Without a great deal of self-discipline, the human sex drive (mainly the male’s sex drive) will not achieve permanent satisfaction - that is, the male will never be content with “just one female” (although self-discipline my suppress the urge to have sex with more than one female), and no matter how many times the male has sex, the male never finds anything more than a temporary satisfaction.
If we could translate nature’s “script” that it has ingrained through evolution into the male mind, it might read something like:
“Have sex with the most desirable female possible, then try to find a more desirable female and proceed to have sex with her as well.”
During the first phase where the male is simply looking for the best possible sexual partner, he might even have himself convinced that “I will able to be satisfied with a woman and never feel the need to find another”. Yet, even if the male were to find the most attractive female that he could imagine and become sexual partners with her, he will eventually find unattractive qualities in her as he looks at other women and finds qualities in them that are unique from the woman he currently has sex with. There is always the desire for something new, and a certain part of the male mind “only wants what it can’t have” when it comes to sexual attraction.
Why does this occur? For the sake of evolution.
It is seen in packs of wolves that only the alpha-male wolf is permitted to have sex with the females. This way, the traits from the strongest male in the pack are preserved, and the weak qualities (or whatever lack of a quality prevented the other males from becoming the alpha) are filtered out.
Is the human race any different from the wolves when it comes to the sociology of reproduction? It would seem not.
The “alpha-males” of the human race are stuck with sex-drive that can never be completely satisfied, and constantly go from female to female having sex.
Eventually, morality and decency are let go of as an unfulfilled sex-drive take more and more control, and the alpha-male lets his standards “slip” down to whatever level will accommodate the amount of reproduction he is having.
A male who is capable of and attractive enough to have sex often with multiple different females will often have moral principles something along the lines of “Sex is wrong? Pffft that’s only something people believe if they aren’t attractive enough to have a lot of sex themselves.”
A male who is attractive enough to have a moderate amount of sex with 2-5 partners throughout his life might have moral principles that sound something like “I know its wrong to have sex with people you don’t love, but I’ll admit I’ve done it before, but I do regret it though. There was only one or two times where I had sex with women I didn’t really know, but oh well I can’t change the past. Marriage? I don’t think its at all necessary to get married before having sex… I mean sure, it might be the right thing to do, but ehh I don’t really care that much.”
A male who is unattractive and only has sex with 1 partner in his life, or maybe even none at all, might have moral principles something like “It is absolutely wrong to have sex before marriage, but its not my place to tell that to other people. I know whats right, and I won’t have sex with anyone besides someone I’m married to.”
The amount of sex a person is capable of having is what determines their moral principles regarding sex, not vice versa.
Anyone with a high enough amount of willpower to stop themselves from having sex as much as possible will end up having their genes filtered out through evolution. It might even be true that humanity has de-evolved to accommodate for a human race with weaker personal willpower so they are unable to resist the desire to have sex.
The human race seems to be in a state where moral standards are upheld for egotistical significance only, and where social morality is only the product of an unfulfilled desire.
What about all the beta-males who do not have children (or not nearly as many children as the alpha-males)? Evolution found that it shouldn’t waste these able-bodied beta-males, and they are recycled to become caretakers for the illegitimate children of the alpha-males.
It works something like this:
-Alpha-male impregnates a female
-Alpha-male leaves said female to go on and impregnate more females
-The impregnated female may try to find more alpha-males to have sex with, although this is not always the case.
-After the hormones of adolescence and early adulthood have worn off, the female’s mind begins to search for the best care-giving male instead of an alpha-male - this way, the female will have a male companion to help raise her illegitimate children.
I agree with the evolutionary principles, but not that this issue is limited to male members of the species. Research is always going to be fraught with inaccuracies in this area, due to the nature of the subject matter. I think that the female sex drive is just as rampant as the male’s (based on the personal reasearch of an un-named alpha-male)- perhaps females are just better at keeping these issues private?
Morality is about prejudice and social control - an arbitrary set of rules designed to keep the masses under control. So perhaps morality is irrelevant to this discussion.
However, it would appear to be evolutionary advantageous for the male and female to remain together, due to the long period of dependency of human children. Also, children growing up with a stable parental relationship are more likely to be better adapted to cope with adulthood?
