Random sex observations

[kimtae]

Among primates the tendency is for males and females of monogamous species to be very similar in size. Think Gibbons. The species that are polygamous tend to have males significantly larger than the females like Gorillas and Baboons. The average human male is about 50-75% larger than the average female. Even so, we, in societies as a general rule, extol monogamy as a virtue. Human society seems to be at odds with evolution.
Just a random observation. Make your own or comment on the above.

[DONKEY]

probably because life has changed for humans so much that young males don't die at the rates they used to.
laws against violence, medicine, safety standards, sedentary lifestyles, etc has ensured that there is no shortage of males.
polygamy makes more sense if there aren't enough men to go around.

[jaehwan]

I think "dimorphism" is the word for this phenomenon. I read a book about this a few weeks ago.

It usually varies with the degree of polygamy. The size difference usually depends on the degree of polygamy. Elephant seals are much more polygamous than gorillas, for example, and so the males are much bigger in proportion to the females. (I think a male elephant seals are around three times the size of the females.)

Human society has been polygamous for most of its history. Monogamy is fairly recent and is just a way to:

a) equalize the genders
b) protect unpopular guys from having to be alone if all the women flock to popular guys

The latter is actually a really good thing, as studies have shown that unmarried men in groups have a greater tendency towards violence.

[nskripchun]

The latter is actually a really good thing, as studies have shown that unmarried men in groups have a greater tendency towards violence.

Like the Army?

haha.

[maogirl]

while i think it can be useful to study primate behaviour and physiology to discover more about humans, i kind of agree with the new yorker article on bonobos vs chimps which cautions us not to over-anthropomorphize animals in order to justify or excuse certain human behaviours.

sigh...i hate writing semi-intelligent posts.

[Dialectic]

The bonobo/chimp New Yorker article is here, incidentally:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker

Haven't read most of it yet but it looks great.

To follow up on MG's sadly semi-serious post (it seems like that's all I'm writing, these days), not only is it a mistake to anthroporphize animals, but we should also take care to avoid "animalizing" humans. We are, of course, animals, and we are, of course, subject to evolutionary forces, but we're also very, very different, qualitatively and quantitatively, from all other known-animals, in that we have a level of self-reflection and consciousness that no one else does. Comparisons with other primates only go so far.

[minbo]

The difference of average size between male and female humans does seem to indicate that as a species our sexual strategy was polygamy more often than not. It is not so pronounced that environmental concerns in localized areas could have over-ridden the biological predisposition, nor is it so pronounced that social considerations can also over-ride the slight predisposition.

Besides, humans do lots of things that are at odds with our evolution. Like wearing clothes, driving, smoking, drinking alcohol, flying, sailing, watching TV, wacko diets, working indoors at a desk, using medicine, eating mass produced fast food.

[Dialectic]

Damn, great article, as usual for the New Yorker.

Turns out the bonobos are probably not the super-sexual, super-enlightened monkeys we thought they were, but they're still pretty cool.

Anyway, studying monkeys, which is awesome in itself, can definitely reveal some things, but our minds go a lot further than monkey-minds do, so to say that we oughtta take cues from monkeys is going a bit far.

Part of this article talks about how where bonobos evolved, they didn't have to compete with other monkeys, and I think resources were pretty abundant. I'm reminded of a thing I read a while ago talking about how the only Native American tribes that didn't get into a lot of warfare and slavery, and were probably more laid back than most, were the ones living in resource-rich environments. If you don't have to compete, and you're living in a natural Safeway, you can afford to be a lot nicer. Interesting stuff.

As for polyamorousness and all the rest, primate males -- with their higher testosterone levels than in females (20 times in humans, I believe) -- have strong "fight it or fuck it" responses to pretty much anything stimulating, which means that for the first few decades of our lives, we want to fight or fuck anything that moves. How much we do either, and in what style, is strongly modified by access to resources, female response, and naturally tons of environmental factors. Ultimately, it looks as though most human societies found monogamy to be the most stable structure. Even in societies without marriage, like the Mosuo, they still establish strong 1:1 bonds.

[jaehwan]

The bonobo/chimp New Yorker article is here, incidentally:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker

Haven't read most of it yet but it looks great.

To follow up on MG's sadly semi-serious post (it seems like that's all I'm writing, these days), not only is it a mistake to anthroporphize animals, but we should also take care to avoid "animalizing" humans. We are, of course, animals, and we are, of course, subject to evolutionary forces, but we're also very, very different, qualitatively and quantitatively, from all other known-animals, in that we have a level of self-reflection and consciousness that no one else does. Comparisons with other primates only go so far.

