Man and Woman's Evolution

[Nick]

The question of woman's evolution is an interesting one in comparison with man's evolution, which appears much more straight forward. Quite simply, men had to be physically strong and cunning in order to provide food and shelter, whether it be by hunting and gathering or stealing and killing. Women then choose to mate with the men who could do this best (or at least appear to) and he was able to pass on his genes.

Women on the other hand seem to have had a more complex set of demands placed on them if they were to reproduce and survive. Women not only had to show promise in being able to produce offspring (appearing attractive and healthy), but she also needed to make sure that man continued to provide for her and the children long down the line.

The second demand is the more interesting of the two because it begs the question; what means did she use to accomplish this? A few things that come to mind is her use of feminine charm to stroke his ego and provide sexual favors when he was performing up to her standards. On the flip side she would undermine his ego and abstain from sexual relations with him when he wasn't providing enough, essentially creating a psycho-sexual dependency of man on herself. Also, the men who were most receptive to this kind of treatment were more likely to pass on their genes because the ones who weren't wouldn't be as willing to provide for her, thus she would not mate with him and these kind of men were slowly bred out of existence, if they ever existed at all.

These dynamics can be clearly witnessed up to this day and has a lot to do with why men and women think and act the way they do. We have ambitious insecure men, and facile manipulative women.

[Ryan Rudolph]

It is important to note that as women evolve in the present, the dynamics change as well. For instance: increasing numbers of women in the developing world are becoming more independent, meaning they are focusing on careers, female friendships and relationships with family. The result of this dynamic is that her need to manipulate men is no longer as necessary, but the drive is still there. It creates a void in her, a restlessness so to speak.

She may fill this in all sorts of ways.

Men are feeling the difference as well. They may not feel as needed financially, so they may create endless renovation projects around the home, proving to her that they are still necessary.

You still have some of the old behaviors from some of the traditional gender roles, but as each gender becomes independent, they need to re define what relationship they are going to have to each other, and how they are to live with one another.

Interesting times. Each gender is forced to change, as their conditioned behavior meets the void of a changing environment...

[Nick]

Yeah that's true. I heard some where that when a woman is the breadwinner in a relationship, both sexes tend to feel less satisfied with the relationship.

I also think that the increased interest in romantic love is a result of traditional sexual roles having less practical application in a technologically advanced society. So by creating a kind of artificial romanticized atmosphere, the sexes can still indulge in those traditional sexual roles. A kind of hollow expression of something that used to be about survival.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

Yeah that's true. I heard some where that when a woman is the breadwinner in a relationship, both sexes tend to feel less satisfied with the relationship.

I also think that the increased interest in romantic love is a result of traditional sexual roles having less practical application in a technologically advanced society. So by creating a kind of artificial romanticized atmosphere, the sexes can still indulge in those traditional sexual roles. A kind of hollow expression of something that used to be about survival.

That this true, I also believe both sexes are conditioned to feel alot of resentment if one person is doing more than another, or if one person is completely idle, which actually makes decent evolutionary sense. If one person is burdened with too much of the survival responsibility, they can burn themselves out, thereby threatening the survival of the family unit (children - next generation of genes)

It is important to note that females are usually only conditioned to feel resentment if they see idleness, but not conditioned to judge what is a good investment of time. Look about how many females support the egotistical strivings of their men to become famous rockstars, movie stars and so on...More energy and money is actually wasted in these cases then if the male simply stayed idle, but females would rather support something rather than nothing, regardless of what that something is. However, of course, women do learn from experience, like us all, after they have been burned quite a few times, but by then they have accumulated quite a bit of mental baggage over supporting men in general. Many still lack the ability to discriminate between what is a good investment of time, and what is too risky. This mental block is often associated with women who are also attracted to what they perceive as exciting risk taking men, as if they come to grips with the stupidity of taking unnecessary risks with time and money, then they also must examine the fact that their boyfriend also engages in other wasteful and dangerous activities that she deems as exciting.

