The Unique Nature of Human Sexuality (musings)

[Guest053011]

I do a lot of research on this topic so expect this to meander:

Reay Tannahill, a Scottish Historian, makes some interesting observation on beauty, and the mating posture.

Many female animals present their rear, the male mounts and it's over quickly. It is an instinctual and purposeful action. She suggests that the very act of humans biology making it comfortable to mate face to face had a strong impact on human sexuality. Eyes connect, the vulnerable face is open to your partner, allowing our tongues to touch while united. Nerve endings, sensitive tissues and our senses engage in a very different experience, one that can allow for emotions of intimacy to develop.

In "Partners of Sexual Behaviour" anthropologist and ethologist suggest that the very angle of this position made female orgasm possible - a treat believed to be deprived of our fellow critters.

This frontal posture also made the female human more susceptible to rape, something physiologically impossible for most other species. Darwin's theory of evolution is often thought of as being strictly based on natural selection. However he also acknowledged sexual selection. Those attractive to females would mate the soonest, and the most often. However, since the female human can be raped - our genetic and social history is forever changed. War opened up large masses of women to rape, and so did a male dominated society - the female did not need to approve of her mate in order to be impregnated.

In fact over time evolution compensated for this act of violence against women. Studies show that a majority of women watching rape scenes with sensors attached began to lubricate, even though they found the scenes appalling and experienced no sense of arousal. The belief being that women who could lubricated without being turned on, and even in the midst of violence, were less likely to die from certain internal injuries, and were less likely to have injuries that would render them infertile - therefore passing on the ability to more and more women.

This ability to rape women is likely responsible for the highly aggressive behaviour of human beings across the planet, as we continue to kill each other for the entire span of recorded history - behaviour unknown in the animal kingdom. Males who manifested the traits that would lead to the destruction of neighbouring peoples and raping their women were able to pass on their genetics. Sex and Reproduction being linked deeply to War and Violence. Granted it doesn'tmean we're inherently murderous or that war is inevitable. Part of being sentient means that we are not ruled by blindly by our animal instincts.

Interesting isn't it? The face to face position opening us up to great intimacy at the same time it opens the door to great violence.

Tannahill also points out that early hominids likely had sexual selection effected being mounted from the rear. The woman had no real view of of the man for most of the process - making his actions more important - strength and intelligence being favored. Whereas the male had full view, making it more important that she be visually appealing.

There is an interesting (and small) body of research that tries to see if animal females are able to experience orgasm. There is evidence that many female species experience strong contractions during mating, but there is no way to tell if she's experiencing physical ecstasy. Human semen contains prostaglandin, a hormone that causes a woman's uterus to contract when it comes into contact, and it's possible something similar is true for animals.

So... in 1939 Illinois researches took to sexually stimulating rabbits to take semen out of the equation, apparently using a finger. What fun. A dye was injected into the rabbit's vagina. They learned with the use of dye that these horny little bunnies did indeed experience contractions. Then in 1952 another Illinois research group inserted the thumbs of latex gloves into the uteri of cows and filled them with water... Interesting people in that state. Uterine contractions were detected the moment a bull was brought into sight. Another curious observation, the same study that showed women could lubricate to scenes of rape even though unaroused by the footage, would also lubricate when scenes of animal sex were displayed though there were no other indications of arousal. Merely being in the presence of sex of any kind triggered the female body to prepare itself.

Another study was done by a graduate student named Carly Kendall, for his master's thesis "Orgasm in Female Primates" who conducted the research by:

"manually stimulating the circumclitoral area and vagina of several adult, adolescent and juvenile chimpanzee females.... During intravaginal stimulation, perviaginal muscular contraction of about .8 second duration and about one second apart were palpated The average number of digital thrusts (at an approximate rate of one to two per second) performed before the onset of the contractions was 20.3. On one occasion... this female reached back to grasp the trusting hand of the experimenter and tried to force it more deeply into her vagina."

Odd to think of all these professionals diddling animals. So it took the female about 15 seconds to 'orgasm' on average, but unfortunately the male chimp takes 5-7 seconds to finish the job. Meaning that even if the female chimp can orgasm, she probably never gets the chance to.

Problem is, that for all these contrations being measured, there was no change of expression or body language in the female animal to suggest bliss. So of course endocrinologist D.A Goldfoot finds that the stump-tailed macaques make a "round mouthed ejaculation face", but primarily when females are mounting other females with thrusting motions. So naturally they inserted some instrument into a female uterus, and it turned out there was a link between the facial expression and what was going on in the body.

