Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Manny's Reviews > Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles

Sperm Wars by Robin Baker
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1713956
'Hello Tom.'

'Oh, hello Mrs. Harding. I'm sorry, my parents aren't at home...'

'Laura. I told you last time to please call me Laura. We worked out that I was only eight years older than you, remember?'

'I'm sorry... Laura. They've gone to...'

'Yes, of course. They've gone to the premiere of the play that I have been looking forward to all week, except that my bloody husband had to cancel and go to a terribly important meeting when the bloody taxi was already standing outside. Sometimes I wonder why I ever married him. I suppose it must be because he's so bloody rich and successful.'

'Oh, ah, I'm sorry...'

'Would you mind if I came in? It's freezing out here.'

'Ah, yes, please do...'

'Thanks. That's better. I'm sorry if I sounded brusque. I was horribly disappointed and decided I would have a little chat with my private bottle of Macallan 25. We're almost the same age you know, we feel very close. But after we'd exchanged a few confidences, I decided that I needed to talk to some real live person instead. So here I am. I hope that's OK?'

'Ah, yes...'

'It really is a lot warmer in here. May I take off my coat?'

'Um, of course...'

'Thank you.'

'....!'

'What? Oh, of course, the dress. No no, please stare. That is the whole point of this dress. I was looking forward to having several hundred men stare at me all evening, but that clearly won't happen now, so you will have to do all the staring for them. I hope you feel up to it?'

'Uh...'

'Oh dear, I'm teasing you again. I shouldn't do that. Let's talk about something else. When your parents so kindly invited us over to dinner last month, I remember we had a very interesting chat about cosmology. You lent me a book by Martin Rees which I positively devoured, I was quite unable to put it down. It was nice to meet someone who understood I have a brain, you'd be startled to know how seldom that happens.'

'Oh, I'm sure you're very intelligent...'

'Well, I wish everyone else was that sure. You'd imagine a first from Oxford would be enough to convince them, but apparently not. Anyway, aren't trophy wives supposed to be intelligent these days?'

'Er, I don't...'

'I must stop complaining, where are my manners? Let's get back to books. I'm certain you've acquired some interesting new books since we last met. Why don't you show them to me?'

'I don't think I've got any more cosmology...'

'Well, I bet you have something good anyway. This evening is starting to improve. I've had my little ³Ù±ð³Ù±ð-à-³Ù±ð³Ù±ð with Ms. Macallan, and now you and I are going to have a pleasant chat, and then you will lend me something thought-provoking and I will curl up cozily in bed and read it until I feel I can face the world again. How does that sound as a plan?'

'It's nice that you like books...'

'Without them, my life would be completely intolerable. I am not exaggerating. So where do you keep your stash?'

'Ah, they're in my bedroom...'

'Well, we had better go there then. Hm, it's tidier than mine was when I was your age. Good for you. You do have broad-ranging tastes, I approve of that. What did you think of La Peste?'

'I didn't really think it was that great...'

'Neither did I. Overrated and smug, I'm not surprised Sartre stopped speaking to him. Wait, I don't believe it. Sperm Wars. I didn't think anyone else had read it. Oh, you are clever, you've put it between The Selfish Gene and Erotic Short Stories. That's quite funny. Did you like it?'

'It's, er, interesting...'

'Just what I thought. I used to have a copy once, but my boyfriend borrowed it and never gave it back. Probably something to do with me leaving him to marry George. I thought it rather small-minded of him. I just have to look through this again. Oh yes, all the rather controversial stuff about rape. I had a huge argument with a friend about it. I said that the fact that female mink can only get pregnant if they are raped shows that the question of whether or not women may enjoy rape is a contingent truth. She called me a gender traitor. My guess is that she didn't know what "contingent" meant but wouldn't admit it. What do you think?'

'Um, I think you were using the word correctly. It's conceivable that there is an evolutionarily stable strategy in which most men don't want to commit rape and most women don't want to be raped, but a minority of both sexes feel differently. It's an empirical question whether that is true or not.'

'Thank you, exactly so. I told the stupid bitch that personally I would like to cut their balls off, but that that wasn't the point. How pleasant that you got it too. Oh, this is such an interesting book. Before I read it, I just had no idea that most sperm was designed for killing other competing sperm, it really gives you a new perspective. And all those terms he has for sexual strategies. "Topping up". I read that bit, and then the next time my boyfriend and I shagged I couldn't stop thinking that he was topping me up. It was a bit of a passion-killer to be honest. What did you think of all the stories?'

'Um, some of them were quite good...'

'Yes, well, he does go on a bit though doesn't he, the randy old goat? You can tell he's enjoying it. Pretending he's talking about evolutionary biology but actually just writing porn. Still, it made the book more fun. I think my main objection was that some of his arguments were so speculative. Like male masturbation for instance. He says it's all about keeping your sperm fresh, but come on, there are simpler explanations. Like, there are lots of teenage boys who don't have any chance of acquiring a girlfriend, and they'll be doing it all the time. Right?'

'...'

'Oops. What an absolutely awful faux pas. Why can't I ever learn to keep my big mouth shut? I am most dreadfully sorry. Well, now we have a medical emergency, but luckily I know everything about soothing damaged male egos, so if you'll just let me take care of this it will all be fine. Trust me.'

'Uh, I think, really you should...'

'No, you shouldn't think at all right now. It's worst possible thing you can do. I am going to carry out a standard procedure, it's not in any way risky, but I will need your informed consent. Is that alright?'

'What are you going to do?'

'First I am going to give you a large compliment, and then I will kiss you. Okay?'

'Ah, well, um, I suppose...'

'I'll take that as a yes, we have no time to lose. Tom, you are an unusually attractive young man. I haven't been able to take my eyes off you since I came in. Any woman would be proud to think she was your mistress. Now for part two. You needn't worry, it will be a surgical strike with negligible collateral damage. Please! How do you expect me to operate when you do that? Mwaaah! Hm, let me take a look. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure it worked. The procedure is far more effective if the kiss is, to use a technical term, lingering. Do you think we could try that? Thank you. Mmmmmmmwaaaaah. Much better! However, the perfectionist in me insists that if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well, and I know we can do better than that. I could not live with the thought that your poor ego was even slightly damaged by my appalling clumsiness. So let's try one more time and really get it right. If you don't mind, I will arrange us in a maximally effective position. You need to put this hand here, and the other one there, and then lean... ah yes, that's perfect. OK, action stations. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Mmmmmmmmm-mmmmmm. Mmmmmm-ahhhh-mmm. Mmmmmmmmm. Mmm-ah! Let me look again. Thank goodness, I believe you are out of danger, but it was touch and go there for a moment.'

'Uh, Laura...'

'I know what you are going to say, and you are quite right. I'm only doing it for medical reasons, so it isn't really effective. If I were sincere, I would want to do it again. That's a good point, and I bow to your superior logic. Let's do it again. Only this time, why don't you put this hand here, or maybe even here, and the other one there? Good. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm. Mmmm! Ahhh. Mmmmmmmmm. Mmmmmmmm-mmmm-ahh-mmm. Oh yes, of course there is fine, I thought that was clear. Mmmmmmmmmm-ahhh. Ahhhhhhh. Oh! Mmm.'

'Laura, are you sure...'

'Well, it's true, I am rather concerned about this gown. It cost a simply bewildering amount, and I have so far only worn it for about an hour. It would be such a shame if anything happened to it. Here, let me take it off. Luckily that's very easy.'

'...!'

'Oh yes, and you'd be surprised how much I paid for the rest of it. Let's take that off too, and avoid accidents. Done.'

'I am obviously dreaming.'

'Mmmm? Well, I have had one thing lead to another before, but I admit it's never happened quite this quickly. Anyway, let's go with the flow. You are now of course hopelessly overdressed for our little party. We should do something about it. Good, that didn't take long. He-llo! I am delighted to make your acquaintance, sir. Should we shake hands, or would he prefer a more Continental style of greeting? Enchantée, Monsieur. Mmmmm. Now, as Princess Fiona says, where were we? Yes yes, just put them back where they were, except that now... yes exactly. Exactly. Though there would be even better. Oh yes, exactly, exactly, exactly right. Mmmmmmmmmm. Ah! Mmmm-ah!'

'Laura, you are so lovely.'

'You're rather lovely too, Tom. Just look at him! Such a fine, upstanding citizen. Well, passons aux choses sérieuses...'

'Ah, Laura, shouldn't I...'

'No, in fact you shouldn't. Just let me be all sérieuse myself for a second please. My bloody husband and I are, as they say, Trying, and looking at that book again suddenly made me feel that I didn't just want his bloody sperm inside me. I'd like some of yours too. Make it more of a competition. If you don't mind. I really hope I haven't ruined the moment.'

'Laura...'

'Oh, thank goodness, I see I haven't. Well, Professor Baker was so convincing about the way a simultaneous orgasm can improve chances of conception, and I am a realistic girl. I think our best shot is for you to lie down on that inviting-looking bed and let me run the show. Luckily I feel completely hair-trigger tonight. So, if you can just manage to do nothing in particular for a couple of minutes...'

'And do it very well?'

'If you can. How nice that you know Iolanthe! Right, so you lie down there, and I will... yes, I think like this will be best. Please keep thinking about the House of Lords and their constitutional responsibilities. How does it start?'

'When Britain really ruled the waves...'

'Oh yes, that's right.

When Britain really ruled the waves
In Good Queen Bess's time
The House of Peers made no pretence
To intellectual eminence
Or scholarship sublime

It has a rather nice rhythm, hasn't it? I never noticed that before. Are you hanging in there?'

'Uh, so far...'

'Well, I think one more verse will do it. Especially if I help matters along like this. You're not shocked I hope? Good. Let's go for it.

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte
As every child can tell
The House of Peers, throughout the war
Did nothing in particular
And did it very well.

Just like you Tom. Very well. Very, very, very... very well. Oh yes!!'

'...!!!'

'...!!!!!'

'...!'

'...!'

'Dear Tom, that was some of the best nothing-in-particular I have experienced in quite a while. What an absolute star you were to manage to wait for me. Now let's have a lovely post-coital snuggle. I think we need your arm here, and it will be so much more comfortable if we just move that pillow a tiny amount... yes, like that I think. Now I definitely want this hand here. Perfect. Oh, this is absolutely heavenly. Mmmm. Are you still there?'

'Mmmm'

'Don't go to sleep yet. I foresee all sorts of complications if we oversleep. If I stretch just a little, I think I can reach your alarm... got it. OK, let's set it for 9.00. This is pm, right?'

'Mmm-mmm'

'Yes, let's sleep a little bit then. I love the way you pull me in close like that. Mmm'

'Mmm'

'Tom?'

'Mmm?'

'I know it's my imagination, but I can just feel those tough little wriggling guys of yours. They're pouring into that great huge gap my orgasm opened up in my cervical mucous and they are completely kicking the shit out of George's army. It's so romantic. Don't you think?'

'Mmm, yes, it is actually. Mmm'

'Mmm'

**

Laura was in fact correct. Tom's sperm, aided both by the advantageous position that his and Laura's simultaneous orgasm had created, and by the fact that they were younger and more motile, easily beat out her husband's sperm, and reached her waiting egg. It is not coincidental that Laura was on the most fertile day of her cycle; apparently random promiscuous behavior of the type she displayed is far more likely on that day and the two immediately preceding it.

Eight months and twenty four days later, Laura gave birth to a healthy baby girl, whom she insisted on christening Phyllis. Her husband, George, never suspected that the child might not be his. Six months after Phyllis was born, George was killed in a helicopter crash during a business trip to Russia. Sabotage was suspected but never proved. Laura inherited all of George's considerable estate.

A year after George's death, Laura, to general amazement, married Tom in a quiet registry-office ceremony. Shortly afterwards, Tom filed paperwork to officially adopt Phyllis. The couple later had two more children. They also co-authored a book, Existentialism and Evolution, which became a minor cult classic, despite being viciously attacked by several leading French academics. One of the most frequently repeated criticisms was that each chapter, often for no apparent reason, began with a quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan.

