic material, just in an unusual fashion.

Whoredom practised by peasants in the ancient times is just a form of child protection, in a time where women and children protection laws were non-existence a women who sleeps around in her community increased the number of possible father of her child, and therefore, her child is less likely to be abused sexually or harmed, since you wouldn't want to accidentally rape your own daughter/kill your son.

FACT : A female dolphin "sleeps" with more than 1 male dolphin in her pack so that none of them would harm her baby after they're born. In fact....the male dolphins cooperated together in taking care of her baby dolphin...FACT.

Has anybody said its just fun to whore around?

Has anybody said its just fun to whore around?

I did.

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

Here's the answer:

There is no evolutionary force.

Simple as that.

Women whore around because it's exciting, fun, and probably feels good (self-esteem + physical pleasure)

...

You're welcome. :rolleyes:

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

Here's the answer:

There is no evolutionary force.

Simple as that.

Women whore around because it's exciting, fun, and probably feels good (self-esteem + physical pleasure)

...

You're welcome. :rolleyes:

There is a logical fallacy in this post as it doesn't address the why it's exciting, fun, and gives positive self-esteem and pleasure. These things are evolutionary forces. Women are geared this way because it encourages to breed out of the selfish desire for positive rewards. Obviously women who like sex have more sex, and are likely to get knocked up and pass those genes on.

Just because we observe a phenomenon/skill, doesn't mean that phenomenon/skill by itself must be an evolutionary advantage.

Humans can play piano. Other animals cannot (save for some adorable trained monkeys, cats, etc). What's the evolutionary advantage of playing the piano? The question doesn't really make sense; playing the piano is just the unexpected result of something else that did have an advantage: dexterous fingers.


Certain women "whoring around" can be explained by culture, hormones etc. Just because the phenomenon exists doesn't mean women must have gotten an advantage by the simple act of whoring around.

There is a logical fallacy in this post as it doesn't address the why it's exciting, fun, and gives positive self-esteem and pleasure. These things are evolutionary forces. Women are geared this way because it encourages to breed out of the selfish desire for positive rewards. Obviously women who like sex have more sex, and are likely to get knocked up and pass those genes on.

Okay, and where did you explain how it's the fault of evolution that some women are whores? Women whoring themselves has nothing to do with reproduction, they just want to have sex.

Not everything in this world has some deep hidden meaning that we need to contemplate and figure out. Some things are just things, plain and fucking simple.

Just because we observe a phenomenon/skill, doesn't mean that phenomenon/skill by itself must be an evolutionary advantage.

See: Peacock's tail, songbirds (especially captive bred ones), and all other forms of artificially (not selected soley through competitive interplay of potential reproducing individuals, but also through self-referencing sexual selection) modified species.

The peacock could function as a species without the tail. It is not needed by natural selection. The immense complexity and natural beauty of the peacock's tail is a byproduct not of adaption but snowballing stagnation and subsequent expansion of certain traits.



Humans can play piano. Other animals cannot (save for some adorable trained monkeys, cats, etc). What's the evolutionary advantage of playing the piano? The question doesn't really make sense; playing the piano is just the unexpected result of something else that did have an advantage: dexterous fingers.


Yes, and minds selected sexually and indirectly (perhaps more than otherwise-environmentally) for piano skills and musical creativity. We can do these things, despite having no need for them, because they are reflections of the inctricasies of our own peacock's tail, which we all hold in our brain cases. This 3 pound mass hinders us greatly in myriad ways, and sexual/social pressures engineered the brain's enhancement more than the rest of the environment.

The beauty of this peacock's tail is far more exquisite and applicable to far more tangents of reality than the trimmings of any other known, and therein lies the wonder.

Certain women "whoring around" can be explained by culture, hormones etc. Just because the phenomenon exists doesn't mean women must have gotten an advantage by the simple act of whoring around.

Unless you suggest potential advantages to health. Also, people who have sex have babies. More sex usually results in more babies in individuals of any species, now and in the past. Thus, heightened promiscuity results in a more wholly realized genetic legacy for females, when done right. Genes undoubtedly are passed in greater numbers from more promiscuous women who have more babies as a result of their higher chances of egg fertilization, unless you posit a link between promiscuity and lowered fertility (which isn't entirely unlikely or impossible, but I don't quite accept it) that is.

Would this not, over time, amplify genes influencing promiscuity in the overall gene pool, eventually altering or splintering a species' whole relative genetic diversity?

