Male impotence evolved for couple reproduction control
Alberto Gómez Corona
http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com/2008/12/male-impotence-evolved-for-coup=
le.html
Opinions?
-------
The full text:
Masculine impotence has been associated to physical causes as well as
psychological ones:
Although psychological factors such as stress, anxiety, guilt,
depression and the fear of sexual failure are considered to be the
cause of male impotence in approximately 10% to 20% of cases , men
also experience these same symptoms when the cause is believed to be
physical, resulting in difficulty determining which is primary, the
physical or the psychological problems.
This open the door for considering many physical symptoms not as
direct causes of impotence but as psychological stressors that trigger
the impotence. Here I propose that the male temporal impotence is an
instinctive psicho-psychological mecanism that was designed by natural
selection for controlling the couple reproduction for its own benefit
when for some internal (phisycal) or external (social) problems put
men in a state of weakness.
Contrary to many species of mammals, like many species of birds that
give birth to defenseless offspring, the human male collaborate with
the female in the upbringing of the offspring. Like these birds and
like all the species with biparental care and internal fertilization,
the male must control the behavior of the couple in order to assure
that she does not copulate with other males, because, otherwise, the
male is in a high risk of parenting other male=B4s Childs. (The Adapted
Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture index pag.
290). Males that care for his paternity have more biological children
that carry on their genes that indeed codify the female vigilance
behavior so this vigilance behavior is evolutionarily stable.
When the male is too weak due to physical or social problems that
compromise his position or it preview a weak position in the future,
he becomes or will become less valuable for the couple. The couple can
improve his reproductive outcome by copulating with other stronger
males, and this is more probable because the male cannot carry out
well his surveillance due to his weak position. At the same time, in
this position, the male cannot support additional children, even its
own. One possible strategy is to cease to copulate with his woman.
With this behavior he assures itself that any pregnancy of the woman
will not be of its own. This is a way of passive surveillance.
The woman however, is put in a reproductive bottleneck. His reaction
is a feeling of frustration, proximately caused by the lack of sexual
activity of his couple, but ultimately caused by the reproductive
bottleneck that the man impose, that must have been an evolutionary
pressure in the past. She can opt to help him, that is the best for
the male, or, else, she can abandon it. This is a bad scenario, but
even this is better that the worst scenario in evolutionary terms: to
raise children not of his own. Agression and sequestration could be an
alternative strategy for female retention, but this demand time and
effort. Impotence is more convenient in case of a weak position: lack
of time, lack of physical strength and so on.
Althoug nowadays the psichological stress can be triggered in non
critical situations, in the past the psychological weakness were
caused by real internal or external dangers. So the evolutionary
pressure has been consistent during the past for the development of
this strategy of passive reproductive control of the couple.
What predict this hypothesis is that males will feel the impotence
with his couple rather than with other women, although, in general,
the libido will be reduced. It is also expected that single stressed
males may reduce its libido when fighting with transient problems.
An additional twist in the generation of male stress today is the
sexual pressure created from the so called "sexual liberation" of
women. My hypothesis is that sexually aggressive women behavior is a
natural male stressor and deterrent of man desire. ( for an
explanation of this, see the next post).
It can be advanced the optimum way to assure paternity with a minimum
of active woman surveillance could be to alternate periods of intense
sexual activity with the lack of activity afterwards. If the woman
gets pregnant on time, the man can have a reasonable certainty of
being the father. This period of intense activity must be also a time
when active surveillance is possible, to re-assure the certainty. The
honeymoon, the vacancies etc are such periods of time where both
activities can take place.
It is also possible to hypothesize why is in the interest of the man
in the sexual intercourse fade away with time; It is not known the
rate of fertility of women in the evolutionary past, but because the
pregnancy has a high demand biological effort and the physical
conditions of the past were far worse than today, it is feasible to
think that this has been an evolutionary pressure that has developed
in the man a psychological detachment from the couple when she does
not end up in pregnancy, to invert the time in more promising
strategies, reproductively speaking. This detachment today is
triggered unconsciously if the woman don't get pregnant, no matter
that both man and woman are consciously using birth control mechanisms.
Lorentz
> The hypothesis is worth considering:
>
> le.html
>
> Opinions?
> -------
>
> The full text:
>
> Masculine impotence has been associated to physical causes as well as
> psychological ones:
amniotes without a baculum (penis bone). This seriously limits the
capability of men to impregnate women without mutual agreement between
the couple. Even those birds you talk about have a baculum.
> It is also possible to hypothesize why is in the interest of the man
> in the sexual intercourse fade away with time;
reproduction help survival by inhibiting inbreeding. Primates that
live alone and range over large distances don't have any problem with
inbreeding.
Humans live in family groups that are very large and often
persist for generations. Human sexulaity helps keep these large family
groups together. However, there is a downside to unlimited human
sexuality in a family group. If human sexulity were on all the time
with no limit, and the available mating material is in your family,
then the chances of making an inbred cross is very large. Inbred
crosses force the expression of recessive genes, that can often kill
or maim the offspring. Furthermore, inbreeding specifically kills your
closest kin. So it is to an advantage in large family groups that the
oldest members either stop mating or look for mates elsewhere than the
tribe.
Thus, my hypothesis is that there is a tradeoff between sexuality
as a social bond within families and sexuality as a releaser of
deleterious phenotypes (i.e., inbreeding). I think the loss of the
baculum, and menopause, is a way to prevent grandpa or granny from
crossing with their children and grandchildren.
Hominids, even the most ancient ones, have been organized in
large tribal groups.
>It is not known the
> rate of fertility of women in the evolutionary past, but because the
> pregnancy has a high demand biological effort and the physical
> conditions of the past were far worse than today,
>it is feasible to
> think that this has been an evolutionary pressure that has developed
> in the man a psychological detachment from the couple when she does
> not end up in pregnancy, to invert the time in more promising
> strategies, reproductively speaking.
do not have a seasonal sex urge. Women have a slight variation in
sexual drive during the month, but men have almost no time variation
in their sex drive. The usual hypothesis is that the sexual urge keeps
the couple together while raising the children. If this hypothesis is
correct, then it makes no sense to stop the male sex urge. There is a
big reproductive cost to the male if he loses his sex urge, and no
gain from the standpoint of child care.
> This detachment today is
> triggered unconsciously if the woman don't get pregnant, no matter
> that both man and woman are consciously using birth control mechanisms.
seem to specifically cut off mating behavior with age. This detachment
would not make a difference at all if human males had a baculum.
Furthermore, human females have this menopause problem. Menopause is
also specific to human beings (almost specific) In contrast, humans
have no seasonality to their sex urge.
Please limit your use of semicolons. Periods look much better,
and invite comment a lot.
Tim Tyler
> The hypothesis is worth considering:
>
> [male-impotence-hypothesis]
>
> Opinions?
Dawkins had a hypothesis about this - TSG 2nd Ed. p.271.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
Anthony Campbell
[snip]
> Please limit your use of semicolons. Periods look much better,
> and invite comment a lot.
>
>
Nothing wrong with semicolons, even if their correct use is a dying art.
It's not a question of 'looking better'; the functions of semicolons and
periods (a.k.a full stops) are different.
Anthony
--
Anthony Campbell - a...@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk - sample my ebooks at
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/acampbell
Lorentz
> On 2009-11-20, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Please limit your use of semicolons. Periods look much bette=
r,
> > and invite comment a lot.
>
> Nothing wrong with semicolons, even if their correct use is a dying art.
have any per se objection to semicolons. I am curious why he presented
his arguement that way. Maybe it is just a knit, however.
> It's not a question of 'looking better'; the functions of semicolons and
> periods (a.k.a full stops) are different.
results in misunderstanding and all sorts of confusion; especially in
discussions; semicolons imply that that a full thought isn't
completed; one is less likely to comment on a thought that isn't fully
completed; even when it is completed ;-)
I would like to expand his point. It isn't just male impotence
that needs explaining. Human beings have unique anatomical features
that seem to limit sexuality. Male impotence may be explainable in
terms of culture or environmental pollutants; the absence of a baculum
is harder to explain in environmental terms.
