pickabeau1:


So how do u know the best spamzoan

The sperm capable of fertilizing an egg. We can decide this in vitro.

LordReed:

FTFY

Lol
I have an idea...we can do this in vitro, rather than in vivo...

I will donate an egg
You boys donate your spermatozoa, mix it up
Culture it in the lab...voila ...

May the best sper.m win...lol

Caveman chad

Looooool

BuddhaPalm:


My oga, you are indeed very wrong.

It is now known that we evolved for competition at the, quoting you, "spermatozoic level".

There are even tons of books on the subject: Sperm Wars - by Robin Baker, and Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality are examples.

You mentioned 'high status' and 'provider', but remember, they don't need to come from the same person.

The provider blissfully provides, while she goes behind to get inseminated by caveman Chad, who has optimum seed.

pickabeau1:


So how will the victor spam be identified

Anyway how do you divorce the fittest spam from the owners of the spam

The best spam may belong to the lowest provider... gerrit

The DNA of the resulting baby of course!

Are you of the opinion that the lowest provider should not mate?

Kini in-vitro?
In-vivo too sure.

The winning sperm provider need not know he's the actual sperm provider.
It makes all of them hands-on-deck fathers to the new born. each one providing according to his capabilities. None tied to the same woman hence everybody can practice their 'natural polygamy' and we would all live in the primitive state that polygamy ensures.

Stillfire:


The sperm capable of fertilizing an egg. We can decide this in vitro.




Lol
I have an idea...we can do this in vitro, rather than in vivo...

I will donate an egg
You boys donate your spermatozoa, mix it up
Culture it in the lab...voila ...

May the best sper.m win...lol

cococandy:
Kini in-vitro?
In-vivo too sure.

The winning sperm provider need not know he's the actual sperm provider.
It makes all of them hands-on-deck fathers to the new born. each one providing according to his capabilities. None tied to the same woman hence everybody can practice their 'natural polygamy' and we would all live in the primitive state that polygamy ensures.

I really laughed out loud reading this. An ideal state however unattainable it may sound.

LordReed:


I really laughed out loud reading this. An ideal state however unattainable it may sound.

it does sound unattainable but It is actually the default attainable state just like our ape ancestors. only that civilization brought us away from that.
Peeps be complaining about monogamy as if the obvious role is plays in our society in setting us apart from lower animals is not enough. maybe a try for the real polygamy. Free for all (not the one-sided hypocritical one) will bring us back to our senses.

LordReed:
So I take it you don't accept the position that the millions of sperm a man produces confers on him a polygamous nature?

No.
Sperm is cheap to produce - eggs are expensive. That's why we have Fabergé eggs, not faberge sperm .
Many are produce as the "battle" takes place at that level - may the best sperm win.

TV

Stillfire:
The thread is so ewwwwww. This looks like a fun thread.

TV01

I don't think the premise is totally flawed. Why?

Se.x is for procreation, and our mating choices is evolutionary dependent on who is more likely to bear offspring.

The endpoint of the female mating selection is to determine the male who is more viable to reproduce.

Primitively, the metrics to determine this endpoint is through the outward appearance of the male, his physical strength, etc. Likewise in the male psyche, a generous amount of hips translates in his mind that the female is fertile and able to reproduce.

However, today we know that is not automatically the case. Big hips do not necessarily translate to fertility, neither does physical strength. Today we do not rely on mere physical attributes to determine who is fertile and who isn't. Science and technology have made it possible for us to go to the cellular level to determine who is more fertile. So since we are inherently programmed to procreate, the battle has now been reduced to the spermatozoan level. May the best man win.

Holá Stilly,
I do not subscribe to evolutionary theory - in the sense that one creature can become a totally different type. I thin the games we play are down to our fallen nature.

I can see what you are saying - I think - but it appears to agree with me, not the OP? Unless I misread the OP, or both you and the OP?


TV

BuddhaPalm:


My oga, you are indeed very wrong.

It is now known that we evolved for competition at the, quoting you, "spermatozoic level".

There are even tons of books on the subject: Sperm Wars - by Robin Baker, and Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality are examples.

You mentioned 'high status' and 'provider', but remember, they don't need to come from the same person.

The provider blissfully provides, while she goes behind to get inseminated by caveman Chad, who has optimum seed.

I'm still not clear on this. I've never - to be honest - heard of this before. Perhaps I need it spelt out clearly. As I said, I don't subscribe to evolutionary theory.

I can see "intra-sperm" wars, but not "inter-sperm" wars. Any war from multiple donors would likely be won by the first to donate. Hence the reason women select the fittest available man, whose sperm then battle it out.

If the provider does not have the assurance he is also the progenitor, why would he provide? I'd like to hear more. Simple outlined for a simpleton like me.


