Depressingly, it doesn't seem to be the case that wife-beating actually harms a man's reproductive capacity, at least in all societies. Among the Ache, the same study that found it was most common among low-status men also found that men who beat their wives *had more children*, presumably …
Depressingly, it doesn't seem to be the case that wife-beating actually harms a man's reproductive capacity, at least in all societies. Among the Ache, the same study that found it was most common among low-status men also found that men who beat their wives *had more children*, presumably because their wives were too frightened to refuse sex.
The idea of long-term selection in men for willingness to abuse one's wife is a truly frightening idea, and I really hope these results don't hold for other human societies.
(I have to assume they were only seeing how violence affected the number of children a husband had *per wife*. If less-violent higher-status men had more wives, the general rule that high-status men have more children wouldn't have been violated. It also suggests that polygamy may have been a *mitigating* factor, at least in some societies, preventing maximal selection for male abusiveness.)
>>The book about women in Iraq sounds fascinating!
It is a very good book. It is difficult to believe that the protagonists have both died from old age. And Nancy Tapper's book is actually good too. I hope an AI will be able to rewrite it in the future, because it really deserves to be more readable than it is.
>>The idea of long-term selection in men for willingness to abuse one's wife is a truly frightening idea, and I really hope these results don't hold for other human societies.
Nah, why? We already know that we all have many, many shitty ancestors who became our ancestors just because they were shittier than average. Luckily there seems to be an opposite process where more prosocial people were selected. I think it is individual evolution on one side, group selection on the other side, and kin selection somewhere in between.
And let's do our best to contribute through not having children with wife abusers!
>>Among the Ache, the same study that found it was most common among low-status men also found that men who beat their wives *had more children*, presumably because their wives were too frightened to refuse sex.
David Buss reports that partner abuse is much more common among couples where the man is more than ten years older than the woman. The abusers might have chosen younger wives and thereby got more children.
And also, what if the abused wives had sex with their husbands more often because they were masochists?
The book about women in Iraq sounds fascinating!
Depressingly, it doesn't seem to be the case that wife-beating actually harms a man's reproductive capacity, at least in all societies. Among the Ache, the same study that found it was most common among low-status men also found that men who beat their wives *had more children*, presumably because their wives were too frightened to refuse sex.
The idea of long-term selection in men for willingness to abuse one's wife is a truly frightening idea, and I really hope these results don't hold for other human societies.
(I have to assume they were only seeing how violence affected the number of children a husband had *per wife*. If less-violent higher-status men had more wives, the general rule that high-status men have more children wouldn't have been violated. It also suggests that polygamy may have been a *mitigating* factor, at least in some societies, preventing maximal selection for male abusiveness.)
>>The book about women in Iraq sounds fascinating!
It is a very good book. It is difficult to believe that the protagonists have both died from old age. And Nancy Tapper's book is actually good too. I hope an AI will be able to rewrite it in the future, because it really deserves to be more readable than it is.
>>The idea of long-term selection in men for willingness to abuse one's wife is a truly frightening idea, and I really hope these results don't hold for other human societies.
Nah, why? We already know that we all have many, many shitty ancestors who became our ancestors just because they were shittier than average. Luckily there seems to be an opposite process where more prosocial people were selected. I think it is individual evolution on one side, group selection on the other side, and kin selection somewhere in between.
And let's do our best to contribute through not having children with wife abusers!
>>Among the Ache, the same study that found it was most common among low-status men also found that men who beat their wives *had more children*, presumably because their wives were too frightened to refuse sex.
David Buss reports that partner abuse is much more common among couples where the man is more than ten years older than the woman. The abusers might have chosen younger wives and thereby got more children.
And also, what if the abused wives had sex with their husbands more often because they were masochists?