Not everything in this world has some deep hidden meaning that we need to contemplate and figure out. Some things are just things, plain and fucking simple.

We don't need to, but we can try to, and definately could succeed in comprehending most apparently hidden relationships. Sometimes it's hard to find the relationships, but they're there nonetheless, and there is meaning in everything, at least insofar as any part of everything relates to all of everything else.

Then again, we could draw false conclusions. We must be vigilant of our own mental failings.

Taking things as they are without further investigation is the hallmark of willful ignorance in the face of intellectual uncertainty, IMO, and with all due respect.

Okay, and where did you explain how it's the fault of evolution that some women are whores? Women whoring themselves has nothing to do with reproduction, they just want to have sex.


Are you mentally retarded? I'm being serious. Last time I checked, and I'm also pretty sure this is common knowledge, even amongst the most uneducated people in the world, that sex is how we reproduce. Reproduction is the result of sex, and nature making it pleasurable is the evolutionary trait, because it makes women want to have sex. As a result, they end up pregnant, and pass on the genes that made them want to have sex to their kids. Women who don't want to have sex, or have extreme will power to overcome these urges completely, won't have kids, and eventually the only people passing on their genes are whores, resulting in lots of whores.

Are you mentally retarded? I'm being serious. Last time I checked, and I'm also pretty sure this is common knowledge, even amongst the most uneducated people in the world, that sex is how we reproduce. Reproduction is the result of sex, and nature making it pleasurable is the evolutionary trait, because it makes women want to have sex. As a result, they end up pregnant, and pass on the genes that made them want to have sex to their kids. Women who don't want to have sex, or have extreme will power to overcome these urges completely, won't have kids, and eventually the only people passing on their genes are whores, resulting in lots of whores.

Okay, good. But, you forgot one little variable...

Birth Control. :rolleyes:

And you totally ignore the chronic and seemingly intrinsic plague of idiocy affecting great swaths of society, leading to the failure to successfully utilize contraceptives, for various reasons.

Or, more fundamentally, birth control is fucking new. Before, we could only rely on infanticide or potentially toxic abortifaciants. Thus, promiscuity would have been selected for throughout large portions of our genetic history.


Birth control serves to stop the intelligent people from breeding, while allowing complete morons to add their genetic contributions into the gene-pool repeatedly and usually by accident.

Druidus, no. Just no. :rolleyes:

The fact that people use birth control period is reason enough to believe that sex is for purposes other than reproduction.

Your argument is flawed.

I'm sorry, but stating that my argument is flawed without explicitly pointing out how does nothing.

The fact that people use birth control period is reason enough to believe that sex is for purposes other than reproductionI never once claimed it couldn't have other purposes, like bonding, social-glue (as in bonobos), or just because it feels good and alters brain chemistry, usually to make you feel better.

Feeling better generally leads to longer lifespans, increased success raising offspring, increased ability to find superior mates, overall survival ability and gene injection ability increased.

These, too, in the end, have an underlying basis, causes. It doesn't just feel good, it feels good for a reason, and that reason does have importance; will almost certainly have bearings in science or medicine.

Even today we are altering our collective genetic legacy. We've introduced new rules, but they still operate like the old. Genes will still rise and fall within a collective species such as us.

Okay, good. But, you forgot one little variable...

Birth Control. :rolleyes:

You should go read up on evolution. You either have no concept how evolution works, or you are completely off topic.

I'm only going to say this once more, and I'm going to dumb it down to the lowest possible level I can.

Ok, now pay attention to my words. Read this five to ten times so it sinks into your brain and you understand. Sluts, like sex. Slutty women in the past, long before birth control, were more likely to get pregnant. Because of this, they'd have more children that would inherit these genes that drives their slutty behavior. Now we have a lot of sluts, cause sluts bread more. Birth control has only been around 50 years, not exactly long enough to alter evolution. Birth control has nothing to do with this topic in anyway. Don't even understand why you'd even mention it, cause it has no bearing at all if you understood evolution and this thread. Slutty women are driven by pleasure to have sex, which then creates slutty kids, that is the evolutionary force we're talking about. Just because we've invented a pill that now prevents them from having kids, the pill has nothing to do with them still getting pleasure from fucking. We were just saying that women in the past that liked sex more had more sex, and produced more children. The pill stops them from getting pregnant now, but it wasn't designed to stop their sex drive, as that wasn't it's intention. I think your confusion is that we're saying slutty women ended up producing more children because they are slutty. We're not saying that they have become slutty because they want to produce more children. If you respond poorly to this, I seriously suggest that you never have any kids, cause you are one dumb mother fucker.

