The way you've formulated it, that's false. However, it makes sense in evolutionary biology that females are going to be more selective about partners than males. (Perhaps we'll rewire ourselves or develop pharmaceuticals that adjust our sex drives for hedonistic or practical purposes convenient to us?)
The fad of repurposing evolutionary biology to explain some current situation needs to go away. It's appealing because it's a convenient way for people to wrap their opinions in science, using such phrases as, "it makes sense..."
In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]: "bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple group males, increasing its chances for survival.
Bonobos are an edge case in sexuality. Far more mammalian and primate species behave similarly to stcredzero's conception.
Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure... as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of anti-feminist)
I'm not educated in the field, so I am happy to learn if I am wrong. But aren't bonobos one of the closest relatives to humans? That would indicate that the comparison is most relevant to human sexual behavior, regardless of what the rest of more distant ape relatives do.
Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with: "bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups offspring, rather than just his own."
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. This would change the cost/benefit equation for humans. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology.
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate?
If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.
Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology.
Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.
From a historical/global perspective, this is a bit of a "HUH!?" Religion of some form has played a major role in the majority of human lives for most of recorded history. Also, even when religion is absent, there are almost always some form of societal norms around sexual behavior. (Though, arguably less restrictive ones.)
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
I don't see any limitations highlighted. Please cite an example. I only see more data increasing the complexity of the discussion, but the products of natural selection are complex by nature. How is your above statement distinguishable from name calling and silencing-tactic FUD?
a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present. b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.
a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present.
This is another huge "huh!?" as the data for evolutionary biology is fundamentally historical. (Another piece of data which you seem to lack, is that we've documented evolutionary changes in large mammals in only a couple hundred years.)
b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.
You keep calling it a "limitation" but keep failing to explain how that is a valid label. What is this, the 3rd time I've asked now? This pattern is starting to look like FUD and dishonest labelling to me.
