Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on April 05, 2011, 10:05:14 am
-
I talk a lot. Most women I know are disgusted by it, by the very thought of it. I have no "peer-review paper" about this, but it seems obvious to me that since the feedback is not female, but male fantasy, even if it tasted really bad it wouldn't matter, they would drink it just the same. And that feeling pervades all the movies out there.
Meaningless. Sampling bias. ****s can taste pretty weird sometimes, that doesn't stop you. If you're hung up on the idea of drinking semen that's pretty weird.
No, I'm not. That's just how the conversation went, mostly because you disagreed.
This is one of the great myths of our time, but right in your next paragraph you explain the very reason you shouldn't believe it:
Apart from these basic concepts one can derive pretty easy, and given all the sufficient caveats due to what I mentioned as hard "iterations", I do not trust "evolutionary psychology" papers *at all*, they are mostly trash talk disguised as science. People should be ashamed to publish such amount of nonsense without any kind of empirical back up.
Is it a myth, though? It seems pretty potent as an argument. By all means dissect it and you may ressurect in me the perfect egalitarian I always wanted to be.
Bull****. This is so blatantly obvious. The fact that women need to protect their sexuality directly stems from the fact that she carries the burden of childbirth and can only give birth to one child for a year, needs extra protection while at it, and needs careful attention and support thereafter.
This is a strong incentive for female promiscuity. There's a mechanism called sperm competition which incentivizes women to mate with multiple partners in rapid succession so they get the best quality offspring. They can also draw in multiple fathers for their children.
Ridiculous. What you would get would be genes of males who would be very good at fertilizing eggs, regardless of the "fitness" of said individuals in their own lives. It seems pretty obvious to me that women do heavy selecting, preying for men that can be competent at providing them with the best support they must have when they do give birth. And it seems obvious to me that men insist on the monogamy of their wifes to assure their offspring is really theirs.
The fact that females carry the large ova provides the biological incentive for them to be what we so derisively term sluts.
I really don't see how. As fact, it seems to me, rather the opposite, women get to be extremely selective of any sperm that gets inside her.
The fact that men are "stereotypically" macho men directly stems from the fact that more distributed sperm will increase the chances that his genes get reproduced all around the place.
Folk logic, but unfortunately it doesn't hold up. 'Spreading the seed' is a tactic that can pay off, but it's not the only one. In actuality, fitness (what you call 'the chances that his genes get reproduced all around the place' is as much tied to traits we associate with fey, gay, effeminate men as we do with hairy alphas.
Yes, that also happens. But the alpha males are very successful too, and mythical. Thus the result is you have lots of effeminate males pretending to be alpha males for social recognition, i.e., being "slutty" is good for their reputation.
Like I've said, if you're going to play in the deep end, you need to learn to swim. And that means learning the science on this topic before you discuss it.
You're making two separate arguments here. One is that porn is boring and mechanical, which I agree with. The other is that acts like anal, facials, gangbangs and so on are inherently degrading things which no women can enjoy. This is a pretty misogynistic argument which stems from a fear of female sexuality.
I never said that. I said there is clearly a bias in these movies. All these activities are "kinky", but they are men fantasies, and they are pervasive, ubiquituous.
Like I said, once you're in a loving comfortable relationship that allows you to explore these things, you'll learn to shed the fears involved and to treat sex behaviors like flavors of ice cream. It doesn't mean you need to start getting pegged in the ass, but it also means you can stop going into moral panic mode every time you think about a woman enjoying anal.
Really Battuta, grow the **** up before teaching the mass to the priest, mkay?
-
You actually are a virgin teen, aren't you? That is rough. We've all been there but I don't think it's the best place to make arguments about sexuality from.
LOL
I'll PM you.
(Oh I seem I can't lol)
I won't be givin you photos. But I am 29, and do have 3 kids.
-
Um, I wonder if you're having English language difficulties. Statistical arguments and logical arguments are completely different. A statistical argument is based on data gathered empirically. A logical argument is based on derivation from first principles using established rules.
If you believe that, then you are a frequentist. I'm deeply sorry for you.
-
"frequentist"? What the hell is that supposed to be?
Also, there is no need for triple posting. You can modify your own posts. Learn how to do it.
-
It's true that *some* women may feel pleasure at the germane activity of inoculating semen through their oral orifice. It's also true there are women who like anal, who like all the physical abuse men can imagine putting them through.
They are not, by far, the majority of them.
You literally have no idea about this, you just made that up. You have no evidence whatsoever and no grounds to make a statistical claim about majorities and minorities. Anal can be fun and easy and doesn't have to be painful. Swallowing semen isn't any different than licking a ****. It tastes funny, you get used to it.
I talk a lot. Most women I know are disgusted by it, by the very thought of it. I have no "peer-review paper" about this, but it seems obvious to me that since the feedback is not female, but male fantasy, even if it tasted really bad it wouldn't matter, they would drink it just the same. And that feeling pervades all the movies out there.
Ok... let's talk some facts: Taste actually varies greatly depending on what you ate, as anyone who has been in a healthy sexual relationship should know, because your woman will definitely tell you in so many words if you ate the wrong stuff before the act.
I.e. in the most simple terms: lots of red meat = BAD (makes for a good April 1st joke tho); Pineapple Juice = Nature's best invention ever.
My suspicion would be that you were not in an intimate relationship with any of the women that you have your limited "data" from. My next question would be if any of the women you were talking to even had a longterm intimate relationship before in their lives.... and next, if you think they would openly talk to you about intimate sexual details; If a girl answers "ewww" it may matter of fact not have anything to do with the content of the question that was asked, but rather of their perception of whom was asking that question and what relationship they have with that person.
-
Google is your friend, and I'm sorry, I'll try to be less of a spammer.
...it may matter of fact not have anything to do with the content of the question that was asked, but rather of their perception of whom was asking that question and what relationship they have with that person.
Nice subtle way of saying that I'm probably a dick.
-
Is it a myth, though? It seems pretty potent as an argument. By all means dissect it and you may ressurect in me the perfect egalitarian I always wanted to be.
This doesn't have much to do with egalitarianism. The concept we're discussing here is called an ESS, an evolutionary stable strategy. Fortunately, these strategies can be calculated through field observation and used to derive equations. We can model mating behavior with game theory to determine how animals (including humans) will behave sexually.)
Ridiculous. What you would get would be genes of males who would be very good at fertilizing eggs, regardless of the "fitness" of said individuals in their own lives. It seems pretty obvious to me that women do heavy selecting, preying for men that can be competent at providing them with the best support they must have when they do give birth. And it seems obvious to me that men insist on the monogamy of their wifes to assure their offspring is really theirs.
Okay, let's start with a definition of fitness off Wikipedia because I can't be arsed to dig out my textbooks.
Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles at a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.
An individual's fitness is manifested through its phenotype. As phenotype is affected by both genes and environment, the fitnesses of different individuals with the same genotype are not necessarily equal, but depend on the environment in which the individuals live. However, since the fitness of the genotype is an averaged quantity, it will reflect the reproductive outcomes of all individuals with that genotype.
Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the ability of an allele in one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that allele, in preference to individuals with a different allele. One mechanism of inclusive fitness is kin selection.
Got that? Fitness is a mathematical outcome measure. It doesn't mean you're big and muscular or that you maintain a harem of loving wives. It just measures your ability to pass on your genes, whether through your own children or your siblings'.
So, step one:
What you would get would be genes of males who would be very good at fertilizing eggs, regardless of the "fitness" of said individuals in their own lives
Exactly! Exactly! This is a key component of fitness. You can be a scrawny weakling with poor eyesight and bad complexion, but if your sperm are kickass, you may come ahead in the fitness race.
And in fact if you examine human sperm this is just what you find. Our sperm are designed to outrace other sperm, even, in some postulated cases, to fight and block them.
For a quick mathematical proof of this you can look at other species, like the ground squirrel. The size of testicles in these species scales with the average number of mates the FEMALES have. This is because the males need a load of sperm to compete. So powerful is this mechanism that in some ground squirrels the testicles physically drag on the earth.
Evolution is an arms race. Females want to mate sleep around. Males generally want to stop them. Thus you find traits such as:
Sperm competition has led to other adaptations such as larger ejaculates, prolonged copulation, deposition of a copulatory plug to prevent the female re-mating, or the application of pheromones that reduce the female's attractiveness
read more heah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_fitness
It seems pretty obvious to me that women do heavy selecting, preying for men that can be competent at providing them with the best support they must have when they do give birth.
Female choice is indeed a powerful part of evolution, but it's not solo female choice. Take the case of birds, who are statistically far more loyal to their mates than humans or pretty much any mammal. The female will go for the most evolutionarily fit male it can get. And then, even in this paragon of monogamy, the female will then attempt to sneak out of the nest and mate with other males too - because that strategy results in higher fitness for the female.
The male will, as you said, attempt to control this behavior. This is why men get so controlling about female sexuality, and why we end up with people who think it's somehow a problem for women to enjoy sex.
But there are also documented human societies where the belief arose that every child had more than one father. Each mother would maintain a stable of husband, each of whom would support all the mother's children. These societies have been best documented in the Amazon and may represent a relic of early human social structures.
The fact that females carry the large ova provides the biological incentive for them to be what we so derisively term sluts.
I really don't see how. As fact, it seems to me, rather the opposite, women get to be extremely selective of any sperm that gets inside her.
Exactly - but the very fact that they can be selective within themselves (and they can) provides the incentive for them to get a lot of sperm inside! The womb demands a buffet so it can select the fittest fertilizer. Thus the biological drive for women to sleep around every bit as much as men.
Yes, that also happens. But the alpha males are very successful too, and mythical. Thus the result is you have lots of effeminate males pretending to be alpha males for social recognition, i.e., being "slutty" is good for their reputation.
Again you're talking out of folk logic. When you actually do the math you can calculate how well the alpha strategy pays off. And it rapidly tails off when the group becomes cognitively eusocial.
I never said that. I said there is clearly a bias in these movies. All these activities are "kinky", but they are men fantasies, and they are pervasive, ubiquituous.
Then how do you respond to the women who enjoy porn and to the link I posted arguing that porn can be valuable and beneficial to women?
**** I said myself that most porn is boring, mechanical, and problematic because it's clearly shot from a male gaze, but that doesn't render the acts of group sex, facials or anal somehow inherently wrong, which is the whole point I'm contending here. Are you conceding that or what?
Like I said, once you're in a loving comfortable relationship that allows you to explore these things, you'll learn to shed the fears involved and to treat sex behaviors like flavors of ice cream. It doesn't mean you need to start getting pegged in the ass, but it also means you can stop going into moral panic mode every time you think about a woman enjoying anal.
Really Battuta, grow the **** up before teaching the mass to the priest, mkay?
Bro I think you're missing a key point here, I'll let you read around until you spot it
Um, I wonder if you're having English language difficulties. Statistical arguments and logical arguments are completely different. A statistical argument is based on data gathered empirically. A logical argument is based on derivation from first principles using established rules.
If you believe that, then you are a frequentist. I'm deeply sorry for you.
Describe to me the empirical utility of an ANOVA test and explain in less than 500 words when it should be used instead of a linear regression model.
The foundation of science, especially social science, is the use of unbiased, unskewed samples to draw conclusions about a population. You can't reject the value of empirical data without rejecting science.
-
Nice subtle way of saying that I'm probably a dick.
That is neither what i said nor what i meant.
If what you are asking a women is deemed (by her) to be too intimate for your level of "relationship" then the answer will likely be "ewww" even or rather especially if you are her best "friend".
Even in a relationship it usually takes time for enough trust to develop to openly talk about things that you like and even more trust to talk about things that you would like to try.
Sometimes people may even get married without having developed that kind of trust - which i would say is unfortunate for both of them, but it happens.
Traditional upbringing and last centuries notion that sex is something "dirty" that should not to be talked about certainly is a factor.
-
Post updated, read it before the next round of a bloo blah bloo
-
Aaaargh triple post but I forgot I had this on bookmark:
It's not from a peer reviewed source but I can back up the fact that the content here is excellent. Read this for a transparent, easy evolutionary explanation of why women want to bang everything in sight as much as men do (which isn't actually that much for either sex, but a bit). (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/promiscuity.html)
-
Got that? Fitness is a mathematical outcome measure. It doesn't mean you're big and muscular or that you maintain a harem of loving wives. It just measures your ability to pass on your genes, whether through your own children or your siblings'.
Of course I got that.
Also, 2+2 is four.
Got that GB?
So, step one:
What you would get would be genes of males who would be very good at fertilizing eggs, regardless of the "fitness" of said individuals in their own lives
Exactly! Exactly! This is a key component of fitness. You can be a scrawny weakling with poor eyesight and bad complexion, but if your sperm are kickass, you may come ahead in the fitness race.
*... all else being equal*, you forgot to add. My point is that such a way of selecting the genes of your offspring (if you are a woman) is very very bad. The fitness of a male also has to quantify for the supportive aspect. If he doesn't support his offspring, they will die more often that the offspring of those who do. His fitness doesn't end in the sexual act. Also pretty damned obvious. And since women don't get much chances to give births, they *do* have to be selective.
Females want to mate sleep around. Males generally want to stop them
I really don't see how. That's bat**** crazy. Why would women be so reliant on randomness if they can competently choose their mates with the best prospects of being supportive for their offspring? That strategy would only degrade their genes' fitness.
Female choice is indeed a powerful part of evolution, but it's not solo female choice. Take the case of birds, who are statistically far more loyal to their mates than humans or pretty much any mammal. The female will go for the most evolutionarily fit male it can get. And then, even in this paragon of monogamy, the female will then attempt to sneak out of the nest and mate with other males too - because that strategy results in higher fitness for the female.
... after having "conquered" the best male, who provides safety for the "family", we get her trying to randomize the gene pool a little. It makes perfect sense, and it is not in contradiction to what I said. Until said male is "conquered" in such a "safe" fashion, females would tend to be very defensive.
The male will, as you said, attempt to control this behavior. This is why men get so controlling about female sexuality, and why we end up with people who think it's somehow a problem for women to enjoy sex.
Yeah, patriarchism and all that ****. Sure.
But there are also documented human societies where the belief arose that every child had more than one father. Each mother would maintain a stable of husband, each of whom would support all the mother's children. These societies have been best documented in the Amazon and may represent a relic of early human social structures.
The exception make the rule.
I really don't see how. As fact, it seems to me, rather the opposite, women get to be extremely selective of any sperm that gets inside her.
Exactly - but the very fact that they can be selective within themselves (and they can) provides the incentive for them to get a lot of sperm inside! The womb demands a buffet so it can select the fittest fertilizer. Thus the biological drive for women to sleep around every bit as much as men.
What? You are telling me that a woman can select the sperm that gets inside from multiple men to fertilize her? Now you are jumping the shark!! roflmao!! And I'm the one being fed with definitions ahahah!
Then how do you respond to the women who enjoy porn and to the link I posted arguing that porn can be valuable and beneficial to women?
...that I didn't argue from absolutes? And that there is quite a variety of bull**** studies everywhere that claim that X and Y and Zed is "beneficial" to A, B and C, with some p values deriven from the most astonishingly bad sources ever?
Describe to me the empirical utility of an ANOVA test and explain in less than 500 words when it should be used instead of a linear regression model.
The foundation of science, especially social science, is the use of unbiased, unskewed samples to draw conclusions about a population. You can't reject the value of empirical data without rejecting science.
ROFLMAO. You missed it entirely. Look, if I am making the case that porn is heavily biased towards men's fantasies and that it is mostly more degrading to women than to men (my original comment look it up), then it makes absolutely no sense to state that I'm "generalizing" that porn is "degrading to women" with an implied "always". This is logic at work. It's also a statistically very simple bayesian argument.
And I'll pass your attempt at submitting myself for your amusement as if I'm some student of yours. You're the one claiming that vaginas choose speficic sperm to enter their eggs, not me, ahahah!
-
From Battutas link:
These statistics cry out for exp
lanation -- and it turns out women do have an evolutionary incentive to screw around. The light began to dawn during studies of chimpanzee populations. Female chimps who spurn low-status bachelor males from their own band are much more willing to have sex with low-status bachelor males from other bands.
That actually explains certain holiday experiences in other countries (LOL).
-
When you actually do the math you can calculate how well the alpha strategy pays off. And it rapidly tails off when the group becomes cognitively eusocial.
The myth stays, and that's my point. There are natural reasons for the cockyness of alpha males. You don't need to *be* an alpha male, you just need to have the *mythos* of it. Most women like it, even. And then they try to *tame* them. Exactly how it is expected to be.
-
When you actually do the math you can calculate how well the alpha strategy pays off. And it rapidly tails off when the group becomes cognitively eusocial.
The myth stays, and that's my point. There are natural reasons for the cockyness of alpha males. You don't need to *be* an alpha male, you just need to have the *mythos* of it. Most women like it, even. And then they try to *tame* them. Exactly how it is expected to be.
And I'll pass your attempt at submitting myself for your amusement as if I'm some student of yours. You're the one claiming that vaginas choose speficic sperm to enter their eggs, not me, ahahah!
Selection based on fitness in harsh environments. The Vagina is actually a very hostile environment to sperm... only a very small percentage ever makes it past the cervix. - That's why ya need millions of them and why a decreased sperm count or decreased sperm mobility may effectively mean an inability to father children. (Or at least it may mean a huge amount of tries is required for eventual success.)
May the fittest sperm win the race... that's how natural selection works, ya know?
-
Mikes, he was saying that vaginas "selected" specific sperm from specific providers.
He may well not meant it. In fact I don't believe he meant it. But he did say it.
The fact that there is a sperm race is ridiculously out of the point, irrelevant and basic.
So stop the condescending act.
-
Mikes, he was saying that vaginas "selected" specific sperm from specific providers.
Hardly in the way you think he meant it. Conception does usually not immidiately happen during/right after intercourse. Selection of the best sperm from multiple partners is therefore entirely possible.
Before we start arguing about who meant what however, I'll leave it up to Battuta to put it right though.
-
*... all else being equal*, you forgot to add. My point is that such a way of selecting the genes of your offspring (if you are a woman) is very very bad. The fitness of a male also has to quantify for the supportive aspect. If he doesn't support his offspring, they will die more often that the offspring of those who do. His fitness doesn't end in the sexual act. Also pretty damned obvious. And since women don't get much chances to give births, they *do* have to be selective.
It's not bad, not at all. The link I posted above addresses it in general terms. You'll need a grounding in EGT math to work out the exact payoffs.
I really don't see how. That's bat**** crazy. Why would women be so reliant on randomness if they can competently choose their mates with the best prospects of being supportive for their offspring? That strategy would only degrade their genes' fitness.
Because mathematically the payoff for securing a mate and sleeping around is higher than securing a mate and remaining loyal.
Think of the gangbang. The woman not only gets sperm from all those men but also forces each of them to contribute to rearing her children on the off chance that it's his child.
You can try to reason with this but it's pointless. You need to engage with the data gathered in the field, and that data points to the fact that this strategy works. It's the ESS for females across thousands of species.
The exception make the rule.
You have no idea if this was the exception or the rule in early human societies. You can't tell. Memetic evolution kicked in and everything went sideways. Information about early societies is no longer trivially retrievable, which is the big problem with evopsych.
What? You are telling me that a woman can select the sperm that gets inside from multiple men to fertilize her? Now you are jumping the shark!! roflmao!! And I'm the one being fed with definitions ahahah!
I guess you just had your mind blown. If you like I'll put you in touch with the University of Chicago biologists who taught me all about this.
Women can do this because the sperm can do this. They want sperm from multiple males inside them because the sperm of the most fit male will win. But there is also some (unresolved, still unclear) evidence that the female can select among the sperm herself - though this is not firmly established. In many species this is so dramatic that if a female mates with a pair of males on the same day, the child she eventually gives birth to will almost always be the child of the higher-ranking male. And it's not clear whether this can be attributed to the sperm of the higher-ranking male being somehow superior.
Females have a startling amount of control over their reproductive anatomy. Human women, for instance, can almost certainly selectively miscarry male babies if they're starved for resources, because male babies are more resource-hungry. This is evident in deer and seems to be present in human populations too if you like at the gender ratio of births in low-income households.
Women can sense the environment they're in and control their own reproductive anatomy.
[ROFLMAO. You missed it entirely. Look, if I am making the case that porn is heavily biased towards men's fantasies and that it is mostly more degrading to women than to men (my original comment look it up), then it makes absolutely no sense to state that I'm "generalizing" that porn is "degrading to women" with an implied "always". This is logic at work. It's also a statistically very simple bayesian argument.
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women, separate from the obvious problems of male gaze in porn?
And I'll pass your attempt at submitting myself for your amusement as if I'm some student of yours. You're the one claiming that vaginas choose speficic sperm to enter their eggs, not me, ahahah!
Not so much this as that vaginas want multiple sperm lines inside them so that the best sperm can win out.
But also that, in some species. Here, read all about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sperm_storage
The entire process of internal selection within the female is called cryptic female choice and is one of the hot topics in evolutionary biology right now.
The myth stays, and that's my point. There are natural reasons for the cockyness of alpha males. You don't need to *be* an alpha male, you just need to have the *mythos* of it. Most women like it, even. And then they try to *tame* them. Exactly how it is expected to be.
You're arguing folk logic in the face of quantitative science. The things you're saying aren't even connected to EGT any more.
In fact your primary source for this debate seems to be modern dating advice.
Mikes, he was saying that vaginas "selected" specific sperm from specific providers.
Hardly in the way you think he meant it. Conception does not necessarily immidiately happen during/right after intercourse.
Before we start arguing about who meant what however, I'll leave it up to Battuta to put it right though.
Mikes is correct. Cryptic female choice - the selection between sperm, and of sperm by the female - occurs in the interval between intercourse and fertilization. It is so important to mating strategies that many species go so far as to physically block the vagina with a copulatory plug to try to stop the female from using cryptic choice.
So we've established part of your wariness of porn has to do with your issues with female sexuality. Let me ask a focusing question to keep you on track. Do you believe that it is possible for a healthy, intelligent, sexual woman to enjoy group sex, anal, or a facial in the context of a healthy relationship or relationships?
-
Luis Dias, as a good primer on the question of whether human females can select sperm themselves, I suggest pages 20 and 21 of "Sperm Competition in Humans: Classic and Contemporary Readings", by Todd Kennedy Shackelford and Nicholas Pound.