And then of course we have the ever famous dolphin:

Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction, sometimes also engaging in homosexual behaviour.

Sex is such an interesting puzzle, so much of life (animal and our own) revolves around it.

[Marshall]

I don't believe rape and war are limited to humans......

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by Marshall

I don't believe rape and war are limited to humans......

I'm not saying nature is a Disney episode. I am too familiar with all the hidden dangers to be so naive.

There is a known species of spider that can force sex and I have heard of a monkey - it is extremely rare in the animal kingdom. Certainly with animals which are capable, it doesn't happen on mass nor with the individual frequency that humans participate in the action with. For most animals it's impossible - the female cannot be physically held down. She can't be mounted if she doesn't stay still - that's true for the vast majority of animal life.

War is limited to humans. Fights happen with animals, not war. Animals will fight their own species for dominance - so individual males will battle it out, and an animal MAY die in the process, but murder isn't a goal, if one backs off or takes off before a fatal injury is made, it stops there. Historically, this is not true of human war. Murders continued after victory, and planning victory often meant psychological demoralization by killing and raping as many of the enemy as possible, even when it could be achieved without such actions.

Animals in the same species do not go instinctually systematically killing each other. The other case is territory - too many in an area make their territories too close and food competition tough - but you won't see them try and wipe out the competition - though they will clash. Nothing of the type and scale of human violence has ever been seen in the animal world. You also get male animals killing off the babies of a previous alpha male when he takes over the group - but he doesn't then go from one group to the next doing so. Once he is dominant male of his own group it stops - his hunger to dominate doesn't push him on to keep taking over others - as people are prone to. I believe there have been cases of animals with unusual markings or colorings having violent clashes out by their fellow critters, but if they leave before a fatal wound it stops.


The animal world is deadly. Survival of the fittest. Individuals and groups fight hard to make it - But it does not know the proportionate scale or systematic nature of the thing we call war.

[charlestudor2005]

@Lauren--Interesting dissertation. I had random thoughts as I read this. I'll try and reflect them here:

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Many female animals present their rear, the male mounts and it's over quickly. I've read that in animals (especially those in the canine line), the penis, once coitus is achieved, develops a knot which prevents interruption until semen has been released. The whole point is to impregnate the female. It is an instinctual and purposeful action. She suggests that the very act of humans biology making it comfortable to mate face to face had a strong impact on human sexuality. Eyes connect, the vulnerable face is open to your partner, allowing our tongues to touch while united. Nerve endings, sensitive tissues and our senses engage in a very different experience, one that can allow for emotions of intimacy to develop.

In "Partners of Sexual Behaviour" anthropologist and ethologist suggest that the very angle of this position made female orgasm possible - a treat (did you mean "trait?" Both work.) believed to be deprived of our fellow critters.

This frontal posture also made the female human more susceptible to rape, something physiologically impossible for most other species. Sometime, I'll expound on the Coke bottle defense. Darwin's theory of evolution is often thought of as being strictly based on natural selection. However he also acknowledged sexual selection. Those attractive to females would mate the soonest, and the most often. However, since the female human can be raped - our genetic and social history is forever changed. War opened up large masses of women to rape, and so did a male dominated society - the female did not need to approve of her mate in order to be impregnated. Nor did torture and genocide. In Darfur, rape of women was used as an act of terror. Once raped, the women's breasts would be cut off so she couldn't feed her baby and it would die after birth.

In fact over time evolution compensated for this act of violence against women. Studies show that a majority of women watching rape scenes with sensors attached began to lubricate, even though they found the scenes appalling and experienced no sense of arousal. The belief being that women who could lubricated without being turned on, and even in the midst of violence, were less likely to die from certain internal injuries, and were less likely to have injuries that would render them infertile - therefore passing on the ability to more and more women.

This ability to rape women is likely responsible for the highly aggressive behaviour of human beings across the planet, as we continue to kill each other for the entire span of recorded history - behaviour unknown in the animal kingdom. Males who manifested the traits that would lead to the destruction of neighbouring peoples and raping their women were able to pass on their genetics. See the alteration of this in Darfur mentioned above. I think they realized that the influence and hatred of the mothers would be passed onto the children, turning them violently against their rapist fathers. Sex and Reproduction being linked deeply to War and Violence. Granted it doesn'tmean we're inherently murderous or that war is inevitable. Part of being sentient means that we are not ruled by blindly by our animal instincts.