25 likes ·  âˆ� flag

Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read Sperm Wars.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
June 1, 2000 – Finished Reading
December 31, 2008 – Shelved
December 31, 2008 – Shelved as: science
December 31, 2008 – Shelved as: well-i-think-its-funny
January 2, 2009 – Shelved as: too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts
April 21, 2009 – Shelved as: parody-homage
May 16, 2010 – Shelved as: story-review
May 7, 2014 – Shelved as: life-is-camus

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Manny (last edited Jan 02, 2009 07:19AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Manny (discussion continued from "the Waste Land" comments)

message 37: by Eccentric Muse (last edited 01/02/2009 05:33AM)

1393336 Everyone I know who's read it are psychologists--evolutionary, social and experimental, not clinical.

I have to confess, my knowledge of Baker's theories stems from a documentary I saw. Beyond his anecdotes, which is pretty much worthless as evidence, it seems to me the way he collected his data kind of points to a big problem with his theory and findings overall.

Who volunteers to participate in this kind of study, anyway?

(that's kind of a rhetorical question, but go ahead and answer, Manny. I know you want to!)


I am not at all sure what methodology he used. My take on the anecdotes was that he made them all up, and that they weren't even supposed to be real events. I could be wrong there.

For the more quantitative stuff, you would obviously have to be careful about how you organized the studies. I think that if you had tight enough guarantees of anonymity you could get people to answer honestly. I remember there was a lot of discussion of these issues around the recent US election, with regard to screening answers for racial bias. I saw a couple of articles which said that subjects answer much more honestly when the questions are posed by a computer rather than a person. But I have no idea whether Baker was this careful. Somehow, given the general tone of the book, one suspects he wasn't, but we are perhaps being unfair to him.

I have some experience in recruiting people for studies in computational linguistics and language technology. My guess is that it wouldn't in fact be hard to recruit people, as long as you guaranteed anonymity and paid them.


message 2: by Jennifer (formerly Eccentric Muse) (last edited Jan 02, 2009 07:45AM) (new)

Jennifer (formerly Eccentric Muse) Thanks for moving this here! I'll see if I can find a link to that documentary...it went into a lot of detail about how he ran the studies. I'm surprised the book didn't describe it better.

My background (after the English lit) is experimental social psych, so I'm not unfamiliar with the challenges of recruiting subjects for research on sensitive or personal topics. And these subjects were in no way random. Not only that, but quite a few agreed to be videotaped--uh, hello!!--while having sex, and more: they agreed to have those videotapes used in the documentary.

As I recall (my memory is a little rusty now), couples were recruited and selected who agreed to participate in all sorts of very intrusive stuff--measurements of fertility, ejaculate, sexual thoughts/feelings/behaviours over a period of months, while together and while apart etc. etc. Subjects had to disclose infidelities over that time. There's just no way there's not going to be a reporting bias there. No way, no how--I don't care what controls or guarantees of confidentiality you put in place.

Then -- he goes and generalizes and, it would appear from your description above, uses anecdotal evidence to bolster his theories. This sounds like extremel;y shoddy science, but again, I haven't read the actual studies or methodologies used.

Baker was using a thin slice of the population with really definitive biases, so there's no way to generalize from his findings, it would seem to me. Guarantees of anonymity and payment--especially payment--only increase the margin of error in a sample like this.

The world of experimental evolutionary behavioural science and biology, which is what this is, is fraught with these methodological challenges, but they never let that deter them, and good on 'em I suppose. But the result is books and theories that make intuitive sense to people, no matter how flawed the findings. It's pretty dangerous territory.

All the more reason to satirize it, of course. ;-)


Manny I would be very interested to see this documentary! I don't recall any such descriptions in the book regarding experimental method. I was only thinking in terms of questionnaire-style studies, where I can believe people would answer honestly about how many sexual partners they'd had, how often and under what circumstances they'd been unfaithful, etc, as long as they were sure they would remain anonymous.

But the kind of thing you're describing... well, clearly if a requirement is that you'll agree to be videotaped while having sex, you are skewing the sample to a mind-boggling degree. So, should we preface all of Baker's findings with "people who are willing to have sex on camera in front of an audience will also..."? I must say that I would then view those results in a rather different light :)


Jennifer (formerly Eccentric Muse) now I'm worried I'm confabulating the documentary with whatever studies he based the book on. Could they be different? I can't see it though ... this guy is not a lightweight researcher, and this is his life's work.

I will try to find that doc for you ... in the meantime, I think it only fair to ensure the caveat you suggest is clearly stated whenever and wherever sperm are at war. (that makes me laugh -- I'm seeing little tadpoles with Zorro masks and swords. En garde!!)