-
**** yeah, more triple post
The phenomenon blowing your mind (of vaginas selecting sperm) is part of a class of behaviors called postcopulatory choice. Broadly speaking, and I quote
At least twenty-one possible mechanisms have been described, including, for example, binding some but not other types of sperm with molecules in the zona pellucida of mammalian eggs, discarding the sperm of some males during or immediately after copulation
blah so on
To read about it I suggest the following bibliography drawn from a nice review on JSTOR:
# Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. “Sexual Conflict and Female Choice.” Evolution. Theoretical and empirical treatments of possible male–female conflict need reexamination because of flawed calculations of costs to females.
# Darlington, M. B., D. W. Tallamy, and B. E. Powell. “Copulatory Courtship Signals Male Genetic Quality in Cucumber Beetles.” More energetic copulatory courtship in a beetle induces the female to relax the walls of her reproductive tract and allow the male to deposit a spermatophore; male offspring of especially stimulating males are better stimulators.
# Eberhard, W. G. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Cambridge, Mass., 1985. Proposes that male genitalia evolve rapidly and divergently due to sexual selection by cryptic female choice and critically evaluates this and other hypotheses.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Evidence for Widespread Courtship during Copulation in 131 Species of Insects and Spiders, and Implications for Cryptic Female Choice.” Evolution 48 (1994): 711–733. Apparent male courtship behavior occurred during copulation in 81 percent of 131 species of insects and spiders, suggesting that cryptic female choice is common.
# Eberhard, W. G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, 1996. A summary of arguments and data indicating that cryptic female choice may be a major evolutionary phenomenon.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Female Roles in Sperm Competition.” In Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, edited by T. Birkhead and A. P. Moller, pp. 91–116. New York, 1998. Summarizes arguments regarding cryptic female choice and discusses its possible relationships with male–female conflict.
# Edvardsson, M., and G. Arnqvist. “Copulatory Courtship and Cryptic Female Choice in Red Flour Beetles Tribolium castaneum.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267 (2000): 559–563. Experimental manipulations showed that female perception of the rate of male copulatory courtship behavior in a beetle affected the male's fertilization success when the female mated with two different males.
# Otronen, M., and M. Siva-Jothy. “The Effect of Postcopulatory Male Behaviour on Ejaculate Distribution within the Female Sperm Storage Organs of the Fly Dryomyza anilis (Diptera: Dryomyzidae).” Behavioral Ecological Sociobiology 29 (1991): 33–37. More postcopulatory genitalic tapping by the male increases the likelihood that his sperm will be used to fertilize the eggs that the female is about to lay.
# Thornhill, R. “Cryptic Female Choice and Its Implications in the Scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps.” 122 (1983): 765–788. Females laid more eggs immediately following copulations with larger males; also coined the term cryptic female choice.
# Ward, P. “Cryptic Female Choice in the Yellow Dung Fly.” Evolution 54 (2000): 1680–1686. Gives reasons for supposing that cryptic female choice occurs in this species when females shuffle sperm among their multiple storage organs and thus bias male chances of fertilization, a possibility that has been hotly debated.
Incidentally this maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay be why the mysterious female orgasm has persisted, though **** knows why it'd be so if it's basically impossible to achieve in standard penetrative sex for most women.
-
Yeah, Battuta, I knew you didn't mean what I was thinking you meant. Of course that if only one sperm can enter the egg, there will be selection inside the vagina for the fastest spermatozoid. For a minute there I thought you meant that the woman could *choose* consciously from which partner she would have her baby from.
Mind also that spermatozoid "fitness" is almost entirely separable from actual sperm provider's fitness, which was the whole point being discussed.
It's not bad, not at all. The link I posted above addresses it in general terms. You'll need a grounding in EGT math to work out the exact payoffs.
As I said, *after* you got the safe conditions first. You and me agree on that point, but you deliberately choosed to continue the fight regardless.
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women,
There is nothing "inherently degrading". I'm not even an objectivist. All requires context.
The entire process of internal selection within the female is called cryptic female choice and is one of the hot topics in evolutionary biology right now.
And now was the part where you should have caveated that homo sapiens do no such thing.
In fact your primary source for this debate seems to be modern dating advice.
Ah ah, no. It's out of thin air, I admit. But I have little *more* respect for computer projections than I have to the air I talk to.
Let me ask a focusing question to keep you on track. Do you believe that it is possible for a healthy, intelligent, sexual woman to enjoy group sex, anal, or a facial in the context of a healthy relationship or relationships?
I believe it happens quite often, sure. Your polarization of the debate is quite silly, frankly. Nothing new, of course. I see it all the time.
-
Luis Dias, as a good primer on the question of whether human females can select sperm themselves, I suggest pages 20 and 21 of "Sperm Competition in Humans: Classic and Contemporary Readings", by Todd Kennedy Shackelford and Nicholas Pound.
Seems interesting, but it costs 139 bucks. So I'll pass thanks.
-
Yeah, Battuta, I knew you didn't mean what I was thinking you meant. Of course that if only one sperm can enter the egg, there will be selection inside the vagina for the fastest spermatozoid. For a minute there I thought you meant that the woman could *choose* consciously from which partner she would have her baby from.
She can, maybe, except not consciously. You think anything this important would be left to consciousness?
Mind also that spermatozoid "fitness" is almost entirely separable from actual sperm provider's fitness, which was the whole point being discussed.
No it's not, not at all. Let me repeat: fitness is an outcome measurement. Everything, INCLUDING sperm performance, factors into fitness. There is no fitness except the outcome fitness; you can't talk about 'the actual sperm provider's fitness' because that means nothing. This is reproductive bio 101.
As I said, *after* you got the safe conditions first. You and me agree on that point, but you deliberately choosed to continue the fight regardless.
No, we did not agree, because the safe conditions (an initial mating) are the same for male and female - you're not arguing for a differential strategy between men and women there.
And now was the part where you should have caveated that homo sapiens do no such thing.
You have no reason to say that. It is an open question and there is evidence that homo sapiens may do just such a thing.
Ah ah, no. It's out of thin air, I admit. But I have little *more* respect for computer projections than I have to the air I talk to.
EGT isn't built on computer projections. Some of the absolutely core data in the field (Darwin's finches, for example) was collected by painstakingly camping out in the wild with living animals, tagging and tracking them, cataloging their matings, and working out their fitness over the course of many seasons.
I believe it happens quite often, sure. Your polarization of the debate is quite silly, frankly. Nothing new, of course. I see it all the time.
This is not the most gracious way to concede but I'll take it.
-
Incidentally this maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay be why the mysterious female orgasm has persisted, though **** knows why it'd be so if it's basically impossible to achieve in standard penetrative sex for most women.
Either I'm very lucky or that isn't true at all.
-
Incidentally this maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay be why the mysterious female orgasm has persisted, though **** knows why it'd be so if it's basically impossible to achieve in standard penetrative sex for most women.
Either I'm very lucky or that isn't true at all.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.
75% of the female population does not commonly experience orgasm during vanilla (missionary, boring) vaginal intercourse. Introduce clitoral stimulation and that number drops way off.
The most substantiated theory of the female orgasm is just that it's an evolutionary relic, like male nipples. PCC accounts don't have enough backing yet.
-
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women,
There is nothing "inherently degrading". I'm not even an objectivist. All requires context.
Based on your own statements you consider "porn" to be more degrading to women because of practices like anal sex et cetera...
... would you then say that receiving anal sex is less degrading to men, which is also depicted in "porn"?
And this is where the logic of your original argument simply collapses in contradiction.
The entire process of internal selection within the female is called cryptic female choice and is one of the hot topics in evolutionary biology right now.
And now was the part where you should have caveated that homo sapiens do no such thing.
They do not do that in happy thought fairlyand where men know everything their partner does and their partner never lies... in the real world however...
... anyone care to dig up the cuckold statistics?
-
... anyone care to dig up the cuckold statistics?
Something like 25% of children produced from monogamous partners have a father from outside the marriage.
-
No it's not, not at all. Let me repeat: fitness is an outcome measurement. Everything, INCLUDING sperm performance, factors into fitness. There is no fitness except the outcome fitness; you can't talk about 'the actual sperm provider's fitness' because that means nothing. This is reproductive bio 101.
SUUUUURE, man that's why I caveated what you said with a *ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL*, which is something that makes this point entirely IRRELEVANT.
IF we are debating if the sperm provider has "good fitness" *besides* his sperm performance, then deliberately focusing on this issue is a total red herring on your part.
As I said, *after* you got the safe conditions first. You and me agree on that point, but you deliberately choosed to continue the fight regardless.
No, we did not agree, because the safe conditions (an initial mating) are the same for male and female - you're not arguing for a differential strategy between men and women there.
Are they now? This is interesting. Why couldn't the male just "**** everything" before reaching a stable "marriage"? One could envision a very simplistic scenery where young men would mate with married mother cougars...
no reason to say that. It is an open question and there is evidence that homo sapiens may do just such a thing.
Really? But if they *do* that unconsciously, as you admit, then the choice is quite *different* than the mating selection we were discussing before, which requires a little bit of reasoning.
Or not. It's quite interesting, but frankly it is an astonishing proposal and you give nothing but speculations that this is the case, not even understand how it works, so I'll just skip such speculations (everything is possible in speculations).
EGT isn't built on computer projections. Some of the absolutely core data in the field (Darwin's finches, for example) was collected by painstakingly camping out in the wild with living animals, tagging and tracking them, cataloging their matings, and working out their fitness over the course of many seasons.
Sure, that kind of empirical analysis is slightly better. Still ripe for statistical fraud and undeliberate unexistent pattern gatherings...
This is not the most gracious way to concede but I'll take it.
Why should I concede something that I never took? Quite the dickish way to slander someone, I guess.
-
Or not. It's quite interesting, but frankly it is an astonishing proposal and you give nothing but speculations that this is the case, not even understand how it works, so I'll just skip such speculations (everything is possible in speculations).
# Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. “Sexual Conflict and Female Choice.” Evolution. Theoretical and empirical treatments of possible male–female conflict need reexamination because of flawed calculations of costs to females.
# Darlington, M. B., D. W. Tallamy, and B. E. Powell. “Copulatory Courtship Signals Male Genetic Quality in Cucumber Beetles.” More energetic copulatory courtship in a beetle induces the female to relax the walls of her reproductive tract and allow the male to deposit a spermatophore; male offspring of especially stimulating males are better stimulators.
# Eberhard, W. G. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Cambridge, Mass., 1985. Proposes that male genitalia evolve rapidly and divergently due to sexual selection by cryptic female choice and critically evaluates this and other hypotheses.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Evidence for Widespread Courtship during Copulation in 131 Species of Insects and Spiders, and Implications for Cryptic Female Choice.” Evolution 48 (1994): 711–733. Apparent male courtship behavior occurred during copulation in 81 percent of 131 species of insects and spiders, suggesting that cryptic female choice is common.
# Eberhard, W. G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, 1996. A summary of arguments and data indicating that cryptic female choice may be a major evolutionary phenomenon.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Female Roles in Sperm Competition.” In Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, edited by T. Birkhead and A. P. Moller, pp. 91–116. New York, 1998. Summarizes arguments regarding cryptic female choice and discusses its possible relationships with male–female conflict.