Looks like a great article. I'll definitely read it. Thanks for the link, mg and d.

I too think it's important not to anthropomorphize (is that the word?) animals or to animalize humans. My post was just a means of trying to understand how we got here. While we have a level of self-reflection and consciousness that other animals do not, I think it's pretty safe to say that most of our ancestors over the entire history of life did not have this ability. And so I think it's useful to understand this past history so that we can create an environment that best suits us in the future.

Mongamy is a great example. We're not "naturally" monogamous, but we work best in a society that has monogamy.

We're also not naturally clothed, but we work best in a society where we wear clothes. Or at least that's what I've been told all my life. Hmm...

[maogirl]

We're also not naturally clothed, but we work best in a society where we wear clothes. Or at least that's what I've been told all my life. Hmm...

i dunno about that...the hot delivery boys seem to do their job real well with very little clothing.

oooh!! speaking of, there was this really hot guy last night walking his dog wearing only those boxer briefs and smoking a cigarette. my gay friend and i nearly fainted when he bent over to pick up the poo. it was raining, too.

[Dialectic]

And now it turns out even the fucking bonobo has been a become a point of polarization between the right and the left.

Frans de Waal's very reasonable response in eSkeptic:
http://skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-08.html

The New Yorker guy probably got all his facts right, but I tend to agree with Frans that he put a distorting spin on it. I caught a whiff of political conservativeness, of course, when they introduced the article while taking a jab at liberals, but it didn't occur to me just the extent to which Parker could spin things. I don't whether to be more mad at me, Parker, or chimps.

[jaehwan]

i dunno about that...the hot delivery boys seem to do their job real well with very little clothing.

oooh!! speaking of, there was this really hot guy last night walking his dog wearing only those boxer briefs and smoking a cigarette. my gay friend and i nearly fainted when he bent over to pick up the poo. it was raining, too.

Yes, I think I'm going to have to start questioning this clothing thing.

Then again, I've been packing on weight like an elephant seal since my wife had our kid. If I walked around in my boxers, I'd probably also make women and gay guys faint. Though not for the same reasons...

[maogirl]

Yes, I think I'm going to have to start questioning this clothing thing.

actually, wearing clothes is sexier than walking around nude. if we were nude all the time, there woudl be no titillation left. mystery, revelation and discovery are part of seduction. i mean, boobs weren't a big deal ages ago until someone started covering them up.

this makes me remember a story this aged granny in manila told me when i was very little. she was from a very proper mestizo family and once, her brothers and dad had to beat up a guy 'cause he peeped at her ankles.

of course she married him in the end 'cause chicks be lovin' them bad boys.

Then again, I've been packing on weight like an elephant seal since my wife had our kid. If I walked around in my boxers, I'd probably also make women and gay guys faint. Though not for the same reasons...

awww

*pinches jaehwan's love handles*

*bounces before wifey comes home*

[Synthetic]

actually, wearing clothes is sexier than walking around nude. if we were nude all the time, there woudl be no titillation left. mystery, revelation and discovery are part of seduction. i mean, boobs weren't a big deal ages ago until someone started covering them up.

i agree. in fact, i almost think sex is better if the lady keeps a few pieces of clothing on...maybe just a bra with one of the straps loosely sliding down the arm. it leaves more to the imagination and adds to the overall spontaneity of the situation (even if it wasn't spontaneous at all)....oh, and the bra staying on only works if it's a nice bra....not some strapless, boring, and white one. haha.

[jaehwan]

this makes me remember a story this aged granny in manila told me when i was very little. she was from a very proper mestizo family and once, her brothers and dad had to beat up a guy 'cause he peeped at her ankles.

of course she married him in the end 'cause chicks be lovin' them bad boys.

Gotta love these stories from back in the day! I need to hang out with old people more often.

i agree. in fact, i almost think sex is better if the lady keeps a few pieces of clothing on...maybe just a bra with one of the straps loosely sliding down the arm. it leaves more to the imagination and adds to the overall spontaneity of the situation (even if it wasn't spontaneous at all)....oh, and the bra staying on only works if it's a nice bra....not some strapless, boring, and white one. haha.

Dude, that was much more information about your sexual tastes than I needed to know...

[maogirl]

i agree that sex is better if the boy keeps a bra on, too.

[Synthetic]

i agree that sex is better if the boy keeps a bra on, too.

really? i'll ask my girl if i can wear her self supporting silicon bra next time we do the ten toes dance.

http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50351166/Magic_Silicon_Bra.jpg