Jennifer (formerly Eccentric Muse) Found it, or at least reference to it:

The doc is called "The Science of Sex", 1998, directed/produced by Patrick Fleming. It's not just about Baker and his work, although I remember a long segment on his stuff. It's narrated by Kathleen Turner (how perfect is that!), and I remember seeing it on TV Ontario (or maybe it was The Learning Channel) here in Canada--I think it was in about 4-parts.

It was really well done and very informative! I have no idea if this info will help you track it down and view it. I'm thinking it's not easily available in the local video store, unfortunately.



Manny
Muse, thank you for the reference! "The Science of Sex, as narrated by Jessica Rabbit". I agree, there is no way that could be more perfect. I must, must, must! track this down. Luckily, I have a fair amount of experience in locating obscure videos.

This is helping me resolve a conflict I've had nagging at the back of my mind for a while. In "The Selfish Gene", Dawkins argues, I thought persuasively, that relative average size of male and female is a good measure of how monogamous a species is. By this yardstick, humans should be fairly monogamous. Baker makes it sound like we are hardly monogamous at all. But if his sample is skewed towards very promiscuous people, then it all makes sense. The things you learn on GoodReads!



message 7: by Oriana (new)

Oriana Manny, I really think you should start putting together a collection of these "parody-homage" reviews and get them published somewhere.


Manny Thank you Oriana!

Maybe I'll try sending a couple of them to a publisher... I'm sure they'll be rejected, but at least it will be a new experience :)


message 9: by Leajk (new)

Leajk Hey, funny review! I just read your 'Is there a God' thread and as I understood it you believed there might be something to what Baker is saying in this book about rape. I didn't want to drag the discussion out there since it was more of a theologican debate, but I thought I'd be might worth adding something here.

From what I've seen from the book there seems to be problems to differentiate between actual evidence and mere speculation and I've not found any support for his theories elsewhere which you might think there be by now after all this time. Leaving that aside I have a few things to point out regarding the logic behind some women wanting to be raped.

The counter argument is of course that women, who invests heavily in childbearing, would have as top priority who's child she's bearing, that is she'll always prefer to have a choice, which actual rape contradicts. His argument also seems to assume that alpha males rape, therefore it would be welcome. Alpha males will probably already have plenty of offers for sex. Rather it is a lower standing male who'd feel forced to rape. On average it seems very likely that an alpha has more offspring than a rapist, so as a woman you'd go for that. As a second alternative a good mate who'll feed and care for the partner and offspring during also seems more viable, especially if you have the added option to cheat on said partner with an alpha (from an evolutionary, not moral stand point). No I'd say that rapist will always be at the absolute bottom of the scale here.


message 10: by Manny (last edited Dec 14, 2012 02:45AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Manny Thank you Leajk! I must check exactly what Baker has to say about rape... at work right now and don't have my copy to hand. More later!


message 11: by Leajk (new)

Leajk Ok, it'll be interesting to know about what he said! I've just read about him, but his argumets reminded me of the ones of Robin Wright, which I did not care for.


Manny I seem to recall that he claims there may be an evolutionarily stable strategy with a small number of men who pass on genes by raping and a small number of women who pass on genes by being raped. As you point out, these aren't very good choices, so only a small number of people end up in the rapist/rape-victim groups. But given that some children are born to rape victims (more if the American Right get their way), and if you posit that a tendency to commit rape or be raped might be inheritable, you can see where he's going.

As I have my character say in the review: a contingent truth. I will check the details.


message 13: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Manny wrote: "(discussion continued from "the Waste Land" comments)

message 37: by Eccentric Muse (last edited 01/02/2009 05:33AM)

1393336 Everyone I know who's read it are psychologists--evolutionary, social ..."


Please post link to where discussion has been moved from?


Manny Traveller wrote: "Please post link to where discussion has been moved from?"

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


message 15: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Leajk wrote: "The counter argument is of course that women, who invests heavily in childbearing, would have as top priority who's child she's bearing, that is she'll always prefer to have a choice, which actual rape contradicts. His argument also seems to assume that alpha males rape, therefore it would be welcome. Alpha males will probably already have plenty of offers for sex. Rather it is a lower standing male who'd feel forced to rape. On average it seems very likely that an alpha has more offspring than a rapist, so as a woman you'd go for that. As a second alternative a good mate who'll feed and care for the partner and offspring during also seems more viable, especially if you have the added option to cheat on said partner with an alpha (from an evolutionary, not moral stand point). No I'd say that rapist will always be at the absolute bottom of the scale here.
"


Agreed. I think the evolutionary astute woman, would choose a nurturing man to keep as a mate, but will attempt to cheat with an alpha male to upgrade the quality of the genes as much as possible.

One must keep in mind though, that with humans, nurturing behaviour is a positive evolutionary trait.


message 16: by Leajk (last edited Dec 14, 2012 06:47AM) (new)

Leajk Manny wrote: "I seem to recall that he claims there may be an evolutionarily stable strategy with a small number of men who pass on genes by raping and a small number of women who pass on genes by being raped. A..."

While I agree that it is very possible that there is in fact a small number of men who might carry a male rapist gene (which may or may not be expressed during their life time), I've more of an issue with a female corresponding 'being raped' gene, for the reasons I've stated above.

That is I agree that many evolutionarily stable strategies will allow for 'cheating' (i.e. cheating the more predominent system), but I don't see how being raped is cheating.

I forgot to write earlier that regarding the 'proving that the man is big and strong' argument that I've heard that he uses, I think that 1) there are countless of other ways men prove themselves to women, thousands upon thousands (and vice versa of course) 2) there might be a bit of an advantage for playful struggle but I think most of us can see the difference between that and rape, and the former have all of the advantages and none of the costs.

Yes, I do see that enjoyment has little to do with if it's evolutionary good or not, that's why I'm arguing for why I think that Baker might have been a bit hasty in his evolutionary conclusions.


Manny I am not even going to speculate on what behavior might be caused by a gene which predisposes women to being rape victims! I have got myself into too much trouble already. Though I must admit that there is a strong temptation here to be very politically incorrect :)

Note that Robin Baker seems to have a poor reputation in the field of sperm biology.


message 18: by Leajk (last edited Dec 14, 2012 07:09AM) (new)

Leajk Traveller wrote: "Leajk wrote: "The counter argument is of course that women, who invests heavily in childbearing, would have as top priority who's child she's bearing, that is she'll always prefer to have a choice,..."

Yes precisely, "nurturing behaviour is a positive evolutionary trait" is a very important human trait, I think Dawkin, and possibly Frans de Waal, have written about this as regards to the high investment of human fathers make in their offspring.

Seeing as what makes a good or most desirable partner also changes over time some what, it would be intersting to see if this preference for 'alpha' over nuturing will continue, that is will alphas in the future have more children than others. I think not.


message 19: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Let's face it, both men and women have hardwired in us the appreciation of young, healthy, fit-looking individuals, and while i could look and appreciate such males aesthetically (and in a more permissive society, i as a female could see myself shewolf-whistling such a male, and or flirting, and even more than just flirting,), i very much doubt that i would base a decision to make him my long-term mate just on his looks and/or his alpha behaviour alone; especially if i knew that a pregnancy could ensue.

If such a male managed to modulate his alphaness into being a caring, high-earning high-achieving individual, then of course that would make him a lot more desirable to most women, but the downside of his alphaness would be that he would be cheater, bc it seems to be part of the package that alpha males have stronger urges to sow their wild oats as it were, and this in itself is once again an off-putting factor to an overwhelming majority of females. We simply don't like men who "mess around"; who cannot show us fidelity.

So yeah, it's become pretty complex in human society i would say, and i definitely don't think we can compare ourselves simplistically with other species anymore.


message 20: by Leajk (new)

Leajk Manny wrote: "I am not even going to speculate on what behavior might be caused by a gene which predisposes women to being rape victims! I have got myself into too much trouble already. Though I must admit that ..."

Yeah, I can see that you don't want to go into that discussion.

But... does Baker give any reasons for this 'being raped gene'? (Nudge/hint: you might add any personal theory and just blame it on him! You can totally get away with it! Seriously though I'd really like to know his position :))


message 21: by Traveller (new)

Traveller Yes, wouldn't a gene that basically predisposes you to being a 'whore' (a term that should also please the mysogynist psyche) be an easier gene to perpetuate, since "whore" genes should predispose more towards begetting children? Or are women who are 'easy to get' less fun to a certain percentage of males than women who they have to wrestle down to the ground and knock unconscious before "giving it to them"?


message 22: by Leajk (new)

Leajk Traveller wrote: "Yes, wouldn't a gene that basically predisposes you to being a 'whore' (a term that should also please the mysogynist psyche) be an easier gene to perpetuate, since "whore" genes should predispose..."

