> altamira wrote: I think G. Miller would say that women are attracted to tall
> men because
> tallness is a sign of fitness.
Hmmm, sounds like an oversimplification, but lets move on to some
interesting comments you have made.
> Several days ago someone (was it you, Spike?) said they'd really liked the
> book and wanted to discuss it.
Ja.
> The reviews that were posted here were
> very...um, scholarly-like. You know what I mean?
No, just the opposite. I posted the fact that I have little formal training
in evolution, and that my understanding of it is pretty much limited to
reading nine volumes of Steven Jay Gould. I am beginning to
realize he may have been a misguided choice of teachers in this field.
Good writer tho.
> I found the parts of the book I read quite entertaining. I laughed and
> laughed, until I was afraid I was bothering the other people who were
> sitting around reading.
Why? I find the laughter of women to be the most pleasant sound
I can imagine. Thats why I enjoy visiting the nude beach. {8^D
> (I found G. Miller to be quite attractive, by the way;
Me too, hes a babe.
[kidding, bygones, Im straight.]
> I never can resist a man who makes me think and laugh at the same time).
No way, Bonnie, thats impossible, cant be done. Just try to do an integral
while you are laughing, or even multiply two digit numbers in your
head. You wont get there, you'll get the wrong answer. If you stop
your yukkadooing for a minute then you might solve it, but I find it
is impossible to think and laugh at the same time. You cant laugh
yourself to sleep either, Ive tried that. Each harrharhar wakes you
back up.
> but the fact is that while I adore men
> as friends and lovers, I prefer women as house-mates.
Ja me too. WAIT! I mean... I prefer a woman as a housemate! I dont
adore men. Friends, fine, but THATS ALL! {8^D
> For one thing, they don't try to own me. But the owning thing may be cultural
> rather than
> hard-wired.
Nah, you are just seeing the wrong kinda man.
Nowthen, goofing aside, and getting to the Mating Mind book.
Let us specifically talk about mooses for a minute, to try to
escape a collection of preconceived notions.
So. Mooses. Males with antlers, females without. Now
think evolution, and Moose precursors where antlers were
just beginning to develop. The femooses are neutral to
them at first, but the antlers turn out to be good for
fighting and the moose with the bigger antlers wins.
Nowthen, even if the femooses dont care, over time
the big antlered males win the fights. The fight winners
get a big shot of testosterone, where the losers get a
shot of anti-testosterone. {Guys, you know what Im
talking about here}. So even if the femooses are
indifferent to who won the fight, the winner wants
to mate, perhaps several times, whereas the loser
isnt really in the mood too much.
Nowthen, the group of femooses still must *accept* the big
antlered fight winner, right? The femooses that prefer the
small antlered loser and go off with him will be less likely
to be mounted, since he isnt in the mood, whereas those
who prefer the big antlered winner will spend the evening
with a horny moose. Result: Mr. Big Antlers sires more...meese.
They take after their mother, and soon you have a population
of mooses that inherently prefer big antlers, and as time
goes by the population keep selecting the big antlered
males, *even after they are no longer an advantage in
a fight*, after they are too big and heavy to use for fighting.
Eventually the antlers get so damn big and heavy they
work *against* survival. The femooses remember,
must support the weight of Mr. Big Antlers when he
mounts her, and if they are TOO BIG, she cannot
support his weight.
The point of all this is: sex selection and survival
selection are two *different things* and in fact can
sometimes pull in different directions. That particular
species of moose I used went extinct.
Whaddya think? Laugh first, then think. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:49 MDT