What contribution does the fact that men and women have disjointed sexual peaks have in the survival of the human species?
if the woman cums first she might lose interest? and ive heard a woman cumming after the guy cums in her somehow increases the chances of becoming pregnant. i dont know if i believe that, but maybe something to do with the contractions involved with the orgasm helping the sperm. i guess i would just go with the woman losing interest thing but i just pulled that out of my ass
the contractions suck the sperm into the uterus, thus helping hte sperm get to where they're going. but the original poster was reffering to age difference in peak sexuality i believe, not length of time it takes to cum.
Fexurbis - there are two kinds of sexual peaks you could be referring to: 1. In an individual act of intercourse, the woman takes longer to build up to a climax,and a longer time to come down from it. A male can get it up rather quickly, and once he orgasms, he's done for a while. Some of us can prolong the erection for a minute or so after cumming, to help finish off the woman's orgasm if she is not there yet. But most guys are pigs, and just roll over and go to sleep when they have shot their load. 2. A male reaches his sexual peak at 19, a woman at about 40, too early for the male, too late for the female. It's not fair.
I think there'd be WAY too many kids if they were the same. 19 year old parents. Then 21 year old parents of two. Then 22 year old parents of three. And so on and so forth. And that would be HORRIBLE. By women taking so much longer to hit their peak, it's a form of population control. My two cents.
i think its a form of population control in multiple senses, make sure we dont have too many all at once, and to make sure we dont stop having them once the 20's are over. If the sexual peaks are different, it means that at least one partner will be horny a lot of the time for many years.
Guys, you guys are off your rockers...what the fuck does evolutionary biology have to do with population control? If we were to have WAY too many kids, that would mean, again, evolutionarily speaking, that our species was being successful from a biological standpoint (not the opposite).
Fexurbis I think the reason that males reach thier peak around 19-21 is because that is when they are beggining to reach thier their physical peak (21-25) aswell and are capable of protecting and providing for young offspring the best. I think the reason females reach thier peak around 35 is more to do with thier biological clock ticking, humans were never supposed to live into thier 60's and 70's, in the wild the average lifespan excluding sudden death was 40-50, so at 35 a womans body reckons she has maybe 10 or 11 years left at best if shes lucky and so urges her to have a final push to reproduce, knowing she will be able to rear the child to an age where it is capable of fending for itself for the most part. At least thats what I always figured, makes more sense than population control anyway.
If we had way too many kids, it would mean that there would be too much competition for food and other resources, so nature tries to limit the fertility rate.
agreed. If you can give your 6 kids a full meal, then you're doing well, but if you can only give your 12 kids half a meal each, then your species is gonna die. when you have way too many offspring, your species dies and fails evolutionarily speaking. I also agree that the final push is another reason women are very horny at that age, but a 'last chance' doesnt make sense for a peak, your BEST chance would make sense for a sexual peak if this was purely about producing large numbers. Also, kids take up a lot of resources, time and energy, thats not something you can provide to all your children right after another if we were popping out babies once a year.
That's Malthusian bullshit. Read your Darwin. As far as our biology is concerned, INDIVIDUAL reproduction guarantees the survival of the species. And yes, the struggle for resources is factored in that biological impulse. Nature isn't socialist and it hasn't read Marx or Malthus.
That's better, but still a bit unconvincing. Unless you're making the argument that nature dictates younger men should be hooking up with older women (hey, that's Woody Allen's take on it! I like it!). Otherwise older men will continue to be attracted to younger women and there would be less reproduction.
overpopulation is just as bad as underpopulation. our species would overpopulate the earth in a few generations if people had as many kids as possible. the reason why some species lay millions of eggs is because only a few of those eggs will produce an organism that actually survives long enough to reproduce. on the other hand it is a very small population of most mammals especially humans that will not live long enough to reproduce. population control is deffinatly an evolutionary trait
fexurbis, I have a feeling you really don't like to hear people's opinions. You make all kinds of threads asking for each person's individual thoughts on a subject, then when somebody actually does post, you feel the need to totally shoot them down and call their thoughts pure rubbish. Either stop asking people for their opinions or stop being so fucking close-minded.
Lets look at this simply shall we (for your benefit of course) Family line A B and C live in area Z Family line D E and F live in area Y Family A B and C gene compositons means they produce lots and lots of babies Family D E and F gene composition means they produce an average amount of babies Family A B and C almost compleltly die off when they are fighting eachother and mother nature for natural resources to keep themselves alive Family D E and F live in relative balance with nature, producing only as many babies as their environment can support....Family D E and F's genes then become prevalent and make up the next stage of humanity, where as Family A B and C's genes are rare, since they're mostly dead. Thats how we can evolve with population control in mind.
Yeah, but whence do you derive the fact that population control is a biological instinct? It may be rational, but I'm aware of no biological or psychoanalytical study that suggests we're genetically (as opposed to rationally) mindful of overpopulation. In fact, the very opposite is true. Further, your example is not conclusive. It may be that because clan ABC produces more children, some of them will die off due to lack of resources but the fact that they are more numerous will compensate for the fact that more ABC's die than DEF's. But of course, no human population has ever completely died off due to competition for resources. Further still, historically it seems what happens is that clan ABC will conquer clan DEF. If anything the latter is threatened with anihilation or subordination.
People have said that before. It's just an issue of differing styles of communication. I welcome people's opinions, but if I disagree, I'll let them know as well. In fact, on this thread there were two points that I hadn't thought about. But none of them concern population control, which I just feel is a faddish topic for various reasons outside the scope of this thread.
