Ein interessanter Artikel zu den verschiedenen Interessen der Geschlechter und die daraus beruhenden Wettstreite:
Coevolutionary arms races between males and females have equipped both sexes with mutually manipulative and defensive adaptations. These adaptations function to benefit individual reproductive interests at the cost of the reproductive interests of oppositesex mates, and arise from evolutionary dynamics such as parental investment (unequal reproductive costs between the sexes) and sexual selection (unequal access to opposite-sex mates). Individuals use these adaptations to hijack others’ reproductive systems, psychological states, and behaviors—essentially using other individuals as extended phenotypes of themselves. Such extended phenotypic manipulation of sexual rivals and opposite-sex mates is enacted by humans with the aid of hormones, pheromones, neurotransmitters, emotions, language, mind-altering substances, social institutions, technologies, and ideologies. Furthermore, sexual conflict may be experienced at an individual level when maternal genes and paternal genes are in conflict within an organism. Sexual conflict may be physically and emotionally destructive, but may also be exciting and constructive for relationships. By extending the biological concept of sexual conflict into social and cultural domains, scholars may successfully bridge many of the interdisciplinary gaps that separate the sciences from the humanities.
Quelle: Human Sexual Conflict from Molecules to Culture (Volltext, PDF)
Fand ich ganz interessant, weil viele der bekannten Konflikte und biologische Lösungsansätze der Geschlechter noch einmal zusammengefasst werden. Auch interessant ist der Gedanke, dass Männer und Frauen einander quasi als erweiterter Phänotyp nutzen, um die eigenen Gene weiterzugeben.
Der Artikel enthält relativ nahe liegende Punkte wie:
Although physical attractiveness is usually correlated with genetic and bodily health, sometimes simply possessing “sexiness” may be enough to attract a mate (Cornwell and Perrett, 2008), even if one’s overall success at survival or parasite resistance is sub-par. Scholars should consider this possibility when accounting for the presence of seemingly useless and even harmful human traits. To stress the point again, the crucible of evolution is reproduction, not survival. Likewise, and in line with parental investment theory, members of the lesser-investing sex (usually males) who may not possess high-quality genes may nonetheless attract sexual partners if they are willing and able to invest in childrearing. Therefore, possessing and displaying material resources and empathetic qualities that communicate nurturance, may be the product of an evolved, long-term mating strategy, notably for males (Khallad, 2005; Kruger, 2008).
Sexual conflict takes on psychological dimensions when it is manifested in the expression of certain thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Thus, sexual differences at the molecular and anatomical levels are reflected at the level of mental functions. Men’s psychology was shaped by selection to be interested in novel sexual partners and to assume that a woman may be interested in sex, whether she is or is not (Haselton and Buss, 2000). For ancestral males, this would have been a profitable reproductive strategy as it was likely to increase a man’s genetic representation in the next generation. Women, on the other hand, were selected to be wary of casual sexual encounters and to assume that a man is uninterested in a long-term relationship, whether he is or is not (Haselton and Buss, 2000). For ancestral females, this reproductive strategy would have been beneficial to their genetic interests as they were thereby less likely to invest in genetically inferior offspring or grant sexual access to males that were unwilling to provide for them or their children.
Aber auch exotischeren wie diesem:
reproductive choice (e.g., Gallup, Burch, and Platek, 2002; Goetz et al., 2005). Research suggests that the per-copulation risk of pregnancy is higher for rape than for consensual sex (Gottschall and Gottschall, 2003). There may be other explanations and criticisms of such findings, but if true, we must further examine the possibility that some men may have evolved predatory adaptations that are activated during coercive sexual encounters with women (Gottschall and Gottschall, 2003). The evidence for this comes from findings demonstrating the presence of follicle-stimulating-hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) in semen. These hormones normally function to stimulate the maturation of an egg and its subsequent release. That semen contains these hormones is indicative of their manipulative function in stimulating female ovulation. Rapists may possess higher concentrations of these hormones than non-rapists, or men’s concentrations of FSH and LH may increase when in coercive sexual encounters with women.