tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post7966849212529663685..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Random Biological Thought of the DayDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-31444788993408952742008-05-18T00:31:00.000-04:002008-05-18T00:31:00.000-04:00While I don't have any alternate scenarios to prop...While I don't have any alternate scenarios to propose, I'm inclined to be skeptical of the "lack of fertility awareness lead to monogamy" hypothesis for a couple of reasons:<BR/>1. Menstrual synchrony. Which happens when a group of females of reproductive age lives together in close association. <BR/>2. Lunar cycles. In communities without artificial light, the women tend to all menstruate at the new moon and ovulate at the full. Been doing it from time immemorial. <BR/><BR/>Within a primitive community, I think it's plausible that all the women became fertile at around the same time every month. Also, there is evidence that some primitive communities had an understanding of the significance of the mucus symptom (see Mary Shivanandan's <I>Natural Sex</I>.)<BR/><BR/>The impression I got about this particular hypothesis was that it rested on the assumption that no one in a group of primitive humans could be sure when a given female became fertile, therefore monogamy was essential to males in order to ascertain which children were theirs. <BR/><BR/>I really can't think of any good reason why a group of humans with intelligence parallelling that of modern humans, living close to nature, should be presumed unaware of either fertility signs or the connection between fertility and pregnancy given the factors I mentioned above. On the other hand, I can think of a few reasons why modern-day anthropologists might suffer from a touch of cultural blindness about female fertility as it was pre-20th C.CMinorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07305306030099439903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-88651308969108290122008-05-15T15:51:00.000-04:002008-05-15T15:51:00.000-04:00Excellent post! I've heard something of the opposi...Excellent post! I've heard something of the opposite suggested: a woman's ability to be sexually active at any point of her cycle is <I>because</I> of permanent human relationships, not a result of it -- the idea being that frequent intercourse improves the male's commitment to the female.<BR/><BR/>Bonobos are in some ways more similar to us than chimpanzees are: females can be sexually active virtually all the time. But sex in their society plays a very different role from that which it plays in ours. That suggests that something about what is best for humans sexually is written in our minds and hearts, not just arising from the biology of sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-82368564189873439262008-05-15T14:39:00.000-04:002008-05-15T14:39:00.000-04:00Your analysis makes sense to me, as our fertility ...Your analysis makes sense to me, as our fertility signs are ones which are only really easy to pick up on in close quarters and with a great deal of familiarity. This definitely suggests that the advantage (reproductively) goes to men capable of long term commitment. <BR/><BR/>(This goes to the comment from 'a philosopher' as well. Human women don't have non-existant fertile signs, we have non-obvious ones. NFP is an evolution of the sort of understanding possible only in a committed relationship, and is certainly not comparable with the assumption of infertility/ fertility control that goes with artificial birth control)<BR/><BR/><BR/>The other interesting part is that this levels the playing field. In species (like baboons) where fertility is on display the strongest and (often) most brutal male is the one who can fight off the others and win the 'prize' of the fertile female. Hidden fertility seems to give the female more freedom to choose a mate for other reasons, such as stability and childrearing qualities, rather than merely brute strength.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03787892622804373968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-21538989459612854702008-05-15T14:08:00.000-04:002008-05-15T14:08:00.000-04:00But if knowledge of fertile periods is the issue, ...But if knowledge of fertile periods is the issue, then shouldn't the use of fertility tracking, as in NFP, be just as problematic as the use of artificial birth control?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-8928137064904351592008-05-15T13:06:00.000-04:002008-05-15T13:06:00.000-04:00It's not just our "hidden" fertility that sets us ...It's not just our "hidden" fertility that sets us apart. In many (most?) mammalian species, the females are <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrus" REL="nofollow">sexually unreceptive or even incapable of mating</A> when they are not in estrus.bearinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953735060133330755noreply@blogger.com