# Edvardsson, M., and G. Arnqvist. “Copulatory Courtship and Cryptic Female Choice in Red Flour Beetles Tribolium castaneum.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267 (2000): 559–563. Experimental manipulations showed that female perception of the rate of male copulatory courtship behavior in a beetle affected the male's fertilization success when the female mated with two different males.
# Otronen, M., and M. Siva-Jothy. “The Effect of Postcopulatory Male Behaviour on Ejaculate Distribution within the Female Sperm Storage Organs of the Fly Dryomyza anilis (Diptera: Dryomyzidae).” Behavioral Ecological Sociobiology 29 (1991): 33–37. More postcopulatory genitalic tapping by the male increases the likelihood that his sperm will be used to fertilize the eggs that the female is about to lay.
# Thornhill, R. “Cryptic Female Choice and Its Implications in the Scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps.” 122 (1983): 765–788. Females laid more eggs immediately following copulations with larger males; also coined the term cryptic female choice.
# Ward, P. “Cryptic Female Choice in the Yellow Dung Fly.” Evolution 54 (2000): 1680–1686. Gives reasons for supposing that cryptic female choice occurs in this species when females shuffle sperm among their multiple storage organs and thus bias male chances of fertilization, a possibility that has been hotly debated.
**** i can't believe this forum doesn't count towards my post total
-
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women,
There is nothing "inherently degrading". I'm not even an objectivist. All requires context.
Based on your own statements you consider "porn" to be more degrading to women because of practices like anal sex et cetera...
... would you then say that anal sex is less degrading to men, which is also depicted in "porn"?
And this is where the logic of your original argument simply collapses in contradiction.
Let's count the number of videos where men are analed against the number of videos where women are.
They do not do that in happy thought fairlyand where men know everything their partner does and their partner never lies... in the real world however...
What does this **** have to do with internal vaginal selection (apart from the race thing) of spermatozoids? Women lie when they do, and men do too.
Battuta has a point when he says women should want all the possible semen, given all the safety caveats she must also work her butt off to, in order to randomize the gene pool. But this is an entirely different aspect to the possibility of women selecting which sperm from which person will fertilize her egg.
-
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women,
There is nothing "inherently degrading". I'm not even an objectivist. All requires context.
Based on your own statements you consider "porn" to be more degrading to women because of practices like anal sex et cetera...
... would you then say that anal sex is less degrading to men, which is also depicted in "porn"?
And this is where the logic of your original argument simply collapses in contradiction.
Let's count the number of videos where men are analed against the number of videos where women are.
Okay, do you want some links?
What does this **** have to do with internal vaginal selection (apart from the race thing) of spermatozoids? Women lie when they do, and men do too.
Battuta has a point when he says women should want all the possible semen, given all the safety caveats she must also work her butt off to, in order to randomize the gene pool. But this is an entirely different aspect to the possibility of women selecting which sperm from which person will fertilize her egg.
Because the evolutionary incentive for the lying behavior is rooted in the postcopulatory choice mechanism. Mikes has the right of it, the behavior and the mechanism are linked.
-
Really Battuta? Do you honestly think your bibliography counts as more than speculation towards that particular thesis?
Okay, do you want some links?
rofl, yeah, lets count the internetz.
Because the evolutionary incentive for the lying behavior is rooted in the postcopulatory choice mechanism. Mikes has the right of it, the behavior and the mechanism are linked.
I don't see how. Her lying behavior can be simply the result of jumping the fence now and then to randomize some semen pool from her "husband", but having to conceal it from him. I see no need for the choice mechanism to explain her lies. Ockham and all...
-
You're trying to change the point to avoid conceding. Do you or do you not believe that facials, anal, and group sex are inherently degrading to women,
There is nothing "inherently degrading". I'm not even an objectivist. All requires context.
Based on your own statements you consider "porn" to be more degrading to women because of practices like anal sex et cetera...
... would you then say that anal sex is less degrading to men, which is also depicted in "porn"?
And this is where the logic of your original argument simply collapses in contradiction.
Let's count the number of videos where men are analed against the number of videos where women are.
More contradictions... if quantity is an indicator of what is more degrading then the extreme porn where people eat each others excrement would be less degrading than mere anal by your own definition.
How about you answer the question instead of evading it. What do you consider more or less degrading... a man or a woman receiving anal?
Using quantity to determine the answer of a question that is obviously about the perceived quality of an act is simply ridiculous.
They do not do that in happy thought fairlyand where men know everything their partner does and their partner never lies... in the real world however...
What does this **** have to do with internal vaginal selection (apart from the race thing) of spermatozoids? Women lie when they do, and men do too.
Battuta has a point when he says women should want all the possible semen, given all the safety caveats she must also work her butt off to, in order to randomize the gene pool. But this is an entirely different aspect to the possibility of women selecting which sperm from which person will fertilize her egg.
The point was that postcoital selection actually does play a role for homo sapiens - which you had denied.
-
Really Battuta? Do you honestly think your bibliography counts as more than speculation towards that particular thesis?
Yes? Those are scientific papers discussing the topic. Dismiss those, you've got nothing.
rofl, yeah, lets count the internetz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKNnwLL991c&feature=related
-
But my argument *was* quantitative! Precisely that women *got it worse*. Of course, you'll always get worse examples. There's also snuff stuff somewhere I'm sure, and we could all then say "look, women get it pretty decently if you compare it to snuff", well doh.
The point was that postcoital selection actually does play a role for homo sapiens - which you denied.
Not "denied", I see no evidence for it at all. Just academic speculation.
Yes? Those are scientific papers discussing the topic. Dismiss those, you've got nothing.
Exactly. Nothing. That's what you have. This is not exactly a sum of papers discussing the empirical value of the electron charge. This is a varied sum of papers about many things, and this precise thematic is speculative, at best.
-
Exactly. Nothing. That's what you have. This is not exactly a sum of papers discussing the empirical value of the electron charge. This is a varied sum of papers about many things, and this precise thematic is speculative, at best.
I mean if you dismiss scientific reasoning you have no way to discuss the problem. Actually, you know, read the papers and you'll find yourself quite informed. Complaining that ongoing research on a topic in science is 'speculative' is naive - it's speculation harrowed by the scientific method and peer review.
Not "denied", I see no evidence for it at all. Just academic speculation.
I see no evidence for it, except all the evidence presented to me, which I don't like because it makes my posts on the Internet look dumb.
You're right on the edge of crank territory. Might as well backpedal out.
-
But my argument *was* quantitative! Precisely that women *got it worse*. Of course, you'll always get worse examples. There's also snuff stuff somewhere I'm sure, and we could all then say "look, women get it pretty decently if you compare it to snuff", well doh.
The point was that postcoital selection actually does play a role for homo sapiens - which you denied.
Not "denied", I see no evidence for it at all. Just academic speculation.
The verifiable amount of children married women have that come from sexual partners from outside that marriage is pretty conclusive proof that "selection" does not necessarily end with the selection of a partner.
Unless husband and wife stopped having sex alltogether, the sperm of the husband will indeed have to compete with the sperm of the lover(s), which means the selection of the father does happen inside the vagina.
No evidence at all huh?
Yes? Those are scientific papers discussing the topic. Dismiss those, you've got nothing.
Exactly. Nothing. That's what you have. This is not exactly a sum of papers discussing the empirical value of the electron charge. This is a varied sum of papers about many things, and this precise thematic is speculative, at best.
Sadly if this is what you believe then you not only have misconceptions about porn and sex, but also about science.
But my argument *was* quantitative! Precisely that women *got it worse*. Of course, you'll always get worse examples. There's also snuff stuff somewhere I'm sure, and we could all then say "look, women get it pretty decently if you compare it to snuff", well doh.
That is exactly why basing your argument on quantity is nonsense. At least you finally appear to be getting the that there are different kinds of porn.
Now you'd only need to also understand that your viewpoint of porn that actually is degrading to women is a very narrow one, which is compounded by your arbitrary definition of what actually is more or less degrading.
-
Exactly. Nothing. That's what you have. This is not exactly a sum of papers discussing the empirical value of the electron charge. This is a varied sum of papers about many things, and this precise thematic is speculative, at best.
I mean if you dismiss scientific reasoning you have no way to discuss the problem. Actually, you know, read the papers and you'll find yourself quite informed. Complaining that ongoing research on a topic in science is 'speculative' is naive - it's speculation harrowed by the scientific method and peer review.
Its only "information" is about the kinds of interests and reasonings that the current academic status quo can regurgitate. I find it extremely uninformative if I'm looking for for actual explanations of the world. Given the complexity of the matter at hand, it's not even silly.
Not dismissing the "field", or the "discussions". Very important stuff. But we still are at the level I was referring: wild speculation.
I see no evidence for it, except all the evidence presented to me, which I don't like because it makes my posts on the Internet look dumb.
You're right on the edge of crank territory. Might as well backpedal out.
Ridiculous posture. You provide no factual evidence, link to academia speculation and resort to insult. I'm completely free to dismiss it until you provide me more than this. Mind you, I didn't deny it. I'm apparently just a little bit more demanding than you.
-
Ridiculous posture. You provide no factual evidence,
Those papers are FULL of factual evidence. Jesus Christ read them instead of dodging it. Those are studies! They use data!
-
The verifiable amount of children married women have that come from sexual partners from outside that marriage is pretty conclusive proof that "selection" does not necessarily end with the selection of a partner.
Unless husband and wife stopped having sex alltogether, the sperm of the husband will indeed have to compete with the sperm of the lover(s), which means the selection of the father does happen inside the vagina.
It means no such thing.
No evidence at all huh?
If that's the kind of evidence, it's zilch. Nada.
Sadly if this is what you believe then you not only have misconceptions about porn and sex, but also about science.
You think that speculative science is something you can link to in a conversation and expect the other to concede? What do you know about science?
-
Stop this, Luis. You are arguing that cutting edge of science in the field is only speculation and not relevant to you forming your opinion. That is more arrogant and more damaging to the discussion than anything Battuta has said.
-
You think that speculative science is something you can link to in a conversation and expect the other to concede? What do you know about science?
He's just moving the goalposts. He doesn't understand that science in peer reviewed journals has been rigorously vetted, so he calls it speculative science so he can avoid giving up. Nor does he understand the process by which scientific inferences are reached.
Just another garden variety crank. We're done here.
-
The verifiable amount of children married women have that come from sexual partners from outside that marriage is pretty conclusive proof that "selection" does not necessarily end with the selection of a partner.
Unless husband and wife stopped having sex alltogether, the sperm of the husband will indeed have to compete with the sperm of the lover(s), which means the selection of the father does happen inside the vagina.
It means no such thing.
No evidence at all huh?
If that's the kind of evidence, it's zilch. Nada.
Sadly if this is what you believe then you not only have misconceptions about porn and sex, but also about science.
You think that speculative science is something you can link to in a conversation and expect the other to concede? What do you know about science?
A mere refusal to face verifiable facts does not make an argument.
Sorry Luis, but we can't continue a discussion on the basis of "lalala i can't hear you".
P.S. Is it possible to get this thread back on track? It was actually quite interesting before it got derailled by a continuous retreat into more and more flawed arguments that leaves the original topic a thing of distant memory.
-
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189902_10150171513938035_511523034_8312416_3149767_n.jpg)
captain i'm detecting some turbulence in steps 1 2 3 4 and the other steps
-
captain i'm detecting some turbulence in steps 1 2 3 4 and the other steps
All hands, abandon topic. This is not a drill.
