I have been fascinated by the brains versus buns argument. I recently read that indeed male offspring do get their intellectual endowment from the mother and not the father. But do they get nothing from the father?? I need feedback on this matter.
I am interested in the idea that human intellectual development has been slowed down or even stopped by the limited size of the female pelvic structure which would allow our brains at birth to be generally only so big! Why did not nature provide a way around this such as a physiological condition where the pelvis could expand even more then it does presently? Do you all agree that this is true?? This is a moot question now that with genetic engineering we will be able to increase the size of power of our brains.
How many of you agree with the thought that a woman's best bet is to mate with Mr. buns only (as compared to mr. buns and brains) so that she gets genes for health and looks while she does not need Mr. brains because she already as an intelligent woman has that base covered? Would Mr. Buns and Brains be genetically overpowering in the battle for birth weight vrs. health of the mother?? But then genetically optimal males are at a premium for the discerning female.
Like others have stated I consider this a very simplistic argument because people do not usually fall so neatly into categories. And an individual can usually do much to upgrade his attractibility to the opposite sex.
And a key factor not discussed has been how social status (being the MR. cool in a cool group) can definitely make a male attractive to females. Of course being Mr. Buns helps to get one into these groups. But some groups are open only to a Mr. Brains. Do any of you scientists and professors out there have female groupies?? I'm going for a doctorate if the answer is yes!