Female sexuality

[Monkeytrousers]

hello and welcome

Exactly, science can be harnessed by both left and right agendas. Whe feminism seems to be saying is that we should just leave it to the right to monopolise evolutionary theory, leaving us powerless to counter their politically motivated agendas.

I would recomment Peter Singer's book here; 'Towards a Darwinian Left'.

Thank you k, I will have a look. I wouldn't hold out very much hope for the calibre of my response though...

Thank you also for the info. about bonobos and so on, etin. Is it possible to say so categorically that there have never been female-dominated human societies? What about the archaeological evidence for paleolithic 'goddess' cults? As I understand it, it is impossible to be sure what kinds of societies produced these artefacts. For instance, would it be possible to argue that male dominance grew alongside agricultural settlement?

I still have a little trouble regarding EP as a science - but I will have a look at the article.

"Elizabetth, there is no such thing as biological determinism. Really."

It's exactly what you are arguing here. EPs are arguing that men will behave one way and women another because of our biology.

"The whole 'social constructionist'arument very well in fact, it is uselful as an abstarct, but not in any literal sense."

Oh I don't know. Feminism has achieved great thing using that particular type of analysis.

"You are being far too reactionary. It is limiting your (very obvious) logical faculties. Logic is as much a feminime faculty as masculibe; there is no such thing as a 'feminist science' or 'feminist logic'; only logic. There is no feminist physics, yet there are womwn (and men) who are feminists who are physicists.

Please tell me, what is it that you are afraid of??"

MonkeyTrousers, I have no idea what you are arguing. I have no problem with science. Science is a very impressive human achievement. I'm arguing that Evolutionary Psychology is unscientific. That's not a fear of science, it's a defence of it.

Could you please tell me one test or experiment you've undertaken that supports any of EP's hypotheses.

Ep is not unscientfic. No matter how manytiems you say it or wish it were true, will not make it true. Why do you think I would lie to you?

I don't have to convince anyone of that, even trying to do so would be akin to trying to convince someone that the moon isn't made of cheese; why on earth would you even engage in that discussion?

As for EP and testable hypothesis;

"If mechanisms would be found in one species that are designed exclusively to promote the welfare of another species, the evolutionary metatheory would be falsified, since such mechanisms cannot arise through natural selection. They have not been found yet. If in any species the sex that invests more in offspring (usually the females) were in general less discriminating in choice of mates than the sex that invests less (usually the males), a key assumption within Triver's parental investment theory would be falsified. All known species, however, fit the prediction. The evolutionary hypothesis that men prefer attractive women because a woman?s appearance provides a wealth of cues to her fertility can be falsified by testing whether the features of that men consider attractive in women?are linked to fertility. They are.

On the basis of evolutionary theory and knowing that our hominid ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers, we can make educated guesses about what design features our mind should have. These hypotheses can then be tested. If the hypothesised adaptations did evolve, they will manifest themselves as a reliable part of human nature across cultures, given the appropriate environmental input?

Ever since, asking why a particular design exists has proven to be a very productive line of research in biology. It has led us to the prediction of thousands of facts that were not known before.

William Hamilton?s formulation for inclusive fitness theory in the early 1960s, for instance, led to the discovery of psychological mechanisms producing behaviour that conformed to this nonintuitive theory in many animal species.

Knowing that our female forebears spent a lot of time gathering led Irwin Silverman and Marion Eals to predict that women should have evolved a superior object location memory, a prediction that was subsequently confirmed?

Eliss and Ketelarr (2000) offer a list of 30 recent empirical discoveries about human psychology derived from the application of evolutionary principles to the human mind. They include;

Sexually dimorphic mating strategies (Singh, 1993)

Waist-to-hip ratio as a determinant of attractiveness judgements (Singh 2002)

The use of cheater-detection procedures in social exchange (Daly and Wilson)

Stepchild abuse at 40 times the rate of non-stepchild abuse (Daly and Wilson, 1998/95)

Sex-linked shifts in mate preferences across lifespan (Daly and Wilson)

Predictable patterns of spousal and same-sex homicide (Daly and Wilson)

Maternal-foetal conflict during pregnancy (Silverman and Eals)

Superior female special memory (Silverman and Eals)

Design of male jealousy

Profiles of sexual harassers and their victims

Sex differences in the desire for sexual variety

Socialisation practices across cultures differing by sex and mating system (all Low, 1992)

Patterns of risk taking in intrasexual competition for mates

Shifts in grandparental investment according to sex of grandparent and sex of parent

And mate guarding as a function of female reproductive value"

Sorry thsi was quoted from Griets book, from a chapter called, 'Is Evolutioanry psychology scientifically defensible?'