-
Ok, let's see:
# Cordero, C., and W. G. Eberhard. “Sexual Conflict and Female Choice.” Evolution. Theoretical and empirical treatments of possible male–female conflict need reexamination because of flawed calculations of costs to females.
What this has to do with homo sapiens post-coital selection "empirical evidence"? Zero.
# Darlington, M. B., D. W. Tallamy, and B. E. Powell. “Copulatory Courtship Signals Male Genetic Quality in Cucumber Beetles.” More energetic copulatory courtship in a beetle induces the female to relax the walls of her reproductive tract and allow the male to deposit a spermatophore; male offspring of especially stimulating males are better stimulators.
What this has to do with homo sapiens post-coital selection "empirical evidence"? Zero.
# Eberhard, W. G. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Cambridge, Mass., 1985. Proposes that male genitalia evolve rapidly and divergently due to sexual selection by cryptic female choice and critically evaluates this and other hypotheses.
Finally. Can't find it, only third parties discussing it. It's basically an informed guess. Circumstancial evidence. I could be very rude and state that they are probably seeing what they want to see. Their rethoric seems more potent than the evidence. Good stuff.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Evidence for Widespread Courtship during Copulation in 131 Species of Insects and Spiders, and Implications for Cryptic Female Choice.” Evolution 48 (1994): 711–733. Apparent male courtship behavior occurred during copulation in 81 percent of 131 species of insects and spiders, suggesting that cryptic female choice is common.
# Eberhard, W. G. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, 1996. A summary of arguments and data indicating that cryptic female choice may be a major evolutionary phenomenon.
# Eberhard, W. G. “Female Roles in Sperm Competition.” In Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection, edited by T. Birkhead and A. P. Moller, pp. 91–116. New York, 1998. Summarizes arguments regarding cryptic female choice and discusses its possible relationships with male–female conflict.
# Edvardsson, M., and G. Arnqvist. “Copulatory Courtship and Cryptic Female Choice in Red Flour Beetles Tribolium castaneum.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267 (2000): 559–563. Experimental manipulations showed that female perception of the rate of male copulatory courtship behavior in a beetle affected the male's fertilization success when the female mated with two different males.
Dr Eberhard seems quite the specialist. The beetles paper's data is all over the place, and then they get a p value and declare victory. Figures.
The first paper is seemingly (I won't obviously review it) good evidence that courtship is important to fertilization. One should not read any more than that.
# Otronen, M., and M. Siva-Jothy. “The Effect of Postcopulatory Male Behaviour on Ejaculate Distribution within the Female Sperm Storage Organs of the Fly Dryomyza anilis (Diptera: Dryomyzidae).” Behavioral Ecological Sociobiology 29 (1991): 33–37. More postcopulatory genitalic tapping by the male increases the likelihood that his sperm will be used to fertilize the eggs that the female is about to lay.
Not seemingly relevant.
# Thornhill, R. “Cryptic Female Choice and Its Implications in the Scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps.” 122 (1983): 765–788. Females laid more eggs immediately following copulations with larger males; also coined the term cryptic female choice.
Scorpionflies.... ok. More p values.
# Ward, P. “Cryptic Female Choice in the Yellow Dung Fly.” Evolution 54 (2000): 1680–1686. Gives reasons for supposing that cryptic female choice occurs in this species when females shuffle sperm among their multiple storage organs and thus bias male chances of fertilization, a possibility that has been hotly debated.
"Hotly debated" does not seem to me as something that is as solid, as say, gravity. To call me a denier with this kind of paltry evidence is just ridiculous.
-
You think that speculative science is something you can link to in a conversation and expect the other to concede? What do you know about science?
He's just moving the goalposts. He doesn't understand that science in peer reviewed journals has been rigorously vetted, so he calls it speculative science so he can avoid giving up. Nor does he understand the process by which scientific inferences are reached.
Just another garden variety crank. We're done here.
Should I report you or something?
-
captain i'm detecting some turbulence in steps 1 2 3 4 and the other steps
You brought this subject up, not me. It's not my fault if you ridiculously decide that I *must* accept speculative science as factual.
-
...
Actually, you do. UNLESS you have better science to back you up.
-
...
Actually, you do. UNLESS you have better science to back you up.
Ahahahahah! That made me chuckle. Thanks.
You got the onus the other way around dude. Take your time. Think it through.
-
Wrong. Battuta posted his references. Instead of giving us proper reasons why these might be not applicable, you chose to dismiss them on the basis of their titles. Instead of giving us alternate references, you simply continue to say that his references are wrong.
You have 2 posts to back up your positions.
-
He's got nothing. Put him out of his misery.
-
Wrong. Battuta posted his references. Instead of giving us proper reasons why these might be not applicable, you chose to dismiss them on the basis of their titles. Instead of giving us alternate references, you simply continue to say that his references are wrong.
I actually took the time to read a couple of them, and a part of a book referencing three more of them.
Did you read it?
It's mostly speculation driven from a paultry empirical observation (the data is *all over the place* with a fit line over it) that fertility increases with postcoital male courting.
It's all very interesting. What can I say? It is what it is, and Battuta is trying to erect a whole edifice out of a pinhead.
It's not that it *could well be the case*. Why not? The speculation seems relevant. But in all cases where science is still so much in its infancy, and clearly the level of evidences in this case are so circumstancial and so indirect, the level of speculation is so great, that such adjectivation seems euphemistic even, we shouldn't take it too seriously.
And specially we should confront people who are ready to make a fatwa against you if you don't accept the Truth(tm) from Above, if such aboveness is this weak.
My skepticism is always invertionally proportional to the quality and directedness of evidence I'm presented with. For instance, I may be swayed by these arguments in the following way: a positive value means that I am convinced by it, a negative one doesn't. Right now, it's somewhere at +3.5 +-2300. I'm slightly more convinced by the evidence that, for instance, the earth orbits the sun (+3000000000 +-0.1).
He's got nothing. Put him out of his misery.
This conversation is over. I'm done with your shenanigans.
-
You are still not presenting your counterarguments. You are still basing your skepticism on simply being skeptical, not anything quantifiable.
1 post left.
Note that I, personally, have no interest in this debate one way or another. My only interest is in having a good debate, and your behaviour is not helping in this.
-
Good thread, would read again. . .
Seriously though, the evidence presented in this debate has changed the way I view sexuality.
Also, Luis, you may want to start out your argument by taking some time to think of what your hypothesis IS and then finding evidence for it, rather than simply posting. You appear to be posting emotionally.
Also, would I be out of line to request a split?
-
You are still not presenting your counterarguments. You are still basing your skepticism on simply being skeptical, not anything quantifiable.
I do not need to present "counterarguments" to a theory, when the null hypothesis is just as likely (or more, given Ockham) to occur.
Suppose you are in the middle ages. Someone argues with you that god creates thunderbolts. He gives you a weak argument about it, but it is nevertheless an argument. You give none, you're just skeptical about it. Does that mean that he has a point and that I should concede it, otherwise I'm a "crack"?
Do I need to refute all the theories in the world in order to be rightfully skeptical of them?
Ridiculous.
1 post left.
Don't worry. If simple logic doesn't sway you, nothing will so I won't bother anymore.
-
This is the phase of the debate where the loser tries to retrospectively reconstruct his arguments to make him look like he knew what he was talking about all along. He thought postcoital sperm selection was ridiculous and laughable, now he's admitting there's a line of evidence for it and trying to argue it doesn't definitely happen in humans as if that was somehow ever a point of contention.
MCN'd to hell and back. Bury someone under enough evidence and eventually they get rubbed back to the naked fact that they're arguing because they don't want to look wrong. Like Mars said I don't think he has a core argument any more. I've seen it many a time in my years of educating fools about why women have biological incentive to **** around.
Now I'm gonna dig back to find the point where he conceded that and make the biggest smug face. :smug:
-
You are still not presenting your counterarguments. You are still basing your skepticism on simply being skeptical, not anything quantifiable.
I do not need to present "counterarguments" to a theory, when the null hypothesis is just as likely (or more, given Ockham) to occur.
I hope you are not basing your argument on something you heard on "Fringe"... honestly wondering, because it sounds so eerily familiar to the kind of flawed reasoning that made me despise that show.
Especially the reference to Ockham to gloss over the fact that one simply has no clue or argument left.
-
Nice. Grab the point where I said I wasn't posting anything more to take a final stab at me. I guess it was stronger than you, and then you lie deliberately. You *did make the point that women made postcoital sperm selection*. ****, if that wasn't the case, we would have never gone down that road. I *admitted* the line of *evidence* in the same sense that I admit there's a line of evidence for aether. It doesn't mean that I accept it.
MCN'd to hell and back. Bury someone under enough evidence and eventually they get rubbed back to the naked fact that they're arguing because they don't want to look wrong. (...) I've seen it many a time in my years of educating fools about why women have biological incentive to **** around.
More Psychoanalybull****ting your interlocutor. You just can't help yourself. It's like someone coded you genetically to be a bully.
(This commment should also be moved, sorry)
-
My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.
-
You are still not presenting your counterarguments. You are still basing your skepticism on simply being skeptical, not anything quantifiable.
I do not need to present "counterarguments" to a theory, when the null hypothesis is just as likely (or more, given Ockham) to occur.
I hope you are not basing your argument on something you heard on "Fringe"... honestly wondering, because it sounds so eerily familiar to the kind of flawed reasoning that made me despise that show.
Jesus ****ing christ. Why are you always making the mistake of assuming your interlocutor is stupid, when all you've done here has been misrepresenting all I said?
Especially the reference to Ockham to gloss over the fact that one simply has no clue or argument left.
My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.
There you go. Thanks.
-
I do not need to present "counterarguments" to a theory, when the null hypothesis is just as likely (or more, given Ockham) to occur.
Suppose you are in the middle ages. Someone argues with you that god creates thunderbolts. He gives you a weak argument about it, but it is nevertheless an argument. You give none, you're just skeptical about it. Does that mean that he has a point and that I should concede it, otherwise I'm a "crack"?
As a believer in the scientific theory, no, you shouldn't. What you should do is refute the arguments, finding corroborating evidence against the other guys' theories, and finding evidence for alternate explanations. You did nothing of the sort.
Do I need to refute all the theories in the world in order to be rightfully skeptical of them?
Ridiculous.
Not at all. Just the ones you choose to attack.
My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.
Yes, but how proven does it have to be? Where's the threshold where these theories cross the line into "firmly established science"?
Given how the scientific method works, you can extend that skepticism into eternity. It's the same tactic the intelligent design crowd uses, which is really not something to recommend said tactic.
-
My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.
That's what he's saying now, but the very fact that he'd make that argument betrays the fact that he has no idea what's going on any more.
He lost his way a couple pages back and since then it's mostly been batting the mouse around. He conceded every point that was raised initially, then conceded the second set of points, and now fallen back to quibbling about a tertiary argument he fabricated himself.
He conceded that the pornographic acts he was revolted by were not inherently degrading to women, conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity, conceded that there is evidence for postcopulatory selection, exposed his ignorance of female reproductive anatomy in a pretty silly gaffe, and is now just trying to save face by making an issue of a straw man.
Interestingly there's some psychological evidence that the area he's from is one of those afflicted by a so-called 'culture of honor', which may play into the issue here. Fuel for motivated cognition.