[jupiviv]

I don't think keeping a man to provide for her is an 'evolutionary' trait of women, in the scientific sense. The need to make an extra effort to get the man to provide for her and her children wouldn't have existed for long enough for women to have evolved it(if it does exist to that extent at all, which I think it doesn't). Moreover, the attempt by women to force men to provide for them simply by using feminine allure probably wouldn't be very successful, for obvious reasons(there are other women, for one thing.)

The only way it could be successful is either to make it a law/duty, or for men themselves to have some self-interest in providing for women and the children they have by those women, or a combination of the two. Both of these can only have been done by men. Marriage itself is most probably a creation of men, not women.

Also, the attraction women show for 'bad boys,' the tendency of women to become less sexually attractive after they get married and/or have children, and the existence of prostitution, would contradict your theory.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Women then choose to mate with the men who could do this best (or at least appear to) and he was able to pass on his genes.

Women on the other hand seem to have had a more complex set of demands placed on them if they were to reproduce and survive. Women not only had to show promise in being able to produce offspring (appearing attractive and healthy), but she also needed to make sure that man continued to provide for her and the children long down the line.

You sound like you think that men and women evolved as two separate species. They could not have in fact evolved as two separate species because the men's and women's genes mix with each other to produce the offspring. Whatever the woman found attractive and worthwhile got mixed with whatever the man found attractive enough to have sex with. If what men like got passed on to the female offspring, the female offspring got to have more offspring.

Also, you forget, modern laws did not always apply. Rape hasn't always been illegal, so even the worst schmuck, so long as he could overpower a woman, at one point could have the opportunity to pass his genes on wherever he wanted. Then as society got more "polite" as long as the male could bribe the father, he could get the woman of choice. Then men became more "evolved" and whoever the father could pay to take his daughter off his hands so he wouldn't have to support her all his life.

[Nick]

I don't think keeping a man to provide for her is an 'evolutionary' trait of women, in the scientific sense. The need to make an extra effort to get the man to provide for her and her children wouldn't have existed for long enough for women to have evolved it(if it does exist to that extent at all, which I think it doesn't).

Human sexual relationships have been evolving for millions of years, starting with the species that came before us. This would have been long before civilization was cozy and safe enough for women to make it without the help of men, leaving plenty of time for any number of traits such as the ones I mentioned to have evolved.

Moreover, the attempt by women to force men to provide for them simply by using feminine allure probably wouldn't be very successful, for obvious reasons(there are other women, for one thing.)

I wouldn't call it forcing, and other women around wouldn't make a difference.

The only way it could be successful is either to make it a law/duty, or for men themselves to have some self-interest in providing for women and the children they have by those women, or a combination of the two. Both of these can only have been done by men. Marriage itself is most probably a creation of men, not women.

Men obviously have plenty of reasons to want to protect and provide for women. Doesn't really matter if they were the ones writing the laws and inventing marriage.

Also, the attraction women show for 'bad boys,' the tendency of women to become less sexually attractive after they get married and/or have children, and the existence of prostitution, would contradict your theory.

No they don't. Bad boys show many of the traits that women attribute to being a successful protector and provider, men in turn get weaker and less healthy as they age, and prostitution is just a more straightforward manifestation of sexual relationships.

[Nick]

You sound like you think that men and women evolved as two separate species. They could not have in fact evolved as two separate species because the men's and women's genes mix with each other to produce the offspring. Whatever the woman found attractive and worthwhile got mixed with whatever the man found attractive enough to have sex with. If what men like got passed on to the female offspring, the female offspring got to have more offspring.

In a way, males are females are kind of like two distinct species that have evolved a very complex web of dependencies on each other.

Also, you forget, modern laws did not always apply. Rape hasn't always been illegal, so even the worst schmuck, so long as he could overpower a woman, at one point could have the opportunity to pass his genes on wherever he wanted. Then as society got more "polite" as long as the male could bribe the father, he could get the woman of choice. Then men became more "evolved" and whoever the father could pay to take his daughter off his hands so he wouldn't have to support her all his life.

I didn't forget that the rule of law wasn't always around, in fact I had it in mind the whole time. Laws and arranged marriages, along with all the rest of civilization, likely didn't start appearing until long after our species evolved the core of what defines our sexual relationships.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You sound like you think that men and women evolved as two separate species. They could not have in fact evolved as two separate species because the men's and women's genes mix with each other to produce the offspring.

