Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It’s simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it’s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it’s survival – either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring.

Thus women are biologically, psychologically and sociologically the filters of their own reproduction, where as men’s reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of sexually available females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction. This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men possess between 12 and 17 times the amount of testosterone (the primary hormone in sexual arousal) women do and women produce substantially more estrogen (instrumental in sexual caution) and oxytocin (fostering feelings of security and nurturing) than men.

From a biological point of view, is the bold sentence correct? And is the quantity of hormonal differences the only explanation of this?

Link to article: http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/23/schedules-of-mating/

share|improve this question
1  
Edit question and add a link to the cited paragraph! –  Cornelius Jul 19 at 19:28

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Females are defined as the sex that produces that bigger gamete (ovule) while the males are those from the gender that produce the smaller gametes (spermatozoid). Because producing big gametes is costly, the number of females fix the reproductive limit in the population and in other words the variance in reproductive success in males is higher than in females. In the same logic, because females fix the reproductive limit in the population, males have to compete to access the females while the females are choosy. You may want to have a look at the wikipedia articles for Bateman's principle and Parental Investment.

The conclusions of Bateman's principle holds in general but not systematically. In some species males produce huge amount of parental care and therefore, the females become choosy for example.

[..] men’s reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of sexually available females.

Yes, in many cases but not everytime. Human are an example of the cases where this statement is wrong.

[..] for a species to survive it must provide it’s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it’s survival – either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival.

It sounds a bit weird! The reason is that the sentence almost implies that individual's strategy evolved in order to increase the probability of survival of the species which is totally wrong. By the mechanisms of natural selection a population evolve in the direction so that each individual favors its number of offsprings which can be in some cases very detrimental to the species as a whole.

Reading some bits of what I found no the webpage you linked i your question, it doesn't seem to me that the author is a good evolutionary biologist…but I haven't read much.

share|improve this answer
    
Good post remi, Bateman's principle and parental care was worth looking into. I think the article present the theories in a very simplified "layman" terms. Some malformulated statements(like your last comment observed) but overall I see no fallacies. –  EricAm Jul 20 at 20:21

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.