I would recommend you buy the book and read the whole chapter yourself.

..If you have no idea what I am arguing, how can you be so vehemently opposed to it??

"Is it possible to say so categorically that there have never been female-dominated human societies? What about the archaeological evidence for paleolithic 'goddess' cults? As I understand it, it is impossible to be sure what kinds of societies produced these artefacts. For instance, would it be possible to argue that male dominance grew alongside agricultural settlement?"

Hi policywonk

There are certainly no societies today that are matriarchal. And few people now believe there could have been. There is a book:
Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace
by Judith Hand
in which Hand accepts that matriarchies have not existed except, perhaps, for the Minoans whose artifacts show a possible high status for women and possible co-dominance. She explains the particular circumstances that may have made this possible for this island community.

I do agree that male dominance no doubt reached new heights with agriculture, though.

But having goddesses does not mean female dominance as the status of female hindus shows for example. Many cultures have goddesses alongside low status for human females.

For there to be matriarchies there would have to be societies where the women arranged the movement of males between groups for marriage, had political authority in the groups, led the warriors against other groups etc etc. There's certainly no evidence for any of this.

The degree of status and influence females have in societies does vary.

I find the relationship between mothers and sons in bonobos interesting here. Some human societies deliberately prevent husbands and sons from having too close a relationship with wife or mother in order to undermine any infulence she might exert through them. And plenty have rituals for the boy to leave mother and become a man in a man's world.

And in our own society there is the separation of son from mother which is held to be an important aspect of his attainment of masculine independence. It's fine to be daddy's girl but not really to be mummy's boy, the cutting of the apron strings and all that.

..........

Peter Singer's book: 'Towards a Darwinian Left', recommended by MT earlier is a good book, making an argument for the left to embrace Darwinism.

Thanks etin - that is interesting. I suppose my only objection would be that it's not possible to know how societies were ordered in pre-historical times, so it seems unreasonable to base anything on assumptions about these societies. Admittedly, the determinedly male-dominated nature of almost all historically-known societies is a persuasive indication of what pre-historical socities might have been like.

I hope it's not irritating to bring up small points like this - I'm trying to comprehend the entire forest, tree by tree, if you know what I mean.

".If you have no idea what I am arguing, how can you be so vehemently opposed to it??"

I had no idea what you were talking about when you started bringing up "feminist physics" and that sort of thing. It was just completely off the wall and a complete mischaracterisation of what I'd said. Maybe I should have said "you have no idea what I'm talking about".

It's absolutely fine, policywonk. Glad you are interested.

Just to add that that unless we think we were bonobo like in our ape ancestry,(which I consider very unlikely) our similarities to chimpanzees would make it a very difficult and contrived argument to make for our ancestors to have flipped from male dominance to female dominance and back again.

We cannot know precisely how the early humans lived but we can make some pretty good guesses based on what we do know about extant tribal humans and our ape cousins and our recognition of our ancestral male hunting, burden of mothering, sexual dimorphism etc etc.

I am the only one who is sufficiently disinhibited (3 gl rioja after passing driving theory) to suggest that all this evolution has bugger all use to the Lady of Today, aren't I?

Isn't going to help us avoid sexual violence in reality.

Doesn't really help us negotiate the here and now of actual men that we actually live/work with/walk home in front of.

All much too speculative and energy-sucking and distracting and thus fulfills an arguably reactionary function.

Sorry.

Absolutely uderstand what you're saying OBM but have to disgagree.

The here and now is most important but sometimes in order to understand the here and now in the first place we have to look at the road that led to it.

I expect when someone goes to a therapist there has to be at least an overview of the persons life and even family history.

There is cognitive behaviour therapy which then concentrates on re-routing the brains well-trod thinking pathways. Some of this CBT, which is proving successful, has its connection to biological and evolutionary understanding of evolved brain mechanisms.

My brother works in mental health research. He's a VERY strong leftie but his research is throwing up sex differences that is starting to change his thinking. Even he now finds he wants to point out these differences but is afraid of the reaction.

And personally it has helped me in my relationship because I spent too long expecting my partner to be a woman/'me' with a penis.[doh!] I sometimes think the best relationship might be between two EP-ers - understanding the difference between the two sexualities, the different potentials for adultery, the different roles as parents.

If our behaviour is going to be put down to our hormones etc anyway, we might as well understand what the hell we have them for and what and why they do what they do and even what they aren't responsible for. And there's a hell of a lot of positive stuff about the female here. Perhaps that's the problem, thinking biology etc is inherently negative about females? Perhaps I've read so much positive stuff now that I forget there didn't used to be much if any?