Then again...

"... researchers have recently found that several hundred genes on the X escape inactivation. Taking those genes into account along with the new tally of Y genes gives this result: Men and women differ by 1 to 2 percent of their genomes, Dr. Page, a biologist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, said: " which is the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee or between a woman and a female chimpanzee." (from Y Chromosome Depends on Itself to Survive )

[jupiviv]

Human sexual relationships have been evolving for millions of years, starting with the species that came before us. This would have been long before civilization was cozy and safe enough for women to make it without the help of men, leaving plenty of time for any number of traits such as the ones I mentioned to have evolved.

What I meant there was that the need to make an extra effort to keep men attached to them would actually have arisen only in a more civilised society. There is no example of a non-human species of animal where the female makes extra effort to get the male to stay with and provide for them and the kids.

Moreover, the attempt by women to force men to provide for them simply by using feminine allure probably wouldn't be very successful, for obvious reasons(there are other women, for one thing.)

I wouldn't call it forcing, and other women around wouldn't make a difference.

If you are trying to get someone to do something that they don't want to do then you are forcing them.

Why do you say that other women wouldn't make a difference? If a man wants sex, and the woman he has children with is playing hard-to-get, he'll naturally try to have sex with other women.

Bad boys show many of the traits that women attribute to being a successful protector and provider

No, 'bad boys' show all the traits that a good provider or even protector wouldn't have. This is quite obvious from the fact that they aren't at all inclined to provide for a particular woman and the children she bears them, in the first place. They're only in it for the poontang.

men in turn get weaker and less healthy as they age

Men aren't generally sexually attractive to women for their beauty or young age, and not at all if they are selecting them as providers. In fact, women are evidently more attracted to men older than them, because greater age implies stability, experience, etc.

prostitution is just a more straightforward manifestation of sexual relationships.

I don't think so. Motherhood is also a wholly sexual relationship(even between mother and child,) just a different one from prostition. I agree with Weininger that all women have the two traits of mother and prostitute in them, in greater or lesser degree.

[pegasus]

Look at the sexual organs of both men and women. Women absorb knowledge easier than men. They like to grab and shut things in. Men like to give it and are positive.

[Kelly Jones]

Anyone read Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference" (W W Norton & Co Inc, 2010, ISBN 0393068382, 9780393068382 )?

Blurb:
It's the twenty-first century, and although we tried to rear unisex children-boys who play with dolls and girls who like trucks - we failed. Even though the glass ceiling is cracked, most women stay comfortably beneath it. And everywhere we hear about vitally important "hardwired" differences between male and female brains. The neuroscience that we read about in magazines, newspaper articles, books, and sometimes even scientific journals increasingly tells a tale of two brains, and the result is more often than not a validation of the status quo. Women, it seems, are just too intuitive for math; men too focused for housework. Drawing on the latest research in neuroscience and psychology, Cordelia Fine debunks the myth of hardwired differences between men's and women's brains, unraveling the evidence behind such claims as men's brains aren't wired for empathy and women's brains aren't made to fix cars. She then goes one step further, offering a very different explanation of the dissimilarities between men's and women's behavior. Instead of a "male brain" and a "female brain," Fine gives us a glimpse of plastic, mutable minds that are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender. Passionately argued and unfailingly astute, Delusions of Gender provides us with a much-needed corrective to the belief that men's and women's brains are intrinsically different - a belief that, as Fine shows with insight and humor, all too often works to the detriment of ourselves and our society.


I should have a copy in a fortnight.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Anyone read Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference"

It surely sounds interesting and quite a challenge. Lets hope it's more than just clever and contemporary "neurofeminism"!

Especially I'm interested in how she sees the role of hormonal balance in early brain development. In many mammals specific masculinisation of the brain has been observed as result of a certain supply of testosterone, also in embryos. How can this ever be related to human mind, society or a culture of sexism? At this early stage specific proteins and testosterone levels appear to be linked to the Y-chromosome. The problem is not if the brain is 'hard wired' but if the rest of our chemistry might be tweaked or not.

Let me know when you've read it or when other qualified researchers have pored over her science.