TV

BuddhaPalm:
One could be cripple, mentally deficient or sickly...and still have high status or be an fantastic provisioner - for some random reason. Birth chance, etc.

In a primitive society, your whole capability to provide would depend on physical fitness/health. Although I don't, as mentioned, subscribe to evolution, I don't get how this makes sense within that framework?

TV

LordReed:


The DNA of the resulting baby of course!

Are you of the opinion that the lowest provider should not mate?

How was testing carried out back then.
Historically, many men did not get to mate. Just like many male .herd animals. It's why monogamy marriage is good and makes for saner societies.


TV

cococandy:
Kini in-vitro?
In-vivo too sure.

The winning sperm provider need not know he's the actual sperm provider.
It makes all of them hands-on-deck fathers to the new born. each one providing according to his capabilities. None tied to the same woman hence everybody can practice their 'natural polygamy' and we would all live in the primitive state that polygamy ensures.

I don't see how you'd get men to provide where paternity is not sure. Even now we see deadbeat dads. Without sanction of the law or formal ties, they don't take responsibility. Even betas will not buy this.

This could possibly work in societies where offspring are given little care by either parent. But that society simply could not flourish. Non-starter from where I'm sitting. Happy to be shown how though.


TV

In our more primitive state, that would be feasible.

TV01:

I don't see how you'd get men to provide where paternity is not sure. Even now we see deadbeat dads. Without sanction of the law or formal ties, they don't take responsibility. Even betas will not buy this.

This could possibly work in societies where offspring are given little care by either parent. But that society simply coul dnot flourish. Non-starter from where I'm sitting. Happy to be shown how though.


TV

Still hog

How do you know Chad has better spam than Kroeger the provider

What is the value of this optimum spam by Chad when an average spam with Kroeger willdo the job moreover with security


You still miss the point

BuddhaPalm:


My oga, you are indeed very wrong.

It is now known that we evolved for competition at the, quoting you, "spermatozoic level".

There are even tons of books on the subject: Sperm Wars - by Robin Baker, and Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality are examples.

You mentioned 'high status' and 'provider', but remember, they don't need to come from the same person.

The provider blissfully provides, while she goes behind to get inseminated by caveman Chad, who has optimum seed.

TV01:

I'm still not clear on this. I've never - to be honest - heard of this before. Perhaps I need it spelt out clearly. As I said, I don't subscribe to evolutionary theory.

You don't have to...

TV01:

I can see "intra-sperm" wars, but not "inter-sperm" wars. Any war from multiple donors would likely be won by the first to donate. Hence the reason women select the fittest available man, whose sperm then battle it out.

"The battle is not to the swift..."

Remember:

1.) Human females are not fertile at all times.
2.) Human females have concealed ovulations...and as is typical, ONLY her knows when this is. This means that within that short window of fecundity, she can give sexual access to WHOEVER she chooses.
3.) Humans have a very LOW sex to conception rate.

So how can one truly be 'first'?...Very difficult.

TV01:

If the provider does not have the assurance he is also the progenitor, why would he provide? I'd like to hear more. Simple outlined for a simpleton like me.
TV

People are cuckolded all the time...even the so called 'monogamous' animals.

You don't know what you don't know.

Without the advances in modern science, there's very little chance of ever finding out, conclusively, that your wife's child isn't yours. So you will happily 'invest' and provide for another man's child.

Isn't ignorance bliss?

BTW, you are no simpleton.

TV01:

In a primitive society, your whole capability to provide would depend on physical fitness/health. Although I don't, as mentioned, subscribe to evolution, I don't get how this makes sense within that framework?

TV

As humans, besides intelligence, our biggest, baddest attribute is our ability to socialize.

Physically, a guy like John Cena will mop the floor with Obama, but Obama is way more powerful and has more influence.

And in a very social environment, as evolved by humans, physical strength is no longer key, but INFLUENCE.

Compared to other animals, we humans are a very weak and fragile specie. We are not fast or exceptionally strong or anything...but what we excel in is ORGANIZATION.

And any man who has influence over other men - for whatever reason - is KING.

Finally, in our contemporary environment, look at how women react to/respond to males with influence vs men with great physical strength...

TV01:

No.
Sperm is cheap to produce - eggs are expensive. That's why we have Fabergé eggs, not faberge sperm .
Many are produce as the "battle" takes place at that level - may the best sperm win.

TV

This topic is actually for people who hold that position so most of the points may seem fatuous to you.

TV01:

How was testing carried out back then.
Historically, many men did not get to mate. Just like many male .herd animals. It's why monogamy marriage is good and makes for saner societies.


TV

Well genetics are usually expressed in physical traits aren't they? Would the child not look like or have some features of it's parents?

Well I don't know about historical but I know that in every age even slaves and the lowest classes procreated.

