>> >So recontextualizing, the "progressive, anti-futurist" argument --
>> >these women are simply fighting (tooth and nail) for the survival
>> >of their genetic design function -- to bear offspring.
>> But surely the exact same drive exists in men.
>To the second degree, men want to see offspring produced.
>If they don't see offspring produced (after making a
>commitment) their commitment is likely to become unstable.
That's my point. But you knew that.
>To the third degree, the men want to see evidence that
>the offspring are theirs. If they have blond hair and
>blue eyes, and the children are all showing up with red
>hair and green eyes, things are going to get *iffy*.
>If someone with red hair and green eyes happens to know
>female primary mate A, things are likely to get very heated.
Especially if they're all Asians.
Seriously, I take your point that Our Theoretical Woman will attempt to encourage Our Theoretical Man to remain loyal by holding out the threat that She might conceivably be disloyal Herself. But can't we as easily say that arises because He wouldn't otherwise have any compunctions about it?
And then there's this interesting idea:
>A very clever woman, could have children by a very smart,
>interesting, talented lover while all the time convincing
>a dumb, stupid lug to provide the resources to give these
>children a distinct survival advantage. Before the advent
>of DNA testing, this strategy would have had huge payroffs.
>How many women do you think would have turned down an
>opportunity to sleep with Motzart if they thought they
>could get away with it? Even worse, I suspect, that many
>women would completely ignore the qualities of their lover,
>if they thought their children would end up smart or talented.
The Interesting, Talented Lover would be the preferred choice of mate unless he didn't actually rank as high in the primate pecking order as the Dumb, Stupid Lug. It's been known to happen, to say the least, that the Lug does better in the world of primates than the Interesting Lover. And as a consequence, in a pinch it's the Lover who gets the boot, NOT the stable, consistent Lug.
If "Amadeus" is anything to go by, Mozart was an idiot savant, a bon vivant, a libertine. Couldn't hold a job. I propose that the Interesting, Talented Lover is either Already Married and therefore unlikely to create a real threat to the Wife's Existing Deal (He doesn't want to jeopardise His Own Deal), or He's a loser who transforms, in Her hands, into an interesting toy. Either way, Lug still has the upper hand: She loses on net if Lug throws Her out -- she's got nothing if Lover is married, and she's got a bum if Lover isn't.
So She's playing a very sophisticated game. So sophisticated that most women aren't up to it, any more than most men would be in the same circumstances. The sad fact of it is, most men aren't in those circumstances -- *they* make the spondoolicks -- so they're in the better position to "cheat." They can be stupid and cheat; women have to be smarter to get away with it. (No doubt this is why the Interesting, Talented Loser gets any tail at all -- he at least can carry a conversation.)
I don't believe for a minute that She's looking at the Interesting, Talented Lover/Loser for his abilities to make a child. She wants Her kids to succeed in the world of primates, and this guy hasn't demonstrated that His kids will do that.