Quote:
Really. You think behavior that would cause ancient man to protect a pregnant woman and protect the child thereafter wouldn't be chosen by women? You think they'd only choose men that look menacing, like they'd rape them senseless and leave them for dead? You think "altruism" only exists in humans because women bred us that way? You think males won't protect their own genes? Most species also do not have alpha males. Look up the mating habits of chimps, which we are most closely related to, and lions, which we think are "alpha". Come back after you've cracked open a book or wikipedia at least.
women don't select anything.
we don't select anything.
individual genes are "SELECTED" based on their profficiency in getting into the next generation. Try "the selfish gene" by Dawkins to get a handle on the true terminology. i'm not saying "women want to be raped and left for dead", i am saying, biologically, women find men who are dominant, and confident in taking what they want (alpha) more attractive, than men who act like their siblings (AFC)
therefore, no, genes that prevent you from "going caveman" on a girl would not survive in high numbers to the next generation. a genetic inability to score sex frequently would also be detrimental t
in most pre-modern society, altruism and kinship worked BECAUSE tribes banded together to protect their members, and raise their kids. a woman wouldn't have "selected" for a pansy (yes, pansy) for hope they'd have the balls to protect their offspring. they relied on the rest of the tribe, and/or family groups for that (because tribal/family groups are more likely to share the same DNA, therefore acting altruistically towards individuals with the same genes is beneficial for the genes in question). pair bonding and small family groups, instead of tribal communities, is a relatively new (on a genetic timeframe) concept for the human race.
but even if you were right. even if it was about "protection" of the next generation, wouldn't a high value, dominant male, who has more "sway" or respect from the surrounding tribe, who gets preference of the women, food etc, and who is not weak, snivelling, AFCish be more likely to SUCCESSFULLY secure a meal and protect the young?
if i'm wrong, why is it so many women, despite their education, or equal opportunities viewpoint, love rough, animalistic sex, and being dominated? because a mans ability to dominate SUGGESTS they are genetically strong. why else would rockstars/biker/thug types get plenty of women, even though the women CONCIENCELY know that they aren't sticking around to raise the baby.
i didn't say it was just women that repressed us. ruling factions also have plenty to gain from keeping *genetically* alpha men born into lower socio-economic circumstances repressed.
crack open wikipedia hey? well i'd have thought some of the more indepth works to be better, but be damned if i'm going to search through them to quote formally, but as per your suggestion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male
Primates
Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges.
In certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his place.
Gorillas use intimidation to establish and maintain alpha position.
so which book should i crack open next?
CHAT