“The multi-male species show less sexual dimorphism and specialization, and capacities for group-living and organization are obviously being selected for rather than mere strength or endurance or display.  High-ranking female groups, for example, will often not tolerate males who are too aggressive and competitive, and these leave the group and become solitaries.” (Fox, R (1983) Sexual selection, female choice and human kinship. Cambridge Anthropology 8, 3, page 8.)

Differences between the American Left and Right and how the Left and Right organize likey reflect social structure and sexual selection proclivities.  The only contact I have with the Right is reading Right Wing blogs, so my observations are one sided.  Still, a couple of interesting things I’ve observed.

In the Chicago area, there was an activist that dressed for all events and meetings with an oversized Uncle Sam hat and American flag as cape.  Over time, “Fred” had alienated a number of his peers, largely through expressions of inappropriate belligerence.  Over six feet tall without the hat, with hat he towered above all other people at an event.  His red, white and blue display could be easily picked out in a demonstration of thousands.  Fred sat in the first row of all events, almost without exception.

From a biological perspective, Fred was locked into a frame of reference typified by display and single male society.  Uncooperative on almost all levels, Fred used space to exhibit.  It was not uncommon to observe Fred preening, chest out and shoulders back, strutting back and forth in front of a large group.  Fred had no allies.

Perhaps I demean myself and Fred by objectifying another activist to make my point, but this point seems interesting enough to me to take the risk.

When Fred was permanently expelled from the group that he most frequently visited, it was the women that took the lead.  When confronted with his inappropriate behaviors by a woman standing before him outlining the reasons for his expulsion, Fred was uncharacteristically speechless.  After the vote, he left without a word.

In earlier blogs, I’ve shared my hypothesis that human sexual selection deeply informs huge swaths of contemporary culture.  It’s as if humans are incapable of turning off their proclivity to evaluate based on nuanced differences of the way things look, sound, feel, taste and smell.  Brains made bigger to both display and evaluate display slowly went extreme via runaway sexual selection, and now we evaluate everything in the way we only formerly evaluated our mates.  Geoffrey Miller’s The Mating Mind is a superb work describing this dynamic in detail.  Consumer culture is an extension of human sexual selection, explaining in no small part the extraordinary variety of sex and violence broadcasted through every medium.

Consider that consumer culture might be an empowering experience for brains craving targets to appraise.  Unlimited consumer alternatives address an ongoing desire to evaluate or demonstrate to procreate.

Fred is an extreme example of a person behaving in ways to suggest a deep-seated investment in viewing the world from a sexual point of view.  We all are 24/7 devoted to the planet primate.  The rest of us in that room when Fred was rejected from the group were acting out our chosen roles as sexual beings.  On the left, we tend to be more subtle as we go about exercising our compulsion to evaluate our experience from a brain made big to gain a mate.  As they say, all there is, is love.

Biologically, there is no difference between sex and love.  If you’re like me, and everywhere you look you see biology, the next step is love, and then spirituality becomes just another name for the experience.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom