Society does a lot of things. It subjugates one group, usually for the benefit of another. Nothing surprising there, it happens throughout history and has zero to do with anything that is natural biologically. After all, if it was natural, what reason would there be to enforce it with rules and shaming tactics?
Every aspect of society is derived from human nature, whether art, regulations, “shaming tactics”, rules, architecture, views, standards, concepts .e.t.c everything in society is born from human nature, which, of course, is both natural and biological. So what you’re inadvertently suggesting is that something originating from human nature “has zero to do with anything that is natural biologically”, which obviously makes no sense.
Being promiscuous is more risky for both male and female. For males more partners equals the need for gathering more resources, which is often an exhausting task. It also means more competition with other males for those resources, and thus greater chance of violence, death, etc. If you actually understood Bateman’s principle I have no idea why you’d suggest that multiple partners is not more risky for men. Bateman’s principle was also debunked a long time ago anyway.
Not equally as risky. What you’re implying suggests that intra-species competition for resources between males doesn't pose a risk to females, which is clearly untrue, even today fierce competition between men over resources has lead to the death of children and females, so imagine what collateral damages would have be apparent in less civil archaic times.
Competitive risk does not exclude females, implying such indicates that you have a very parochial understanding regarding the topic. On the other hand, gestation, incubation and child birth are specific costs only female mammals are subjected to, which goes on to illustrate my point - women stand to lose more by mating successfully. Also, I find it funny that you question my understanding of Bateman’s Principle when the primary tenants of the principle is that “women invest more into producing offspring than males”.
Lastly, aspects of Bateman’s Principle have been debunked not the entire principle, and the debunked aspects do not concern the parental investment aspect of human species, most of the debunked aspects are intra-species studies of other species such as drophilia, chimpanzees and scorpions.
Once again, multiple partners is riskier for both. But from an evolutionary psychology perspective, it doesn’t matter because that risk will be taken since the ultimate goal is to pass on genes. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, it actually makes zero sense for a female to be monogamous to only one male. Having multiple partners does more to 1) ensure pregnancy (more sperm) 2) receive the best possible genes 3) more resources 4) reduce risk of infanticide (if none of the males are sure of whose offspring it is, they are less likely to harm the child), and many more advantages.
Please state your other points though if you have them, because none of those overcome the evolutionary psychology urge to pass on your genes.
I’ve already acknowledged that our ultimate goal is genetic propagation and that for both male/females polygamy is beneficial in a sense, still, this does not eliminate the difference in reproductive cost/risks that exists between genders, or the fact that females have evolved an affinity towards quality as oppose to a quantity because they are the limiting sex. Also, I’ve never argued for monogamy, I’m not sure where that inference even came from. Just because females have evolved to pick mates in a more efficient/choosy manner than men doesn't mean they are naturally monogamous (this is where you're misunderstanding me).
It seems your contention is against me stating that “females are naturally picky when choosing partners to mate with”, what you're suggesting is that the difference between genders in terms of parental risk/investment had no baring on our evolution, which again is completely false. The limiting sex of our species (and most other mammals) are females, this is basic natural selection theory, females are not labelled the limiting sex because of societal pressures only, they are assigned this title due to biological dimorphism and evolution.
Robert Trivers formed the parental investment principle which explains that human females have adapted to become much more discriminating/efficient than men when choosing sexual partners due to; the limit in which a female can ovulate given a certain period, the biological cost necessary to lactate, the investment necessary to nurture the child, child birth risks, the entire gestation process .e.t.c.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary study, bolstered this theory via his book the “the origin of species” in which he states that all female mammals (accept hyenas) are the limiting sex (in fact, that book originated the term) due to the fact that reproduction is more costly for them compared to men, he also explained that male mammals aggressively compete for women because of the need to qualify themselves due to female mammals “picky" nature.
Again females mammals are the “picky“, or, “choosy” sex due to evolution, as acknowledged by the John Batemans’s investment principle, Charles Darwin’s theory of inter-sexual selection and Robert Trivers parental investment principle.
Irrelevant. Females haven’t selected to be more picky sexually, they are just told to be because it is beneficial for male’s to ensure the paternity of their off spring. That’s pretty much the entire reason why monogamy is useful, not to mention, for humans specifically, investment by both parents increases the chances of the infant’s survival and fitness probably a hundred fold.
I'll post the study about women reporting having more partners than men on average when you take away social pressure, etc.
Hopefully what I’ve wrote above justifies me not responding to this comment in full, but again, alot of this is wrong, you can’t just label years of intra-species adaptation “social pressure”, nor can you attribute it to paternity identification only, because you’d be ignoring decades of established evolutionary science.
That's too much of a risk.
I'd rather know my chick is down for the cause
You are confusing the hell out me with this post.
??