20% of men get 80% of women?

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder about bonobos. They have very different social behaviors from the other great apes.

Them and chimps have a common ancestors, if I recall right, it was the drought (which led to extinction of Gorillas in the region where bonobos live now) that made this chimp subspecies to evolve to the matriarchal bonobo species - Drought+ No gorillas = more need to focus on child nurturing and less need for male aggressiveness.

But hey, even bonobos have alpha males, which are elected by alpha females - I wonder if those reproduce more offspring than other males tho like in the case of chimps.

That could very well account for the relatively few men who are ancestors--the fact that they were killed in battle and while hunting.

That was mohammad's excuse for allowing Polygyny of 4 wives "To make sure all women can get married" because there was less men than women. Pre-islamic Arabia had Polygyny with no restricted limit, interestingly they had polyandry at that time too, male harems existed.

According to a Hadith narration attributed to Aisha:

"there were four types of marriage during the ancient Arab period. One ... type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them could refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her she would say to them "You (all) know what you have done and now I have given birth to a child. So it is your child O so and so! Naming whoever she liked and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him." [1]

That's so graphic

Setting aside humans for a moment.

In every one of the 200 primate species, females select the mate.

Rape has only been observed in one species, Orangatun.

War has only been observed in one species, Chimpanzee. It's rare, but Chimpanzees will form a fighting band (and occasionally use weapons) and raid a neighboring clans territory. When they come upon individuals from the neighboring clan, males and young are killed, and mature females captured.

As per new studies, the point where humans ancestor chain seems to have taken the turn for violence, that is becoming very prone to and good at it is believed to be here:


Australopithecus. In this stage the skull becomes more massive (armoured) and the hands able to form a fist.

Back to humans.

I think that females still do the selecting normally. But males are more violent and erratic.

^ Nice anaylsis, compared to great apes, I say humans are certainly more chimp-like than bonobo-like, and probably males always had more power.

Male humans have a bloody and aggressive history; even their physiology shows it. Human violence was always dominated by males and I think this undeniable.

^ Hmm not really, colonial insects are supreme matriarchy.
Chimps do also seem to have cultures.

Btw the theory TenofMot talked about is not wildly accepted by the scientific community.

The comparison to social insects is useful in illustrating that social systems also are a force in evolution. Human's turn from small hunter/gatherer groups to agrarian settlements is thought of as the beginning of civilization (not all forms, but the dynamic development of ever larger groups). It only goes back 8-10 thousand years or so, but likely has had an effect on the selection process. The situation is varied however. Only portions of humanity live in the most rapidly advancing sections. Much of the whole still exists by farming. Yet, things like TVs, and computers are showing up in even the most basic household.

I guess a basic question in the sidebar is 'Is the Alpha Male model changing?' I'm not ready to predict a 'Rise of the Nerds'. Much of this ultra modern civilization is still fragile.
Another question is 'Is there a Alpha Female developing?' Not in the sense of the woman that dominates a woman's group, but one that competes with males on the same level.

^^ I don't think this is quite true.

The only resemblance we have with ants/bees is probably the idea of house-building, storing food and dividing roles(by birth).

But so squirrels and other rodents.

Most primates do not store food because...they live in areas where food is easily gathered and accessible, like how human tribes lived in such areas.

Maybe the booming numbers of humans make us look more like ants, but there are way more difference than similarities; for one, ants members of the same colony are basically clones, indistinguishable, there's no concept of individuality with them, whether primates like chimps and gorillas have family bonds, they recognize others individualistically.
For two, ants/bees roles are entirely genetically coded, a female worker is genetically coded to behave a certain way, so the males, so the queens. While roles among primates show more flexibility and may change according to circumstances. There are recorded behavior variations among baboons more example, where some groups have peaceful males and more equal, while in others have a more male-dominated culture and males are more violent.

Also primates display behaviors related to 'inventions' and discovery such as cracking nuts with tools and grooming, behaviors which are not really innate but learned and taught from generation to another - this is a much more human-like trait.

Chimps do wars too.

Yes I agree there are few real similarities. My only thought was that social systems/cultures are also a factor in evolution.

The next big step in evolution may not be a natural process however, but Genetically Modified Humans. I suspect it is only a matter of time. It could happen anywhere, maybe at first just small innocent seeming 'tweaks' (ie. greater resistance to diseases).

It is also possible a state will again attempt to create a super race, for political/survival reasons. A large totalitarian state is probably the most likely as well as able to try. If I had to bet, I would say Russia is the most likely candidate currently. They have a history of using anything they can get their hands on to enhance performance. Its not inconcievable preliminary research has already started, if not there, somewhere. Yes, I can see whole armies of enhanced and barechested Vladmirs.

I used to believe this theory. Then I knew a guy who was a male model and his dating life wasn't nearly as successful as I thought it would be. Yes, he still got a few girls and yes they were gorgeous, but not near what you'd expect for someone with an outgoing positive personality and a ripped body. Even then, 90% of women ignored his dating profile messages and the majority of them flaked on the phone stage. I don't think there's really a large elite group of guys getting all of the action to be honest.

You're basically saying 4 out of 5 women have slept with (essentially) a celebrity. I doubt this is true. Men exaggerate and women under-report.

I think the majority of men and women have had a handful of partners each. I do agree that when it comes to the lowest of lows, shy awkward men are much more likely than women to be forever alone. That bottom column has a disproportionately large voice on the internet.