Interesting isn't it? The face to face position opening us up to great intimacy at the same time it opens the door to great violence.

Tannahill also points out that early hominids likely had sexual selection effected being mounted from the rear. The woman had no real view of of the man for most of the process - making his actions more important - strength and intelligence being favored. Whereas the male had full view, making it more important that she be visually appealing. At least from the rear. She could be ugly as sin in the face, but have an exquisite butt when walking away from you.

There is an interesting (and small) body of research that tries to see if animal females are able to experience orgasm. There is evidence that many female species experience strong contractions during mating, but there is no way to tell if she's experiencing physical ecstasy. Human semen contains prostaglandin, a hormone that causes a woman's uterus to contract when it comes into contact, and it's possible something similar is true for animals. OK, here is where I had my biggest question: if it takes this "contact" between semen and the prostaglandin to cause an orgasm in the human female, how is that the ladies here get an orgasm while using a prophylactic? Is it mostly through DATY? Is it manual manipulation? Is the hormone not really needed?

So... in 1939 Illinois researches took to sexually stimulating rabbits to take semen out of the equation, apparently using a finger. What fun. A dye was injected into the rabbit's vagina. They learned with the use of dye that these horny little bunnies did indeed experience contractions. Then in 1952 another Illinois research group inserted the thumbs of latex gloves into the uteri of cows and filled them with water... Interesting people in that state. Uterine contractions were detected the moment a bull was brought into sight. Another curious observation, the same study that showed women could lubricate to scenes of rape even though unaroused by the footage, would also lubricate when scenes of animal sex were displayed though there were no other indications of arousal. Merely being in the presence of sex of any kind triggered the female body to prepare itself. Hence, the hot threesomes? IDT most women are into threesomes...I think it is selective.

Another study was done by a graduate student named Carly Kendall, for his master's thesis "Orgasm in Female Primates" who conducted the research by:

"manually stimulating the circumclitoral area and vagina of several adult, adolescent and juvenile chimpanzee females.... During intravaginal stimulation, perviaginal muscular contraction of about .8 second duration and about one second apart were palpated The average number of digital thrusts (at an approximate rate of one to two per second) performed before the onset of the contractions was 20.3. On one occasion... this female reached back to grasp the trusting hand of the experimenter and tried to force it more deeply into her vagina."

Odd to think of all these professionals diddling animals. So it took the female about 15 seconds to 'orgasm' on average, but unfortunately the male chimp takes 5-7 seconds to finish the job. Meaning that even if the female chimp can orgasm, she probably never gets the chance to. Quite similar to humans, I think. I think the general statement can be made "men cum faster than women." That's why women like a significant foreplay period (dinner, theater, petting) while men are OK with glory holes.

Problem is, that for all these contrations being measured, there was no change of expression or body language in the female animal to suggest bliss. So of course endocrinologist D.A Goldfoot finds that the stump-tailed macaques make a "round mouthed ejaculation face", but primarily when females are mounting other females with thrusting motions. So naturally they inserted some instrument into a female uterus, and it turned out there was a link between the facial expression and what was going on in the body. So much for the theory that the difference between humans and animals is that animals don't use tools. In this case they use toys.

[Rudyard K]

Interesting. The conclusions of the observations are just conclusions...but they nevertheless are worthy of consideration for contemplation.

But I didn't quite understand this observation?

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

This frontal posture also made the female human more susceptible to rape, something physiologically impossible for most other species.

Why does the frontal posture make female women more susceptable to rape? Actually, in my mind, I could see the rear posture being more accessable. A lot of the conclusions are drawn from the premise that the frontal posture grants more access.

I'm not trying to be argumentative...it just seems to me that such a premise is counterintuative. Maybe I'm missing something.

[I B Hankering]

Female chimp infanticide might be common

Reserchers think clashes over territory might fuel conflicts

The killing of infant wild chimpanzees by female adults of their own kind may be more common than was thought.
What drives these mysterious infanticides by females is not yet clear, but scientists currently speculate that clashes over stomping grounds might fuel these conflicts and that human encroachment on chimpanzee territory might exacerbate the situations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661491...ience-science/


"[Jane] Goodall is such a relentless and persuasive activist, it's sometimes easy to forget that she's also a world-class scientist who revolutionized the way we look at the world. Her 1986 book The Chimpanzees of Gombe is the seminal volume of primatology (Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has called it "one of the Western world's great scientific achievements"). Crouched in the Tanzanian bush with a notebook, binoculars, and titanic reserves of patience, Goodall turned a G-rated jungle into a Scorsese flick. Chimps, she taught us, aren't cuddly ambassadors from the peaceable kingdom; they're complex, mercurial creatures, capable of murder, cannibalism, and a thousand little cruelties. They nurture and groom and kiss one another, yes, but they also build dark coalitions, hatch intrigues, even practice their own style of ethnic cleansing."

