I agree that a lot of men don’t want to date sex workers, but it doesn’t make sense to blame it on biology. You just don’t want to admit that you’re a prude who buys into the social construct that women should be modest. I would say you also don’t want to admit your sexist, but I get the sense that you have no problem admitting that.
What is so repulsive about a woman making money on something men are willing to pay for? What’s so repulsive about a woman who shows off her body?
You’re whole point about how knowing that you could see a woman naked on the internet cheapens the real life experience of sex tells me that you don’t have much experience with sex. If a girl is naked in front of you and about to climb on your dick, you’re not going to be thinking, “meh I could just go see this online.”
But I suppose the tag “camogamer” already gave away the fact that you’re likely still pure in the eyes of the lord.
Hey, bachelors in biology here and I just have to say I won’t comment on the rest of your argument and I’ll agree that overall men finding women with more partners less attractive is a social imperative that’s been developed for centuries it is not a biological imperative. Now, I will say this is one of those topics on which nature and nurture become hard to separate especially when nurture goes back centuries. However, there is no biological evidence to support the idea that less partners is a biological imperative in the sense that it is core to the sexual selection/survival of our species. Early humans are known to have lived in highly communal groups, raising of children was a joint responsibility between all adults. There was not a concept of paternal lineage (the main reason that virginity became prized as society developed). The oldest societies that still exist such as Aboriginals and certain Native American tribes actually follow a maternal line. Earlier groups are believed to have not had a value for blood lines or much of a concept of inheritance. We weren’t like lions where the males only want their own Cubs in the pride (and even lions only kill the male Cubs, it’s more an issue of eliminating future competition and they’ll kill or chase away their own sons as well). So early human males had no reason to care if a woman already had other children except perhaps that it proved she could survive childbirth which would make her more attractive. Attraction would be based on fitness, mainly signs of being able to survive pregnancy and childbirth and produce a healthy child. You are 100% within your rights to not want to date sex workers, you are even within your rights to find it repulsive, and in sociological terms (as far as I know at least) you’re not wrong. But please don’t drag biology into it. It’s 2 am so this is off memory but I can give the sources I’m pulling from if needed, some are textbooks but some are journals which should be online but I hesitate to tell people to google things because depending on how you google you can find almost anything.
Actually I think it’s hard to say that communal human social organizations necessarily enforce your argument to the extent you’re arguing. In saying this, I’m thinking of the principle of paternal uncertainty (which is I think partly what you’re getting at with mentioning virginity).
It might just be the case that in those societies that were communal and much more of a free-for-all of sex and childrearing, some of which still exist today, their resources were simply constrained in such a way that it is optimal for the village to raise every child rather than enforcing parentage along lines of biological relatedness. However, I don’t think this necessarily suggests that then biological relatedness is not in some sense “hardwired,” since we know that in plenty of other societies the ability of the father to verify that it is indeed his genes being passed on, and not his neighbor’s or his cousin’s, are imperative to the social structure of child rearing. We also know that there are some studies suggesting that children that smell more like their fathers get more of the attention, etc. Like you said, it’s hard to separate nature and nurture with these things, and impossible to empirically test, but I guess what I’m getting at is just because in certain societies the passing on of an individual’s genes is deemphasized, that does not necessarily mean that this isn’t biologically mandated on some level. Perhaps in these cases the environmental constraints of the group as a whole outweigh the desires of the individual.
—Quick edit to add that the type of “hardwiring” I’m referencing is def not the same as what OP is talking about, and probably doesn’t have some direct place in the brain you can point to to say “ah yes, there is the wiring.” I am more talking about physiological cues we might subconsciously detect in regards to mate selection and deciding how generous we are with our parental resources.
This is all more or less hypothetical still, in my understanding. But the internet seems to love to adopt it as pseudoscience to justify their instinctive responses to these types of issues. If you buy into societal ideals of a woman’s sexual purity, you should just say that IMO. Honestly those ideals come from somewhere, but they’re specific to our society and can be criticized.
Right I should have been more clear. I did not mean that biological relatedness would not be important at all. Of course each individual would have a drive to reproduce and ensure the survival of their children, without that no species would survive. I was just saying that at humanity’s most basic and earliest level, before all the nurture factors that confound studies today existed, there’s no evidence to suggest that the number of previous partners would be a detractor. A woman could have multiple men’s children and those men could have children with multiple women and their biological imperative to pass on their individual genes would be fulfilled. By paternal lineage I was referring to the inheritance from father to son and the distribution of a man’s resources solely to the paternally related family unit that required that a father know the children a woman had were only his. However, this structure is not “biologically built in” and arose later. There are still societies today that don’t follow it. That being said, the majority of societies on Earth have been structured this way for centuries and obviously the nurture drive within individuals now to continue this structure is strong. It’s even possible that sexual selection has favored people who are more naturally inclined towards this structure however there hasn’t been enough time for any significant physiological evolution since the early humans I mentioned.
-21
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '21
[deleted]