TV01:


I can see "intra-sperm" wars, but not "inter-sperm" wars. Any war from multiple donors would likely be won by the first to donate.

TV

Not quite. You need to remember that sperm "lifespan" is measured in hours. Within one hour 40-50% of the sperm are already dead or immobile. A new set of sperm would have a better chance depending of course on time and position.

Okay All, I'm still not clear here. Maybe it's in part to my creation vs evolution position. I don't believe humans evolved. Or that we descended from some proto-ape type common ancestor with chimps.

I believe we were created as are, with consciences, morals - even if these may have varied over time - and great intellects. The only difference between then and now is the incremental advances we have successively built on. I don't believe human behaviours are evolved traits over time on the basis of "survival of the fittest".

The theory as posed simply does not hang together for me or pass close scrutiny - and there are so many assumptions I would query, and loads of questions I have.

So for example; men do not have an impulse that mirrors a mothers maternal instinct. They want to have sex, not necessarily procreate. They only commit to providing where they have a clear genetic investment/stake. If they know women are sleeping around, they'll be fine with that, just not commit to providing, instead, working to get as much sex as they desire.

We see this now - men are happy to have the milk, without buying the cow. Marriage/commitment rates are falling. The only reason women can get away with it in some instances is because government - or her family - steps in, to force the man to provide, or act as an alternate source of provision.

As for mate-guarding, that only happens where there is the expectation of exclusive access. If women are free to, or known to, engage multiple partners, there is nothing to guard.

I can see how she may sleep around and work with ovulatory cycles to cuckold a committed lower ranked provider, but this will be multiple in a limited sense. How many other men - especially identified as equal or superior quality to her regular - can she engage? And I don't see this argument as superior - indeed it's more akin - to identifying and mating with the best man.



TV

TV01:
Okay All, I'm still not clear here. Maybe it's in part to my creation vs evolution position. I don't believe humans evolved. Or that we descended from some proto-ape type common ancestor with chimps.

I believe we were created as are, with consciences, morals - even if these may have varied over time - and great intellects. The only difference between then and now is the incremental advances we have successively built on. I don't believe human behaviours are evolved traits over time on the basis of "survival of the fittest".

The theory as posed simply does not hang together for me or pass close scrutiny - and there are so many assumptions I would query, and loads of questions I have.

So for example; men do not have an impulse that mirrors a mothers maternal instinct. They want to have sex, not necessarily procreate. They only commit to providing where they have a clear genetic investment/stake. If they know women are sleeping around, they'll be fine with that, just not commit to providing, instead, working to get as much sex as they desire.

We see this now - men are happy to have the milk, without buying the cow. Marriage/commitment rates are falling. The only reason women can get away with it in some instances is because government - or her family - steps in, to force the man to provide, or act as an alternate source of provision.

As for mate-guarding, that only happens where there is the expectation of exclusive access. If women are free to, or known to, engage multiple partners, there is nothing to guard.

I can see how she may sleep around and work with ovulatory cycles to cuckold a committed lower ranked provider, but this will be multiple in a limited sense. How many other men - especially identified as equal or superior quality to her regular - can she engage? And I don't see this argument as superior - indeed it's more akin - to identifying and mating with the best man.



TV

I tried to tell you not to take this too seriously as it is only meant to counter the "men are polygamous by nature" argument. If we simply relied on biological nature then many of our actions will be way different, which is what the point of this is.

Another study conducted some years back showed that women, through emotional signalling, had a great influence over the choice of paternity for the children.

Specifically, the study suggested that a woman sleeping with two or more partners would most likely concieve for the man with whom she has a greater emotional connection at that time.

In other words, her emotions would send signals to her fertility organs to discriminate in favour of the favoured sperm.

What this translates to in real life is that a woman is more likely to concieve for her lover than for her husband with whom she has built up resentments over the period of their marriage.

plaetton:
Another study conducted some years back showed that women, through emotional signalling, had a great influence over the choice of paternity for the children.

Specifically, the study suggested that a woman sleeping with two or more partners would most likely concieve for the man with whom she has a greater emotional connection at that time.

In other words, her emotions would send signals to her fertility organs to discriminate in favour of the favoured sperm.

What this translates to in real life is that a woman is more likely to concieve for her lover than for her husband with whom she has built up resentments over the period of their marriage.

Please, where can I read more about this study?
I want to see how it was conducted. How did they find women who were willing to sleep with different men without contraception not knowing who they will get pregnant from at the end.

innervoice:


Please, where can I read more about this study?
I want to see how it was conducted. How did they find women who were willing to sleep with different men without contraception not knowing who they will get pregnant from at the end.

It was actually a bbc documentary a few years ago.
Do some google querries and see if you can find articles on the study.
I will also try.

plaetton:


It was actually a bbc documentary a few years ago.
Do some google querries and see if you can find articles on the study.
I will also try.

