Discussion»Questions»Relationships» Would you equate dating to our process of "natural selection" for assessing future suitable companionship and sexual compatibility?
We humans live far too far removed from nature. The most nature does is provide the hormones to influence our basic drives, but choices we make are largely determined via familial and cultural influences while growing up.
It is our unconscious psychological issues that determine how we get hooked. Our values, lifestyles, interests and goals determine compatibility; and our capacity to learn how to communicate and resolve differences determines whether the relationship survives.
Sexual compatibility is a mystery to me. It's certainly not about looks. The dazzlingly attractive one might be hopelessly insensitive in bed; the plain one might turn out to be the catalyst to heaven.
Chance also plays a huge role in who we meet. My circumstances and personality meant that I met few men and had few choices.
This post was edited by inky at November 3, 2018 9:12 AM MDT
Nice answer, thanks. In my question, I meant to emphasise if, whatever criteria we choose or go by in selecting a mate, (whether short-term or long-term), the process itself could be labelled as natural selection. Some of the others who have responded appear to have missed the motive of the question.
Looking at the parts of the world where people have been allowed to choose their own spouse, which has only occurred in the last 200 to 400 years, there is no evidence of a change in the evolution of the human genotype having occurred in that time. It could be argued that such a small time is too short to make any measurable difference.
However, medicine now means that we are now working against natural selection. People with diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Marfan syndrome, Huntington's disease, and hemochromatosis can and do survive to pass on their diseases to their children.
Nature creates the motive to find a mate, but humans, though they may try to select the best partner they can find, often do not succeed. They settle for a compromise. Almost everyone has kids, which on a large scale works as the opposite of natural selection.
One only has to look at how many children are born to dysfunctional parents. Although some of their children die of cruelty, negligence, accidents, suicide and drugs, enough survive to go on reproducing personal suffering and social problems for generations to come.
I am not proposing that we should impose eugenics to compensate - merely trying to point out why I think dating is not natural selection.
This post was edited by inky at November 3, 2018 2:28 PM MDT
Companionship definitely, sexual compatibility not necessarily. My better half and I dated for five months and were actually engaged before we ever had sex (engaged for only a few minutes, but still before). Chastity is important to some people, especially from a religious background (saving themselves for marriage), and many people date younger than sex is legal (which doesn't stop everybody, but may deter some). Some people late in life are looking for someone to grow old with, sex may not be so important - the biological clock has stopped.
Ooh... you asked this over here too. That's exciting. I hope it gets more answers.
It is natural selection. We're choosing our partners based on who we feel is best-suited to help carry on our genes. Those who strike out don't pass their genes on as much. And, as much as we'd like to say we have total control over it, we're still picking partners based on the same things humans always have. For women choosing men, it's men who can produce healthy offspring and will likely help care for the offspring. For men, it's mostly choosing women with markers of fertility. Historically, it has been about spreading seed a lot, but there's some buzz now that young men are having fewer partners. I find that interesting. We may have evolved some- perhaps that trait is being selected more and passed down.
Nom de plume is also somewhat right. Culture matters. However... and this part I find incredibly interesting... women are more prone to choose a long-term mate from their in-group and a short-term mate from an out-group. For example, female college students consider a student at their school to be more desirable for a long-term relationship than the same guy might be if he went to another school. Similar stuff was observed with gorillas or some kind of primate. The females would slip off and mate with males from other groups, but would choose a long-term partner from their group. This suggests we're pre-programmed to create genetic diversity by mating outside our circles, but also seek the security of being with people like us because it affords us protection.
It can all legitimately be chalked up to natural selection and evolutionary psychology. That kind of sucks the fun out of the whole dating game, but the general human population has been doing the same thing for just about forever.
I think so. After all, dating is like a job interview. You go out with this person, you try to gauge his/her values and if they consistent with yours. You want someone you think will be at your side for the long haul, someone of similar cultural background, someone of intellect (although there are men who don't care for women who are smart). The date doesn't have to be someone who looks like Brad Pitt or Charlize Theron - they just have to have some facial/physical attributes that are appealing to you. If you don't think that's true, take a look at the photos of couples in the engagement announcements in the Sunday New York Times. But, personality is a big factor, too. Someone who is not particularly attractive (to most people) can be funny and smart, fun to be with and someone with whom you want to spend a lot of time because of the way they make you feel.
I think that throughout time and across various cultures, countries, civilizations, human interactions and eras of history, "dating" has had permeations that transcend any one particular definition or sets of definitions.
Having said that, and to answer your question, there are instances in which some modern-day dating in some places around the globe falls under the parameters you asked about, but certainly not all dating. The unfortunate truth is that people use the wrong criteria for selecting a mate, such as visual stimuli, first impressions, sexual arousal, social status, etc. Coupled with the poor selection is the knee-jerk manner in which many people decide with whom to couple. There are many who do things in the wrong order, such as sex before getting to know with whom they're sleeping, having children before providing a family for them, starting one entanglement before the last one (or ones) have ended, things like that.
Even though it's not part of my own culture, I can now see the sensibility behind having marriages arranged by parents (of adults). It wasn't something I agreed with years ago, but that's partially due to the Western mindset in general, which includes lack of knowledge about it and a lot of assumptions about it. After having learned more about it, I can recognize reasons it works better than two young people deciciding on their own. Neither of those two specific choices, non-arranged and arranged marriages, are perfect, but each has its merits and defects.
Lastly, the haste with which we nowadays intertwine ourselves with each other leads to sad endings, but not without their predictability, if only we would pay attention to them beforehand.
The "wrong criteria" you mention in the early part of your answer are the only criteria we have to form our first impression of whether we want to take it further. And based on this first impression we often make a decision (often hurried) one way or the other. Of my four decisions to take things further, it took three years in one case and about five months in another for me to realise how poorly I had judged. As for arranged marriages, I had several proposals in my youth and even up to say 15 years ago when I was in my early 30s, all of which I turned down for reasons I don't want to go into, only to realise much later what a fool I had been in my adamancy to reject, especially in relation to two of them which would very likely have proved excellent matches, but are now out of bounds. I have only myself to blame for kicking myself out of the "marriage market", so to speak, when the time was ripe and my parents were quite literally begging me to relent.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 3, 2018 10:51 PM MDT
Yes indeed, (primordial ooze questions I love em).
The purpose of dating is to find a mate, or at a minimum someone to shag. The actual biological role of sex was to pass on ones genes. It was made pleasurable so as to encourage folks to have sex. Since it is pleasurable it is also used as recreation. In these days with Birth Control it is primarily a recreational pursuit.
Now those that are so inept as to not find a partner or a Shag do not have the opportunity to breed. Consequently their gene pool is not passed on. Therefore Natural Selection is at work, it does not take a Saber Tooth Tiger anymore to wean the gene pool anymore. Just a nerd sitting at a keyboard
I thought I answered this already but seems my answer was deleted. Or did not post. "Natural selection" comes I think from Darwinian theory and in order for it to be such it would have to make us much more adaptable, in terms of "evolution", at least eventually. So if it does not then it is just dating. We check each other out and get to know one another, fall perhaps for someone, and we think in terms of our enjoyment as well as security with them which is all natural and is selective although would not necessarily be thought of as "natural selection".
Not for me. I didn't date much. I ended up becoming involved in friendships that became romantic relationships. Never with any thought that we would ever be more than friends!
inky 