Heard on the radio just now something about juries are going to have explained to them what women experience in a rape situation. Clearly there is still too much of a presumption that, as its sex, they can't be experiencing it very differently than the man or sex in any other sexual situation. Perhaps people do need some more evidence to believe women can't just want and enjoy sex in the way men do. (Though for women jurors I believe it is the self-protection mechanism involved here. So maybe even male and female jurors need to have different things explained too?)

Have you done your reading OBM?

etin (sorry to interrogate you but this is an interesting point I think): can you say how EP has informed your relationship with your partner? I mean, has it resulted in you taking a more traditional role within the relationship/child-rearing partnership? If you have accepted that your parner is not just a woman with a penis, then how have your expectations of him changed?

I don't think so at all Batty, though it is a very valid question. Most people think when we talk of our evolutionary history, that we are talking of us millions of years ago - how can that be relevant to who we are today? But the fact is we actually only began to change and shape our environment around 10,000 years ago. Before that, and for millions of years previously, we were hunter-gatherers.

As Carl Sagan says, for 99.9 of our human history we were wanderers, and even after "400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten" and one thing hasn't changed; then, as now, technology was the key to our survival. I would also say that an understanding of ourselves and our environment - how the two interact is crucial to our survival - and more so, our optimal survival and for our quality of life!

Also, as Jarad Diamond says in his brilliant book for beginners ?Why Is Sex Fun?, ?Perhaps too, if you understand why you feel driven to some self-destructive sexual behaviour, that understanding may help you gain distance from your instincts and to deal more intelligently with them?

Re matrilineal; societies, I have to agree with Etin, and the amount of evidence ? in spite of the search of it to suggest otherwise by thousands of researchers ? that points to it being very unlikely. That is not to say that women were/are not important in group hierarchies. In some ape societies, the dominant male is dependent on the support of high ranking females to maintain control. Hrdy talks of the importance of rank and respect for mothers, which in our society, women lose status, lose freedoms and independence upon becoming mothers. I would like to do some work on this in future ? about how society can restructure family policy to allow the mother a more fulfilling role in society and how she can become less financially dependent on her partner, which she is all but totally now, but which was not the case in our ?natural? environment. This I do sometimes wonder, may be linked to Friedman?s ?The Feminine Mystique? . This will be my next project after rape.

If humans ?flipped? in our history and became matrilineal, such as we see in Seahorses? perhaps ? where the males are the primary caregivers to offspring, there would be clues, biological and psychological, still here today. Evolution does not wipe the slate clean after new adaptations arise, it builds upon material already there, but if you dig below, you can see the remnants of a different time. There is no evidence pointing to this within humans. For women to become men (which they would have to do basically) they would have to relinquish all mothering, and quite obviously, that has not happened in such numbers and over such time for evolution to have selected and specialised for it. (Am I making sense Etin??) We do see that women can do this, that our society aids women to do this, but that they still don?t do it in sufficient numbers for it to be the norm; so it remains an anomaly with regards to female sexuality. Women (and especially mothers) certainly do want to be more autonomous than society allows ? as it usually means forsaking one for the other. I believe there is a middle ground to be worked on ? and an evolutionary perspective will be crucial.

I don't think so at all Batty, though it is a very valid question. Most people think when we talk of our evolutionary history, that we are talking of us millions of years ago - how can that be relevant to who we are today? But the fact is we actually only began to change and shape our environment around 10,000 years ago. Before that, and for millions of years previously, we were hunter-gatherers.

As Carl Sagan says, for 99.9 of our human history we were wanderers, and even after "400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten" and one thing hasn't changed; then, as now, technology was the key to our survival. I would also say that an understanding of ourselves and our environment - how the two interact is crucial to our survival - and more so, our optimal survival and for our quality of life!

Also, as Jarad Diamond says in his brilliant book for beginners ?Why Is Sex Fun?, ?Perhaps too, if you understand why you feel driven to some self-destructive sexual behaviour, that understanding may help you gain distance from your instincts and to deal more intelligently with them?

Re matrilineal; societies, I have to agree with Etin, and the amount of evidence ? in spite of the search of it to suggest otherwise by thousands of researchers ? that points to it being very unlikely. That is not to say that women were/are not important in group hierarchies. In some ape societies, the dominant male is dependent on the support of high ranking females to maintain control. Hrdy talks of the importance of rank and respect for mothers, which in our society, women lose status, lose freedoms and independence upon becoming mothers. I would like to do some work on this in future ? about how society can restructure family policy to allow the mother a more fulfilling role in society and how she can become less financially dependent on her partner, which she is all but totally now, but which was not the case in our ?natural? environment. This I do sometimes wonder, may be linked to Friedman?s ?The Feminine Mystique? . This will be my next project after rape.

If humans ?flipped? in our history and became matrilineal, such as we see in Seahorses? perhaps ? where the males are the primary caregivers to offspring, there would be clues, biological and psychological, still here today. Evolution does not wipe the slate clean after new adaptations arise, it builds upon material already there, but if you dig below, you can see the remnants of a different time. There is no evidence pointing to this within humans. For women to become men (which they would have to do basically) they would have to relinquish all mothering, and quite obviously, that has not happened in such numbers and over such time for evolution to have selected and specialised for it. (Am I making sense Etin??) We do see that women can do this, that our society aids women to do this, but that they still don?t do it in sufficient numbers for it to be the norm; so it remains an anomaly with regards to female sexuality. Women (and especially mothers) certainly do want to be more autonomous than society allows ? as it usually means forsaking one for the other. I believe there is a middle ground to be worked on ? and an evolutionary perspective will be crucial.

The thing is (as I understand it), in order to accept the EP perspective, you have to accept that human behaviour is an adaptation, in the same way as walking upright or not having a tail (yes?)

I don't think I do accept that. I think that human behaviour is much more malleable than that.

I realise that this is ABC stuff, but I'm just not convinced - and having had a look around on the web, I see I'm far from being the only one.

Nor at all. Ep is much more complext than that. There are other agents of evolution, and their are debates within the sciences about the influence of them. But no one discounts the adaptionist perspective on the whole, that is generally a misrepresentation of the argument. here's a good one though.

Have you seen this policywonk? I found it helpful when I was studying EP in clarifying the assumptions (or principles!) underlying the perspective.

Not directly concerning sexuality of course, more a general overview.

I suppose the key thing is the role of chance. Just because things have evolved in a certain way and we can look back at history and see patterns in it does not mean that there is reason why we should have necesarrily evolved in this way.

And, I just want to add; no one is saying ?I?m right and your are wrong?, that is not what I am saying to Elizabeth, or what evolutionary psychologists and biologists, are saying to other scientists. They are saying, ?lets look at this this way, lets see where this perspective leads us, lets look at the evidence and test it, lets see if it can help us understand ourselves better.? Not this is the way, just this might be the way, part of the way, lets see?that is certainly what I am saying to other feminists, as a feminist myself, about the evolutionary paradigm.

Ep has changed how I look at my relationshops with people, romantoc and otherwise, but it certaily hasn't made me accept traditional roles - many of which are culturally determined and counter to our female biology, if you will - which is why feminism evolved itself!

EP, like feminism, predicts that men will try to expl;oit women - some of the 'traditional' roles created for women are precisely these forms of exploitation. With out an EP perspective, we would not know this and would not be able to challenge them so robustly.

Thanks for that link MT. Are both Dawkins and Gould EP-ers then? Might add it to my Xmas list.

TM - will read, thank you.

I understand what you mean MT - it's interesting to be able to find out about this from my POV of almost total bafflement.

Good link TUM!

I'm still a bit about it TBH, despite the best efforts of Cosmides and Tooby. Interesting stuff, but contraversial.

"And, I just want to add; no one is saying ?I?m right and your are wrong?, that is not what I am saying to Elizabeth, or what evolutionary psychologists and biologists, are saying to other scientists. They are saying, ?lets look at this this way, lets see where this perspective leads us, lets look at the evidence and test it, lets see if it can help us understand ourselves better.? Not this is the way, just this might be the way, part of the way, lets see?that is certainly what I am saying to other feminists, as a feminist myself, about the evolutionary paradigm."

Oh really? Yet you and Griet Vandermassen have been arguing that EP should provide the intellectual underpinning for feminism and that if feminists don't accept it we are anti-science, blind and reactionary. If that's not a power grab I don't know what is.

The guys who wrote that ridiculous rape book, which was based on flawed analysis of data, as I understood wanted a total rethink in the prosecution of rape and the provision of services to rape victims based on their faulty analysis which they claim is Science and thus cannot be contradicted. The latter (services for victims) have been created by feminists when nothing existed and which now people see as an area ripe for takeover. Of course sexists don't like people talking about the way male power operates, they'd love to naturalise it, but the fact is behaviour to a great extent is a choice people make, particularly when people are choosing to hurt or oppress others.

MonkeyTrousers I asked you already which feminists you have read and if you answered it I may have missed it. You say your thesis is based on undermining social constructionist feminism and replacing it with Evo-psych theories. So which feminists in particular do you take issue with, and which of their arguments?

Off to read the links now.