Ok, now pay attention to my words. Read this five to ten times so it sinks into your brain and you understand. Sluts, like sex. Slutty women in the past, long before birth control, were more likely to get pregnant. Because of this, they'd have more children that would inherit these genes that drives their slutty behavior. Now we have a lot of sluts, cause sluts bread more.

Before you get cocky, try to get something to support your allegations...

1. If your hypothesis is true we would expect to see a boon in births when "sluttyness" began to take hold in a population (i.e. for your argument to make sense, sluttyness must provide a meaningful advantage in reproductive success, and thus we must see a meaningful effect in population figures). Where is it?

2. Not all partners are made equal. A woman could actually be doing an evolutionary disservice by bringing offspring with poor genetic makeup.

If your arguement is true, you would have to show that sluts pick better partners - or that their success rate is still above average - than those who are more conservative in choosing a mate.

--

Just because you find a plausible evolutionary explanation for something (i.e. "Sluts like sex, they had more success, therefore sluttyness was selected"), doesn't mean that's the case.

You should go read up on evolution. You either have no concept how evolution works, or you are completely off topic.

I'm only going to say this once more, and I'm going to dumb it down to the lowest possible level I can.

Ok, now pay attention to my words. Read this five to ten times so it sinks into your brain and you understand. Sluts, like sex. Slutty women in the past, long before birth control, were more likely to get pregnant. Because of this, they'd have more children that would inherit these genes that drives their slutty behavior. Now we have a lot of sluts, cause sluts bread more. Birth control has only been around 50 years, not exactly long enough to alter evolution. Birth control has nothing to do with this topic in anyway. Don't even understand why you'd even mention it, cause it has no bearing at all if you understood evolution and this thread. Slutty women are driven by pleasure to have sex, which then creates slutty kids, that is the evolutionary force we're talking about. Just because we've invented a pill that now prevents them from having kids, the pill has nothing to do with them still getting pleasure from fucking. We were just saying that women in the past that liked sex more had more sex, and produced more children. The pill stops them from getting pregnant now, but it wasn't designed to stop their sex drive, as that wasn't it's intention. I think your confusion is that we're saying slutty women ended up producing more children because they are slutty. We're not saying that they have become slutty because they want to produce more children. If you respond poorly to this, I seriously suggest that you never have any kids, cause you are one dumb mother fucker.

*facepalm*

Okay then. Show me some proof, Mr. Darwin.

Show me the picture of the gene that carries the 'slut' trait.

Anything to support your argument other than calling me one dumb mother fucker.

I never once claimed it couldn't have other purposes, like bonding, social-glue (as in bonobos), or just because it feels good and alters brain chemistry, usually to make you feel better.

This is what I've been saying. Sluttyness isn't always a product of evolution.

Feeling better generally leads to longer lifespans, increased success raising offspring, increased ability to find superior mates, overall survival ability and gene injection ability increased.

Now this I would believe is a good reason to think that sluttyness is a good evolutionary trait. Still, it's not that good of an argument without proof.

These, too, in the end, have an underlying basis, causes. It doesn't just feel good, it feels good for a reason, and that reason does have importance; will almost certainly have bearings in science or medicine.

And here is where you basically admit that evolution is still only a theory, despite the fact that you're obviously a pretty strong believer.

Will respond more completely later, but:

I believe in the existence of relationships that provide for the function we evolution, whether the relationships from different big pictures than we may have imagined is moot; the relationships would necessarily exist. We exist as we do now because of changes to past species (even if this is "theoretical", I've seen no better or even equal explanation). Evolution, the idea we talk about today, is just one version of possible ways to describe the way we really did change to exist like this. The way we/the universe evolved, whether you cling to natural selection (modified or orthodox), or to some other explanation of our past evolution (term used there just to represent the changes from our ancestors in the distant past to us), most likely caused the web of relationships we see now. Unless you want to suggest that the universe doesn't change over "time" (evolve) and therefore needn't worry about the actions at the root of our reactions. In a universe without change, the illusion of time would be broken.

Any other theory or worldview to explain why we do anything (including the "it-just-feels-good, further enquiry unnecessary" method of active ignorance is a "theory" of its own, and you haven't given good reason or evidence to accept that.) cannot prove their position either. The point isn't to prove ideas beyond all doubt, it is to develop them in intellectual discourse. The way I see it, you would rather we don't bother with that for some ideas, and quite arbitrarily, for no real reasons for this position exist.