PN, you hit it spot on. I even heard a figure recently that some relatively significant number (can’t remember exactly what number now) of men who think that their child is their own are actually wrong.
Psychologically we need morals and beliefs, socially conditioned or not we will develop them in response to needs we have. We all have the need to mate. Absent fulfilment of this need the brain begins compensation procedures to keep life moving along in equilibrium, despite that our number one evolutionary imperative is not satisfied.
We still are biologically programmed for the easy jungle life of the wandering primate, who need but reach his arm out to grasp plentiful easy food all around him. These large jungle primates fucked whenever they wanted, there were no pair matings, and females had communal help and a relative lack of serious predators to aid their raising offspring. Today we are still geared in that direction, and evolution will drive any species’ instincts to fuck as much and as many different partners as possible given that other necessary conditions are met, such as in some instances the need for pair bonding, or to maintain social harmony.
It is all reactive, as you point out. Biological health/survivability, generally speaking, determines quantity and quality of mating partners - quantity and quality of mating partners determines one’s mating morals and beliefs - and individual aggregate mating morals and beliefs then go onto determine social taboos and customs regarding sex. Of course once one of these morals or taboos is active it will then exert influence backwards down this chain and back into the individual, often counteracting existing beliefs/instincts/morals regarding sex. In the end we become a bizarre combination of social psychologically, individual psychologically and biologically created animals. No wonder we are so conflicted and confused by sex.
Using a gene-centered view on evolution, I will dispute some things and discuss some things.
Whenever a male (or female) has a child or children, that male has succeeded in his evolutionary goal: To ensure that his gene remains in the gene pool. If anything counterattacks the sex drive, it is that. Also, the “temporary satisfaction” mentioned here is only the case during which the female isn’t successfully impregnated. If she is, then a sort of permanent satisfaction is achieved, unless, of course, the father’s child cannot reproduce in order to continue the gene.
There is some truth to this, but I don’t think that it’s really focused on the female. Instead, the male is focusing on the qualities that would best combine with his own qualities in order to create the most desirable offspring. Doing this, the male ensures that his gene and a female gene of compatible combination unite in order to leave his mark on the gene pool. It’s not about the female, per se, but more about the desired qualities of the future child or children.
It’s not that the male “only wants what it can’t have”, but rather, he is desiring for his children to be individuals of desirable qualities. If he too strong of what you’re calling a “sex drive”, then he’ll randomly and mercilessly become promiscuous and abandon many women. Let there be no mistake! This is an act of frustration, not of triumph. Either the promiscuous male hasn’t been able to find a women having qualities that would create the best genes for his child… or he is a coward because he’s acting on a fear of being deleted from the gene pool. Regardless of whatever it is, promiscuity is an act of frustration and, quite possibly, paranoia.
To ensure the survival of the male’s genes… precisely “for the sake of evolution”.
If that is the case, then competition would be too fierce for the species to ever exist in harmony. Take an observation of wolf packs corresponding to evolution… the weak are weeded out, so only the strong survive (mainly, the “alpha”). So, eventually, there will only be strong genes, making it, over time, impossible for males to group anymore because there is such fierce competition. Natural selection is perfectly valid. However, whenever it is noted that only one male passes on his traits, that shoots the argument of natural selection in the foot because, if there are only strong traits (which there will be over time), then the weak cannot exist… the “beta” cannot exist after thousands of years. As a result, all male wolves would take on alpha characteristics that appeal to the female wolf populations, causing a war of worthiness and making it impossible for wolves to exist in a group while in harmony with one another.
Even the beta males are interested in leaving their mark on the gene pool. If they have too much cowardice to do that, then let them remain weak, die out, and whatever… but, the behavior of wolves is particularly counterproductive because the alpha male attempts to impregnate an entire group of females, regardless of their feminine qualities. The “beta male” wolves only act whenever they have a random mating encounter with a female of another pack. And then, that beta male becomes the “alpha male” of his own group, assembling followers who were either left for dead by other ruthless packs or are just lost due to migration (or some other geographical reason).
Anyway, the cycle goes on and on, but my question to the “alpha” wolf would be this, if he could ever answer: “Why are you promiscuous? Do you not care about the quality of your offspring?”
We are different. With the mere knowledge of genetics itself, we are able to distinguish what mates would be better suited to mother/father our children… and whose genes we’d like to combine with in order to produce our children. That’s the difference between humans and wolves: knowledge. Our own natural selection is much more selfish than that of other animals because we desire for our gene to survive… “who cares about Mr. Alpha? MY gene will STAY!” And, for this reason, humans are higher creatures in both knowledge and technology than other creatures. A monkey may hop across a tree, but he’ll never build a rocket. Selfish genes = Human genes.
Wrong. There’s nothing “alpha” about such a frustrated creature. If that promiscuity is with women whose qualities you’d like your children to have, then it’s probably not an act of frustration… still yet, it suggests a deep paranoia.
If you’re talking about the frustrated kid who jumps randomly from woman to woman without regard of their quality, then he probably has all sorts of issues.
There’s nothing “wrong” with ensuring the survival of your own gene. That would be my answer. Anyway, I’m not rationalizing anything about it; I’m simply stating reality… I am male and females exist. In order to remain a part of evolution before dying, I must find a female (or females) that would be best suited for my child’s environment (genetically speaking). Therefore, I will reproduce whether anyone likes it or not. =D>
Marriage is a piece of paper… that’s all.
Are you sure that people confuse morality because of inadequacy? I mean, surely somebody does, but… maybe it just “feels good” for the deprived male to believe this… maybe it’s merely… an adaptation.
Not always true. There are many guys I’ve gotten to know before who have an undying need for sex (unsatisfied, most definitely), but are, at the same time, morally bankrupt about it. For example, the sexually deprived male says “I’d love to use women… that is my dream.” :-"
Your first statement: wrong. You contest that sexual inhibitions cause the future nonexistence of genes. But, consider the men who have, say, 3-5 children and also have inhibitions. I mean, obviously their genes will continue… even though daddy’s not a “whore hopper”. ROFL
How about empathy? Doesn’t social morality stem from empathy? Then again, empathy seems to only be used in order to meet selfish desires, so I’ll cautiously agree with you on this statement.
It’s not quantity, but quality that ensures survival. Abandoning your children isn’t “alpha” behavior at all, but rather, extremely beta. How so? Because, if your child is abandoned, then he/she will develop a complex system of intense grief and compensation due to loss of father, will fear abandonment from others in the future (due to good ol’ dad), and the problems continue almost indefinitely. If the promiscuous King of abandonment is so “alpha”, then why does he do such an action to weaken his children into severe beta mentalities? Obviously, such a move (abandonment, illegitimacy, etc.) will decrease his child’s chances of survival and reproduction, which would render the gene combination (sexual encounter) pointless and absurd.
Certainly, a male can have 20 children, but the males who raised their children have given an advantage to their offspring: No missing father complex. The married father of 4 children will raise kids who become stronger than the father who you’re calling “alpha”. Why? It’s nature… with both parents present, children, by probability, become healthy-minded individuals who are socially competent. Sometimes, of course, they don’t become competent, but that doesn’t veil the high probability that they will be. Socially competent people get to mate; socially incompetent people don’t. This “beta male” (as you call him) who is staying to raise his children… will be raising multiple kids who are more suited for survival than the fatherless ones. So, in the end, the male who raises multiple children alongside his wife is the most who leaves the stronger mark on the gene pool… stronger children. In a sense, many beta fathers breed to create alpha children, hence the human cycle.
“I’m sick of MEN!!! I’ll never fall in love AGAIN!!!” Mwiuiehehehahah!! Yes you will, dear! Come to daddy alpha!!
I’ll just throw the spanner into the works. What about the myth of the Amazonian woman, which exists in all continents, not just South America. A world controlled by women, who use men only for mating, to perpetuate the female’s genes. This type of social hierarchy still continues in primitive cultures in the Amazon region today.
How is this explained by the current hypotheses being discussed here?