I think a lot of this whore/rape thing relates to the virgin idea that's been around for centuries, where a man wants to be certain that he is the actual father of his wife's children, thus he takes a virgin as a wife. The problem is of course, how will he know that she's really a virgin? Ah, blood on the sheets on the wedding night!

(There is actually some really funny parts realating to this in Arabian nights, where one man gets a special mirror that determines if girls are virgins or not. He meets hundred upon hundered of girls who's parents claim they are virgins, but none of them are! There are also some things about faking blood on the sheets.)

If a woman initially resists a man who attempts to have sex with her, that is they are both simulating a kind of rape scenario, then she will seem less likely to just sleep with anyone (that is more virgin than whore, and thus the man can feel more safe in his paternity). Eventually of course for men who are not rapist, they will want to have consent from the woman to have nice good old sex.

However how does a man know if she did not give in eventually with the other men as well? In reality he never fully can, but men have contrived all these ways in which they try to determine it. I'd say simple trust is a good place to start.


message 23: by Traveller (last edited Dec 14, 2012 08:36AM) (new)

Traveller Leajk wrote: "If a woman initially resists a man who attempts to have sex with her, that is they are both simulating a kind of rape scenario, then she will seem less likely to just sleep with anyone (that is more virgin than whore, and thus the man can feel more safe in his paternity). Eventually of course for men who are not rapist, they will want to have consent from the woman to have nice good old sex. .."

It would probably make sense to think so, except, how does that man know other men had not raped her before? How does he know she is simply not resisting because she doesn't like him, or bc he has smelly breath or bad teeth? Such a train of thought would to some extent pay homage to the idea that a woman is nothing better than a cow or a female canine, who wouldn't discriminate between bull A and bull B or dog A and dog B.

On the other hand, i suppose the 'whore' impression would similarly give the idea that she doesn't discriminate, but to me, if i was a man, if i wanted her to take me for a mate and have my children, as opposed to hating me so much she'd want to kill me, would be to woo her gently rather than 'take' her forcibly.

Obviously, from what we are being told, there must be people who think differently to what i do, and there must be men and women out there who find taking forcibly more desirable than wooing gently. :(

Personally, i rather like the idea of "putting a man to the test". You get that a lot in Western culture through the ages, as in: you can win the princess's hand if you slay the evil giant who eats children alive.

The above is not necessarily good for the princess, of course, but on a more personal level, it would be nice if the princess herself can "test" the suitor in her own way and decide for herself if the suitor would suit her.


message 24: by Leajk (last edited Dec 14, 2012 09:59AM) (new)

Leajk Traveller wrote: "Leajk wrote: "If a woman initially resists a man who attempts to have sex with her, that is they are both simulating a kind of rape scenario, then she will seem less likely to just sleep with anyon..."

Hm, I'm not sure if we're understinding each other here or what you mean with the animal thing?

Your comments on the whore concept earlier got me thinking about why people seem to have difficulties seeing the difference between e.g. date rape and normal sex. That there is this expectations that girls should say no to sex all the time, eventhough she might want to have sex, to seem worthy (or like a virgin rather than a whore) as a partner. I'm not saying that this is a good expectation, I was just speculating in where those expectations come from. Perhaps I should have written that the woman pretends to reject the man than actually rejects him.

"How does he know she is simply not resisting because she doesn't like him, or bc he has smelly breath or bad teeth?"

I think that most men who have any social capacity knows when a woman is being really serious in her rejection. Unfortunatly there are some, few, men who interpret most rejections as mere play or flirtation.

"wooing gently/putting a man to the test"

Yeah, I think that's one way people have to decide if they should form a couple. I think a non-sexual courtship in general is good for both the male and the female, the man sees that the woman is not getting pregnant with someone else so he'll probably be the father in the future, and the woman sees that the man is willing to invest and stick around so he'll probably take care of his children.


message 25: by Traveller (last edited Dec 15, 2012 03:06AM) (new)

Traveller Well, what i meant with the animal thing: All of the evolutionary biologists are looking at the thing from a biological standpoint, which does make sense to a large extent- after all, we are still to a very large extent ruled by instinct and by biological urges and imperatives which may at times even seem rather incomprehensible to us.

