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