I've heard many men state that they're programmed to spread their seed to several women, therefore it is unreasonable to expect men to stick with one woman or help raise their offspring, as that's all down to the woman. If men were simply meant to impregnate woman after woman, he'd end up leaving many completely on their own and even more vulnerable due to pregnancy, so they'd need some form of protection. I would expect that women would be far stronger than men in order to protect themselves during pregnancy, but that's not the case. So, are men meant to help raise their offspring and protect the mother, not just spread their genetics to many women and leave? I hope you understand, as I'm awful at explaining things. I don't even know my father. Many men have stated this here in Gender Studies. You haven't had an account too long, and I assume you're a troll. I've been around for almost three years, so I've seen it a lot. Also, I don't know my mother. I'd doubt that. Admitting that I don't know either of my parents disproves your idiotic point. If you've never seen anyone say this here, you've obviously not been here long enough. My father is most likely dead due to being a drug-user and my mother was under-age when I was born, meaning her only option was adoption. These are old, but I cannot be bothered search through the many questions I've answered. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110718184750AAuyea6 Just do a search, you'll find many. It's a common theory brought up here in GS and similar.
Best Answer:
Michael at 30 April,2013
Humans are actually somewhat unusual amongst great apes in that the males typically DO commit at least for a while. If we look at our closest evolutionary cousins, females often trade sexual favours for male indifference. For example the right to forage on his territory. He won't help but he won't run her off either. Humans are unique in that a mated pair will usually last 3-4 years, long enough to have a child and raise it beyond infancy. By 4 they are walking and talking and don't require quite as much attention as new borns. After that point, both would look for another partner. That's the evolutionary strategy of our species. Sure a man could just have sex with as many women as possible, but that's dangerous for the man. In species were one male rules the roost, such as elephant seals where a single male will often guard a harem of up to 50 females, territorial fights are often to the death. As few as 4% of males EVER mate at all. Humans are also unusual in that we have an extremely long development. Sticking with our seal comparison, they will be left to fend for themselves by 6 months old, where as humans need about 20 years. So if we imagine a human male with a harem of 50 females, and if he manages to not die defending it, he fathers 50 children with them. With a maturation rate as slow as humans, he would be lucky if 1 of the children survived to adulthood. By sticking around for a few years, he gives his genes the best possible start in life. Having 2 parents allows for the long maturation of our species and thus means that, in a life time, a male might father half a dozen children and have 3 or 4 reach adulthood.
Other Answers:
- "I've heard many men state that they're programmed to spread their seed to several women"
You father doesn't count as "many men"
"I don't even know my father."
My point exactly
"Many men have stated this here in Gender Studies."
I haven't seen not even one.
"You haven't had an account too long, and I assume you're a troll.
I've been around for almost three years, so I've seen it a lot."
I've actually been around on YA for pretty long, got suspended a few times though, and I've never seen this.
"Also, I don't know my mother."
That is irrelevant. Don't expect my mercy.
"I'd doubt that. Admitting that I don't know either of my parents disproves your idiotic point."
It surely doesn't. The most likely reason you don't know your parents (as if), is that both rejected you, your father simply for seed-spreading (which you claim falsely that many men do), and your mother for her own reasons.
"If you've never seen anyone say this here, you've obviously not been here long enough."
I've never seen anyone say it here for the reason that it has never been said here. And after all, if you've truly been here for so long and claim you have seen MANY MEN saying so, provide me with a link of such answers from men. - "So, are men meant to help raise their offspring and protect the mother, not just spread their genetics to many women and leave?"
Not if they are from the hood. - it's interesting ... actually I saw a documentary where some chemical was involved in monogamy. I think it was called vasopressin. there was some kind of rodent of the same species that was monogamous and another that spread it's seed. well, what scientist did is removed the vasopressin from the monogamous one. it turned out that , this rodent started behaving like it's counterpart. I think we are all animals and that some men, maybe are not developed to be monogamous and some men are. for me I like a relationship, because I enjoy the bonding.
- the chance would be a fine thing.. !
- Well, the debate is out whether or not humans are actually monogamous.
- I think what happened in nature was something along the lines of women following tough guys around to the extent that it meant protection and social status, and letting 'nice guys' give them help in exchange for female attention.
- All animals are "programmed" to procreate. Humans can choose to be monogamous. Humans can choose to space and limit the number of children to what they want. it's what separates us from the animals.
- I don't agree with it. I think these men that say this stuff only do so because they want to have a viable excuse to tramp around. Most of them can't even make up their mind about it either. Some will shame women that do the same thing, but then turn around and sleep around(they need these promiscuous women that allow it). It doesn't make any sense. Patriarchal constructs are confusing enough without the hypocrisy.
- Apes raise their kids in packs... all the males bang all the females and they all look after each other in a group.
In case of meeting danger, all the males work together as a little "army" while the females protect each other's children.
However, some animals have only one alpha male with many females.
Some animals have singular couples that last forever, but do or do not work in a pack with other couples.
While some animals, like tigers, abandon their offspring and let the female deal with them.
