From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:46:04 GMT

In article <Bz2MM6.79w@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.184049.10947@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>From article <Bz1ynI.D8y@nic.umass.edu>, by quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi):
>>> In article <1992Dec10.092816.3007@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>
>>> Huh? Why on earth would it be safe to assume this? It goes against the
>>> majority of human experience.  It is true that in some societies
>>> wealth and power is associated with male "harems" (and hence most
>>> probably more offspring).  But in many other societies monogamy is the
>>> rule, and so no such effect applies.
>>
>>Is it the rule?  Or is just what certain societies have decided it is a good
>>thing?  
>
>I just meant "rule" in the sense of statistical norm; I didn't mean
>anything either about how it was actually legislated, nor any moral or
>other judgement about what was preferable.
>
>>What percentage of marriages do you think make it through their
>>entirity without either partner cheating?  How about if they paired off
>>at seventeen?  I'm not implying harems.  What is being stated is that
>>successful, high profile individuals will have more access to sex and thus,
>>before birth control, would produce more offspring--in an outwardly monogamous
>>society this would be more oppurtunity to cheat.
>
>Last time I checked, members of ALL classes "cheated" on their
>spouses.  I really don't think you have any data showing a class
>difference in the rate of this... but I'd be interested in an
>emperical citation if you have one.
>
>> Seems a safe assumption
>>to me, and, I believe it is reflected in, for example, chimp behavior.  And
>
>Chimp behavior tells us very little about human behavior.  Amongst our
>three closest animal relations, chimps, gorillas, and orangautangs one
>finds three completely different sexual patterns... the relation
>genetically to all three is EXTREMELY close, so it's pretty much just
>a question of picking the one that best matches what you WANT to be
>the human pattern.  Humans themselves show a HUGE variety of different
>sexual patterns, some differences being cultural, others individual.
>
>>I think it is a rarity.  For the vast majority of human history we have been
>>hunter-gathers with no birth control.  A better correllation to look at in
>>todays US would be that between # sex partners and income.  Also, 
>>how do you take into account those children that are illegitimate ie 
>>how many kids do you think a Wilt Chamberlain, or even a JFK,
>>has running around?  I don't think its a just-so explaination that successful
>
>Actually, the figure I mentioned, number of offspring was EXACTLY the
>right figure to look at! However, if you think that my figure must
>have been inaccurate because it only reflected "legitimate" children,
>I'd love to see some data correllating # of illegitimate births with
>class of father, or even # of sex partners with class.  I'm pretty
>sure that none of your intuitions of this will turn out correct... but
>let's get some data to decide it rather than arguing a priori or
>anecdotally about two rich people who had lots of partners.  (btw. I
>know some poor people who have had quite a few sexual partners
>themselves... you just haven't read biographies or news reports about
>them... precisely BECAUSE they're poor, and therefore not famous).
>
>-- 
>    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
>   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
>  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

I'm not to sure about this.

Steve Russell


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal