Sexual exclusivity and the obsession with genetic lineage didn’t come about until the development of agriculture – and with it, the idea of private ownership.
bonus if he’s : it is easy to apply in the macro view – submissive, needy men aren’t terribly appealing to the majority of women after all – and offers a one-size-fits-all solution to sex and dating. Just be more “alpha” and they’ll come flocking to your door like mice to peanut butter.
Unfortunately once again: this is an an intellectual fallacy, an attempt to use nature and evolution as a way to justify the way one things to be.
Meanwhile the poor cuckolded beta is stuck having his genetic line cut off while expending resources raising another man’s child.
It’s an appealing idea in many ways; it provides the gloss of an appeal to nature- it nicely coincides with the macro perception of human sexual interaction and provides justification for promiscuous male behavior and an explanation for hypergamous females. The narrative that men are naturally promiscuous (the better to ensure the survival of their genetic line) while women are naturally monogamous is the result of a cultural fallacy dating back as far as Charles Darwin; scientists and anthropologists of the time tended to use Western cultural morality as the prism through which they viewed natural discoveries – a problem that occasionally crops up today, as a matter of fact.
By clicking on or navigating the site, you agree to allow us to collect information on and off Facebook through cookies.
The alpha rules the pack by dint of his strength and furious violence; he gets the greatest amount of food and unlimited sexual access to the females.
The betas subsist on the scraps that are left over once the alpha has moved on and are excluded from sex with any of the females on threat of death.
If neither side is attempting to reproduce, how does one fit them into the model?