[cousinbasil]

In many mammals specific masculinisation of the brain has been observed as result of a certain supply of testosterone, also in embryos.

Not sure what you mean by this. What would be an example of masculinisation of the brain in a canine or a bear, say? Do you mean supply of testosterone in the diet, or in the blood due to a reason not linked with diet? And do you mean this supply of testosterone came during embryonic development of the brains that were "masculinised"?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Cousinbasil, the particular testosterone levels appear to be regulated by proteins which are in turn linked to the presence of an Y-chromosome. It's generated by the body, not diet, since the levels are also measured in prenatal conditions (before birth). An example of "masculinisation" of a fetal brain? Some even suggest that testosterone defeminizes the brain at some stage, with feminization being the 'default' . But changes in the brain would be very technical like certain regions of the hypothalamus, which later during puberty will be triggered again after being mostly dorment. There's a lot of literature on it which I always found pretty convincing.

Of course, since Cordelia Fine appears to question the whole art of brain scan imaging, all bets are off!

[cousinbasil]

Of course, since Cordelia Fine appears to question the whole art of brain scan imaging, all bets are off!

Yes, I think that was my basic question: how a brain is characterized as masculine or feminine in nonhuman mammals, or in humans, for that matter. That's what Google is for, I guess.

[Kelly Jones]

Gene expression, cousinbasil.

[Kelly Jones]

Anyone read Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference"

It surely sounds interesting and quite a challenge. Lets hope it's more than just clever and contemporary "neurofeminism"!

Her expertise is in ethics, and psychology. So it would appear that she's more concerned that people will misuse information. I wonder if she thought about the ethical consequences of questioning principles of gender-specific medicine, simply because it might be misused information.

Especially I'm interested in how she sees the role of hormonal balance in early brain development. In many mammals specific masculinisation of the brain has been observed as result of a certain supply of testosterone, also in embryos. How can this ever be related to human mind, society or a culture of sexism? At this early stage specific proteins and testosterone levels appear to be linked to the Y-chromosome. The problem is not if the brain is 'hard wired' but if the rest of our chemistry might be tweaked or not.

Well, in the studies of lateral gynandromorphism, the mammal's brain is scanned at adulthood, showing the discrete hemispheres despite the brain being flooded equally with male and female hormones. Presumably this was happening in embryo also, since the gonads would have been forming then also. If the studies were of the mammal's brain in embryo, it would probably be clearer.

Let me know when you've read it or when other qualified researchers have pored over her science.

That's the problem I've thought about, too. It would be very difficult to get papers published, or even be allowed to submit a thesis, if one wasn't supporting the accepted view. Even getting access to scientific papers is a problem, if you're not already immersed in toeing the line. I bought a single article last night that was AUD$40. I could never afford to read everything in full. Talk about academic transparency, and the open learning environment.


.

[jupiviv]

We all know that testosterone is socially and culturally constructed, don't we....? :-)

Personally, I find any book(scientific or otherwise) about sex differences and psychology bland and boring, when I compare them with 'Sex and character.' That book is *the* book about male-female psychology(or even only psychology). It should be the only book in the syllabus of a ''women's studies'' course.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Personally, I find any book(scientific or otherwise) about sex differences and psychology bland and boring, when I compare them with 'Sex and character.'

Chapter two about the male and female 'plasmas' is pretty boring too as it ventures in endless quite dated speculations in the field of biology. He does write however: "the study of comparative pathology of the sexual types is as necessary as their morphology, physiology and development".

[Nick]

What I meant there was that the need to make an extra effort to keep men attached to them would actually have arisen only in a more civilised society. There is no example of a non-human species of animal where the female makes extra effort to get the male to stay with and provide for them and the kids.

Effort need not be extra. Evolutionary impulses are rather effortless.

If you are trying to get someone to do something that they don't want to do then you are forcing them.

Manipulation is a better choice of word for what I was describing. You're free to start your own thread to explain how women force men to do things.

Why do you say that other women wouldn't make a difference? If a man wants sex, and the woman he has children with is playing hard-to-get, he'll naturally try to have sex with other women.

Evolution affects all women.

No, 'bad boys' show all the traits that a good provider or even protector wouldn't have. This is quite obvious from the fact that they aren't at all inclined to provide for a particular woman and the children she bears them, in the first place. They're only in it for the poontang.

Remember, it's all about appearances with women, the motivation and actions of men are secondary.

Men aren't generally sexually attractive to women for their beauty or young age, and not at all if they are selecting them as providers. In fact, women are evidently more attracted to men older than them, because greater age implies stability, experience, etc.

Maybe in todays context. Millions of years ago scientists estimate humans were lucky if they made it to age 30. One gray hair and you were likely seen as having one foot in the grave. :)

I agree with Weininger that all women have the two traits of mother and prostitute in them, in greater or lesser degree.

Sure, and what I'm talking about here is the prostitute and how she evolved.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, in the studies of lateral gynandromorphism, the mammal's brain is scanned at adulthood, showing the discrete hemispheres despite the brain being flooded equally with male and female hormones. Presumably this was happening in embryo also, since the gonads would have been forming then also. If the studies were of the mammal's brain in embryo, it would probably be clearer.

Famous research is that of Gunter Dorner a few decades back. He experimented a lot with rats (their post-natal brains can be researched better, as the brains still mature significantly after birth) and demonstrated the influence of testosterone on its later masculine (mating) behavior. It appeared the later the castration was done, the less difference to the masculineness it made. The less time hormones were allowed to shape the brain in the earliest formation stage (comparable to last stages of human pregnancy), the more feminine behavior later on. Flooding the rat with any kind of hormones in a later stage didn't influence any of the brain's preferences. Which doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it might need more than peer pressure or expectation.

Of course it's unknown to me which peer pressure rats could apply on each other for assumed gender roles. They might be very conservative!

[Cory Duchesne]

The question of woman's evolution is an interesting one in comparison with man's evolution, which appears much more straight forward. Quite simply, men had to be physically strong and cunning in order to provide food and shelter, whether it be by hunting and gathering or stealing and killing. Women then choose to mate with the men who could do this best (or at least appear to) and he was able to pass on his genes.

Women on the other hand seem to have had a more complex set of demands placed on them if they were to reproduce and survive. Women not only had to show promise in being able to produce offspring (appearing attractive and healthy), but she also needed to make sure that man continued to provide for her and the children long down the line.

Good post, but I would also like to ask, what makes a reasonably attractive woman stick with a man, considering there are many other men out there who are performing more powerfully? I'm not convinced there are any very significant innate traits in a woman that guides her into monogamy, beyond the limitations of her beauty. I think that's why marriage has been such a vital mechanism for the success of any civilization. Young females tend to be very hypergamous creatures, often looking to advance themselves with a higher ranking male, and this tendency is corrosive to the well being of any civilization because women who are hypergamous and unrestrained by any contracts obligating them to stay put would lose the original father of her children, and thus her children would not often be as well cared for by the step father, and she could likely ended up in poverty, especially if she continued jumping from man to man. What I'm implying here too, is that once her beauty is gone, then most men don't feel obligation toward her precisely because she's been disloyal, hurtful, or perhaps she is just one older woman among dozens of others competing for a man who has the ability to access fresh new wave of newly matured women. Marriage helped ensure all women were protected by a male partner into old age, it ensures the children are cared for by the original father, allowing genes to be more successfully propagated as was the civilization and it's values. Hypergamy in women also demotivated beta men to work for the state, because men need a sense of trust, consistent sex, connection to his children, and companionship, and without these things, the motivation to fight and work for the state would have been weaker, which weakened the overall civilization and it's ability to succeed. So marriage has been an important mechanism.

In the present age, particularly in the west, marriage has come to mean very little since you can get a divorce simply because you feel like it, and there are government programs to protect women from poverty, so things have changed. Men no longer find marriage sensible or appealing, and for good reason. You can end up paying child support to kids who are being raised and provided for by another father. Perhaps some men deserve such a fate, but many others do not. The state, practically a matriarchy, has become a surrogate husband, a protector of and caterer to females. While there are some virtues to this situation, as it enables women to escape abuse, many men with good intentions but limited means are left scratching their heads.

The second demand is the more interesting of the two because it begs the question; what means did she use to accomplish this? A few things that come to mind is her use of feminine charm to stroke his ego and provide sexual favors when he was performing up to her standards.

Why then, I wonder, was a proclivity to be manipulated, selected for? I suppose, like you imply, men who could be brought under control by the desires of women had more successful kids, since the woman was the one who was around the kids the most. For genes to be passed on, children had to survive, and for children to survive, you need men who are oriented around the needs of children, and I suppose nature decided that having men oriented around the needs of woman was the easiest way to take care of the children. Evolution works by building upon older systems, not always doing what's most efficient.

So men who want to be praised end up the best at providing for women, and so naturally such men gravitate toward females who are both worshipful, slightly critical and more in control of their sexual drives. The criticism gives the praise more potency, and control over sexual urges (being able to turn it off) gives woman a tool. Women who had a lack of sexual control and who did not administer praise and criticism intelligently, did not have children who were well taken care of.

On the flip side she would undermine his ego and abstain from sexual relations with him when he wasn't providing enough, essentially creating a psycho-sexual dependency of man on herself. Also, the men who were most receptive to this kind of treatment were more likely to pass on their genes because the ones who weren't wouldn't be as willing to provide for her, thus she would not mate with him and these kind of men were slowly bred out of existence, if they ever existed at all.

These dynamics can be clearly witnessed up to this day and has a lot to do with why men and women think and act the way they do. We have ambitious insecure men, and facile manipulative women.

That's right, ambitious insecure men are like peacocks, proudly putting on extravagant displays to earn approval. Men are hardwired to seek approval, because such a characteristic makes men oriented around the needs of women and children, and when children survive, then the characteristics of their parents survive. To reiterate, men are oriented around the needs of women, and women are oriented around the needs of children, or at least oriented around the material things that allow for survival of children.

[Nick]

Good post, but I would also like to ask, what makes an attractive woman stick with a man, considering there are many other men out there who are performing more powerfully?

Nothing. This would have been why man invented marriage as you went on to say...

I'm not convinced there are any very significant biologically innate traits in a woman that guides her into monogamy, beyond the limitations of her beauty. I think that's why marriage has been such a vital mechanism for the success of any civilization. Young females tend to be very hypergamous creatures, often looking to advance themselves with a higher ranking male, and this tendency is corrosive to the well being of any civilization because women who are hypergamous and unrestrained by any contracts obligating them to stay put, would have likely ended up in poverty if they jumped from man to man. What I mean is, once her beauty is gone, then most men don't feel obligation toward her precisely because she's been disloyal, hurtful, or perhaps she is just one older woman among dozens of others competing for a man who has the ability to access fresh new wave of newly matured women. Marriage helped ensure all women were protected by a male partner into old age, and hence the children were protected as well, and genes were successfully propagated as was the civilization and it's values. Hypergamy in women also demotivated beta men to work for the state, because men need a sense of trust and consistent companionship, and without these things, the motivation to fight and work for the state would have been weaker, which weakened the overall civilization and it's ability to succeed. So marriage has been an important mechanism.

I would bet that marriage was a key factor in getting civilization off the ground.

In the present age, particularly in the west, marriage has come to mean very little since you can get a divorce simply because you feel like it, and there are government programs to protect women from poverty, so things have changed. Men no longer find marriage sensible or appealing, and for good reason. You can end up paying child support to kids who are being raised and provided for by another father. Perhaps some men deserve such a fate, but many others do not. The state, practically a matriarchy, has become the protector of and caterer to females. While there are some virtues to this situation, as it enables women to escape abuse, many men with good intentions but limited means are left scratching their heads.

So do you think that by women gaining more sexual freedom it could lead to the collapse of civilization, or at least make it much more chaotic?

Why then, I wonder, was a proclivity to be manipulated, selected for? I suppose, like you imply, men who could be brought under control by the desires of women had more successful kids, since the woman was the one who was around the kids the most. For genes to be passed on, children had to survive, and for children to survive, you need men who are oriented around the needs of children, and I suppose nature decided that having men oriented around the needs of woman was the easiest way to take care of the children.

Men, being the insecure creatures they are, love to have their egos stroked, and the women who could intuitively sense this and take advantage of it were the most successful in passing on their genes.

Evolution works by building upon older systems, not always doing what's most efficient.

Yes the entire affair is absolutely absurd, but it worked good enough to make our species grow and spread in the early stages. Then by inventing marriage these traits were harnessed which allowed for civilization to come to rise. Now that marriage is obsolete these evolutionary traits once again threaten to dismantle the foundations of civilization. Fortunately the intense ambitions of men to satisfy women in every which way has had the side effect of giving us these huge brains capable of consciousness so we can reflect and be like wtf? Asking wtf is the only chance our species has of long term survival because using things like marriage to manage of our sexual nature is now impossible in the present.

So men who want to be praised end up the best at providing for women, and so naturally such men gravitate toward females who are both worshipful, slightly critical and more in control of their sexual drives. The criticism gives the praise more potency, and control over sexual urges (being able to turn it off) gives woman a tool.

The devil's spawn! haha... It's certainly no coincidence that men are so susceptible to the ways of these deviant creatures, they've evolved to play right into their hands.

Women who had a lack of sexual control and who did not administer praise and criticism intelligently, did not have children who were well taken care of.

Like women always tell each other, "a man wont buy the cow if he can get the milk for free".

That's right, ambitious insecure men are like peacocks, proudly putting on extravagant displays to earn approval. Men are hardwired to seek approval, because such a characteristic makes men oriented around the needs of women and children, and when children survive, then the characteristics of their parents survive. To reiterate, men are oriented around the needs of women, and women are oriented around the needs of children, or at least oriented around the material things that allow for survival of children.

And people wonder why so much time here is spent talking about Woman! It's what defines us as a species, and until it's addressed head on it's only a matter of time until we destroy our selves.

[Kelly Jones]

Personally, I find any book(scientific or otherwise) about sex differences and psychology bland and boring, when I compare them with 'Sex and character.'

Chapter two about the male and female 'plasmas' is pretty boring too as it ventures in endless quite dated speculations in the field of biology. He does write however: "the study of comparative pathology of the sexual types is as necessary as their morphology, physiology and development".

Chapter two is rich in very relevant and timeless material, Diebert. It begins thus:

"T H E FIRST THING expected from a work designed to be a universal revision of all the relevant facts would be a new and complete representation of the anatomical and physiological qualities of the sexual types. However, since I have not undertaken any of the independent investigations required for that comprehensive task, and do not in any case regard the answers to those questions as necessary for the ultimate objectives of this book, I must renounce that enterprise right at the outset-quite apart from the question whether such an enterprise would not far transcend the powers of one individual. .... The discussions in this chapter will therefore be of a more formal and general nature. They will be concerned with biological principles....

"So far the theory of different degrees of masculinity and femminity has been developed in purely anatomical terms. However, anatomy will ask not only in what forms but also in what places masculinity and femininity express themselves. The examples, given earlier, of sexual differences in other parts of the body make it clear that sexuality is not restricted to the reproductive organs and gonads. But where can one draw the line? Is sex confined exclusively to the "primary" and "secondary" sexual characteristics? Or is its range much wider? In other words, where is sex situated and where is it not?"


Notice that quaternary sex characters are outward social behaviours with erogenous effects, so necessarily would be specific to the culture / time. The principle is a strong one, and any research he provides on sexual characteristics is only confirmed by greater detail. For instance, he mentions "smoking and drinking among men" as a quaternary sex character in his culture and time. Nowadays, while both behaviours been taken up equally by women, yet there is still a difference in the way the sexes typically engage in smoking and drinking. This is because the sexes have to alter their behaviours for erogeneous effect. If there were no sex, there would be no such alteration. In other words, it's not the actual behaviours, like smoking and drinking, but the psychology that motivates to find ways to attract and bond a mate - hence sex-stereotypical behaviour. Stereotypes are essential for most people to feel attracted sexually. If there were not that dynamic of give-and-take, submission-and-domination, attraction-and-repulsion, then sexual intercourse would be an utterly rational, emotionless, and pragmatic occurrence for reproduction only. And no ego, either.


.