>No, the explanation is rather, _very roughly_, that
>men have a biological interest in putting their energy
>into making sure their own biological children reach
>reproductive age (and reproduce), as well as in
>scattering their seed hither and yon -- a fairly low
>energy proposition. Therefore there MIGHT be some
>selective pressure in favor behaviors with a genetic
>component for men to be relatively promiscuous and to
>make sure that the women to whom they have primary
>commitments to assist in raising the children are not
>promiscuous.
Yes, I'm aware of the SB explanation for allegedly greater male slutiness, but I was being arch since I'm not familiar with a SB explanation for the bias against women for equivalent behavior. Perhaps you're suggesting that, it's not entriely clear. The crude version would be selection for men who don't like their women to sleep around, that sort of thing. (I've already said how I think men benefit, not evolutionarily but right now, from the slut charge against women.)
It seems fairly obvious to me that if women weren't inclined to sleeping around or extramarital affairs, there would be no need for such a bias and enforcement against it, including the slut charge (with its conservative and liberal variations) right up to death for adultery in some societies. That's pretty good evidence, if it were needed, that women are not that much more greatly inclined to stick with just one guy than men are to stick with just one woman.
However, women also pay a higher biological price, not just a higher social one, since there is risk of pregnancy and greater susceptibility to STDs (not just females, but any recipient partner, including females). So that simple explanation, along with social bias, seems adequate to me to explain remaining differences between the sexes on this. In fact, the social bias that men _should_ sleep around, that that defines manhood, could account for the gap as well, such as it is.
>Moreover, there may be a feedback loop: MIGHT be some
>selective pressure in favor behaviors with a genetic
>component for women to wander less, so that the men in
>their lives actually do put effort and energy into
>raising the kids or at least supporting the family.
Huh? It seems extremely unlikely that the relevant unit is the paired family for the significant time period.
>This does assume among other things that during the
>evolutionarily relevant period women have had primary
>responsibility for childrearing, but that's a pretty
>safe assumption, I think. It is also not written in
>stone,
It assumes the biological father had some particular responsibility (as opposed to a general group responsibility). That is less safe.
>None of this is biologically determined (a nonsensical
>notion) and all of it is environmentally conditioned
>(like all biological phenomena) if it is true (for
>example if the research reported in that Erotic
>Silence book I mention by Haym (sp?), married women in
>modern America have extramarital affairs about as
>often as married men), and it is a speculation. It
>is, however a SB explanation.
Once you have cultural adaptations with powerful social pressure and taboos, adaptive pressure on behavior within those realms is too little, too slow, and (within obvious bounds) is rendered irrelevant. In many of these areas where sociobiology wants to explain things I first want to see someone make a case why the adaptive weight for the characteristic needing explanation is likely to be genetic, rather than shifted onto mind (including logical self-awareness) and culture which is so much more versatile.
Jenny Brown