Sexual Relationships
+1 y

A Response to: Evolution and the Differences in Male and Female Behaviours

A Response to: Evolution and the Differences in Male and Female Behaviours

I’m not here to try to argue that men and women aren’t biologically different and have as a result differing behaviours, I’m simply trying to pose an alternative viewpoint on what @MrOracle views as “innate” human behaviour.


One of the first things you’ve got to get your head around when studying psychology or anthropology especially is the immense diversity of human culture. Many anthropologists believe that ‘human universals’ do not exist. Stuff that we take for granted, death, marriage, birth, marriage, time even colour can be viewed and experienced entirely differently by groups of people.


Surviving and Reproducing is a critical aspect of our existence. When we view human behaviour through this lens it gives us great insight into why certain things occur, particularly pertaining to our relationship with the environment. However, my main issue with the original post is that this perception is ultimately flawed. Humans are not perfectly rational, we are heavily influenced by society and do things that do not contribute to our survival or actually inhibit it. We also need to look more at meaning.


When looking at what roles women and men take on within society you generally do see differences, but they aren’t always black and white. In early human societies virtually all work was ‘heavy’ and dangerous, regardless of your gender. The author creates this weird mix of modern, agricultural and hunter-gatherer roles when giving examples and fails to actually compare the jobs of a single society. In early humanity, basic skills like hunting, fishing, sewing, cooking, medicine would have had to be learnt by everyone for the individual to survive, not to mention child rearing was done more as a collective, not by individuals. You do find places in the world where women take on the physically more demanding work, so it’s not really something that is truly universal in nature.


The whole reproduction argument really falls down when you look at basic human biology, tribe structure and sex’s role in society. Women are just as built for multiple partner sex as men.


Sperm competition from multiple different men is just as a valid part of ‘natural selection’, it allows for a) a greater likelihood of getting pregnant and b) only the best sperm candidate to actually fertilise the egg. We know this occurred since men’s ejaculate contains a form of spermicide and penises are shaped like a ’scoop’ to remove as much of the previous man’s semen as possible. Indicating that female promiscuity is an inbuilt part of our biology. Some anthropologists have explored why there are sexually so many differences between the desires of men and women. One conclusion found was that women generally had more than one partner in a sex session. It allowed for this sperm competition to occur and the woman had a higher likelihood of orgasm, since she didn’t have to rely on a single partner.


Women do have the issue of being pregnant for 9 months which is a massive threat to their survival; however in early human society we did not live as monogamous pairs, but in a tribe structure. Women would have needed the protection and support of men (and other women) but this would have been provided by a group, not a singular individual. The search for stability and security probably evolved later as a response to monogamous and smaller family structures.


It’s kind of interesting that you ignore entirely the social aspect of sex, which in a way is kind of what makes us human. Female enjoyment of sex and orgasm is also entirely ignored. Sex is probably primarily a social mechanism. Unlike animals (and our closest relative) we don’t really go into a proper period of ‘heat’. We have sex all the time, even when it’s impossible to get pregnant (eg. Whilst already pregnant, on period, prior to first menarche or after menopause) and for a multitude of non-reproductive related reasons. Homosexual sex is coded into our biology and has existed since the dawn of time, despite not having a reproductive purpose. Oral and anal sex is also practiced. Sex for us is to bond with one another, reduce contempt and

create a greater cohesiveness amongst the group, it’s not solely a reproductive activity.


In your second last paragraph you kind of proved my point that a lot of what your saying is societal, NOT Biological. Monogamy and the restriction of female sexuality is a result of patrilineal inheritance and exchange, it’s not really a natural state of affairs. It is not shown in every human society and not universal in nature. There are places in the world where sex and pregnancy have no correlation, there is no such thing as a biological father, only a man who can take on the role of a parent. In this situation, promiscuity from both genders is not looked down upon, but openly encouraged.