http://outsideonline.com/outside/mag.../9710jane.html

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

This frontal posture also made the female human more susceptible to rape, something physiologically impossible for most other species. Darwin's theory of evolution is often thought of as being strictly based on natural selection. However he also acknowledged sexual selection. Those attractive to females would mate the soonest, and the most often. However, since the female human can be raped - our genetic and social history is forever changed. War opened up large masses of women to rape, and so did a male dominated society - the female did not need to approve of her mate in order to be impregnated.

Interesting article, very biological in my opinion and a little biased when it comes to rape as being considered a vaginal approach. Ethnologists and Anthropologists have found in many studies (historical studies about rape and war and crimes) that when a woman is raped the likelihood of it being vaginal is limited. Rape is an act of aggression, so the fact that a pussy eventually lubricates when someone forcefully tries to penetrate it does not really help for the act of aggression that rape presents. First of all, many rapes do not necessarily include vaginal penetration, it is anal penetration, anal violence, being penetrated with sticks, knives and violated - often to death. So - fluid in vagina is not really protective and i consider that a shortcoming of the research presented.

But otherwise interesting article although i would not conclude that animals can`t be raped. We don^t know that because we can hardly ask them for their opinions :-) - even human consciousness is hard to research. The consciousness of complex animals like primates even more - the conclusions are made from humans to the animal world and heavily biased.

I`ve seen that often, also wehn it comes to pointing out that monogamy is natural or is not natural. The pro mono say the animals are monogamous the pro-poly say animals aren`t . Ha ha. Its selective consciousness. You see what you want to see and you take as support for your research the poor animals that you want to have as support. Long time swans have been the epitome of presentations for monogamous relationships in animals until someone found that this is not the case . Bummer. Biological research is - as any research - very biased into the direction of what the researcher wants to find. Especially when they always present this human - vs. animals as some support of their theories.

ps: on another shocking note - decades ago in europe (don`t know aboout the USA or Canada) rape was not considered a rape until it happened vaginal. This is cruel. So women being raped in the worst cases and the most cruel ways (anal penetration with sticks and kinives and whatnot) and being brutally forced to do things) could not even pursue this a s a crime in court for a long time. Call that patriarchal view of sex. Its only rape when its cock in vagina - go figure - other than that its only an act of "force" (i don`t know the correct expression in english"). Oh and by the way: prostitutes could not be raped too. Shock...:-))).. Since the act of rape is not about sex but about violence there have been studies showing that when a rapist encounters a woman that says - ok you want sex, lets relax and do it, i am a professional , you don`t need to force me - then the rape as an act of violence was particularly brutal and cruel, because the clue is that the victim has to resist for the rapist. He wants violence, cruelty, force. Aggression.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Female chimp infanticide might be common

Reserchers think clashes over territory might fuel conflicts

The killing of infant wild chimpanzees by female adults of their own kind may be more common than was thought.
What drives these mysterious infanticides by females is not yet clear, but scientists currently speculate that clashes over stomping grounds might fuel these conflicts and that human encroachment on chimpanzee territory might exacerbate the situations.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661491...ience-science/


"[Jane] Goodall is such a relentless and persuasive activist, it's sometimes easy to forget that she's also a world-class scientist who revolutionized the way we look at the world. Her 1986 book The Chimpanzees of Gombe is the seminal volume of primatology (Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has called it "one of the Western world's great scientific achievements"). Crouched in the Tanzanian bush with a notebook, binoculars, and titanic reserves of patience, Goodall turned a G-rated jungle into a Scorsese flick. Chimps, she taught us, aren't cuddly ambassadors from the peaceable kingdom; they're complex, mercurial creatures, capable of murder, cannibalism, and a thousand little cruelties. They nurture and groom and kiss one another, yes, but they also build dark coalitions, hatch intrigues, even practice their own style of ethnic cleansing."

http://outsideonline.com/outside/mag.../9710jane.html

I sometimes read that animals kill their own species also in captivity to save their offspring the captivity or because its stressful (again reasons van`t be concluded because we can`t ask animals...)

