Evolutionary biology and peacocking



Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
Post new topic Reply to topic   Board index » Get Into The Game: New Forum Members Start Here » General Questions




Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:19 am 
Offline
New to MPUA Forum

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:19 am
Posts: 1
Evolutionary biology and peacocking

I was wondering if anyone here had read Richard Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene'. It probably has a thing of two of relevance to the PUA community (it is quoted Revelations by Venusian Arts) The following two paragraphs from Dawkins' book I found particularly interesting:
Quote:
One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes. Apart from special cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested in their own personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their magazines and journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual attractiveness, and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and appearance is apt to arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a woman is described in conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual attractiveness, or lack of it, will be prominently mentioned. This is true, whether the speaker is a man or a woman. When a man is described, the adjectives used are much more likely to have nothing to do with sex.

Faced with these facts, a biologist would be forced to suspect that he was looking at a society in which females compete for males, rather than vice versa. In the case of birds of paradise, we decided that females are drab because they do not need to compete for males. Males are bright and ostentatious because females are in demand and can afford to be choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand is that eggs are a more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why?
Any thoughts? Thanks.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:24 pm 
Offline
MPUA Forum Enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 43
Location: Berlin
Well... it goes back to .. I don't know some decades/centuries ago.

Men made money. Women didn't. If you were a woman and you wanted a man, what could you do? Be pretty, attractive and decent.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:39 pm 
Offline
MPUA Forum Zealot

Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:05 pm
Posts: 340
female birds are often drab because they are the ones sitting on the eggs and in the nest rearing the young. If she is bright, she will be seen and eaten by a predator.

The males are bright not only to attract females but also to distract the predator so they go after him and not the female and babies in the nest.

But yes, humans are one of the few species where the females are "pretty" and the males are drab.

Humans didn't really have to worry all that much about predators preying on the female on the nest so they could advertize their fertility a little more.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:35 pm 
Offline
Dedicated Member

Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 11:13 pm
Posts: 540
Mmmmmm

Women are the pretty ones....

Wait a moment.

50,000 years ago women didn't shave their legs. They didn't shave ANYTHING. They didn't brush their teeth. They didn't go to the tanning salon.

We are taking for granted that women are "prettier" but I'm REALLY not sure that this is the case. It is the case TODAY, after we prized women, made them what they are. But were they "prettier" in nature? I'm not sure. Falling tits, higher fat ratio. Men are leaner, muscular.... don't forget that FAT was considered sexy until 60 years ago. It's all a fashion anyway. Perhaps in nature men were actually the prize?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:53 pm 
Offline
Member of MPUA Forum

Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 11:18 pm
Posts: 108
I think that women were the prize at first but because of how sexist society seemed to be from before Christ's time until recently, (Even at that, there's still sexism but society is becoming more fair towards women now.) it caused men to be the prize. I mean, women couldn't get decent jobs, and if they could, they were underpaid, up until the birth control pill it was harder for them to control whether they got pregnant or not, etc. So men held the power over women, and many of those things that came from the sexism just kinda stuck.

I may be completely dead wrong though. XD Just a thought.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Can we be honest?

We want your email address. Let me send you the best seduction techniques ever devised... because they are really good.
close-link