But the real question is which one humans do and/or should do? - Obviously not or we'd live in that sort of society. :o
- in the here and now
humans are the only species that can control their reproduction
so
it is utter rvbbish
if you don't want children - you don't need to produce them
as for faithfulness that is a choice... - I agree.
Most Evo-psych arguments are complete bulls**t. - As far as I know, the male to female ratio is close to 1:1 and species with that particular ratio tend to be monogamous (it is quite easy to realize why). Anyway, it is obvious sexual orientation is precisely that, sexual; and it doesn't designate a unique person as "target" but a big range of possible mates. Everybody has the inborn "ability" to reproduce with as many people as they want to (or can), and for most men it will mean dating women and for women it will mean drooling over other women or selling themselves in exchange of "X" commodities.
Again, since men to women ratio is close to 1:1, there are enough people to keep each group entertained without involving "lack of protection" or anything like that.
And to explain things a little better:
The whole point of finding the opposite gender attractive is reproduction, and men are the ones who want sex the most, make the first step, and so on. So, I guess it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to ensure the survival of the species by making men (the active gender) straight while women don't really need to be straight all the time, I remember reading about it somewhere; women find men aesthetically more pleasant and sexy while they're in the luteal phase (this is probably the only time when a woman is really straight) and they're entering the fertile days, the rest of the time they prefer female features.
Probably women's lesbian leaning bisexuality also delivers some evolutionary advantages; it helps them to create stronger bonds amongst them and allow them to give more importance to social female groups. I guess men are more individual and independent while women are more social (specially amongst them) and this could provide advantages when engaging in any task as a group.
In other words, guys should wise up and pay no attention to women since they will never reciprocate [women find the female body more aesthetically pleasant, they prefer to look at women, they believe women have more to look at, they think what they have to offer is more valuable and themselves are more valuable than guys (just look at women's day activities and motto's) etc.: they are indeed gender narcissistic lesbians]. - Personally do not agree, most guys i know are monogamous. The ones that say they are meant to spread their seed, usually say this when they are not ready to settle down with one woman.
Had some friends that played around, but when they meant a special person, they changed their view, and said that they felt empty when just playing around. - and women are programmed to trap a guy with $$$
- 3 points I want to address:
1- Not necessarily "leave her with the baby". People who argue that men (humans) are not naturally monogamous rarely ever say this. What most of them do say is that yes, we were designed to spread our seed, but we've also got a survival instinct to ensure that our children grow up and then spread their genes as well. Abandoning our children would go against this saying, since women can't always take care of the children themselves.
2- With the coming of women's rights, women can now take care of their children much easier than their ancestors could.
3- I believe that several thousands of years ago, we survived, procreated, and lived in tribes. Typically, there would be ONE male leader: the "Alpha Male". All the women in the tribe would follow him and he would impregnate them all, while probably "forbidding" the other males from having sex with these females.
Since these other men were of "inferior genetics" and were labelled Beta Males because of this, their roles were simply to help with the process of evolution of the species. They'd help hunt, gather food, etc. AND ----> They'd always be there to protect these pregnant women.
So the theory holds true. The leader would spread his seed, but he can't necessarily protect all his mates, so the other men of the tribe would take on this role since it would help advance our race. - Humans are actually somewhat unusual amongst great apes in that the males typically DO commit at least for a while. If we look at our closest evolutionary cousins, females often trade sexual favours for male indifference. For example the right to forage on his territory. He won't help but he won't run her off either. Humans are unique in that a mated pair will usually last 3-4 years, long enough to have a child and raise it beyond infancy. By 4 they are walking and talking and don't require quite as much attention as new borns. After that point, both would look for another partner.
That's the evolutionary strategy of our species. Sure a man could just have sex with as many women as possible, but that's dangerous for the man. In species were one male rules the roost, such as elephant seals where a single male will often guard a harem of up to 50 females, territorial fights are often to the death. As few as 4% of males EVER mate at all.
Humans are also unusual in that we have an extremely long development. Sticking with our seal comparison, they will be left to fend for themselves by 6 months old, where as humans need about 20 years. So if we imagine a human male with a harem of 50 females, and if he manages to not die defending it, he fathers 50 children with them. With a maturation rate as slow as humans, he would be lucky if 1 of the children survived to adulthood. By sticking around for a few years, he gives his genes the best possible start in life. Having 2 parents allows for the long maturation of our species and thus means that, in a life time, a male might father half a dozen children and have 3 or 4 reach adulthood. - Yes, biologically men can spread their seed to many women. They can produce hundreds of thousands of sperm every day and could theoretically impregnate thousands of women in their lifetime.
It all depends on will women let men do this?
Typically, this type of behavior is not encouraged because most people would agree kids need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, schooled for at least 12 years plus nearly every woman wants a loving monagamous relationship and does not tolerate other women being cared for on the side. Not only that but if everyone had 10 kids there wouldn't be enough food on this planet to feed them all. - Men and women are supposed to live in a little tribe in which raising the children is a cooperative venture, just like foraging, hunting and gathering. All participate in it all.
Modern world is gone astray, and our biological 'programming' is of no help to us now.