If what we term "the theory of evolution" were somehow (in a baffling turn of events) disproved tomorrow, some process, or related network of originating events, would still have to be proposed to explain the apparent evolution of space and matter over time (we're a part of the evolving space and matter, so thus evolutionary observing entities) thus playing the same role. If you allow that our current state is a function of our past states and the changes in between, you must allow that knowing these changes, or the relationships between different change-events, would paint a clearer picture of why we do things, with clearer and more well-founded ideas than any in this thread or the world, for that matter, including the idea that certain things can be a certain way without being that way for reasons, or causal relationships (which I find untenable).

Fuck, I need sleep some time soon, going on day 3 without sleep; please excuse possible rambling.

Before you get cocky, try to get something to support your allegations...

1. If your hypothesis is true we would expect to see a boon in births when "sluttyness" began to take hold in a population (i.e. for your argument to make sense, sluttyness must provide a meaningful advantage in reproductive success, and thus we must see a meaningful effect in population figures). Where is it?

2. Not all partners are made equal. A woman could actually be doing an evolutionary disservice by bringing offspring with poor genetic makeup.

If your arguement is true, you would have to show that sluts pick better partners - or that their success rate is still above average - than those who are more conservative in choosing a mate.

--

Just because you find a plausible evolutionary explanation for something (i.e. "Sluts like sex, they had more success, therefore sluttyness was selected"), doesn't mean that's the case.

I was only getting cocky with him because he didn't understand the theory I was proposing, not that I'm saying it's correct or perfect, only that he was citing a variable that wouldn't have anything to do with what I was theorizing.

1. This would have taken place before historic documents were kept, so obviously there won't be any figures. Now we all have a trait that we enjoy sex, so such a change wouldn't be viewed today.

2. I fully agree based on the stupid people that fill this planet today, but my argument was only that a slut would have more sex and reproduce, and not that it encouraged pedigree breeding.

Really, I don't think the evolution came from women at all, but from men. Men who have high testosterone are both more aggressive and horny. Couple these together, and you get men that will hoard women for themselves, want to fuck every women that they like, and keep weaker men from breeding with better looking women. This still happens to this day. Women inherited this trait most likely from men who were successful, not from women who are successful. Men spread the slut gene, not women.

1. This would have taken place before historic documents were kept, so obviously there won't be any figures. Now we all have a trait that we enjoy sex, so such a change wouldn't be viewed today.

Except:

a. We can estimate the populations of humans before "historic documents".

b. We can extrapolate backwards from our current population to calculate apporximately how much that rate of change would be.

c. The non-falsifiability of your assertion isn't a positive; it's still an argument against your claim.



2. I fully agree based on the stupid people that fill this planet today, but my argument was only that a slut would have more sex and reproduce, and not that it encouraged pedigree breeding.

The point is that for it to be an advantage - and therefore be a plausible explanation of why we observe the phenomenon today- the results must be good, not bad.

If not reproducing willy-nilly was more advantageous then sluttyness wouldn't have been passed off!

Really, I don't think the evolution came from women at all, but from men. Men who have high testosterone are both more aggressive and horny. Couple these together, and you get men that will hoard women for themselves, want to fuck every women that they like, and keep weaker men from breeding with better looking women. This still happens to this day.

Yes, most guys want that. But, I don't think it has any relation to evolution.

Yes, most guys want that. But, I don't think it has any relation to evolution.

Actually it's a widely researched and known fact that it is the male of our species that bares new traits and spreads them. Women are just a vessel, we load that vessel with semen. lol.

we load that vessel with semen. lol.

lol lol

Except:

a. We can estimate the populations of humans before "historic documents".

b. We can extrapolate backwards from our current population to calculate apporximately how much that rate of change would be.

c. The non-falsifiability of your assertion isn't a positive; it's still an argument against your claim.




The point is that for it to be an advantage - and therefore be a plausible explanation of why we observe the phenomenon today- the results must be good, not bad.

If not reproducing willy-nilly was more advantageous then sluttyness wouldn't have been passed off!

Everyone here is assuming that it's this trait in women that passed it. Men were the only ones that got to select who they bread with up until women's rights were created. Women got sex whether they wanted it or not, so being a slut was a useless advantage to getting knocked up. Getting dick wasn't there choice.

