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.
