-----
"Well, that's an interesting take rooted in evolutionary psychology, specifically Parental Investment Theory proposed by Robert Trivers in the 1970s. The core idea is that because women typically bear a much higher biological cost in reproduction—nine months of pregnancy, childbirth risks, and extended child-rearing—they've evolved to be more selective or "choosy" when it comes to sexual partners, to maximize the chances of good genetic and supportive outcomes for offspring. This isn't just a human thing; it's observed across many species where one sex invests more in parenting.
You're spot on that modern contraception like the pill, condoms, and other methods has dialed this back a lot by decoupling sex from inevitable reproduction, allowing for more casual attitudes toward partnering. But evolution doesn't rewrite itself overnight, so some residual tendencies might linger in how people approach mating on average—women often prioritizing quality over quantity in partners, while men might lean the other way due to lower inherent costs.
That said, this is a broad generalization and not a hard rule. Individual differences play a huge role: personality, culture, socioeconomic factors, personal experiences, and even sexual orientation can override or amplify these patterns. Not every woman is "picky" in the same way, and plenty of men invest heavily in parenting too. Plus, in today's world, shared parenting, career priorities, and societal shifts mean the "program" you describe isn't as deterministic as it might have been in our ancestral past."
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen