evpsych = modern priapism

damn!

I speak of the proponents of the argument to which you allude, not of you personally.

Because evolutionary theory is centrally about successful propagation, and the genes that exist are only those that successfully propagated, and hence, it is claimed, successful organisms must be “wired” for as close an approximation to optimal propagation as possible. Since sex is the means of propagation, they are asking the perfectly reasonable question as to what extent the human mind in involved in propagation strategies, aggregated over a population.

Whether their conclusions are right is another matter.

Sure they are, but would you cast such capabilities as distintively dudely? Those are just human abilities, of course. Well, maybe not the fashion design.

And I do want to be clear that I’m not suggesting that “nature” is any argument for accepting testoterone-fueled aggression. My thinking goes something like this:
If the male instinct for aggression didn’t exist in human animals in the first place, it’s unlikely that male-dominated human societies would arise. But, in order for that male dominance to flourish, there has to be a culture that reinforces it. In human cultures that don’t reinforce it, males do a much better job of disciplining whatever it is in their brains that makes them batshit crazy.

Lesson 1: Create a culture that doesn’t reinforce male dominance! (No shit, Sherlock.)
Lesson 2: Doing so requires immense retraining of males and may require constant vigilance until the end of time.

Compels, no, but maybe predisposes. Male aggression against females — and particularly sexual aggression — is pretty widespread in nature. Humans aren’t the only ones who commit rape. The animal world is full of males bullying females, forcing them into sex, killing their offspring by other males, and other assorted delights. That doesn’t justify it by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think it’s worthwhile considering.

When it comes right down to it, males exist in nature solely as carriers of DNA. Before sexual reproduction evolved, every living thing was female. Sexual reproduction led to the development of organisms who don’t gestate offspring, but just fertilize them. Males are pollen bearers, sperm bearers, whatever. That’s their raison d’etre. Their lives are governed by sexual competition. When you get to mammals, sexual competition involves higher levels of testosterone, which in turn probably contribute to the brutalizing of females.

Humans are culture-bearing critters, but we’re still critters. Somebody famously described civilization as one long attempt to domesticate males. The process continues, alas.

Disclaimer: Please do not construe the above as support for half-assed theories of evolutionary psychology that because something occurs “in nature,” then it’s inevitable and we might as well just lie back and think of England.

A person can feel power to control their own lives without feeling the need to control others.

Power and control may be linked, but they do not necessitate dominance. I would suggest there are two types of dominance: involuntary and voluntary.

She runs faster than her sister. - involuntary

She killed her sister and stole her baby. - voluntary

He has a higher IQ than his father. - involuntary

He seized power through a violent coup. - voluntary

Thank you, Twisty and your remarkable forebrain!