EDIT: I will remind the court that the statement in contention is this:
Really? But if they *do* that unconsciously, as you admit, then the choice is quite *different* than the mating selection we were discussing before, which requires a little bit of reasoning.
Or not. It's quite interesting, but frankly it is an astonishing proposal and you give nothing but speculations that this is the case, not even understand how it works, so I'll just skip such speculations (everything is possible in speculations).
It is quite clear that more than speculation has been presented at this point; evidence for postcopulatory selection across species has been presented in detail. The subject's arguments that this does not constitute complete 100% proof of postcopulatory selection are obviously immaterial.
-
conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity
We propably agree on that point, but I just want to emphasize that an evolutionary incentive is but one of many determinants of our behavior.
In the end actual observable behavior comes down to a mix of all kinds of things including personal preference, philosophy, ethics, or plain icecream again ;)
-
conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity
We propably agree on that point, but I just want to emphasize that an evolutionary incentive is but one of many determinants of our behavior.
In the end actual observable behavior comes down to a mix of all kinds of things including personal preference, philosophy, ethics, or plain icecream again ;)
Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition we've started to depart pretty sharply from ESS-compliant behavior on the individual, local level.
-
Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]
Yeah whatever that is ;)
-
My understanding of what Luis is saying is simply that he doesn't see this particular topic as firmly established science, and would rather err on the side of disbelieving it until it is proven more solidly.
That's what he's saying now, but the very fact that he'd make that argument betrays the fact that he has no idea what's going on any more.
He lost his way a couple pages back and since then it's mostly been batting the mouse around. He conceded every point that was raised initially, then conceded the second set of points, and now fallen back to quibbling about a tertiary argument he fabricated himself.
He conceded that the pornographic acts he was revolted by were not inherently degrading to women, conceded that women have evolutionary incentive for promiscuity, conceded that there is evidence for postcopulatory selection, exposed his ignorance of female reproductive anatomy in a pretty silly gaffe, and is now just trying to save face by making an issue of a straw man.
Interestingly there's some psychological evidence that the area he's from is one of those afflicted by a so-called 'culture of honor', which may play into the issue here. Fuel for motivated cognition.
All of this is just fuel for more fire.
And I'm the immature brat?
For ****'s sake. Get a life.
-
Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]
Yeah whatever that is ;)
Well, what I mean is we've started radically modifying our own behavior. We gained the ability to pass memes as well as genes, and those have altered our society really profoundly. Some of the departures we've taken are not what you'd expect with evolutionary game theory, at least in the short term for the individual.
Cognition has a lot of weird side effects.
-
Indeed. Ever since we hit cognition [...]
Yeah whatever that is ;)
Well, what I mean is we've started radically modifying our own behavior. We gained the ability to pass memes as well as genes, and those have altered our society really profoundly. Some of the departures we've taken are not what you'd expect with evolutionary game theory, at least in the short term for the individual.
Cognition has a lot of weird side effects.
Oh yep i knew what you meant. I was just giving a nod to the possibility that our "conscious" thought process may turn out not to be all that it is made out to be,
which might make cognition a much more deterministic affair than its commonly thought to be.
In other words: Personally i would find that a point by point rational explanation of why i like vanilla icecream and not chocolate icecream kinda sucks. I might start eating the other icecream just to ruin someones statistic.
-
Oh yeah I agree, we're definitely not as agentic as we think we are.
-
I should admit at the outset here that I've not read the papers Maybe I should read the papers, but frankly, I'm not interested enough in the subject right now.
A few things do spring to mind from reading the thread though. Firstly, the idea that Luis has to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position is ridiculous. He's skeptical. That's what science is.I'll grant you, skepticality has to be put into context skepticism of something like gravity or evolution as broad concepts add no value. But a very specific topic like this one, especially further specified to such complex organisms as humans, well, the burden of proof for something so outlandish falls squarely on those proposing it. And to be specific here, I'm talking about the idea that cryptic sexual selection (i.e. segregation and storage of sperm from different potential fathers) allows for some kind of complex, higher order selection in humans.
Secondly, I also note with concern the number of articles by the same bloke on that list. Granted, that could mean a long history of painstaking, precise research building towards a significant contribution to evolutionary science. Or it could be one professor's pet heory that he hands off to all his doctoral students. So while there's a lot of actual titles there, without a bit more research I'd be concerned about the value of every one of them.
Thirdly, I have some trouble accepting that cryptic choice plays any significant role in mammalian selection, let alone human. A quick google search for 'Cryptic Femal Choice human' throws up a lot of words like "controversial" and "unrepeated", as well as this paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411251):
In this paper, I consider the criteria necessary to demonstrate the postcopulatory ability of females to favor the sperm of one conspecific male over another, that is, sperm choice. In practice it is difficult to distinguish between sperm competition and sperm choice, and sperm choice can be demonstrated only if the effects of sperm competition can be controlled. Few studies have used experimental protocols that do this, so evidence for sperm choice is limited. Moreover, in those studies in which sperm choice occurs, it does so to avoid incompatible genetic combinations and is therefore unlikely to result in directional sexual selection.
-
A few things do spring to mind from reading the thread though. Firstly, the idea that Luis has to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position is ridiculous. He's skeptical. That's what science is.I'll grant you, skepticality has to be put into context skepticism of something like gravity or evolution as broad concepts add no value. But a very specific topic like this one, especially further specified to such complex organisms as humans, well, the burden of proof for something so outlandish falls squarely on those proposing it. And to be specific here, I'm talking about the idea that cryptic sexual selection (i.e. segregation and storage of sperm from different potential fathers) allows for some kind of complex, higher order selection in humans.
Being skeptical of a strong assertion that this is so is one thing. Being skeptical of the assertion that it may be so, and that the general mechanism of postcopulatory mechanisms could conceivably be at play somewhere in humans - which was the actual assertion - is entirely another. Fortunately he more or less conceded that, and I think we're both aware that his skepticism of this particular issue was tangential to the general course of the debate - it was something for him to seize on to save face.
Thirdly, I have some trouble accepting that cryptic choice plays any significant role in mammalian selection, let alone human. A quick google search for 'Cryptic Femal Choice human' throws up a lot of words like "controversial" and "unrepeated", as well as this paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2411251):
No one has argued any differently. The issue of cryptic female choice was part of Luis Dias' third fallback after conceding his first two positions, and it was never particularly central - the only assertions made about it was that the idea that postcopulatory selection in humans could have shaped social structures and that it was ridiculous to subscribe to a pure 'male promiscuity, female monogamy' description of mating strategies.
In this paper, I consider the criteria necessary to demonstrate the postcopulatory ability of females to favor the sperm of one conspecific male over another, that is, sperm choice. In practice it is difficult to distinguish between sperm competition and sperm choice, and sperm choice can be demonstrated only if the effects of sperm competition can be controlled. Few studies have used experimental protocols that do this, so evidence for sperm choice is limited. Moreover, in those studies in which sperm choice occurs, it does so to avoid incompatible genetic combinations and is therefore unlikely to result in directional sexual selection.
This is saying nothing I haven't said repeatedly in this thread.
It is a good topic and would make for a good discussion, separate from the original issues that Dias brought up (and, as I mentioned, subsequently conceded); it's a shame that one side of the debate proved not up to the challenge.
-
I'm really glad this got split because otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to read it on this boring Tuesday. I'm thoroughly entertained. I'm kind of sad I missed out on page ~2ish.
Luis, a piece of friendly advice since you're a relatively new face to science-based (particularly biology-) debate threads here in GD: arguing from a blind position without a shred of fact to back you up, and then further compounding the error by dismissing peer-reviewed research (based on the title, for Pete's sake) without appropriate countering data is going to get you laughed out of the thread. Which, for the record, happened on page 3.
You're debating with people who have formal education in the subjects you're delving into - your points should be formulated accordingly. Instead, your posts are reading much like those of a petulant teen, and your continued criticism of Battuta's analysis isn't helping that perception.
And Black Wolf, while Luis would not be expected to prove why he doesn't believe Batt's position, he is expected to provide counter-point sourcing to factually illustrate an alternate position - which he has not done. Skepticism is valid only if premised upon a factually solid position (which, of course, his ideas may well be - the problem lies in his failure to establish that). Skepticism for skepticism's sake is not a valid position in the face of evidence to the contrary (so says the scientific method) - in that context, skepticism is just opinion. And opinions, as the old adage goes, are much like a certain posterior-positioned orifice discussed in this thread which every human being possesses ;)
-
it was something for him to seize on to save face.
No, it was something you seized on. All my original points were agreed upon ages ago, contrary to what you are shenanigizing about.
The only thing I admit is that I loled to your assertion that this phenomena was actually taking place, and was part of an argument. You swayed me to thinking that there is somewhere in the aether a "line of reasoning" from A to Z (skipping most of the words, but hey that's science for you), that considered this possibility.
The original disagreement was over porn. I expressed myself badly, and I see where GB went crazy about it. My point was not so much about the specific practices of it, but the general feel of it. No single sexual practice is "inherently" anything, it's the context. And the context of it is mostly degradational of women, mostly. That's how I view it. GB thinks differently, perhaps. I don't care about him anymore.
-
Well that's actually a pretty reasonable summary. :yes:
And yeah I do think that most porn is shot with a male POV, in a not-too-healthy way. I think that's actually one of the things most missing from porn, some sense of connection or empathy. To bring it waaaay back to like page one, people go gaga over romance novels, and I can't imagine something like that shot as video wouldn't sell. Heck, Blue Valentine (a regular old motion picture released recently) had genuine, not-fake sex on camera, the actors actually going down on each other and stuff.
I guess you'd have to dig up attractive people who could actually act.
-
Luis Dias if you're going to ignore the evidence and fail to post an sources you have no place in a scientific debate.
If you're going to enter a scientific debate and ignore science you're not going to find yourself able to enter scientific debates any more.
-
Luis Dias if you're going to ignore the evidence and fail to post an sources you have no place in a scientific debate.
If you're going to enter a scientific debate and ignore science you're not going to find yourself able to enter scientific debates any more.
Where did I *ignore* the evidence? Please stop misconstruing me.
I'm anything but perfect. I make huge mistakes. Don't compound that situation with this nonsense.
I didn't ignore it. I analysed it. I read the most relevant papers that he generously provided us with. And I gave you my thoughts about it.
p-value papers with data going all over the place and with a miraculous "line fit" in the middle of it, "proving" (rofl) that males have better fitness when they continue their "courting" post-coitally. This is not an empirical evidence that shows that the hypothesis of post-coital selection is happening. Rather, it's a compatible evidence with this theory, but it's also compatible with multiple, infinite other theories, and, obviously, the null hypothesis.
There is no evidence shown that is sufficiently good to falsify any alternative. Not even statistically. All it does is provide evidence that *agrees* with the hypothesis, indirectly.
Do you need "sources" for this simple reasoning?
-
If your argument against the idea that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not totally sure it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, is that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not TOTALLY SURE it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, you're not making a very strong argument.
You started from the position that men followed a simple promiscuous strategy and women followed a simple monogamous strategy. You've done well to abandon it, recognizing that the situation is more complex. You laughed at the idea that there could be any female-agentic postcoital selection idea whatsoever. You've done well to abandon that too, because you were given a list of well-cited articles describing that there may be some evidence for its possibility.
If your argument is now that we don't know whether postcoital selection happens in humans, you're not going to find any disagreement. But that wasn't your argument until you had no other options.