Thanks.

@innervoice.

Here one link that suggests same conclusion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130926205001.htm

plaetton:
@innervoice.

Here one link that suggests same conclusion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130926205001.htm

The study is about animals.

innervoice:


The study is about animals.

Yes. It merely shows the proof of concept.

It is called cryptic selection or cryptic choice.
It is phenomenon whereby some female species, including humans, are able to store and seperate sperm from different donors, and then manipulate who gets to score the winning goal.

In humans, according to the bbc documentary, I remember, the human female, through emotional signalling, subconsciously manipulates and adjusts her cervix, increases the pressure on her tubes or canals to facilitate and increase the chance of fertilization by a prefered lover.

plaetton:

Yes. It merely shows the proof of concept.

It is called cryptic selection or cryptic choice.
It is phenomenon whereby some female species, including humans, are able to store and seperate sperm from different donors, and then manipulate who gets to score the winning goal.

In humans, according to the bbc documentary, I remember, the human female, through emotional signalling, subconsciously manipulates and adjusts her cervix, increases the pressure on her tubes or canals to facilitate and increase the chance of fertilization by a prefered lover.

interesting. Hmm,

LordReed:
The simple (biological) answer is yes.

[s]If only the most viable sperm is to fertilise the ovum then it is ideal for the female to collect as many as possible to see which of the potential fathers sperm will win out. If for example 5 men all have deposited their sperm in the cervix the one who's sperm wins out must be the man of men, a true winner as he gets to have biological immortality. So maybe we should take all this male bragging of who is better to the sperm battle ground and allow the biological process to show who is who. Of course in the process the female has to consort with more than one male so please males keep your jealousy and anger in check, it's only natural. [/s]

Dude, this here writeup makes absolutely no sense...can't believe anyone would want to argue this with you in the first place.

The only reason they say men are polygamous by nature is to convey the message that a man can mate, marry, and shoot his seed in as many women as he wants and get them pregnant at the same time.
A woman on the other can't be said to be polygamous by nature just for the simple fact that she can't carry multiple children for multiple partners at the same time - at best, she must wait at least a year to birth a child for husband number 2, another year for husband number 3, and so on and so forth.

God help her if each of these men want at least two kids from her, she's gonna start looking 60years old at just 30 to pull that off.



And what the hell is biological immortality BTW?
The need to throw around fancy words I presume...

crackhaus:

Dude, this here writeup makes absolutely no sense...can't believe anyone would want to argue this with you in the first place.

The only reason they say men are polygamous by nature is to convey the message that a man can mate, marry, and shoot his seed in as many women as he wants and get them pregnant at the same time.
A woman on the other can't be said to be polygamous by nature just for the simple fact that she can't carry multiple children for multiple partners at the same time - at best, she must wait at least a year to birth a child for husband number 2, another year for husband number 3, and so on and so forth.

God help her if each of these men want at least two kids from her, she's gonna start looking 60years old at just 30 to pull that off.



And what the hell is biological immortality BTW?
The need to throw around fancy words I presume...

If a man is polygamous by nature simply because he can shoot his seed into several women then a woman is polyandrous by nature because she can receive seed from several men. It's quite simple. Who's seed wins out becomes a true champion.

Sorry if you've never heard of biological immortality before, I guess we learn something new every day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

LordReed:


If a man is polygamous by nature simply because he can shoot his seed into several women then a woman is polyandrous by nature because she can receive seed from several men. It's quite simple. Who's seed wins out becomes a true champion.

[s]Sorry if you've never heard of biological immortality before, I guess we learn something new every day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality[/s]

Read this bit again, and with understanding this time:

A woman on the other can't be said to be polygamous by nature just for the simple fact that she can't carry multiple children for multiple partners at the same time - at best, she must wait at least a year to birth a child for husband number 2, another year for husband number 3, and so on and so forth.

A woman is a receiver, a vessel...even if she gets to receive sperm from several men, she has no willful power in deciding whose sperm fertilizes her egg... and that one sperm cell out of millions fertilizes her egg doesn't prove who's stronger among the lot of sperm donors - that's just you trying to trivialize a complex biological process by turning it into a rat race of sorts.

Polygamy works on the premise of being able to select multiple mates and have them procreate for you exclusively and simultaneously if that's what the chooser wants.
A woman cannot choose whose baby she wants to carry if she's having sex with two or more husbands at the same time, neither can she carry two children from two men at the same time...she's a sitting duck, a passive participant in this whole shebang of procreation.

The one whose natural status is to select, choose, and impregnate concurrently or simultaneously is the one that's polygamous by nature...not the one who has to wait at least a year to be impregnated again by another man before resuming the process of procreation.


Thanks for the education on biological immortality which you didn't write yourself...now how does it relate to sperm?