Why do we assume that we produce so much semen in order to “spread it around?” It seems as likely that “to keep it fresh” would work as well. It’s not like it’s “expensive” for us to produce, right? So why complicate things with mass-paternity imperatives?
Also, not to sound cranky or anything but why assume men don’t naturally want to be complete and not just biological fathers? Is there much evidence that “state of nature” men are any less interested in, say, protoges than women? Any less interested in investing in children?
I mean sure, sufficiently stressed men (and women) exhibit asocial, socially atomized, “militarized,” or othewise “selfish” behavior, but why assume that’s a default instead of a distorted outcome? By that logic prisoners, addicts, and PTSD victims are “ultimate” examples of men rather than damaged outliers.
(Signature: composed on a hand-held — pardon any typos.)
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-25 21:40.
Actually Nightfall,
I would consider the existence of both polygamy and polyandry to be examples of human flexibility, rather than fixed tendencies. And both of the above seemed driven by by economics in the societies they existed in. Furthermore even in societies when polygyny was accepted, it wasn't necessarily the social norm. For example where polygamy was/id common, it was usual involve societies where women generate(d) a lot of the wealth directly or indirectly-such as farming, raising animals, or making things that could be sold or traded. Polyandry tended to show up in situation where splitting the farms among brother could result in poverty over the generations. (Post Famine Ireland was a great example of that kind of economics, only in that context it resulted in massive emigration rather than brothers sharing a wife-something a Catholic country would never have tolerated.)
Rather than focusing on "mammals" which are a very large group indeed, even "primates" a little broad considering that our closest two relatives bonobos and chimps are closer to each other than to us, and yet their behaviors differ so much. So basing conclusions on such general claims about "mammals" is a bit sloppy.
The idea of men spreading sperm far and wide seems unlike largely because humans tended to belong to rather small groups for most of our evolution. So could a man have that many women? Probably not.
One intriguing theory is that marriage evolved as a way to prevent conflicts over sexual jealousies among both men AND women.
(Aquatic males tend to have high sperm counts and large penises while the females have very "humanlike" vulvas.)
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-25 17:21.
Well, we're mammals. Among mammals, it is most common for the female alone to raise the children. Even among primates, many if not most species the females do most of the childcare. (As always, exceptions. I seem to recall from somewhere a species of lemur which normally bonded in 1-female 2-male families, and mostly the males took care of the children, including the ones fathered by the other male. But as usual, this sort of thing is the exception and not the rule. Before anyone rattles off a number of other exceptions, make sure they're *mammals* and not birds.)
Also consider that early societies were more likely to allow polygyny than polyandry, and the former was more common even when both were allowed, *and* considering that men's sperm count often doubles or even triples when they're with a woman that they're not in a committed relationship with... not to mention that human males have proportionally larger genitalia and higher sperm counts than primates in general... and it's hard to deny that "quantity" might be a very significant factor.
On the other hand, most human instincts are weak, allowing for cross-gender instinct "leakage" and overriding reason, plus the fact that they're far more social than most mammals and pregnant women tend to rely on men for support, so... quality is obviously very important too. Most men will take care of their children at least sometimes if given the chance. (And usually all the time, if they're a single parent.)
You did mention sperm freshness, but I don't think that's a particularly quality or quantity issue, as neither is really possible with "stale" sperm.
Given all that, I'd say that quantity is probably much a larger portion of our physical heritage, yet recent times have seen our social and psychological heritage gearing us more for quality. ("Recent" on an evolutionary scale, anyway.)
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-26 06:40.
i happen to know some wonderful fathers. some who are more committed and giving/doing to/for their children than the mothers quite frankly, but it's not always the case.
sometimes it has to do entirely with social conceptions and learned behavior, but women often get the bulk of the load to carry through child rearing. i agree that fathers are sometimes underrated for their roles. both parents are important. i share my children equally with my ex-husband. he happens to be a very committed parent as am i.
loves autumn
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-26 19:18.
I think a fundamental point, often missed, is that *all* of the behaviors commonly shown by humans comprise the human behavioral repetoire. There aren't "real" and "fake" or "natural" and "civilized" human behaviors; we own the entire range of what we do.
So both good fathers and bad ones are part of our heritage as a species; and good and bad mothers as well. (Bearing a child and then foisting it off on relatives, like a same-species cowbird, has been an occasional female strategy in a lot of societies.)
Different chimpanzee societies differ a lot in, for example, how much each sex hunts, and whether hunting is a social activity or a more solitary one. But we are beginning to accept that all of those patterns are subsumed under the general heading "ways chimps behave". We should realize the same about ourselves.
Civilization may well push us into different areas of our behavioral repetoire than small-group hunter-gatherer living, but they're all parts of the innate range of behavior. Really, what else would they be?
Mary Kaye
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-26 21:11.
Semen and eggs, in the literal sense, don't matter, but they're used as shorthand for the investment the male makes (which can theoretically be as little as ejaculating and walking away) and the investment the female makes (which includes at least pregnancy and birth and often childrearing) in reproduction. "Spreading sperm" is easy not because sperm cells are numerous but because a male can cause many pregnancies while a female is carrying only one.
All of which is a pretty cold way to put it, because this goes out the window when your "males" and "females" are men and women and capable of thought and morality. Impregnating and dumping a string of women may increase your evolutionary fitness but it's no way to live.
(Also, it may not increase your evolutionary fitness anyway; plenty of male animals stick around for purely "selfish" reasons, because one litter of healthy young raised by two parents may end up with more individuals surviving and producing grandcritters than a bunch of litters left with single mothers who are only half as able to feed and protect the young.
Mating isn't the be-all-end-all of fitness; until the babies are born and raised and they breed, all that sperm-spreading is for naught. Males that produce pregnancies but don't see them through aren't getting their genes anywhere.)
["Also, it may not increase your evolutionary fitness anyway..." Yup. Or, more to the point, if all the blather was true about how women mysteriously (as opposed to, oh, say, pragmatically/consciously) select mates based on their bacon-bring-home-ability was true, because males are necessary for raising children, then it would be a suboptimal reproductive strategy for men to be promiscuous. If one *was* going to believe we're dominated by "natural drives" I think I'd want to see a little more explanation for that "hello sailor" attraction many women express towards definitely-just-passing-through strangers. Funny how people most drawn to stories about women's stolidity and men's frivolity never really work that in. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-06-27 05:16.
This post introduction made me think of a commercial. It was noted in one of the side effects of this drug was a decrease in semen. This ad was for a drug to reduce frequent urination in males by shrinking the prostate gland. The men in this commercial appear to be 55 and older. I'm thinking why on earth would they still be concerned about the reduction of semen. I would assume that most of their partners were close to or pass menopause. At what age do men stop wanting the ability to have children and in what scenario?
Submitted by 3036 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-06-29 20:49.
On semen-spreading as reproductive fitness, Natalie Angier made a great point in Woman: An Intimate Geography: If you want to breed, dude, sleeping around is NOT your best strategy. Human females, even very fertile ones, can't get pregnant on most days. You might invest a lot of resources into courtship only to be ejaculating into the void.
Here's another way to maximize reproductive fitness: Court one woman, cordon her away from your rivals, keep a close eye on her so you'll know when she is ovulating, and make sure it's you rather than a rival who has sex with her at her fertile times.
Over time, one of these strategies has been chosen by many men, and the other by a minority. Think there might be some wisdom in these choices?