Such myths and stories, even if true, pose no threat to the pre-human evolutionary theories of homo sapiens. I have read a great deal about the early evolution of man, from reputable and researched sources. Much of it is also common sense as well, but of course we dont know for sure exactly how we evolved into homo sapiens, or exactly what our lives as forest-dwelling primates consisted of, but we can paint a general picture from a combination of what we know about human bodies and psyches now + most up to date biological research and studies of current apes in the wild + some logical common sense.
I do have a lot of books on the subject, I find it fascinating, if you would like some reading suggestions let me know.
And as for the Amazon women theory, I have to say, so what? There may be a lot of truth to those stories. But such isolated and rare exceptions to a rule only prove the rule itself. Just because we focus on understanding male mating evolutionary history doesnt meant there is not also a female mating evolutionary history as well. There are many ideas about how females evolved their mating behaviors too. The Amazon women, if real, would have been an extreme case of female mating selection taking precedence over male mating selection behavior, for one reason or another - perhaps genetically those women were physically superior to most men in the tribe, or environmental demands were such that it gave women more clout in survival-related behaviors and so their mate selection bcame the primary factor in preserving a strong genetic lineage. It’s interesting to think about, but I see nothing within the idea itself that disproves or disagrees with either anything I’ve said already here, anything PN has said in his original topic post, or anything within generally accepted evolutionary theory itself.
Dating/mating ain’t no easy task, let alone when Alpha/Beta issues come into play, but I have no doubt that Alpha males/females do have the ability to be monogamous/know how to keep their pants/knickers on…
I have mixed feelings on the issue because there are some species that mate for life without going after a multitude of sexual partners.
Certainly there are some men who feel it individually necessary to go with many females as possible but there are also some men who mate with a woman for life while still there are others who just go with a couple.
Certainly monogamy has it’s evolutionary advantages in that the father is with the mother more longer where he can physically protect his offspring when the mother cannot and then of course life mating has it’s benefits of protecting against disease which with a multitude of partners you double your chances of acquiring.
If I remember right, it is usually avian species that have this “permanent life-long pairing”.
Primates, on the other hand, tend to be a much more horny specimen.
That depends if “ferocity” is hereditary.
Perhaps ferocity may be present as sort of a genetic “groove” within the wolf’s psyche - meaning that there is a genetic tendency to become aggressive and “ferocious”, but the actual aggressiveness and ferociousness itself must be learned or provoked by environmental factors.
The female sex drive is also sort of “programmed” to bypass the problem you proposed of the “over-breeding of aggressive traits”. If the males in the pack are so aggressive to the point that it causes problems, the females will be more prone to mating with males that are less aggressive.
The female sex drive is sort of like a fine-tuned equilibrium that leaves evolution with only one viable direction: the direction towards improvement. This seems to be present in a lot of mammalian species, including humans. And this “evolutionary equilibrium of the sex drive” is not strictly limited to the females of a given species; males might also have this innate “sexual equilibrium”.
Arguably, the male and female sex drives might have their own separate responsibilities for equalizing traits.
For example, think of the theoretical “wolf pack” mentioned above; perhaps the females’ sex drive might be responsible for regulating traits pertaining to aggressiveness (and this duty would be limited to just the females), while the males’ sex drive might be responsible for regulating something else, say, fur thickness or body size. Of course, I am just stating this as an example as I don’t know much about the canine sex drive; these are just hypothetical examples to help illustrate the concept of the sex drive posing as a regulator for a genetic equilibrium.
This whole “equilibrium” might actually be a delicate clockwork for sustaining the species - the frequency of certain genetic traits might be determined by a complex series of thresholds for a given trait and its purpose - a sort of “checks and balances” for genetic traits.
For example:
If there was a population of wolves experiencing unusually cold weather (obviously taking place over many generations, not just one cold season), the abnormal temperatures might trigger a genetic stabilizing mechanism within the male wolves’ psyche, causing them to have an increased sexual attraction towards females with thicker fur - this would lead to increase of traits for “thick fur” in the wolf population.
Note that the “sexual selection” theory of evolution is different from the commonly understood “natural selection” variant of the theory of evolution. It is often disagreed upon as to which type of “evolution” was responsible for an evolutionary change. It might be the case that only one is true - however, I believe (as well as most scientists) that both “sexual selection” and “natural selection” play significant roles in the process of evolution.
The “wolves in cold weather” scenario mentioned above could also be explained by natural selection: The wolves that had too thin of fur would end up dying from hypothermia, and the wolves with adequately thick fur would survive - leading to an increase of “thick fur” traits in the wolf population.
We could also just consider the third alternative of adaptation, in that wolves will naturally produce thicker fur when the climate begins to get colder. This would be most likely to occur in this “wolves in a cold climate” scenario. However, this mechanism allowing for temperature adaptation must have originally been derived from one of the two evolutionary processes mentioned above (sexual selection or natural selection).
We know, of course, that both sexual selection and natural selection are active to at least some extent, as we can use thought-experiments to identify examples of both:
We know that “sexual selection” must be true to some extent, simply because of the fact that we have a sex drive which prefers certain members of the opposite sex over others. If “natural selection” were the sole factor, then our sex drive would have no preference for a particular member of the opposite sex over any other member of the opposite sex; we would pair up with mates at random, and the process of evolution would be governed solely by the process of “bad traits” being filtered out, and “good traits” being refined.
We know that natural selection must be true to an extent, because it is the only way that the sexual selection could have been formulated. It is also, for the most part, common sense to assume that “the strongest survive, and their traits are passed on. The weak end up dying, and their traits aren’t passed on”.
The question is, “to what extent are natural and sexual selection active?” and “which one is dominant over the other?” The answers probably vary depending on the situation… Was it sexual selection, natural selection, or simply adaptation that caused the wolves’ fur to get thicker? If it was adaptation, then was it sexual or natural selection that created this ability to adapt to fluctuating temperatures?
In humans, sexual selection is typically not used as a response to fluctuations in the environment. Instead, the sexual selection of humans is much more straightforward. The human sex drive tells us “find the healthiest mate possible, and the mate that will produce/raise the best offspring”.
Let us analyze some of the characteristics that the human sex drive looks for, in both males and females.
Males will typically look for these traits in females:
Wide hips - this is an indication that the female’s body will be able to support the weight of the fetus
Breasts - this is important, as it indicates that the mother will be able to feed potential offspring
Pronounced body fat in key areas - this indicates a number of things, including the females health, and that the female’s body will be able to provide food for a fetus. These key areas are places such as the hips, thighs, ass, and breasts.
Absence of body hair - I honestly do not know the reason why males would need to find “less body hair” attractive. Perhaps it is just a cultural thing. Or, perhaps it is an additional indicator of the correct gender (as females tend to be less hairier than males, it might be one way for individuals to identify the gender)
Good skin quality - this is desired because it indicates good health and the lack of any diseases that might harm potential offspring.
Compassion - this psychological quality is desired because it indicates that the female will be a good parent for potential offspring
Intelligence - this indicates that the female will be less prone to accidents or situations that jeopardize the life of potential offspring
Females tend to look for these traits in males:
Muscularity - this is a sign of good health, as well as strength. It is an indicator that the male’s sperm will produce strong offspring.
Power - this is not only a sign that the male will be able to protect the female as well as offspring, but it also might be the result of hereditary traits that will be passed down to make powerful offspring. Things deemed “powerful” include money, fame, confidence, feats of strength, and being recognized as an alpha.
Height and broad bones - this is a sign of good health, and that the male was able to get adequate nutrition – subjecting potential offspring to traits that increase likelihood of obtaining adequate nutrition
Large genitalia - a sign of good health, and also an increased rate of fertility, since longer penises will ejaculate closer to the cervix, and the sperm will have less of a distance to travel for fertilization. This is also largely a cultural thing, as well as an aesthetic and hedonistic (presuming that larger penises cause more sexual stimulation) preference. Large testicles also indicate good health as well as larger amounts of sperm.
Adequate and non-excessive amounts of body fat - this indicates good health, but body fat is not as sought after as it is for males, since the males will not have to be providing food for a fetus and hence, body fat on a male is not as attractive as body fat on a female. Although, if body fat is present while muscularity and power are also present, then it could be taken as a sign of wealth and healthiness (usually in more primitive times, only the rich could afford to be obese. Hence, obesity was attractive as it was taken as an indicator of power).
Compassion - this indicates that the male will be a good caretaker. Again, this is not as sought after in a male as it is in a female. Studies also show that women prefer more compassionate men at certain phases in their menstrual cycle, and more masculine men at other phases in the menstrual cycle. It is also likely that traits associated with being a good caretaker are more preferred by a female that is pregnant or already has offspring.
Here is something new I wrote tonight. Fortunately, this piece of writing seems to be much more optimistic than the others, and also gives more credit to the females.
When do females voluntarily choose to mate with beta-males?
Christian (or other societal groups with strict morals against sex) women (assuming they practice the chastity imposed on them by their society’s morality) have had their sex drives denied for the entirety of their lives, making their desire for sex become stronger and more intense. They eventually might become desperate enough to the point where they are willing to mate with beta-males.
Some women will feign a relationship with a beta-male in order to make an alpha-male jealous.
In some cases, women will actually prefer a beta-male if he presents a strong display of self-defence against alpha-males, enough to the point of discouraging the alpha-male’s malicious actions (the malicious actions might be physical, psychological, etc).
Is it possible for all males in a social group to have a beta-male psychology? Consider that the persona of the beta-male can exist without the presence of an alpha-male. It is when a group of beta-males comes in contact with a female and tries to impress said female where the group becomes prone to elect an alpha-male.
Horny, without self discipline and self esteem = alpha… Who knew? I always kind of figured such people were just spoiled rotten and needed multiple partners to bolster low self esteem, “Look at me I can get anyone I want” Christmas all year round Now these are really Alphas , Top dogs, the cream of the crop. Wow, times do change.
Well sure and serial killers kill when they want to also it certainly does not mean they are alpha. That just means that they have bully type personalities with low self esteem and lacking control. Taking what you want when you want it does not mean that you are someone to look up to. It just means you can’t get it any other way. Getting sex anytime you want it does not mean you are the best, far from it. It just means you can manipulate, con, or pay for alot of liquor.
Sexual conquests demeans both parties. If a woman gets into bed so easily then that should make a guy stop and think, if the guy does go ahead and have sex with this woman he obviously is not thinking with the right brain, especially now adays with disease on every corner and Governments cracking down on dead beat Dads. It means this guy is a loser with a capital L just as a woman is that has sex with different guys every weekend. Unless you are a prostitute or a Gigalo that is.
you guys are the ones who are missing out. How old are you? Younger than 18? I want to let you know something, that girl you’ve always had a crush on in high school, she will have sucked on atleast 5 different penises by the time you turn 18, and you will never have that
because you were rejected, and in order to justify your hate for those who rejected you, you turned to philosophy. Every single one of you that are here right now. It is your tool.
I ain’t missing out on nothin - not having had random dicks shoved in my mouth (and other orifices) is nothing to have missed out on, infact… I thrived on the opposite
By the definitions here, low self-esteem, many many sex partners, I’m one of these despicable Alphas and I’m here! And unless I miss my guess you are here, too?
Once an Alpha succeeds in impregnating one of these desirable women it is possible that he will restrain himself from sleeping with every woman possible because he believes a stable home is optimum for the health and well being of his children. Our minds ‘can’ overcome our natural instincts. It doesn’t in many cases, most cases probably, but it can when something is important enough like love for your children and love for the mother of your children.
However, even when a male represses his natural instincts it doesn’t mean they go away. I’ve often marveled at the fact they spend so much time marketing Viagra and the like. What I’d like is the ability to watch television without becoming horny every fifteen minutes when the porn, er, commercials come on. Thank goodness for Tivo.
An Alpha should have brains enough that he should not have to restrain himself. The 3 Ds of sex should be all the restraint any male needs. If a man has lack of control and proceeds to hump like a rabbit every desirable female out there, then he is not worth his sperm. He is a creature that is not worth reproducing with. Brains are worth far more than producing sperm.
An intelligent alpha male is one that understands the consequences of sex, that would rather produce worthy children than random progeny and multiple orgasms with anything that has a desirable vagina.
:-"
Now these are really Alphas , Top dogs, the cream of the crop. Wow, times do change.