There's this peculiar American form of feminism that teaches that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure. It's counterfactual, as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men. On top of that, everything has to be viewed through the lens of commerce. What's wrong with the nation?
In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]: "bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple group males, increasing its chances for survival.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg...
Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure... as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of anti-feminist)
Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with: "bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups offspring, rather than just his own."
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate?
If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.
Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
From a historical/global perspective, this is a bit of a "HUH!?" Religion of some form has played a major role in the majority of human lives for most of recorded history. Also, even when religion is absent, there are almost always some form of societal norms around sexual behavior. (Though, arguably less restrictive ones.)
The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.
I don't see any limitations highlighted. Please cite an example. I only see more data increasing the complexity of the discussion, but the products of natural selection are complex by nature. How is your above statement distinguishable from name calling and silencing-tactic FUD?
This is another huge "huh!?" as the data for evolutionary biology is fundamentally historical. (Another piece of data which you seem to lack, is that we've documented evolutionary changes in large mammals in only a couple hundred years.)
b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.
You keep calling it a "limitation" but keep failing to explain how that is a valid label. What is this, the 3rd time I've asked now? This pattern is starting to look like FUD and dishonest labelling to me.
So basically, you're warning against armchair evolutionary biology, as it's harder than some laypeople might think to get it right.
That's interesting about Bonobos.
Furthermore, I've heard from anthropologists that inhabitants of more feminist societies tend to be more satisfied with their (more frequent) sex lives. After all, successful patriarchy movements turn sex sick. However, I'm not going to hunt a cite about sex for an HN post, so believe what you will. :)
Definitely agree with viewing everything though the lens of commerce though. Free market fundamentalism is the US's greatest religion. Its ivory-tower priests are forever trying to recast everything into capitalist theology. Its holy wars are primarily to secure economic obedience. (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-...)