[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Mikes]

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?

[General Battuta]

... anyone care to dig up the cuckold statistics?

Something like 25% of children produced from monogamous partners have a father from outside the marriage.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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

[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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...

[Mikes]

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.

[General Battuta]

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

[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Mikes]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[General Battuta]

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!

[Luis Dias]

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?

[The E]

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.