This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Woah. Here I was irresponsibly speculating how mate selection might have worked in the ancestral environment when I should have just asked you because you know exactly how it was.
Contrary to common belief, the ancestral environment was not the biblical Middle East. We can infer from the relative testes size of humans relative to other primates that women were unlikely to mate with different men during their fertile period compared to Chimps but probably still somewhat likely compared to Gorillas. Of course, there are all kinds of confounders -- the most important one probably is that with humans, female fertility is not obvious.
The existence of biological fatherhood explicitly seems to be a rather recent discovery made by early agrarian societies, probably in the context of domesticating animals, and gave rise to patriarchy. Different pre-modern societies have very different attitudes to fatherhood. I will grant you that a gene which made you bash the head in of anyone who fucked your wife (if you can get away with it) would probably have been select for, though.
From a genetic fitness point of view, cheating is a numbers game. As you point out, getting caught cheating in a society where it is against the social norms will probably severely limit the male's genetic fitness. On the other hand, fathering a child which will be fed by some other guy gets you a lot of fitness for basically free. If the likelihood of getting caught is high, the punishment is severe and your legitimate opportunities for procreation are plentiful, then cheating is maladaptive. If the opposite is the case, then it is adaptive.
For women consenting to cheating, the potential gains are much lower (unless her husband is infertile). In a society with little property and no Swiss bank accounts, any bribes were probably not worth the risk (if the society was strongly anti-cheating). The main reason would be that the guy she cheated with had a higher genetic fitness than her husband, which would benefit her child. OTOH, if ancestral societies had opinions about female infidelity, they probably had no sophisticated theory of culpability and consent. Telling your husband "Tribesman Urgh tried to touch me, tell him to stop" would be one thing, but if you were raped in the context of intertribal warfare, you likely had little to gain by telling your tribe about it.
I do not think that they were segregated as nuns are from monks. Sure, they had mostly different roles, and at times these roles might have separated most of the men a day's march from the women. I will also grant you that their life was a lot more communal, so texting "honey I have to work late" while you had an affair in some motel was not a thing.
But the ancestral environment was also not as dangerous as a horror movie, where slipping away from the main group for a minute (especially to have sex) is a death sentence.
I think a lot of basic sexual behavior is innate. If you raise teens without any sex education and give them the opportunity, they will sooner or later figure out sex on their own. I also think that basic sexual attraction is innate. Probably something on the level of "I am into boobs-havers".
A lot of specifics are then learned, as your brain matches the kinds of humans it sees to its rough templates. If high heels and red lipstick are a reliable predictor of the wearer being a sexually available woman, and your brain is wired to be into women, then you might end up associating that with this.
I also think that some things are mostly innate turnoffs, though. Facial asymmetry. Birth defects. Clear signs of sickness, or starvation.
I am sure that there is some primitive tribe where being small and weak is considered attractive in men, because there is some tribe for everything, but in the ancestral environment, muscle mass and size was likely capped by lifetime nutrition. So you are not selecting for giantism genes, you are simply selecting for "was able to secure a good calorie intake for himself", which is a very desirable trait, so I would suspect that there is a genetic predisposition towards preferring larger men.
More options
Context Copy link