However, we, as opposed to most other species, are self-conscious. We can view and examine ourselves objectively, and we can control our impulses with reason. We are not entirely driven by these impulses.

So the first point i would like to make, is that when we look at potential mates, even though males seem to be largely influenced by biological imperatives such as preferring to have sex with females who seem to be good, healthy young specimens with good childbearing potential, for females, age especially is less of an imperative because males have longer reproductive lives than females do.

So, we human females would appear to be less picky than the males, but that doesn't mean we aren't picky, and our pickiness is not always driven purely by biological imperatives, but by other things, like personality and behaviour and so on.

What i mean by the dog comparison is- well, have you ever seen a bitch on heat out in the streets? Any male dog, er.. gets a turn if he can manage to get to her... :P So female dogs don't appear to be very discriminatory, and indeed, since dogs tend to have quite a few pups born per litter, each one of the babies could have a different father, which i suppose, is a good way of ensuring genetic diversity within the species.

The whole point that i was trying to make, is that most healthy human females aren't entirely whores or virgins (of course you get them on the edges of the range) but most of us will be prepared to engage in sexual activity but on a selective basis.

I know i know about alpha dogs in a pack, etc. (especially with wolves), and i know about a bull being the alpha male, and i suppose the equivalent is a sheik with his harem. But, i am hoping that we have, at least in Western society, moved beyond the stage were we solely act according to purely biological impulses.


message 26: by Traveller (last edited Dec 15, 2012 03:16AM) (new)

Traveller Leajk wrote: "I think that most men who have any social capacity knows when a woman is being really serious in her rejection. Unfortunatly there are some, few, men who interpret most rejections as mere play or flirtation. "

Maybe women like myself are partly at fault. We try not to hurt the guy's feelings, and then it becomes a bit of a situation like discreetly trying to remove dog poop from your shoe - some of them stick like bubble gum, and it can become quite a tricky thing to get the message across without hurting said feelings, and sometimes feelings have indeed got to be hurt, and then bad feelings reverberate, and the whole thing is just unpleasant all around.

Oh, and of course there are those men who are so thick-skinned, that even what would hurt most other men's feelings, becomes like a challenge to them, like waving a red flag in front of a bull- i hate those...


message 27: by Leajk (last edited Aug 04, 2015 01:11AM) (new)

Leajk Traveller wrote: "Well, what i meant with the animal thing: All of the evolutionary biologists are looking at the thing from a biological standpoint, which does make sense to a large extent- after all, we are still ..."

Yes I do agree that there I certainly a huge difference between us and other animals. Firstly we are an unique species, so any comparison will only be a comparison not an exact despcription. Secondly there's the whole nature/nuture thing, so any genetic predisposition will only be a part of the story beyond the environment and norms that we have. Which is why it is important of course to talk about issues such as rape. If it was only biological and in out genes then there wouldn't be much to do about it.

I would actually say, and I think a lot of biologists would say so as well, that women have more reason to be picky than men. After all she is the one stuck with the child in her stomach for 9 months and by then the man could potentionally be long gone, so she has a lot to gain from choosing the right partner who'll stick around. The women can also potentionally have way fewer children during her life time (possibly 42, given twin births etc.), while men if they sleep around enough can have hundereds.

Regarding the alpha/beta male thing, I'm divided, i have a hard time seeing how one thing is always and forever alpha (i remember seeing this documentary about chimpanzees where an intelligent male collaberated with a strong male to lead their flock, both were in their own ways alphas, and i know which one i would choose, to use an animal example ;p), so i have a hard time applying it to humans in some ways. But I keep running in to this concept, especially among men .

Oh, and I agree about the social akwardness regarding rejection. I think partly that if it was accepted that women flirted more it would be less dramatic. I've also always erred on the side of being harshly honest, which works out sometimes for getting male friends. But yeah it is sticky, especially with the thick-skinned ones, fortunately I think I'm not their type most of the time but I've had it happen to friends.


Henry Le Nav Excellent review and conversation.


back to top