Talk:Concealed ovulation

message: why is the concept of red lips seen as "concealed". i learned different then you describe here. the BODY is defenityly reaction depite what modern genderx people insist to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  red lips 

message: I have to object to the entire idea that evolution is intelligent, which is implied by the title verb of "concealed."
*Scientific investigation indicates that fertile women produce pheromes which are perceptible.
*"Rhythm" awareness of fertility has been discovered in human societies as far back as we look.  This is further clarified by the usual practice of menstrual taboo practices, the taboo tent for menstruating women, etc.
*Year-round sexual activity can be explained quite a bit more easily by the fact that humans have no single environment; they cannot be sure of famine or bounty conditions and therefore need to be able to mate at any time.
*Human infants are helpless for longer than any other young.  They require complete attention for two to five years.  Therefore, it is very important for there to be young, and it requires frequent mating to ensure reproduction.  As complex organisms, humans are tenuous in utero, and human females produce a single child at a time.
*Infant mortality in the evolutionary period would have been staggeringly high.  After adding miscarriage into loss by predation, famine, and disease, you have all sorts of benefits to tricking not the male, but the female, into being pregnant year round.
Additionally, the "facts" are off.
*Bonobo chimps have recreational sex.  In fact, their sex (infamous for being same-sex as often as different sex) functions as a social bonding ritual, as an apology, a reassurance, and an erotic act. 
*Making blanket statements that "women prefer" is a generalization so broad as to stagger the imagination.
*Children look like their fathers to prevent infanticide? If alpha males are parenting but chump betas are rearing, wouldn't it be the dumbo beta who looks into the infant's eyes, sees the local bully, and then gets duped?  How?
To me, this entire approach is mistaken, from its title to its conclusions. Geogre 20:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good evening, Geogre.  I don't know that anyone would say that evolution is "intelligent" except as a bit of poetic license. I certainly did not read any such implication into the title. If you have a suggestion for a better title though, please move the article there.  Some of your other concerns are quite valid.  Even though this is a published theory, it is still a disputed theory. The article still has a ways to go to be fully fact-based and NPOV.  Perhaps we should open an "objections" section at the bottom of the article?  Having said that, a few of your objections have been addressed (to some degree) in the published literature.  I'll try a recap below so we can build on each of them independently.  Thanks for your help. Rossami 22:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, first let me apologize for the pugilistic tone.  I do realize that folks are working in good faith, and my final comment, in particular, was ill-tempered.  My problem with the title is the "conceal" requires an agent and implies intent.  Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to language, but I cannot read the word without an implication of intention.
As for what to do with objections, let me make it clear that I recognize the validity and repute of the research presented here, but it is still a minority view that is highlighted against the older views which I more or less present.  If you'd like, I can write an "other views" section at the end that opens something like, "The idea that concealed ovulation is an adaptation whose primary benefit is in allowing the alpha male genes to pass on in a context of beta male nurturing is one explanation of many.  The same evolutionary adaptation can be viewed as arising because..." and then go to some of the objectionary grounds I've outlined.
As for the matters of fact that you outline below, I will interline my responses and apologize for the formatting mess that creates. Geogre 01:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Objection 

message: "Until the beginnings of agriculture, breastfeeding and low nutrition levels caused a natural fertility suppression."
that's from the wiki.  in fact, studies (jared diamond) show exactly the opposite:  the advent of agriculture correlated with a drop in nutrition and health.  done successfuly, agriculture can guarantee "bulk" in a particular region, but not nutrition, since it doesn't inherently have any nutritional benefits.  it's a totally unsubstantiated argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  128.119.132.224 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 October 2006   (UTC)
:Not only that, but the sentence implies that breastfeeding stopped when agriculture started (!)
:If you are interested and have some knowledge of the topic, please be bold and edit the page. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: agriculture and nutrition

message: The entry entitled 'Menstruation and the origins of culture' is fundamentally about the evolutionary emergence of symbolic culture. It would not be helpful to place it under 'concealed ovulation', which is a purely biological topic. Agreed that 'concealed ovulation' in Wikipedia is not accurate or authoritative as it stands. Totally unclear what Engels has got to do with it, for example (I say this as an admirer of Engels) But I do agree with the suggestion that the material on concealed ovulation currently in 'menstruation and the origins of culture' might usefully be merged in some way with 'concealed ovulation'. Will try to update the concealed ovulation entry with proper scholarly references later this week. Chris 86.136.13.247 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: An editor has recently added infanticide (zoology) and self-deception to the "see also" section of this article.  I had reverted the infanticide link not understanding how it was related to this article, and it was restored with advice that I read a particular book.  I have no idea how influential this book or the ideas it presents are in the related science fields - the Wikipedia article on the book doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:N, which could indicate either the book not being important to the field or nobody having gotten around to improving the Wikipedia article to that point.  
But if I have to read a book to understand how a concept is related, maybe it's not sufficiently closely related to be in a see-also section.  I find it very bizarre to see both of these links there, and skimming through the Wikipedia articles on those two topics I found no information related to concealed ovulation.  If I'm interested in learning about concealed ovulation, why would I want to read those two Wikipedia articles? 
Also, I don't believe "see also" links should be piped.  Piping the animal infanticide article to look like the link is to the human infanticide article just adds to the eerie feeling having that link in this article gives me. LyrlTalk     C   14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Diamond describes the research of others in that area (and the book is notable, though needs a reception section). Basically there are two hypotheses for the evolution of concealed ovulation, one of them involving infanticide as the "selective pressure". The article on infanticide still doesn't have anything on concealed ovulation either, I just haven't had much time to edit these articles and too few others write on evolutionary theory. Linking to the human infanticide article would be pretty useless, as it doesn't go into evolution at all. Richard001 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reply.  I'll look forward to seeing the link return to this article when the infanticide article gets expanded to include more evolutionary theory. LyrlTalk     C   01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-obvious wikilinks in "see-also" section 

message: The article seems to confuse estrus/estrous/oestrus (see appropriate article for discussion on spelling!) with menstruation. Humans don't have an oestrus cycle, they menstruate. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Baboons have an oestrus cycle AND menstruate.  The two characteristics are not mutual exclusive.  Also, there are researchers who claim that humans do have an estrus (thus the studies claiming fertile women are more attractive). LyrlTalk     C   01:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estrus(?) vs Menstruation 

message: This article used to be a fairly extensive article - now it is a little stub... Who did all the cutting and why? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The old version of the article is here.  It was completely unreferenced.  Much of the "Engels" and "discussion" sections were unrelated to the title of the article.  The current article is shorter, but well-referenced and tightly on topic: a large improvement, in my opinion. LyrlTalk     C   17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Cut Out Most of This Article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Concealed ovulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821223420/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ehbe-lab/acrobatfiles/is%20ovulation%20concealed.pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/is%20ovulation%20concealed.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified