Hyper-masculinity & Hyper-femininity

[Ocean of Notions]

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. What is this crap about being "biologically programmed" for x, y and z? Sounds like convenient excuses to re-enforce certain cultural ideals. And what is this crap about women having undergone more sexual selection than men? That is a very bold assumption. Women didn't have much a choice while men had plenty? Oh really? I think you're looking at more contemporary cultural constructs, applying it to the past and then reflecting it back to modern times.

[Tyrellius]

Amazingly NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

But...he has a beard?

(or maybe not the window only stayed open for about 2 seconds before being slammed shut)

I feel....violated. In the bad way. :uhoh:

[cjfshaw]

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. What is this crap about being "biologically programmed" for x, y and z?

Well I don't know about the whole what we're programmed to like argument, but, we ARE built to have a more slender physique and run long distances. There is physiological evidence to support that.

[Kalbear]

Well I don't know about the whole what we're programmed to like argument, but, we ARE built to have a more slender physique and run long distances. There is physiological evidence to support that.

We're also built to swing in trees. Therefore we should favor people with really long arms?

[Ran]

Err. We are not built to swing from trees.

[jurble]

I see a lot of people making a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. What is this crap about being "biologically programmed" for x, y and z? Sounds like convenient excuses to re-enforce certain cultural ideals. And what is this crap about women having undergone more sexual selection than men? That is a very bold assumption. Women didn't have much a choice while men had plenty? Oh really? I think you're looking at more contemporary cultural constructs, applying it to the past and then reflecting it back to modern times.

Males have definitely undergone sexual selection, human penis size is much larger than that of our closest relatives, but it's not Fisherian runaway, increased penis size does not lower fitness. Male sexually selected characteristics are basically: penis size, body hair, beard, and balding after puberty. Not all of these traits are present in all men, but their presence is only explained by sexual selection. They wouldn't exist without it. But women have: neoteny, little body hair, and fat distributed to the breasts and hips, and these factors are far divergent than previous human ancestors. Compared to a Homo Erectus, a modern human male is just less hairy, has a more developed chin, and is a bit shorter on average. Compared to a Homo Erectus female, a human female looks completely different, the bones are way more gracile, the body weight and height is way lower, and though obviously we don't know what Homo Erectus looked like with all its skin and muscles, we can make good guesses, and Homo Erectus females probably did not have the breasts of modern human females. Now, sexual dimorphism has DECREASED overall. The size difference between a Homo Erecturs male and a Homo Erectus female is larger than between modern men and women, but certain traits in women have extremely exaggerated over millenia due sexual selection.

Consider this question: Why don't women look more like men facially? There's no reason for them not to. It's sexual selection. Now granted, lots of men no longer have huge protruding brows, but some do, more so than women who have non-neotenic faces.

[Ocean of Notions]

Well I don't know about the whole what we're programmed to like argument, but, we ARE built to have a more slender physique and run long distances. There is physiological evidence to support that.

Depends on who. Some people just don't have the body type to be slim and run long distances. Other people have the propensity to take on more weight or have higher stamina. A person with a lean body type often cannot take on muscles the same way someone with a naturally muscular build. If we were all programmed to be slender long distances runners, how do we account for this?

And as far as I know, it's less "long distance runner" and more "long distance walker".

[Relic]

What is this crap about being "biologically programmed" for x, y and z?

Maybe im not understanding what you're saying here but how is biological programming "crap"? Genetic adaptation via natural selection = biological programming. I recently read a pretty nifty theory (in a book called Born to Run) on early man surviving because of being able to run long distances, something other predatory animals don't do as well. This article explains the theory.

[Kat]

Err. We are not built to swing from trees.

Speak for yourself. I had a rope swing in my yard when I was a kid and I used it every day. It must have been genetically pre-determined, because I was good at swinging and never fell off. :P

[Relic]

Depends on who. Some people just don't have the body type to be slim and run long distances. Other people have the propensity to take on more weight or have higher stamina. A person with a lean body type often cannot take on muscles the same way someone with a naturally muscular build. If we were all programmed to be slender long distances runners, how do we account for this?

And as far as I know, it's less "long distance runner" and more "long distance walker".

You are born with the ability to run long stretches at a time, by way of how your feet, legs, and pelvis are designed. Of course that isnt true in each and every human being, but than again, you'd probably not last too long on the savannah if you didnt know how to run.

[jurble]

Maybe im not understanding what you're saying here but how is biological programming "crap"? Genetic adaptation via natural selection = biological programming. I recently read a pretty nifty theory (in a book called Born to Run) on early man surviving because of being able to run long distances, something other predatory animals don't do as well. This article explains the theory.

Mhmm, I've read basically, the theory is, a gazelle will outpace a dude on the Savannah for a bit by sprinting, but it will use up all of its energy stores. So by chasing them across the plains at a steady rate over days, the hunters would have eventually overtaken and killed the exhausted animals.

[Relic]

Mhmm, I've read basically, the theory is, a gazelle will outpace a dude on the Savannah for a bit by sprinting, but it will use up all of its energy stores. So by chasing them across the plains at a steady rate over days, the hunters would have eventually overtaken and killed the exhausted animals.

Yup. I read an account by a guy who witnessed this happening in Africa. I'll see if i can find it.

[TerraPrime]

Maybe im not understanding what you're saying here but how is biological programming "crap"? Genetic adaptation via natural selection = biological programming. I recently read a pretty nifty theory (in a book called Born to Run) on early man surviving because of being able to run long distances, something other predatory animals don't do as well. This article explains the theory.

The issue is a matter of implied destiny.

When an organism is genetically programmed to do X, then it will do X, given the right stimulus and condition. Try to map that onto the example you used for running.

Humans are genetically programmed to run long distances. Does this mean that when we have a clear road ahead, we cannot but help running it?

Similarly, if females are genetically programmed to like strong, muscular men, does that mean that when presented with a choice, women will have to choose the strong, muscular men? And if they don't, what meaning is there in the phrase "genetically programmed?"

The bacterium E. coli is genetically programmed to utilize lactose when lactose is present. If you give it lactose, it'll respond and it'll start to make enzymes that can utilize it. That's clear-cut.

What is not clear-cut is human behaviors that involve volition, determination, and above all, affected and modified by social and cultural norms. Mate selection is as much a social endeavor as it is a biological one. Reduction of the issue into biological essentialism is wrong-headed and misleading.

[jurble]

The issue is a matter of implied destiny.

When an organism is genetically programmed to do X, then it will do X, given the right stimulus and condition. Try to map that onto the example you used for running.

Humans are genetically programmed to run long distances. Does this mean that when we have a clear road ahead, we cannot but help running it?

Uh yeah, if you take a human and a neanderthal, both of equal fitness levels, the neanderthal will run slower, and expend more energy than the human. The Neanderthal will also be able to tear the human's head off with upperbody strength. Physiology is physiology. Culture doesn't alter physiology. (Aside from artificial selection obviously, but in the small individual scale I mean. Also gotta exclude crap like foot-binding.)

[Ocean of Notions]

Males have definitely undergone sexual selection, human penis size is much larger than that of our closest relatives, but it's not Fisherian runaway, increased penis size does not lower fitness.

Looking at our closest relatives isn't exactly looking into the past. Chimps and gorillas didn't come into being before Homo sapiens evolved. We share an ancestor. They are not our ancestors. That being said, who's to say that our shared ancestor had penis sizes closer to modern humans and chimps and gorillas are the ones that ended up with smaller ones?

Male sexually selected characteristics are basically: penis size, body hair, beard, and balding after puberty. Not all of these traits are present in all men, but their presence is only explained by sexual selection.

False. We're forgetting linked characteristics came along for the ride that were neither selected for or against. You could be right, however, you're still taking a leap without looking at the full picture.

They wouldn't exist without it. But women have: neoteny, little body hair, and fat distributed to the breasts and hips, and these factors are far divergent than previous human ancestors. Compared to a Homo Erectus, a modern human male is just less hairy, has a more developed chin, and is a bit shorter on average.

Really? If we're just looking at facial structure, there's also a very obvious difference: the incredibly prominent brow ridge that is indicative of the species. Other than that, there's the number of teeth, and ridges for muscle attachment found on various parts of the cranium. I think you're simplifying this a bit too much. Also, I don't believe H. erectus is a direct decedent, but a line that died out. It's been a while since my Palaeoanthropology class, but I'll see if I can find the notes.

Compared to a Homo Erectus female, a human female looks completely different, the bones are way more gracile, the body weight and height is way lower, and though obviously we don't know what Homo Erectus looked like with all its skin and muscles, we can make good guesses, and Homo Erectus females probably did not have the breasts of modern human females. Now, sexual dimorphism has DECREASED overall. The size difference between a Homo Erecturs male and a Homo Erectus female is larger than between modern men and women, but certain traits in women have extremely exaggerated over millenia due sexual selection.

Both sexes have gone through plenty of morphological changes over the years our species have evolved into its current form, but that doesn't mean one sex has more control over the other sex's evolution, which seems like what you're implying. Even if females of the past did go for certain more "traditional" masculine visual cues when selecting a mate, that does not mean personality and culture should be discounted. I'm very weary of this evolutionary psychology crap, but one can't neglect the shaping of psychology throughout a specie's change.

ETA

Consider this question: Why don't women look more like men facially? There's no reason for them not to. It's sexual selection. Now granted, lots of men no longer have huge protruding brows, but some do, more so than women who have non-neotenic faces.

Actually, there are reasons: hormones. Not to say that sexual selection isn't at work. I agree, they are, but I don't like some of the assumptions you're making and what your assumptions imply, but I think I already addressed that above.

[Ocean of Notions]

Maybe im not understanding what you're saying here but how is biological programming "crap"? Genetic adaptation via natural selection = biological programming. I recently read a pretty nifty theory (in a book called Born to Run) on early man surviving because of being able to run long distances, something other predatory animals don't do as well. This article explains the theory.

My issue is that people throw around that phrase all to easily and especially without really understanding what they're talking about. Anyway, Terra brought up some very good points.

[Relic]

When an organism is genetically programmed to do X, then it will do X, given the right stimulus and condition. Try to map that onto the example you used for running.

Good point. I'm far from an expert on genetics, but im pretty sure most of us are born with at least the ability to run long distances. Whether or not we make us of that has a lot more to do with our upbringing than anything else.

Anyway, i think i walked in on this conversation with a slightly different topic in mind than what you guys are discussing. My point was to try and bring attention to the type of human that survived when we, as a species, were close to extinction.

What is not clear-cut is human behaviors that involve volition, determination, and above all, affected and modified by social and cultural norms. Mate selection is as much a social endeavor as it is a biological one. Reduction of the issue into biological essentialism is wrong-headed and misleading.

Yeah, i agree with you there. Fully.

[Ocean of Notions]

Anyway, i think i walked in on this conversation with a slightly different topic in mind than what you guys are discussing. My point was to try and bring attention to the type of human that survived when we, as a species, were close to extinction.

We are!?

[jurble]

Looking at our closest relatives isn't exactly looking into the past. Chimps and gorillas didn't come into being before Homo sapiens evolved. We share an ancestor. They are not our ancestors. That being said, who's to say that our shared ancestor had penis sizes closer to modern humans and chimps and gorillas are the ones that ended up with smaller ones?

Because it would imply penis size shrunk in every other lineage, while stayed the same in ours. That would imply MORE change. Occam's Razor would have say that the numerous other ape lineages stayed the same, and that only one, ours, increased in penis size.

False. We're forgetting linked characteristics came along for the ride that were neither selected for or against. You could be right, however, you're still taking a leap without looking at the full picture.

The full picture in an unknown, if we waited for full pictures to make hypotheses, we'd get no where.

Really? If we're just looking at facial structure, there's also a very obvious difference: the incredibly prominent brow ridge that is indicative of the species. Other than that, there's the number of teeth, and ridges for muscle attachment found on various parts of the cranium. I think you're simplifying this a bit too much. Also, I don't believe H. erectus is a direct decedent, but a line that died out. It's been a while since my Palaeoanthropology class, but I'll see if I can find the notes.

And whether Homo Erectus is a direct ancestor is a question, obviously, it can't be known for sure, but evidence is in favor that Homo Erectus in Africa evolved into Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus in Europe evolved into Neanderthals. And those in Indonesia turned into Hobbits. And the brow ridge is decreased in most modern humans, but lots of guys still have a much more prominent brow than women. And Australian Aborigines have near-Erectus brow ridges.

Both sexes have gone through plenty of morphological changes over the years our species have evolved into its current form, but that doesn't mean one sex has more control over the other sex's evolution, which seems like what you're implying. Even if females of the past did go for certain more "traditional" masculine visual cues when selecting a mate, that does not mean personality and culture should be discounted. I'm very weary of this evolutionary psychology crap, but one can't neglect the shaping of psychology throughout a specie's change.

I'm not implying women are attracted to manly men. I don't know what women are attracted to, I'm not a woman. I just thought the sexual dimorphism and sexual selection would be a great topic to bring up in this thread. I only stated that women have undergone more sexual selection than men. And I'm standing by that.

BUT, if you want to go into evolutionary psychology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH RICHARD DAWKINS?

[Relic]

We are!?

eh?

were, not are.