[Excelsior]

(11-12-2011 10:45 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

It only requires the concept of property and privilge to exist when it comes to ownership of survival resources.

This does not explain the lack of polyandry in societies that have historically lacked the concept of property.

Quote:

The alpha male is not the origin of hypergamy. If it was then most species would show evidence of hypergamy. Only human beings are hypergamous as we are the only ones that get married and have property.

This is just inaccurate. You've falsely linked hypergamy to property again. Property rights and marriage are not necessary for the expression of hypergamy.

The alpha male is indeed the origin of hypergamy, which is indeed present in most species. The alpha male is the male with status. He doesn't need money or property for this status, which can also be derived from physical prowess, strength, or natural command over other males. The alpha male, in other words, has displayed supremacy over other males, having shown himself to be clearly "better" in one way or another as a mate.

To sum it up: the alpha male is, by definition, the "best" male around (or close to it). This is why he is at the top of the hierarchy.

The fact that females are naturally drawn to said male is quite clearly evidence of hypergamy-they are seeking to mate "up", doing their best to secure the seed (read: access the reproductive potential/capacity) of the best male.

The males, for their part, try to outdo other males by showing themselves to be the best and, by extension, convincing females that they are the highest quality seed available(again, to satisfy hypergamous instinct). They will also fight other males (especially other alphas) in order to monopolize access to their females.

I don't see a logical way around this-it is a clear demonstration of hypergamy. The only things that have changed over time involve the criteria for consideration as an alpha male-with the rise of civilization, physical prowess/strength/capacity for violence was no longer the only way to display alpha status. One could now acquire money/property, and female hypergamy adapted accordingly to also seek out men who had such things.

This does not change the fact that hypergamy (the desire to marry "up" to the BEST mate possible) had been in existence for a long time prior to the invention of those things.

Humans are not the only species to exhibit this dynamic. Other great apes, birds, lions, and many other species have similar dynamics (male displays supremacy over other males --> attracts more females ---> fights other males for right to reproductive access to said females).

To argue that this isn't clearly hypergamy is to, quite simply, argue in defense of a non-sequitor.

Quote:

It certainly pre-dates money but there is no evidence that it pre-dates property. Hypergamy is simply women's evolved response to the role that property plays in surival and the survival of their children.

1. Alpha male and female desire for said male is already clear evidence of hypergamy. That pre-dates property.

2. Hypergamy exists in more communal societies that have historically lacked the concept of "property".

Quote:

Yes they always have. Gravitating towards the alpha male is not a form of hypergamy however. What if the alpha male in question is physically strong but cash weak?

1. The alpha male is the displayed "best male" for reproductive purposes (best male = best seed). Gravitation towards said male with the intent of securing his reproductive capacity is hypergamy, by definition.

2. Cash/property are not always in the equation. In fact, they historically haven't been, especially outside of Europe.

Quote:

In this kind of circumstance, women will find a provider male to settle down with and, during ovulation especially, will bang the alpha male on the side. This is extremely common.

Not sure what this is meant to prove here, because it dovetails right into my own contention. This scenario is still full hypergamy, not polygamy.

She has sought and secured the "best" seed possible and essentially foisted its upbringing onto a lesser male who does not get access to her reproductive capacity. It is the same hypergamous dynamic we've seen since the beginning of human history: her reproductive capacity is reserved for the most alpha (in her mind, the "best") male she can find.

Polygamy must involve an attempt to secure for oneself the reproductive potential/capacity of multiple partners (just as hypergamy must involve an attempt secure the reproductive capacity of "the best" partner).
You do not have polygamy/polyandry when only one partner's reproductive capacity is desired and actually used, and the other is there mainly for the purpose of supporting the results of that union. That is an inherently hypergamous strategy (with the second beta male partner's presence designed to limit the consequences of her hypergamy).

In the scenario you have presented, the woman has two men she is ostensibly involved with (outwardly, appears polygamous), but seeks to secure for herself the reproductive capacity/ potential of only one of them (the one who, in her mind, is "the best").

The other male's reproductive potential is not sought at all. He gets no access to her reproductive capacity, and only limited access even to her basic sexual capacity. Why? Because women are hypergamous-they want to mate as far up the ladder as they can, and he is further down on that ladder than the alpha male.
This other male is there for purely practical reasons, not for any want of his reproductive or even basic sexual capacity.

This is hypergamy, not polyandry. Two men may be involved, but only one of them is really a part of the mating game. The other is an expedient accessory to help her out after the mating game has actually been played. That is the difference.

If she attempted to secure access to both men's reproductive capacity equally (as true polygamists and polyandrists actually do when they secure several women/men as mates), you would have a case. In this case, she is clearly really only jonesing for (the "best") one.

That is hypergamy, not polygamy.

Quote:

Of A, B and C listed above. "A" has not been a problem since the origin of humanity as, before the agriculural revolution, we were hunter gathers who lived a nomadic existence in small tribes. Paternity was never really an issue of too much concern.

The lack of opposition in ensuring paternity does not imply that it was not a concern. Males have always care about ensuring the continuance of their lineage. Some environments may mitigate the potential for other men to endanger this, but this does not mean that the concern is not present.

Quote:

With no concept of property or self-interest, no material goods to pass down and all children being raised and looked after by the tribe as a whole, it was not really so important.

Yes, it was. Alpha males still existed in such societies and they still made efforts to monopolize sexual access to their females (and often got the lion's share of local female reproductive capacity).

This is why killer sperm and mushroom-headed genitalia exist as well, and pre-date the formation of modern society. Men compete, and always have. Boxing out other men has always been part of their modus operendi.

Quote:

The sperm competition and the other things you read about in sperm wars are clear evidence that throughout human history, locking women down in monogamy, was always of little interest to men and was not human nature.

No, those things are proof positive of hypergamy. Killer sperm and the shape of our genitalia are weapons men who are not clearly dominant alpha males can use against the hypergamous instinct that often causes females to "trade up" when they catch wind of a "better" male nearby and have the opportunity to gain sexual access to him.

They are weapons designed to help men when their more aggressive measures to mark their territory (intimidating, fighting and/or chasing off other men who seek access to their women) failed.

Quote:

Of course, mating opporunites back then is something that men would compete for if the opportunites were scarce just as they would compete for any other survival resource like food. But this was done for reasons of survival and no other reasons.

It doesn't occur to you that boxing other men out of the competition would be expedient to the insurance of one's genetic survival as well?

Quote:

Yes there is. Killer sperm and the evolved shape of the male penis are just two of them.

That is evidence of female hypergamy, not polygamy.

And no, there actually is no substantiation (scientific/researched) for the claim that women are naturally polygamous from an evolutionary-psychology or biological perspective.
Which is good, because that claim makes no sense.

Quote:

The crushing obligation that society places on women not be to slutty and to have a low partner count is another.

Also tools designed to restrain female hypergamy, not polygamy. Women are not polygamous/polyandrous by nature.