Start Cool dating screen names

Cool dating screen names

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.

Up until about 10,000 years ago (a not even a blink of the eye, evolutionarily speaking), humans lived in small disparate communal groups with no real concept of individual ownership or even parentage.

Sexual relationships weren’t a question of monogamy or harem-like structures but polygynous and polyandrous.

The current standard narrative simplified is that sperm is metaphorically cheap while eggs are metaphorically expensive.

According to this theory, it is therefore the natural order of things for men to spread their seed far and wide in hopes of impregnating as many women as possible.

The idea of sex and parentage in a hunter-gatherer society was one of community; in an agricultural society, it became one of strict possession. Women – and potential children – became possessions, with sexual access becoming something to be strictly controlled and regulated.

Everything about humans from the size of our testicles to the shape of our pensises to the noises we make during sex is evolutionary testament to the fact that sexual exclusivity is attributed to nature.

(Worth noting: this narrative also doesn’t account for homosexuality.

Yes, there will be the inevitable quipster who says something about the stereotypical promiscuity of gay males, but gay men aren’t instinctively trying to spread their genes to as many females as possible.

Is the more dominant partner presumed to be the masculine role and the submissive one the feminine?

What if the dominant man is also a bottom, sexually? ) So how does this tie into the worship of being “alpha”? I’ve touched on the idea of alpha and beta behavior before, but let’s explore it again.

The idea of the “high-value, alpha male” is a popular one – in fact, it’s one of the regular arguments in the comments sections, especially whenever I post about masculinity or what makes men attractive to women.