3 1

Most Helpful Guys

  • That would be implying promiscuity right? And there is a good reason not to be promiscuous and that's disease. I myself, I have been with two in my life which is one too many in the minds of many. Outside of that I haven't been promiscuous and I wouldn't want a relationship with someone that was or had been either and I'm referring to many partners as in more than a couple for sure. Now do I buy into the whole psychological BS surrounding sex? No I don't, that's programing the mind and here's a good example of that. Take a girl that had been raped, she would recover just fine eventually right? She'd still have that memory of what happened and be very cautious of things going forward, but she would eventually overcome it on her own. But now factor in what psychologist and society would or will have her believe, she's damaged for life, nobody will want her, sex is devastating, you get the picture. All those things are programming and very damaging to the mind if they are believed. I do believe sex is as important to females as it is to males and females also should have the means of taking care of it just like males do and they should never be chastised for doing that. But I also believe it should be done safely for both males and females such as masturbation or at the very least with someone they can totally completely trust. Promiscuity is dangerous and that's why it's mostly looked down on outside of some religious beliefs.

    • It’s not really uniquely looked down upon. It’s usually only when there has to be some assurance of paternity of a child does it generally matter. In circles where there was no inheritance (eg European peasants) or solely female dependents/inheritance the taboo on promiscuity doesn’t really exist, there’s no point. Pretty much all of the “guilt” and issues surround sex all pertain to trauma or religious restrictions, there is no research to suggest safe, consensual casual sex is harmful mentally. The diseases are an issue, but you can kind of think of them as natural population control, much like any illness, it’s just a different method of spreading the virus/bacteria. It’s like saying socialisation is bad because those who are exposed to other people are more likely to catch a disease, doesn’t take away from an inherent human need for interaction.

    • I mostly agree with you. Europe actually has it right. And all you have to do to prove this point is compare the statistics between Europe and the US, IE rape Russia ver the US. Russia stands at about 8% of rapes while the US stands at around 254% compared to Russia and the same with France ver the US. Then compare the prison populations and you'll find that the US not only has the highest prison population in the world, the US holds most of the world's prison population and those prisoners are mostly men. And that's because the US has a prohibition on men and sex. Those statistics are because men and the biological makeup of men were never considered and common sense implementing those laws was non existent, yet they remain the same and that's also to do with population control mainly implemented by globalist and pushed by feminist as I have outlined before. As far as diseases, Africa is a prime example of recreational sex and the spread of hiv among other diseases.

    • If I had a daughter or son, I wouldn't be looking at it as methods of population control. I would be looking at it to protect them because obviously I would love them and want to protect them.

    • Show All

  • Being promiscuous has always proven dangerous. Even today.

    The role of the family developed not to support women but to ensure their survival along with the child's. Sex has more than a reproductive role, but that's not an excuse for sleeping around. We've been killing one another over women (mates) for millennia. We don't like sharing. Thats not a societal thing but an instinct. Sex is largely emotional and is meant to form bonds. Casual sex destroys or reduces thag ability.

    While collective parenting did exist, it has largely died off. Why? It didn't work as well as individual family units that unilaterally worked with other community members. Monogamy has nothing to do with patriarchy (though we did take it to extremes), it has to do with pair bonding. A very important part of social cohesion between individuals im the community.

    • Nearly all societies are monogamous and the most successful certainly are.

    • “Successful societies” our society is not monogamous nor is it unsuccessful

    • Really? Interesting.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • As someone who studied this myself, I really appreciate this response. It bothers me a lot how people constantly misinterpret certain vacuous scientific facts (vacuous as in - without any context) and use them to fit a certain narrative. These are usually people who have not actually studied these subjects.

    • Love you to death xx

    • Aw. <3

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

8 19

  • Evolution is bullshit. This is all bullshit. Bullshit.

  • Good read

  • Many feminists today claim that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were more egalitarian. The only way you arrive at this conclusion is through confirmation bias.

    For example you mention that all people would have to learn how to hunt, fish, sew, cook etc. It's true that everybody had to contribute to the group's survival in some way. However, there were jobs that were more suited to men, and others more suited to women.

    Hunting large game is dangerous, and in order for a tribe to survive it needs enough women to reproduce - which is why men have always been the more expendable sex. The same goes for war with rival tribes. So, maybe women did do some of the "heavy" dangerous jobs, but men did more of them.

    Men and women are different biologically. You often talk about how masculinity and femininity, while at the same time admitting that you don't really understand what either even mean. They come from our biology, just like these gender roles. Testosterone leads men to have more muscle mass, more strength pound for pound, stronger and thicker bones. We're built for combat. Testosterone also influences us to be less risk averse, more aggressive, and to have less empathy. Why would we evolve with these biological traits if what I'm saying isn't true and if men and women were almost the same? These are huge differences that feminists tend to try to downplay.

    What you say about female sexuality and sperm competition is partly true. However there are other explanations for this other than that we're supposed to be polyamorous. For example perhaps the male reproductive system is designed that way just to ensure that their sperm "wins" if their woman has strayed. When you look at both past and modern day hunter gatherer tribes, what you see actually is that some males have children with around 4 women each, while other males have none at all. Usually those males who have multiple women are viewed as more attractive because they're the best hunters. Interestingly also, higher testosterone is correlated with higher success in today's society when it comes to attracting women, business, rising to positions of power - and also with higher sperm count.

    Monogamy is a more recent thing, designed to create a stronger culture by giving more men mating rights and as a result more of a reason to invest in the society. All of the successful cultures today and in the past were monogamous for this reason, and all fell or were conquered when they abandoned it.

  • Humans are monogamous otherwise the various fathers potential fathers say in caveman times wouldn't care enough to feed, defend and shelter children if they weren't sure they were the father, also there's be no separation between relatives, everyone would everyone's brother or sister. These tribes would die off.

    • But they didn’t and people like this still exist. Humans are not monogamous

    • Yes they are monogamous otherwise, polygamous relationships would be the norm. People like what you describe have majority congenital defects. You only have to look at the problems inbreeding brings to see that.

    • No you’re completely confused. There are generally pretty complicated rules surrounding exogamy (marrying or sleeping with those outside your kinship group) in these cultures. Incest is taboo, but they have sex with those that are deemed “not kin”. People like this have survived for thousands of years with no congenital defects. No humans are not monogamous. Read what monogamous means. The fact that you have multiple crushes, boyfriends or sexual partners debunks this.

    • Show All

  • This info was valid a long time ago. We are not apes anymore.
    You should see the world outside of Tumblr every now and then. Big words won't make you smart.

  • I say live how you want. If you want to go back to the tribe in the pic, go for it. Gang bang out a kid let everyone raise it while you gang bang out another. Sounds like fun. I guess we already do that to some degree with tax raised kids and single mothers. Yep, we can adapt to just about anything.

  • Oh god... I was eating when you mentioned penis sperm scoop. That's not really why the penis is shaped like that... but there are specialized sperm cells whose purpose is to block other men's sperm, which suggests the same thing about historic human sexual behavior.

    One theory I've heard is that humans have two types of natures that depend on the environment they develop in. If food and other resources are scarce, war is occuring, and just harsher conditions in general, then we're natured to be promiscuous and have as many babies as possible because most of them are going to die anyway.

    But if we're living in prosperity, we take more time selecting mates and spend more resources supporting our offspring. As you mentioned sex is a bonding mechanism, and overusing it will wear it out and mean people can't bond anymore after a while.

    You look at divorce rate vs partner count and the lowest is alway 1 or less previous partners prior to marriage.

    Men were the primary hunters and gatherers in ancient human society. When women are heavily pregnant, they simply are not as effective so they had to rely on men. Not to mention men are much stronger and robust in the first place. That's why women desire men who can bring home the bacon. You also look at divorce rates, and most of them are because men struggle to out earn women in many cases, and the women can't stay attracted to them.

    So we can't act like we can all be happy fucking like rabbits and pretending everyone's the same. That's fine if the species is in danger... but it's not. We need to improve civilizations with strong families, and you can't have that being a whore.

  • If I remember correctly I said the same thing in the original post I agree with a lot of the things said but had a couple of outside thoughts. You are right a lot of his examples were societal and yours are biological, in a sense you are both right because evolution is both nature and the environment but also emotional. Some animals apart from humans mate for life (Swan comes to mind) and emotion must be a main component in this. Also unless I am wrong are humans the only species that completely ignore natural selection yet is the most powerful (in the destructive sense of other species).
    I think emotion is by far the strongest of the three biological, societal and emotional. I am a 100% monogamous because of my emotional ties and I hope my partner feels same way.
    Just a total by the way tangent, never heard the theory about penis being shaped like a scoop before to remove other semen, fascinating.