Lorentz
> This open the door for considering many physical symptoms not as
> direct causes of impotence but as psychological stressors that trigger
> the impotence. Here I propose that the male temporal impotence is an
> instinctive psicho-psychological mecanism that was designed by natural
> selection for controlling the couple reproduction for its own benefit
> when for some internal (phisycal) or external (social) problems put
> men in a state of weakness.
As I said in another post, your speculation may be more convincing
if you could relate it to other features in male anatomy. Maybe
menopause (the cessation of ovary activity) is "designed" to place
women in a "state of weakness." Maybe the dissappearance of the
baculum in protohumans is also part of the same strategy for placing
"men in a statement of weakness."
Or maybe not. Why do you think humans are almost the only humans
to lack a baculum?
Alberto Gómez Corona
constantly cited in evolutionary contexts, paradoxically has no
associated argumenta about why this evolved and why his is
evolutionarily stable. I find it a nonsense, despite the intuitive
appeal. I favour more detailed explanation based on hard facts or at
least explanations with a muinimun of meaning in evolutionary terms.
That is, in terms of increased fitness for the individuals . Or, if it
is for the good of a group, at least a mention of the conflicts
between individuals in the group plus the mediation mechanism for
avoiding free riding is a must.
None of this has anyone cared to advance for the mambo-jambo of
"sexuality as a social bond". For a explanation of how human beings
avoid imbreeding, the explanation of Leda Cosmides and John Toby is
far more accurate and fundamented, and basically match the strategies
of other mammals.
The initial post of this subject does not mention the baculum. This
feature is too subtle and too speculatuve to be considered with the
level of knowledge we have now.
On 20 nov, 18:47, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:42=A0am, Alberto G=F3mez Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:> The hypothesis is worth considering:
>
> >http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com/2008/12/male-impotence-evolved-fo...
> > le.html
>
> > Opinions?
> > -------
>
> > The full text:
>
> > Masculineimpotencehas been associated to physical causes as well as
> > rate of fertility of women in theevolutionarypast, but because the
> > pregnancy has a high demand biological effort and the physical
> > conditions of the past were far worse than today,
> >it is feasible to
> > think that this has been anevolutionarypressure that has developed
Alberto Gómez Corona
> On Nov 19, 11:42=A0am, Alberto G=F3mez Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This open the door for considering many physical symptoms not as
> > theimpotence. Here I propose that the male temporalimpotenceis an
> > instinctive psicho-psychological mecanism that was designed by natural
> > selection for controlling the couple reproduction for its own benefit
> > when for some internal (phisycal) or external (social) problems put
> > men in a state of weakness.
>
> � � As I said in another post, your speculation may be more convincing
> if you could relate it to other features in male anatomy. Maybe
> menopause (the cessation of ovary activity) is "designed" to place
> women in a "state of weakness." Maybe the dissappearance of the
> baculum in protohumans is also part of the same strategy for placing
> "men in a statement of weakness."
> � � Or maybe not. Why do you think humans are almost the only humans
> to lack a baculum?
the baculum is not mentioned in the original post. As I said, the
baculum question is too speculative. I find the original hypotesis
about impotence as well founded, stable and falsable. The hypothesis
explain the timing of desire of the human male, some female responses
and the differential in desire of males between his female couple and
with other females. No anatomical feature is necessary. The morphology
of the human phalus as well as other animals with competitive
inpregnation is made for semen displacement.
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep021223.pdf
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513803000163
But this add no additional hints neither in favour or against this
hypotesis.
Lorentz
> On 23 nov, 19:47, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> But this add no additional hints neither in favour or against this
> hypotesis.
You are saying that the pecularities of human anatomy have nothing
to do with the onset of impotence. If that is the case, one would
expect other animal species to display behaviors consistent with the
onset of impotence.
If you could find other animals with similar behavior, your
hypothesis would be strengthened.