1. Are you now, then, agreeing with me that your first hypothesis was flawed?

2. This new hypothesis of yours is even worse. Females are generally thought of as being the "selectors" of partners in most species, humans included:

"Within the sexual selection process, Darwin distinguished between male competition for female mates (which typically gives rise to weapons), and female choice of male mates (which typically gives rise to gifts and ornaments). But he recognized that female choice and male competition are often two sides of the same coin, because mate choice by one sex usually implies competition by the other sex, either through direct ‘interference competition’ (e.g. physical fights over the opposite sex) or through indirect ‘exploitation competition’ (e.g. scrambles to find and seduce the opposite sex before someone else does). Darwin had no real explanation of why males usually compete harder for mates than females do — why males court, and females choose —though he offered a staggering amount of evidence that this pattern holds from insects through humans (Darwin, 1871). "


"In almost all species, females can effectively resist copulation attempts
by unwanted males, and in many species, females actively solicit copulations from desired males. Likewise, males actively pursue desired females, and ignore solicitation attempts by unwanted females. Although sexual harassment of females is common in nature, ‘successful’ rape seems fairly rare, being reported in only a small collection of species such as ducks, squid, dolphins, orangutans, and humans (Brownmiller, 1975; Rodman & Mitani, 1987; R. Thornhill &N. Thornhill, 1992). Generally, mutual choice and mutual cooperation are necessary for breeding."


A Review of Sexual Selection and Human Evolution: How Mate Choice shaped Human Nature (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/SexualSelection/sex%5B1%5D.pdf)


Moreover, not only is rape a dangerous endeavor to begin with - since the female can resist, and hominids lived in communities that likely shun raped; especially the female's family members - but it will probably be less successful at reproduction since, hormonally speaking, if the female is willing it means she's biologically ready (where as chances are she isn't when in the case of rape). Also there are methods to put an end to pregnancy (abortion was being used over 3,000 years ago, not to mention infanticide).

Here's the real reason why:

Whores are selfish. They care more about getting stuffed with a cock than not spreading diseases, causing emotional turmoil, and possibly bringing a life into the world they are completely incapable of treating well.

You can call it evolution or whatever else you wish, but that is the fact of the matter. They are proud, lustful, and completely unwilling to put the work into a healthy relationship that allows intimacy to flourish. As a result, they make promiscuity their virtue.

Everyone here is assuming that it's this trait in women that passed it. Men were the only ones that got to select who they bread with up until women's rights were created. Women got sex whether they wanted it or not, so being a slut was a useless advantage to getting knocked up. Getting dick wasn't there choice.

Woah... You're saying that human society, throughout its existence, went against the principle found throughout all animal nature: that the female performs sexual selection? Regarding "getting dick wasn't there choice", as cited above, rape is extremely rare in animal species; and it is unlikely that humans somehow skipped over this universally occurring trait either.

The extent of this proposed Patriarchy humans lived in (which of course no longer exists: today's society is Matriarchal, the West at least) is arguable. For example, you have the Amazons, the indigineous African tribes in which various anthropologists noted lack of male dominance but rather a tendancy towards Matriarchy. Others also argue that pre-Christian Europe (i.e. Pagan Europe) was not all that Patriarchal. So your talking about patches of time within the last few thousand years, in specific geographical areas years of somewhat Patriarchal society which is very little in the evolutionary scale.

We now live in a Matriarchy, and most of human society pre-last few millenia was Matriarchal too.

If the Patriarchy kept women and their power to sexually select down for so long, it's surprising that they should gain it back in oh... a generation or two. If Patriarchy was so deeply ingrained it would surely take a longer evolutionary time to be dismantled. What it comes down to is that we have to rethink our notions of current and past Patriarchy (or male dominance). If it was that easy to dismantle perhaps it was never really that strong (or never really there) in the first place. Conversely, Matriarchy might have been running through our distant and recent past much more than we are currently acknowledging.

Coming back to this discussion, I don't think it's fair to say that whoredom in the current generation of human females was inherited from males. An interesting point to consider too is this. As a group strategy, promiscuity works for the masses of women. However it does not work for men. If promiscuity is preferred, then a situation is reached where only the alpha males pass on their genes. A good number of non-alpha-males stand no chance of mating. Monogamy, on the other hand, does work as a male group mating strategy. The alphas and the betas and the inbetweens all get a pretty good shot at passing on their genes.

Kind of throws a spanner into this rooted idea that whoredom/promiscuity is very much a male thing.