  • "Monogamy and the restriction of female sexuality is a result of patrilineal inheritance and exchange, it’s not really a natural state of affairs."

    This is false. Just because humans are adaptive and can survive in a non optimal environment does not mean what you think it means..

    You should look into r/K selection theory, there is an actual science to this not just silly speculations.

    • Yes it is. What is the only functional reason that a woman should only have sex with one person, but a man gets more flexibility, because the status of her child is dictated by the man. This pretty established anthropological theory.

    • No. It's far more complex and nuanced than that. What you're espousing is the social "sciences" interpretation of the data and it's well known that the "social sciences" are largely junk science.

    • Ok. Love the attitude

    • Show All

  • "Sex for us is to bond with one another, reduce contempt and create a greater cohesiveness amongst the group, it’s not solely a reproductive activity."
    Pedophilia is for bonding with children confirmed.

  • This is confusing.
    Not true to me.
    Scoop shape! To remove other mens semen, that isn't the purpose.
    And biological father does share more blood & energy bond.

  • Let's just bang it out.

  • i just like to put two things here:

    1. check the Bonobo monkeys. even biology punishes that behaviour, they are all weak as fck there's no evolution, even a bigger fart could kill them, cause they can't fight nor adapt.

    2. it seems like literally everyone today forgot that some "social constructs" were made and agreed on for the mutual good of all. mutual. eg loyalty.
    One can argue whether a behaviour can be originated biologically or sociologically, at the end of the day what matters the most is if a society made rules and some people break em to gain personal short term interest, thats not something epic. thats the violation of a status quo, which could and did grant a solid base for a society to live and other areas of life to increase gradually (eg. r&d..)

    • Yeah, we're most closely related to both the chimpanzees and the bonobos. However those with more of an egalitarian/feminist mindset tend to favour the idea that we're more like the bonobos. A guy named JD Unwin studies thousands of past cultures and noticed a pattern. Patriarchal cultures with more traditional roles and which were more monogamous were more likely to grow and advance. He called this "expansive energy". The reason for this was that in the past only the top men would mate with multiple women, while men lower on the hierarchy, around 60%, wouldn't. However this social agreement to be monogamous gave more of those bottom 60% a chance to have children when they otherwise wouldn't, and that gave them an incentive to become a more productive member of that society. So those societies became stronger as a result and expanded. Eventually though, once they reached a certain level of success they'd usually become more sexually liberal.

    • They'd also become more egalitarian. Gender roles would relax, birth rates would drop, and the culture would become more soft as a result. It would lose it's "expansive energy". Eventually these cultures would either collapse, or they'd be invaded, conquered, or out-bred by a more patriarchal culture with that "expansive energy". Chimpanzees are stronger, they fight, go to war, have stronger male bonds, and there's more difference between the males vs females. There's less difference between male and female bonobos, they're less aggressive, the males don't have such strong bonds, and everybody fucks each other. It's like the difference between a human patriarchal culture and a feminist culture.

    • absolutely accurate bro. absolutely accurate. respect 👍

  • We only know what we are learned on this planet. if I was born and brought up in India for example then I would probably have there beliefs etc. that story of the boy brought up by apes he could never learn to talk or walk upright afterwards. thats the way he was brought up. we would have all been the same if we where brought up like that

  • this was stated pretty damned well! Excellent take!

  • Good take.

  • This mytake is sad. Reproductive strategies used by men are just as valid as those women use. Men who care more about paternity confidence have higher chance of reproducing than those who are careless about it. Promiscuous women cannot provide any paternity confidence. Promiscuity contributes to the spread and evolution of STD's. Promiscuity is therefore not part of a winning reproductive strategy.

    • Well yeah it is. Since you have a greater likelihood of getting pregnant. As I said sex and pregnancy aren’t always correlated for some groups of people, so there’s no reason to police sexual behaviour.

    • Greater likelihood of getting pregnant by some fucking retard with bad genes. Partner selection is real. Promiscuity is overrated.

    • People SHOULD police their own sexual behavior on their own initiative.

  • Awesome

  • A bullshit from a pedophile

  • Nice one

  • Show More (7)
Home >  Sexual Relationships  > A Response to: Evolution and the Differences in Male and Female Behaviours