From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 22:00:19 MDT
I am wondering here. From what you write, isn't it possible to invert the
cause-effect arrow and say that _men who can compete in cities are seen as
more "fit" mates_ by a cross section of females, evolutionarily-biologically?
Just because of the extra cost==>potlatch display effect, akin to driving a
fancy car, etc.?
"If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere..." --_New York, New York_
Me, I'm not into the "masters of the universe" game.
James Rogers wrote:
> The short answer is that women drive this behavior in the general
> population.
<snip>
> The outcome of this is that living in the city makes a man a more
> desirable mate. Therefore, by paying the higher cost of living in urban
> areas they have access to better women. Men who can provide access to a
> city living environment for a woman can get better women, and men rarely
> show too much resistance to spending money to acquire better women.
>
> In other words, it is the same old sexual selection bit. The only real
> interesting point is the fact that women find the city very magnetic as
> a general rule. This is a very old cliche that shows up in literature
> as far back as you look. However, it doesn't take a psych boffin to
> come up with a good hypothesis as to why this is the case.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:29 MST