-
Huh, look at this
T h e e f f e c t o f t a p p i n g m o v e m e n t s wa s s t u d i e d b y al-
l o w i n g s o m e p a i r s t o h a v e s e v e r a l t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s in
o n e b o u t (12.8_+6.1, m e a n _ + S D ) w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r s
w e r e i n t e r r u p t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r a n i n t r o m i s s i o n . A
logi s t i c r e g r e s s i o n f o r t w o - c a t e g o r y r e s p o n s e w h e r e m a l e
n u m b e r a n d d a t e ( b e c a u s e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t ha l f - l ive s o f
t h e i s o t o p e s ) w e r e c o n t r o l l e d wa s c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s wa s
d o n e b y a s k i n g w h e t h e r t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f 3H in t h e
d r o p l e t a n d t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x c o u l d p r e d i c t w h i c h
m a t i n g g r o u p (i. e. n o t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s o r s e v e r a l t a p -
p i n g s e q u e n c e s b e f o r e egg l a y i n g ) t h e f e m a l e c a m e f r o m .
U s i n g b o t h d r o p l e t a n d b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x r e s u l t s t o d i s t i n -
g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e m a t i n g s , t h e a n a l y s i s g a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t
r e s u l t (){2 = 9.50, df=2, P < 0 . 0 1 ) . O f thi s , ){2---4.94 (df=
1, P < 0 . 0 5 ) wa s d u e t o t h e d r o p l e t a n d ){2 = 4 . 5 6 (df= 1,
P < 0 . 0 5 ) t o t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x a l o n e . T a b l e 1 s h ows
t h a t i n S - H m a t i n g s w i t h s e v e r a l t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s , t h e
p e r c e n t a g e o f 3H in t h e d r o p l e t wa s s m a l l e r a n d t h e
p e r c e n t a g e r e m a i n i n g in t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x wa s h i g h e r
t h a n in m a t i n g s w i t h o u t t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s . T h e p e r c e n t -
a g e o f 3H w i t h i n t h e d r o p l e t wa s 8 5 . 9 % a n d 9 4 . 2 %
f o r m a t i n g s w i t h s e v e r a l t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s a n d m a t i n g s
w i t h o u t t a p p i n g s e q u e n c e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e c o r r e -
s p o n d i n g f i g u r e s f o r t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x w e r e 88.8 a n d
83.2, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e r e s u l t t h e r e f o r e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e
t a p p i n g m o v e m e n t s i n c r e a s e d t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e l a s t
m a l e ' s s p e r m in t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x a n d d e c r e a s e d i t
in t h e d r o p l e t . T h e r e s u l t s in H - S m a t i n g s ( T a b l e 1) a l s o
s h o w t h a t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f 3sS c o m i n g o u t w i t h t h e
d r o p l e t wa s s m a l l e r in m a t i n g s w i t h s e v e r a l t a p p i n g se-
q u e n c e s , a s e x p e c t e d ( t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f t a p p i n g
s e q u e n c e s wa s 10.6_+4.6). H o w e v e r , t h e p e r c e n t a g e r e -
m a i n i n g in t h e b u r s a c o p u l a t r i x a f t e r s e v e r a l t a p p i n g
s e q u e n c e s wa s a l so sma l l e r . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n m a y b e
d u e t o a sma l l s a m p l e size in H - S m a t i n g s .
An experimental intervention producing statistically significant results that reject the null! How wonderful. It would be tempting to overanalyze this, but as it stands, it's just a nice piece of evidence for some form of immediate postcopulatory selection in this species of insect.
This was in the first paper from the citation list that I opened at random.
-
Ooh this is a good one. Second one too!
It has been suggested that these behaviours have evolved by cryptic female choice, whereby females are thought to impose biases on male postmating paternity success. Males of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum rub the lateral edges of the females' elytra with their tarsi during copulation. We manipulated female perception of this behaviour by tarsal ablation in males, thus preventing males from reaching the edge of the female elytra with their manipulated legs, and by subsequently performing a series of double–mating experiments where the copulatory behaviour was quantified. We found a positive relationship between the intensity of the copulatory courtship behaviour and relative fertilization success among unmanipulated males. This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.
Beautiful - an experimental intervention with a strong rejection of the null. Again, a good piece of evidence.
And wow, look at this data:
Residual fertilization success was
generated in a generalized linear model, identical to the one
presented in table 1 apart from the exclusion of the rate of leg
rubbing and its interaction with leg manipulation. Male
fertilization success increased with the rate of leg rubbing in
unmanipulated males (test of H0
: ˆ 0; t ˆ 2.75, d.f. ˆ 47,
p ˆ 0.009) but not in males with manipulated legs (test of H0
:
ˆ 0; t ˆ 0.045, d.f. ˆ 60, p ˆ 0.964)
P of .0009! Holy ****. That is a damn fine P and the effect size is not shoddy either. I can see why that paper was published!
So to return to your statement:
p-value papers with data going all over the place and with a miraculous "line fit" in the middle of it, "proving" (rofl) that males have better fitness when they continue their "courting" post-coitally. This is not an empirical evidence that shows that the hypothesis of post-coital selection is happening. Rather, it's a compatible evidence with this theory, but it's also compatible with multiple, infinite other theories, and, obviously, the null hypothesis.
So far my highly scientific sample has found none of these, and instead has found papers that firmly reject their null hypotheses with solid statistical tests, adding interesting grains of sand to an as-yet-incomplete pile.
-
If your argument against the idea that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not totally sure it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, is that postcoital selection may occur in humans but we're not TOTALLY SURE it happens in humans, merely presented with a body of evidence suggesting it's possible, you're not making a very strong argument.
Nope. I'm saying that the evidence you provided us with for that hypothesis is next to zero.
So it's not a matter of "totally suredness" to me at all. To me, it is "possible", not "probable". "Possible" in the sense of "anything's possible".
You started from the position that men followed a simple promiscuous strategy and women followed a simple monogamous strategy. You've done well to abandon it, recognizing that the situation is more complex.
I didn't "start" at it. I started the discussion with it, so we could discuss it. I always caveated to the problems of iterations due to the stochastic processes, etc. In my view, simple strategies are far more easy to prove or disprove than complex ones. And post-coital selection strategies are way down the complex tube. It's far away from empirical reach. At least, if what you've shown here is representative.
You laughed at the idea that there could be any female-agentic postcoital selection idea whatsoever.
No, I laughed to, and I quote:
but the very fact that they can be selective within themselves (and they can)
(My emphasis) to your positive, unambiguous claim that this was in fact, a fact!
So instead of your rosy picture of me "abandoning" territory so you can "claim" some kind of "kinky" victory is quite the opposite of the truth.
You were the one claiming something to be entirely factual, when after all said and done, you have nothing but post-coital courtings between bees to show as evidence of this phenomena.
You've done well to abandon that too, because you were given a list of well-cited articles describing that there may be some evidence for its possibility.
It's as if I'm talking to a wall.
An experimental intervention producing statistically significant results that reject the null! How wonderful. It would be tempting to overanalyze this, but as it stands, it's just a nice piece of evidence for some form of immediate postcopulatory selection in this species of insect.
As I said, you provide evidence that post-coital "exercise" given by the male influences his fitness. This link is not surprising to me. Why wouldn't such an energy expenditure have any profit in its fitness?
Now you can try to gap the bridge between "tapping" (I almost read it with an f) and "post-coital female selection", without making a leap in logic.
We found a positive relationship between the intensity of the copulatory courtship behaviour and relative fertilization success among unmanipulated males. This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.
Quite the conclusion. Stronger, I admit, but damn, to arrive at the conclusion that the female has chosen anything, deriven from the absence of stimuli by her partner, is incredible. Are they sure it isn't just a reaction? You rub the female's leg, she gets either relaxed or excited, muscles behave differently, fitness is hampered with.
What the hell does that have to do with "Choice"?
-
And now you're down to squabbling over the use of the word 'choice' as if it must imply some kind of conscious volition rather than a process internal to the female.
You're now conceding the argument that these papers have methodological problems and returning to the notion that we do not have strong evidence to prove any form of internal selection. Which is not a point that's been asserted. Females can select sperm internally, that much is (probably) apparent, and that was asserted. Past that, though, are there any points on the floor that you're interested in engaging in?
-
And now you're down to squabbling over the use of the word 'choice' as if it must imply some kind of conscious volition rather than a process internal to the female.
I knew it! We reached semantics.
If you want to deflate the words "female choice" to something on the order of "female body manipulated by male's actions", then case closed, the jury's out, I win.
Specially because the way you used the words "choice" in the human context in the first place.
(mumbojumbo on how "choice" isn't really happening in human brains in 3...2....)
-
Reread my last post.
We're training you to work with empirical data here. You failed to extract the necessary information to address your points here; it had to be delivered for you. Just try to apply that to Karajorma's recommendation in the future.
-
What I'm saying is that if you keep having to move the goalposts back I don't think this discussion is going anywhere except 'save face' territory. It just isn't meaningful without the ability to engage with the empirical data. And that's assuming you want to do that - you've clearly moved away from your original fallacies which is an outcome I'm satisfied with.
-
You're now conceding the argument that these papers have methodological problems
Where? p-values of 0.01 do not impress me that much, young padawan.
...and returning to the notion that we do not have strong evidence to prove any form of internal selection.
Nor strong nor weak. You have a male who rubs her partner's legs, and gets increased fitness by the reaction of her body.
And this is evidence that human females can pick and choose which kind of sperm penetrate their eggs, from a multiple selection of those, after some "productive action" with multiple males (or something equivalent), which was your original point..... .... exactly in what kind of fairy tale?
What I'm saying is that if you keep having to move the goalposts back I don't think this discussion is going anywhere except 'save face' territory.
So you are denying you made the point that human females do *in fact* choose male sperm, as something factual, not possible?
-
Reread my last post.
We're training you to work with empirical data here. You failed to extract the necessary information to address your points here; it had to be delivered for you. Just try to apply that to Karajorma's recommendation in the future.
You have delivered nothing novel, the paper I was able to read that had the most information about this issue contained the same type of evidence you are now championing..... perhaps with worse p values. (If I remember it recalled 0.02)
-
So you are denying you made the point that human females do *in fact* choose male sperm, as something factual, not possible?
Here is the exact point I made:
I really don't see how. As fact, it seems to me, rather the opposite, women get to be extremely selective of any sperm that gets inside her.
Exactly - but the very fact that they can be selective within themselves (and they can) provides the incentive for them to get a lot of sperm inside!
This point is unrelated to the current debate: it states that women benefit from sperm competition, though I can see how it would be taken as an endorsement of a strong cryptic choice position. It was a rejoinder to your idea that women benefit from strong external, rather than internal, selectivity, a position since abandoned.
If you're interested in cryptic female choice in primates, I suggest "Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice" and "The Potential For Cryptic Female Choices in Primates", both of which do a decent job of presenting the as-yet-incomplete evidence.
You have delivered nothing novel
I've delivered every piece of empirical evidence in this discussion and single-handedly rendered this one of the most educational threads on HLP.
(If I remember it recalled 0.02)
This P value is inside the acceptable margin for work in this field, though you should also be careful to look at effect sizes and the tailedness of the tests used.
-
Man I'm not getting paid to participate in this debate any more.
