Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: male/female differences
Message-ID: <2250@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:55:05 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2250
Posted: Sat Jan 12 01:55:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 04:03:02 EST
References: <74@mot.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 20

So biology is destiny?  The factors you describe occur in most higher
animals, including those that are monogamous.  Furthermore, they don't
necessarily follow from evolutionary theory, which hypothesizes that
actions which benefit the survival of the species AS A WHOLE are selected
for, *NOT* those which merely result in the highest rate of reproduction.

As an example, actions which tend to hold a group together in times of
adversity are definitely the sorts of things I'd expect to find in the
evolutionary history of humankind.  Promiscuous sex might prove disin-
tegrative in the small groups early humans lived in, and thus would be
selected *against*.  With the advent of larger groups (like New York
City) it isn't as much of a problem.

Actually, the reason I've heard for the institution of female monogamy is
so that men could know who their children where.  Women have no such need--
they can be as promiscuous as they like and still know they are their child's
mother!

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall