View Single Post
Old 03-06-2012, 02:36 AM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151

Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Could you or someone else link to that thread? You`d have to sift through there.

Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Could you not summarize this alleged counter-argument?

The argument is that in chimps, especially, but (perhaps) even in bonobos, the female is routinely intimidated and battered (i.e., "coerced") to have sex.

Chimp females do not normally copulate with betas. That is, they are sexually selective and "hypergamous" (seeking stronger/taller, richer/more status). Typically alphas will control most, if not all, of the female population, whereas betas will be forced to compete in order to copulate. And, whereas in gorillas there is a lot of rape, in chimps (as in humans) rape is rare, whereas battery is common.

The reason he cites Jane Goodall is because she initially had no clue why betas randomly attacked chimp females for apparently gratuitous reasons. It was only later that they observed that the females who were battered became submissive to the beta males, and did not reject their sexual advances in the small windows of time when alphas were not watching their females (mate-guarding).

As in humans, most chimps are pair-bonded and socially monogamous.

It is true that in bonobos there is more "sperm competition", in other words. Females copulate with several males and there is more ambiguity as to whom the father is.

But, even in bonobos there is some controversy. In either case, chimps share more DNA with humans than any of the other great apes, and our social systems around sex are closest.

So, the back-to-nature argument runs against the chimp evidence.
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.

Last edited by feelyunicorn; 03-06-2012 at 02:48 AM.
Reply With Quote