For starters I have no problem, morally or ethically, with prostitution. The chief reason it's outlawed is married women. It diminishes their "power of the pussy," effectively marginalizing their control over their spouse, and they don't want the competition.
That aside, I don't equate the gold-digging that a standard issue woman engages in with prostitution. It's simply nature, and it's not uniquely human. Far from it. It's been documented that female
chimpanzees,
capuchin (organ grinder) monkeys and
Adelie penguins also will engage in sex for material reward.
In most species that engage in sexual reproduction, one or the other sex is the chief 'decider' in breeding partner selection. It's not always the female that is the decider and different species apply different criteria for selection, everything from plumage (peacocks) to
an offering of pebbles (penguins).
Especially in species in which the female is the decider, the criteria often focus on the male's demonstrations of his suitability as a provider. In many bird species the male prepares a nest (often multiple nests) and then tries to lure his prospective mate to come check out her potential new home.
One of the reasons we humans manage to have such a superior brain is that we are born very immature. It takes us roughly 18 years to reach adult stature -- the longest of
any animal -- and a further six hears before the brain is finished hard-wiring itself. During which time the 'child' needs all manner of care and overseeing to insure he/she lives long enough to become a self-sufficient adult.
That degree of immaturity at birth is beneficial because childbirth would be much more difficult -- if not outright impossible -- if we were born with anything close to a fully-developed brain because the average adult human's head is about 22" in circumference. A newborn's is nearer 14". If you figure the diameter of circles with those circumferences, that means the the birth canal need only expand to a "diameter" of 4.5" to pass the baby's head, versus 7" for an adult head.
And BTW, 4.5" is about 11.5cm, which is why obstetricians and midwives are taught not to let the mother begin pushing until the baby's crowning reaches 10cm. It minimizes the damage the mother will cause herself in the delivery. It's also why the sutures in the neonatal head haven't yet fused. It makes the birthing process easier because the skull collapses until it contacts the brain and conveniently assumes a sort of "suppository" shape.
And on the subliminal level, a man judges his breeding success by how many offspring he can produce. A woman gauges her breeding success by how many
grandchildren she can produce. So the woman's objective has barely begun with
wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Her objective is the successful rearing of her babies until they've reached an age when they can produce offspring of their own.
Back on topic, the woman knows that the successful result of her mating would leave her with an 18-year-long obligation to care for a child, sometimes 24/7/365. Which would be a near impossible task if she had to do it on her own.
That's where the mate comes in. It optimizes her chances of producing grandchildren if she can attract a mate who will be a good provider (it's hard enough to gather fruits and vegetables, much less to hunt, when you've got a baby on your hip) and who will remain with her until his children have some degree of self-sufficiency.
This behavior isn't learned, and it isn't gold digging
per se. And it might not even be conscious but it is hard-wired. It's in her DNA. Just like a man assessing a woman's suitability as a breeding partner. Which happens
every time he encounters a new woman. It happens subconsciously ... and takes all of about half a second.
Symmetrical face? Check. Smooth skin? Check. Shiny, bouncy hair? Check. Good teeth? Check. 1.3x hips-to-waist raio? Check.
Yes, it's been scientifically proven that most men find a woman's figure most attractive if her hips measure 30% more around than her waist. The slightly narrower waist goes to overall nutrition/health and the slightly wider hips hint at suitability for passing a baby though the birth canal. Equals boner.
This all takes place in half a second and you don't even realize it's going on. By the same token, the woman might not realize her motivation for preferring men who drive 7-series BMWs and S-Class Mercs over guys with Hyundais and Priuses. And like the female purple martin, which is persnickety about the state of the nest she is offered, she isn't doing this for her own benefit. She's holding out for an accommodation that will give her the best possible opportunity to raise and fledge her chicks.
Most people think we're more than just a hairless ape and have a hard time getting their heads around how much of our behavior is still innate. Inherited. Hard-wired in our DNA. When in truth DNA explains a whole lot of what otherwise would be imponderables, especially when it comes to mating.
Take for instance, tits.
Three of the unique characteristics of woman are that:
1. She has no breeding season (doesn't come into "heat")
2. She shows no outward signs when ovulating
3. She is the only mammalian female with permanently distended breasts (i.e., boobies)
What this works out to is that the signs and symptoms that most other female mammals display to signal that they're receptive to breeding just aren't here. And one signal that most other female mammals display
only when they're "in heat" (swollen breasts) is
always present.
But while women were losing the genetic tendency to breed seasonally and show signs of being in estrus, and developing permanent boobies ... men (apparently)
didn't change. We still (subliminally) think that swollen tits mean receptive to breeding. Equals boner.
So a woman goes through her entire reproductive life unconsciously signalling to all men that she's hot and bothered and needs to get laid.
The reason man is the only great ape that isn't primarily polygamous ... is hunting.
Man evolved in Africa's Great Rift Valley, where all the big game animals are migratory. So specializing in hunting necessarily meant man also had to become migratory. To follow the herds is to follow the food.
So how do a paleolithic mother and her newborn survive if their tribe is migratory? They don't, not without a help-mate. Someone devoted to her and her baby's care and well-being. She's got little more than zero chance of ever having grandchildren if she can't convince a man to invest in her and her offspring. Which begat monogamous bonding for life.
And what was the sales pitch she used to convince him to stay around? Tits.
Tits convince that ancient DNA in his head that his woman is perpetually receptive to breeding. Which not only means he's convinced that he might get to dip his wick at any moment, it also means he shouldn't stray too far for fear that some other man could take advantage of the breeding opportunity she presents.
That was true in the day of Australopithecus but women obviously have evolved more from that time than men have. Yes, goddamit, we're obsessed with tits.
But it's not our fault. And if we weren't obsessed with tits, it might have been the Neanderthals who took over the planet and us who vanished.
So the fact that women want a rich man doesn't necessarily equal prostitution but neither does it mean all men are cave men because they're so smitten with tits.
Okay, it
does mean we're all cave men, but being cave men in
that particular respect is good for the survival of the species.
So if your woman gets all exercised because you got a woody while oogling another woman's bazooms, just remind her it isn't your fault because
she started it!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by davimeireles
