29 Sep 10, 8:29 PM
thatboyspike
UK(N), 3 yrs
 |
I'll stick to "rutting" women and leave the deers to it |
30 Sep 10, 8:56 AM
merrynb99
UK(SL), 6 yrs
 |
estrus wrote:
i have this thread to thank for the word 'estrous'.
i thought deer rutting was at least partly about rubbing the velvet off new antlers.
a human equivalent would perhaps be two men rubbing their stubble together.
which might be fun.
|
This is all rather rash, if you ask me
|
30 Sep 10, 10:04 AM
ClassAct2005
UK(N), 7 yrs
|
I'mn ot sure there's be anyone on the planet if it weren't for the instinct to mate and indeed survival of the fittest etc. If the weak sickly stags who could not breed fit fawns won out deer would die out. Deer fight other male deer for the best of the does. I'm sure you get that in most animal groups including amongst humans as indeed the better does get the best chance with the best bucks. Mmmm, we used to have venison sometimes. Haven't had it for a long time. |
30 Sep 10, 11:22 AM
AstronautMikeDexter
UK(E), 2 yrs |
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Deer fight other male deer for the best of the does.
|
Deer fight one another for access to mates but it is far from understood whether or not the winners are genetically the fittest. Nor whether the does are "the best", whatever that may mean. For the males in that kind of sex selection it would 'pay' to have genes for huge antlers at the expense of other genes for other aspects of fitness. You really have no idea about which genes are actually the fittest until some manner of environmental pressure affects the survival rates of a population. Additionally even the losing males get some covert mating opportunities, so whatever genes/behaviours allow that are winning strategies too. So it is incredibly unclear how much actual benefit the winning stag is deriving from the process.
ClassAct2005 wrote:
I'm sure you get that in most animal groups including amongst humans |
Well, probably not in humans. The relative lack of body dimorphism, the large human testes and penis, and the lack of visible signs of oestrous all point away from human males physically competing for females. Our closest relatives (The Bonobos) don't engage in any male phsyical competition for mates, and the same would appear to apply to chimps too. The notion that we can look at something like deer and draw conclusions about human sexuality and mating strategies is kind of laughable.Edited 30 Sep 10, 11:30 AM by AstronautMikeDexter
|
30 Sep 10, 1:28 PM
ClassAct2005
UK(N), 7 yrs
|
Men compete for women, they always have and always will. Wheter they ever used just their brute force or not might be harder to prove but this planet was populated by men leaving one place and raping and pillaging in other places . Genghis Khan spread his seed pretty widely etc although plenty of new communities where rich strangers arrived offered their daughters voluntarily and probably some of those daughters offered themselves to the rich superior incomers. But the bottom line is the strongest or most desirable bucks tended to win out as they do today and always will and thank goodness for that. |
30 Sep 10, 2:23 PM
Ama_Sidero
UK(GU), 7 yrs
  
   |
AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
Well, probably not in humans. The relative lack of body dimorphism, the large human testes and penis, and the lack of visible signs of oestrous all point away from human males physically competing for females. Our closest relatives (The Bonobos) don't engage in any male phsyical competition for mates, and the same would appear to apply to chimps too.
|
Don't they like bring her fruit and leaves for her bed? Much more civilised. They do wrestle and things, though. Don't you think that while it might not be combat, it is more equivalent to the "displays" put on by other species, which is competing, but not physically? Life is not measured by the breaths we take. but by the moments that take our breath.
Road Trip to the Sea!!!http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/270339/
|
30 Sep 10, 2:53 PM
mini_velvet
UK(EH), 6 yrs
|
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Men compete for women, they always have and always will.
|
Congrats on another quote from the big book of gender stereotypes. "Men" don't do anything. Some men do some things, some men do others. |
30 Sep 10, 2:54 PM
mini_velvet
UK(EH), 6 yrs
|
estrus wrote:
i thought deer rutting was at least partly about rubbing the velvet off new antlers.
|
Sorry, I get everywhere. |
30 Sep 10, 4:12 PM
AstronautMikeDexter
UK(E), 2 yrs |
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Men compete for women, they always have and always will. Wheter they ever used just their brute force or not might be harder to prove but this planet was populated by men leaving one place and raping and pillaging in other places . |
Oh please, the planet was populated long, long before the advent of settled agriculture by nomadic tribes of humans beings who cooperatively moved from place to place.
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Genghis Khan spread his seed pretty widely etc although plenty of new communities where rich strangers arrived offered their daughters voluntarily and probably some of those daughters offered themselves to the rich superior incomers. |
All this tells you is about the power and resource differentials in some later period settled, agricultural communities. It really tells you nothing about what it is that humans may or may not naturally do with regards mate competition.
ClassAct2005 wrote:
But the bottom line is the strongest or most desirable bucks tended to win out as they do today and always will and thank goodness for that.
|
Except that there's little or no evidence that this is going on in humans (or any number of species for that matter). Sex and procreation, are reasonably freely available to all, irrespective of their genetic "fitness" (however you'd define that). The vast, vast majority of people on the planet find someone (or more!) to settle down with this doesn't appear to be correlated to some measure of "fitness". Also men who are physically stronger do not appear to sire more children than other men. |
30 Sep 10, 4:41 PM
AstronautMikeDexter
UK(E), 2 yrs |
Ama_Sidero wrote:
Don't they like bring her fruit and leaves for her bed? Much more civilised.
|
Well, 'being nice to one another' is pretty likely to score you some mates in a highly social, cooperative species. Without need for male-male physical competition.
Ama_Sidero wrote:
They do wrestle and things, though. Don't you think that while it might not be combat, it is more equivalent to the "displays" put on by other species, which is competing, but not physically?
|
Well, humans get up to all sort of behaviour as a function of culture but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with mating behaviour or success therein. Is the ability to build the best fires attractive to mates (that's a skill that's likely been with us since before the emergence of Homo Sapiens)? When the resources needed for food and shelter are freely available there appears to be no physical competition for those resources nor mates in humans or our immediate relatives. And as I say physically strong men appear to have no more success than other men. In fact in a species that is primarily cooperative and social you'd expect individuals that excel in those traits to have the greatest success (and there is some evidence of that in chimps). Edited 30 Sep 10, 4:44 PM by AstronautMikeDexter
|