-
I've delivered every piece of empirical evidence in this discussion and single-handedly rendered this one of the most educational threads on HLP.
Ah yes, touché. Albeit I have learned little more than the fact that there are flies who rub other flies, and that there are people who think women can make cryptic choices about male sperms. Which is a provocative question.
Man I'm not getting paid to participate in this debate any more
Me neither.
-
Well I was all day, I made bank :(
-
I'm not an english speaking, so bear with me... how making bank is something sad?
-
I've delivered every piece of empirical evidence in this discussion and single-handedly rendered this one of the most educational threads on HLP.
Consider myself enlightened. I'm a bit (a very tiny bit) of a renaissance man these days so I do try and stay informed on as many subjects as possible... but this is not one of them. Interesting material!
-
I've delivered every piece of empirical evidence in this discussion and single-handedly rendered this one of the most educational threads on HLP.
And by doing that... you've turned it into a monster! :P.
-
But what a well-educated monster it is!
-
I'm not an english speaking, so bear with me... how making bank is something sad?
Well, I guess he could have rotated about the forward axis in his reference frame
A+++ thread, would read again
-
captain i'm detecting some turbulence in steps 1 2 3 4 and the other steps
You brought this subject up, not me. It's not my fault if you ridiculously decide that I *must* accept speculative science as factual.
I'm sure a lot of people in Europe said similar things about the earth being round back in the day pal. GB has scientific evidence, which is pretty legit. Now unless they're handing out PhD's at your local Safeway as a grocery coupon, I'm going to bet the people running these studies have a very solid understanding of the process, and their studies made it through peer review, peers just as smart as them. Swallow hard and back down Luis, you've turned this debate into a temper tantrum.
Edit-
My apologies, I posted that shortly after reading the post I quoted, frankly it didnt look like anything was going to calm down. Paging over the rest, i see that it did, to some degree that is.
-
I'm sure a lot of people in Europe said similar things about the earth being round back in the day pal. GB has scientific evidence, which is pretty legit. Now unless they're handing out PhD's at your local Safeway as a grocery coupon, I'm going to bet the people running these studies have a very solid understanding of the process, and their studies made it through peer review, peers just as smart as them. Swallow hard and back down Luis, you've turned this debate into a temper tantrum.
So now that you've recanted, I'm asking what is exactly your opinion on the quality of empirical evidence that shows that homo-sapiens sapiens women have cryptic post-coital choice abilities.
To say silly things like "but he haz peer-reviewz" doesn't count, for the papers he brought up were *not* about "empirical evidence that shows that etc", but empirical evidence that shows that bugs rub their female partners after the pleasure-act, and that such rubbing has small effects on the fertility rate.
So as you see, there are an infinite amount of papers that "prove" that homo-sapiens do in fact do this kind of thing, if your criteria of "papers that prove blablabla" do not have to do with the matters at hand ;).
-
I'm still noticing a profound lack of any peer-reviewed scientific sources that state otherwise.
-
I'm sure a lot of people in Europe said similar things about the earth being round back in the day pal. GB has scientific evidence, which is pretty legit. Now unless they're handing out PhD's at your local Safeway as a grocery coupon, I'm going to bet the people running these studies have a very solid understanding of the process, and their studies made it through peer review, peers just as smart as them. Swallow hard and back down Luis, you've turned this debate into a temper tantrum.
So now that you've recanted, I'm asking what is exactly your opinion on the quality of empirical evidence that shows that homo-sapiens sapiens women have cryptic post-coital choice abilities.
To say silly things like "but he haz peer-reviewz" doesn't count, for the papers he brought up were *not* about "empirical evidence that shows that etc", but empirical evidence that shows that bugs rub their female partners after the pleasure-act, and that such rubbing has small effects on the fertility rate.
So as you see, there are an infinite amount of papers that "prove" that homo-sapiens do in fact do this kind of thing, if your criteria of "papers that prove blablabla" do not have to do with the matters at hand ;).
It's already been explained to you exactly what point the empirical evidence in the papers supports, and it's not the absolute existence of cryptic choice in female humans, it's the possibility of cryptic choice in female humans, which you began by laughing at and now (happily) acknowledge. You're still misreading them too (and introducing inaccurate terminology like 'pleasure act'; don't anthropomorphize the subject). Reread this quote to understand part of your mistake (the other is that you think rubbing behavior in the beetles happens after mating, it doesn't:
This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.
Let the thread go. Feel free to check out my reading recommendations:
If you're interested in cryptic female choice in primates, I suggest "Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice" and "The Potential For Cryptic Female Choices in Primates", both of which do a decent job of presenting the as-yet-incomplete evidence.
-
Also this is a good read
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn regarding the potential for
CFC in primates:
• Despite the challenges in demonstrating that CFC exists, there are compelling
theoretical reasons as to why CFC is likely to act and have acted in primates.
• There are multiple mechanisms by which CFC can be accomplished. These mechanisms
can act anytime after the initiation of copulation and even include post-birth
events.
• CFC is at times co-existent with pre-copulatory female choice. For example, what
may be pre-copulatory female choice towards one male may at the same be CFC
against a previously mated male. Or, pre-copulatory choice on the basis of some
male trait(s) can be followed by CFC based upon the same or different male trait(s).
288 Reeder
• CFC is most likely to act in those species where females routinely mate with more
than one male.
Despite what I believe to be the high potential for CFC in primates, it may in fact be
very difficult to demonstrate unequivocally due to factors such as the generally small
sample sizes of primate studies and the level of invasive work that may be required.
Nevertheless, in many ways, the time is right to begin to explore this field. This comes
about in large part by many recent methodological advances that allow us to approach
this topic from a variety of angles. A particularly important advance of course is DNA
analysis, which is becoming more routine and more accessible. Without the ability to
assess paternity, the definitive demonstration of CFC in most cases is impossible. As
with DNA analysis, our ability to track animals via telemetry has been around for some
time, but is currently better than ever, with smaller and more reliable transmitters and
tracking equipment. Field studies on primates are being carried out throughout the
world, which should increasingly provide the broadly based comparative data needed
to answer many questions about the behavioral, anatomical, and physiological components
of CFC. The numerous studies conducted in captivity are also shedding light on
the processes potentially underlying CFC. In particular, the advances made in understanding
reproductive physiology by the biomedical community allow us to begin to
explore things such as female influences on sperm transport. Information gathered
through the use of all of these technical advances can be combined in a synergistic
way such that we can now examine CFC from multiple perspectives. In fact, the study
of CFC and its relationship to SC provides an excellent opportunity to integrate physiological
and behavioral mechanisms with evolutionary theory [Gomendio & Roldan,
1993; Eberhard & Cordero, 1995].
As primatologists, we tend to draw our conclusions from what we observe, both in
captivity and in the field. In this chapter, I hope to have illustrated how observed male
mating success and male paternity can be two very different things, influenced in large
part by interactions with the female’s behavior, anatomy, and physiology. That this
discussion of the potential for CFC has carried on for many pages, and even that it
warrants a chapter in this text, is testament to the need to continue to recognize the
active role that females play in reproduction. In the words of Eberhard [1996, pg. 420],
“Abandoning the idea that females are morphologically and behaviorally passive and
inflexible in male-female interactions promises to give a more complete understanding
of sexual selection.”
full text here (http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/dreeder/Reeder%202003%20Cryptic%20Choice%20in%20Primates.pdf)
-
It's already been explained to you exactly what point the empirical evidence in the papers supports, and it's not the absolute existence of cryptic choice in female humans, it's the possibility of cryptic choice in female humans, which you began by laughing at and now (happily) acknowledge.
Must I assume from these last few words that your past misrepresentations were actually deliberate and that you are just shamelessly lying now to the audiences?
You know perfectly godammned well that the sentence to which I laughed at was a sentence of you proclaiming this ability on part of women as fact, not as a possibility.
Had you made the point that this weird phenomena was "possible" in the first hand I would have not laughed at it. Weird stuff happens all the time.
Now, having caught you misrepresenting this bit again for the second ****ing time, you still have the gall to say that I have, since then, "acknowledge", recanted, backpedalled, whatever.
Please tell me, how the hell should I take you seriously when you keep repeating these libelous words of yours?
You're still misreading them too (and introducing inaccurate terminology like 'pleasure act'
Don't be such a bore.
don't anthropomorphize the subject). Reread this quote to understand part of your mistake (the other is that you think rubbing behavior in the beetles happens after mating, it doesn't:
This pattern, however, was absent in manipulated males, where female perception of male behaviour differed from that actually performed. Thus, female perception of male copulatory courtship behaviour, rather than male behaviour per se, apparently governs the fate of sperm competing over fertilizations within the female, showing that copulatory courtship is under selection by cryptic female choice.
I stand corrected. I've seen the numbers. The data is all over the place. It doesn't impress me, but I can live with that too. After all, all medicine is full of similar studies, most of them found to be junk some time later.
All these studies could well prove to be true, after multiple replications and further tests fail to falsify the hypothesis, and still you have a whole lot of work still ahead of you to turn your sentence anything but to be laughed at.
Let the thread go.
It's hard when people do not understand where I am coming from and still think the onus is on me. It isn't.
Feel free to check out my reading recommendations:
If you're interested in cryptic female choice in primates, I suggest "Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice" and "The Potential For Cryptic Female Choices in Primates", both of which do a decent job of presenting the as-yet-incomplete evidence.
Thanks, that may be interesting. If I have the time, I'll give it consideration. You have quite the bibliographic references.
-
I think it's poetic how a thread that started out about anal sex ended with so much butthurt. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif)
You were unaware of the realities of sex-differential ESS behavior and their implications for female promiscuity, and unaware of the mechanisms driving those contrastereotypic ESS. Now you have been enlightened!
-
I really do have a hard time deciding which one of those two is making the internet suck more. :ick:
-
^ I think it's the anal. The argument is kinda interesting.
/entirely joking.
-
I really do have a hard time deciding which one of those two is making the internet suck more. :ick:
No, sorry, I won't be responsabilized for the video collections of felatio in the webz.
-
responsabilized
I know you're not a native English speaker and therefore I can't tell if this is intentional or not, but that gets my vote for best new word of the week.
-
responsabilized
I know you're not a native English speaker and therefore I can't tell if this is intentional or not, but that gets my vote for best new word of the week.
You have been responsabilitated!
-
I'm not very good at wordifications.
(Sorry, in portuguese the word exists...)
-
I think that'd be 'validated' in English.
-
I'm not very good at wordifications.
(Sorry, in portuguese the word exists...)
Palavreado -> Verbiage; Wordiness; Wording.
-
Well, the thing is, in English, wordification and responsibalised pretty much work, I'd understand what was implied from context. They both obey the 'rules' such as they are, and anyone whose read stuff like Jabberwock will know the sort of games that you can play with Language and still get your message across ;).
-
Well, the thing is, in English, wordification and responsibalised pretty much work, I'd understand what was implied from context. They both obey the 'rules' such as they are, and anyone whose read stuff like Jabberwock will know the sort of games that you can play with Language and still get your message across ;).
Yep, Jabberwocky is a rather fun little poem.
T'was brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble...
-
I'm not very good at wordifications.
(Sorry, in portuguese the word exists...)
Palavreado -> Verbiage; Wordiness; Wording.
Ahah, what I meant was that "responsabilized" works in portuguese, "wordification" was only a joke on myself, but also on bushisms...