- Apr 24, 2020
- 6,706
- 10,972
Really? Do you have a paper by a modern anthropologist or biologist to back this up?Men and women are certainly a little different in their sexual preferences for each other. Women also don't want men as the village bicycle, but they don't covet virgins as men do. It's not insecurity, it's how relationships work - sexual exclusivity is a completely natural evolutionary preference. It is how humans dated each other before they were called humans. Virginity is just the natural extension of that appeal. Calling it insecurity is just a cope.
I know many earlier biologists assumed that many birds were monogamous, then it was found that their offsprings' DNA did not match the male bird they were "pair bonding" with. If you want to take some of our closer simian relatives, the Bonobos are definitely not monogamous. One thing that does seem to shine through is that when males are in charge of a community, they seem to care for such things, but in matriarchal and those where no one gender dominates, monogamy is often the exception. There has been much to suggest that female monogamy wasn't not imposed upon human societies until after the acquisition of power that comes with agrarian society.
Pair bonding in raising offspring may have it's evolutionary advantage, but so is seeking genetic diversity. Having offspring with genetic diversity means that one's descendants are likely to be more adaptable to changing conditions.
Body count.Higher body counts, for men and for women, are statistically and intuitively more likely to result in a failed long-term relationship. You could only really call it insecurity if it reaches the point where you are paranoid about your partner cheating by searching through their phone or stalking them, etc.
BODY COUNT?
That telegraphs so much.
That term reduces human relationships to one single activity and cheapens even that, IMHO.