Evolution: Is sexual selection sexist?

[Syne]

1. Monogamy (or stable, long term relationships) is an evolutionary advantageous practise only under some circumstances. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually exist other than as a social concept. Speaking of it in this context is useless and distracting, and is a social argument rather than a scientific one. 

Do species that mate for life only do so as a social concept?

[RainbowUnicorn]

1. Monogamy (or stable, long term relationships) is an evolutionary advantageous practise only under some circumstances. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually exist other than as a social concept. Speaking of it in this context is useless and distracting, and is a social argument rather than a scientific one. 

Do species that mate for life only do so as a social concept?  

Statistically speaking
http://www.livescience.com/1135-wild-sex...-rare.html

Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds. This select group includes beavers, otters, wolves, some bats and foxes and a few hoofed animals.

Humans certainly do not.
Never have. never will.
the evolutional imperative that drives the modern developed mind is not tied down to a single frame of reference when it comes to sexual practices.
EDITED TO ADD
many might start making comments about sexual activity not being the critical point(dividing/delination) of a relationship, however those same people would probably agree that they have more than 1 best friend through their life.
maybe even several. maybe even several at once.
should we start calling people friend-sluts ?

If one was to think that because a small minority (those of whom live around broken marriages) purport to assert an idealism over the personal lives of others while exploiting the negative emotional paradigms of seperation and other variations of semi-co-dependency issues, that this makes it a species traite... then i would suggest you are confusing an arguement of culture in place of nature.

the human species would never survive monogomy.
monogomy asserted by religious groups is done to assert psychological control over other people and to enslave the minds and children of those people.
its all about turning them into slaves.

[Ben the Donkey]

1. Monogamy (or stable, long term relationships) is an evolutionary advantageous practise only under some circumstances. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually exist other than as a social concept. Speaking of it in this context is useless and distracting, and is a social argument rather than a scientific one. 

Do species that mate for life only do so as a social concept?  

There are precious few species that do mate for life, Syne, as RU has already pointed out. Even among those, closer observation often reveals that they're not quite as monogamous as once thought. They cheat.

As I said, though, monogamy can be an evolutionary advantageous practice under some circumstances. To clarify that a little further, one only need look at history and anthropology.  
Obviously, having a partner (particularly in the case of women) makes the burden of children considerably lighter. I think "love" is a similar thing, and that's why it tends to wear off. It doesn't need to last very long, only long enough for the job to be done which is, in a nutshell, to make pair-bonding a little less onerous in the short term.  

Another thing to bear in mind is that most of the animal kingdom don't really have lifespans equal to ours. Of the species listed in RU's linked article, some only live for 20 years at the outside, and most considerably less. Humans had a lifespan of only a few decades not long ago. Taking a partner, particularly in the lower classes, tended to be a very different prospect as little as a couple of centuries ago, when it was more likely a person would die of some horrid disease after a few years than of "old age". One just mostly held out hope the kids came before that happened (and that also explains why they had them much earlier, in general, than they do now). 
I mean, there's a reason women were considered old maids if they weren't married and pregnant by 18 years of age, and a reason why it was considered fine for men (particularly wealthier ones) to marry later, and marry younger partners. That's at least twofold, by the way. Older men can still father children, and they had a bit more time in which to amass enough wealth to cater for a family. Marrying "age-appropriately" is also a relatively modern thing - and a human thing.

Taken in context, mating "for life" didn't quite have the same meaning it does now. There is a significant difference between pair bonding for life being equivalent to ten or twenty years or so, and pair bonding for life meaning being with the same person for 60+ years. This is, at least partially, the reason marriages are becoming less and less "for life" in the modern western world. Few can handle it, and if they do then it's generally due to other factors (economic as well as social). Statistically speaking, marriages last longer among the wealthy than they do among the less wealthy, in a kind of bell-curve graph of average marriage lengths. That's the economic angle, and again a social construct rather than a natural one.
In addition, women are far less likely now to actually marry the fathers of their children than they were. Why? Because they no longer need to. Social constructs ensure the children are taken care of regardless. People are leaving marriage until later in life, and in increasing numbers not marrying at all. 

In the modern western world, monogamy is becoming less and less necessary, even ostensible monogamy. We still kowtow to it, at least to some extent, mostly because social mores, once in place, do take quite some time to change - particularly when they aren't actively harmful. That monolithic entity we know as the Church still exerts plenty of influence even while no longer being really as necessary or beneficial as it once was. 
Which brings me back around to the point that homosexuality really isn't detrimental to the species, and that's at least partially why it continues to survive (and thrive, given societies ability to ensure the continuation of pretty much any aberration we care to name). Back in the bad old days, humanity needed to procreate quickly in order to survive at all, and homosexuality prevented that to some extent - at least on the surface. So it became evil. Now it doesn't, so it's not anymore. Simple, really. 

If you really want to know more about the change in social constructs as a result of changing population and economic factors, just take a look at modern Japan. As an appetiser, read about Soshoku-Kei Dansi, or "Herbivore Men". Those Japanese really nail social categorisation.

And then we could start going into what constitutes attractiveness and why it varies according to sex, why women are generally more attracted to more "feminine" physical features in men now they they were not long ago, why what is considered attractive in women changes over the years, and... fuck I'm sick of typing, I've glossed over several things as it is. 
Suffice to say, Orlando Bloom should probably be grateful he was born in this day and age rather than an earlier one.

Oh, and by the way - that little emoticon people use so casually now? As you did?
You ever wonder why an expression of exasperation with stupidity coincides with rolling the eyes toward the heavens?

---

Oooo!  I like it.  Not bad, Ben.  Not bad at all.  That’s one way that nurture/culture could have had a positive effect on their reproductive fitness.  Just think about what Tiassa was saying in regards to the all the married men, the so-called heterosexual males (It’s not gay if…).  That would be friggin' hilarious if homophobic attitudes contributed to their reproductive success (skeletons in the closet).

I’m a little confused, though, because Syne has been listing properties, possible causes, and implications.  We could continue to go back and forth in this process, but he said that his opinion was a meta-ethical stance. I thought that meta-ethics wasn’t concerned with properties, or whether or not something was right or wrong, but more about how we determine whether something is right or wrong.  So, it seems to me that we might want to ask how normality and deviations from normality affect our concept of right and wrong.

With regard to the bolded - I know, right?

Later, for the rest.

[Ben the Donkey]

I’m a little confused, though, because Syne has been listing properties, possible causes, and implications.  We could continue to go back and forth in this process, but he said that his opinion was a meta-ethical stance. I thought that meta-ethics wasn’t concerned with properties, or whether or not something was right or wrong, but more about how we determine whether something is right or wrong.  So, it seems to me that we might want to ask how normality and deviations from normality affect our concept of right and wrong.

I hadn't actually put much thought into it - and to be honest had to go look up what meta ethics actually were. Quite a large topic, even going by Wikipedia articles.

Right and wrong to me are merely subjective expressions of utility. Most of what I post is going to consist of some nihilistic response based upon that. 
It seems apparent that a key to meta ethics would necessarily be a morally neutral initial stance (as far as that is possible) and a healthy understanding and/or appreciation of evolutionary theory, history and anthropology (at the very least). 

So I'm unlikely to argue for monogamy, in this particular case, but then I'm unlikely to judge the merit of any other form of cohabitation either. Any emotionally based response I might have to the question is, simply put, irrelevant. I might feel it, but as far as possible I don't allow it to enter into my thinking when considering the question of causality. 
When I'm wrong about something, I can usually point to an emotional influence being the cause of error. Either that, or I'm dead drunk or something, which pretty much amounts to the same thing (or at the very least helps explain the deviation from norm)... but I'm sure you get my drift. 

So, in answer to your question;
The first thing to do is assess what your notions of normality actually are, and then obviously what we might consider deviations from that would naturally follow. A further trick is in the final admission that normality doesn't actually exist per se, but is merely an expression of perceived continuity within the context of our own lifespans, our documented history or our current understanding of science - or some combination of all three.

"How" our perception off normality affects our moral judgements should be fairly obvious, with reference to cognitive bias (as a net concept). 
By way of example, theists are generally quite fucked in this respect, being susceptible to several cognitive bias variations with no recourse to overcoming them even if such a thing was desired. This is why the Catholic church (and many others) are now in the unenviable position of being unable to deviate from obviously antiqued positions, even if they have a desire to remain relevant, without losing considerable credibility. Muaha. 

Erm... two thirds of a bottle down at this point. And running out of mixers again.

So, by way of a  somewhat hasty summation:
There is no such thing as normal. There is only that which is currently normal, based upon expediency. As circumstance changes, so too does what is considered normal.

Humans aren't particularly content with dealing with what is, they'd prefer to change it. That's one major reason we're moderately successful as a species. 
When one has grown up with the understanding that dark can be changed into light by flicking a switch, a certain expectation arises surrounding the changing of other things as well. This is the reason for all of this argument and conflict. 

Unfortunately, social conditioning isn't one of those things, and while modern generations, in the words of the great Freddie Mercury, want it all and want it now, there are some things which will only be achieved by doing what our very, very distant ancestors did - squat in a cave somewhere, and wait for the sun to come up. 

Aaaand it's time for me to put the bottle down and ... hmm. Do something else.

[Secular Sanity]

That was perfect.

Thanks, Ben.

[Syne]

Sex differences.

"There's an experiment in which sex stereotyped toys, trucks and dolls, were given to mix sex groups. Now I'm sure that all you will guess correctly which sex preferred which, but these males and females were Vervet monkeys. Now consider newborn babies. Even at one day old, girls prefer a human face and boys prefer mechanical mobiles. Now neither those monkeys nor babies had been brainwashed, socialized, stereotyped, ghettoized, or any of these other things, and they hadn't even encountered toys or mobiles previously. Rather what these results of these little experiments capture is an evolved sex difference in interests. Women are far more interested in people and men are far more interested in things."

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/sJZjqnF6gag

[Ben the Donkey]

I've heard of a few of those types of experiments - interesting, isn't it.

[RainbowUnicorn]

[quote pid='9859' dateline='1485559610']
Statistically speaking, marriages last longer among the wealthy than they do among the less wealthy, in a kind of bell-curve graph of average marriage lengths. That's the economic angle, and again a social construct rather than a natural one.

[/quote]
just picking out a few things as they cross my mind.
i read a Benjamin Franklin quote a few days ago which had me reading up on average life spans around that era.
interestingly enough his age was used by some to represent the equality of quality of life as some form of vague justification while the majority placed te average life span at around 35 years old.
the hiding of common facts by bourgeois historians is quite a statement of social classes.

that aside, i have read several times that one of the primary listed reasons for marriage break downs is financial problems.
Thus what effect money has on mating is quite nonconfluent.

additionally what is deliberately shrouded in malaise is the actual process of procreation by conscious descision.
pre requisits of non physical atributes
pre requisits for physical atributes
pre requisits for social atributes
and the newist one financial pre requisits
accompanied by intended and unintended procreation.

it tends to render the data into a useles state when sexual selection is hidden amongst un-intended procreation.
more soo when couple bonding is used as a premise for sexual selection as a process of conscious selection based on cultural pre requisits(sexism)

thus we are left with the premise that sexual selection for sexual activity has very little to no real bearing on procreation.
soo much so that arguements directed at the premise of species ideological breeding practices shrugged toward darwinian concepts for historical false validation tend to relegate the discussion and data into the realm of social religion as a purported moral doctrine rather than science.

---

Sex differences.

"There's an experiment in which sex stereotyped toys, trucks and dolls, were given to mix sex groups. Now I'm sure that all you will guess correctly which sex preferred which, but these males and females were Vervet monkeys. Now consider newborn babies. Even at one day old, girls prefer a human face and boys prefer mechanical mobiles. Now neither those monkeys nor babies had been brainwashed, socialized, stereotyped, ghettoized, or any of these other things, and they hadn't even encountered toys or mobiles previously. Rather what these results of these little experiments capture is an evolved sex difference in interests. Women are far more interested in people and men are far more interested in things."

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/sJZjqnF6gag

time mark 08:10
discribing the variance in the sample data spread.
ok...
so there is only 2 genders in this study
female (less prominance in the presentation)
male (greater prominance in the presentation)
no big deal, i dont have issue with that.
however...
ive just got up to the bit where she says the variance in the sample data invalidates the male result
"the tails are far less far apart.But among males, the variance can be great, HUGE, so males are almost bound to be over represented both at the bottom, ... and at  the  top."

say what ?
if your data is divided into 2 groups.
group 1 female
group 2 male
from where do you define the sample of 50% of the data to be over represented when you have already applied the only single filter ?
after watching the rest of the short talk i gather she is highly unlikely to be a spin-doctor or half mad inverted mania chasing flag waiver.
thus i apply reason to ask what is the unspoken discussion to define sample data as being over representative ?
there must be a whole seperate discussion on this "what is sample over representation of a binary data set".
if anyone comprehends statistics enough to explain this to me could you please use small words.

cant wait to hear her discuss the common coloquel  moral language of law & order Vs Justice when you "bring someone to justice".

[Secular Sanity]

Sex differences.

Men are more interested in things/objects/motion.  
Women are more interested in people/emotions/communication.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Bm9xXyw2f7g

Why a truck?  The monkey doesn’t know the trucks purpose. They’re spinning the wheels, showing interest in moving parts.

Autistic children are attracted to objects, as well.  They’re also obsessed with spinning objects. Restricted interests involve fixation on certain objects and toys, such as cars, trucks, trains.  All of which, have moving parts.  They like to stack them, line them up, and compartmentalize them.  They use self–stimulation activities in order to calm hyper–responsive activity. When the monkeys are in captivity they resort to stereotypical movements, as well.  There are a few studies that show that females with autism may go unnoticed because they may be closer to typically developing males in their social abilities.

It’s almost as if autism is an extreme version of the male brain.

Yeah, "romantic" is just more about the setting, and women prefer the gestalt, with closeups on things like kissing, rather than a lot of crude genital close ups.

IMHO, I don’t think that women prefer closeups to the whole picture.  I think that men prefer closeups because they like to deal with parts/objects; breasts, lips, legs, buttocks, etc.  You’re not dealing with a person, a relationship, you’re dealing with parts. We’re more than the sum of our parts.

[Syne]

Yeah, "romantic" is just more about the setting, and women prefer the gestalt, with closeups on things like kissing, rather than a lot of crude genital close ups.

IMHO, I don’t think that women prefer closeups to the whole picture.  I think that men prefer closeups because they like to deal with parts/objects; breasts, lips, legs, buttocks, etc.  You’re not dealing with a person, a relationship, you’re dealing with parts. We’re more than the sum of our parts.

I said "women prefer the gestalt" (whole picture). And if women do like any closeups, it's on things that have more emotional impact, like kissing. Men generally like closeups because they are more visually stimulated. While I don't consider myself a wholly typical male and often prefer the gestalt, there are some things of which I enjoy more detailed visuals....and others I definitely do not appreciate.