I also heard that once peaceful animaly (the orca) become violent in captivity because it is stressful for them. I don`t like these things for that reason. Animals belong in wildlife

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

I sometimes read that animals kill their own species also in captivity to save their offspring the captivity or because its stressful (again reasons van`t be concluded because we can`t ask animals...)

I also heard that once peaceful animaly (the orca) become violent in captivity because it is stressful for them. I don`t like these things for that reason. Animals belong in wildlife

These animals were not in captivity. However, their habitat has been encroached upon; thus, forcing more competition for available resources.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Interesting. The conclusions of the observations are just conclusions...but they nevertheless are worthy of consideration for contemplation.

But I didn't quite understand this observation?



Why does the frontal posture make female women more susceptable to rape? Actually, in my mind, I could see the rear posture being more accessable. A lot of the conclusions are drawn from the premise that the frontal posture grants more access.

I'm not trying to be argumentative...it just seems to me that such a premise is counterintuative. Maybe I'm missing something.

The article mentioned psychological rape. Perhaps the face to face coital where it allows for and intimate sexual encounter also opens the female up to an aggressive sexual encounter.

I remember when Michael Vick (I think that's his name.) was convicted of dog fighting he had rape poles: where the female was restrained from rejecting a male she chooses not to mate with.

Charles, as I understand it, uterine contractions as a response to a males semen vs. to a female orgasm is to pull the semen up into the uterus thereby increasing the chances of fertilizing the egg.

Interesting article.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Interesting. The conclusions of the observations are just conclusions...but they nevertheless are worthy of consideration for contemplation.

But I didn't quite understand this observation?



Why does the frontal posture make female women more susceptable to rape? Actually, in my mind, I could see the rear posture being more accessable. A lot of the conclusions are drawn from the premise that the frontal posture grants more access.

I'm not trying to be argumentative...it just seems to me that such a premise is counterintuative. Maybe I'm missing something.

It's easier to physically control a woman from this position.....you have the use of your hands and body weight to hold her down as well as leverage.....also, she can't use her legs to kick you.....if necessary, your hands are in a good position relative to her head and face.....

[Marshall]

Chimps, Too, Wage War and Annex Rival Territory
John Mitani
AGGRESSION A young male chimp in Uganda’s Kibale National Park leaps on the body of a victim killed in an attack.

By NICHOLAS WADE

Published: June 21, 2010

• Recommend
• Twitter<LI class=comments>comments (97) <LI class=email>Sign In to E-Mail <LI class=print>Print
• Reprints
• ShareClose
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Permalink

Every day, John Mitani or a colleague is up at sunrise to check on the action among the chimpanzees at Ngogo, in Uganda’s Kibale National Park. Most days the male chimps behave a lot like frat boys, making a lot of noise or beating each other up. But once every 10 to 14 days, they do something more adult and cooperative: they wage war.

Multimedia

Graphic
Chimps on Patrol






RSS Feed

Get Science News From The New York Times »



Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (97) »

A band of males, up to 20 or so, will assemble in single file and move to the edge of their territory. They fall into unusual silence as they penetrate deep into the area controlled by the neighboring group. They tensely scan the treetops and startle at every noise. “It’s quite clear that they are looking for individuals of the other community,” Dr. Mitani says.
When the enemy is encountered, the patrol’s reaction depends on its assessment of the opposing force. If they seem to be outnumbered, members of the patrol will break file and bolt back to home territory. But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten.
These killings have a purpose, but one that did not emerge until after Ngogo chimps’ patrols had been tracked and cataloged for 10 years. The Ngogo group has about 150 chimps and is particularly large, about three times the usual size. And its size makes it unusually aggressive. Its males directed most of their patrols against a chimp group that lived in a region to the northeast of their territory. Last year, the Ngogo chimps stopped patrolling the region and annexed it outright, increasing their home territory by 22 percent, Dr. Mitani said in a report being published Tuesday in Current Biology with his colleagues David P. Watts of Yale University and Sylvia J. Amsler of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dr. Mitani is at the University of Michigan.
The objective of the 10-year campaign was clearly to capture territory, the researchers concluded. The Ngogo males could control more fruit trees, their females would have more to eat and so would reproduce faster, and the group would grow larger, stronger and more likely to survive. The chimps’ waging of war is thus “adaptive,” Dr. Mitani and his colleagues concluded, meaning that natural selection has wired the behavior into the chimps’ neural circuitry because it promotes their survival.
Chimpanzee warfare is of particular interest because of the possibility that both humans and chimps inherited an instinct for aggressive territoriality from their joint ancestor who lived some five million years ago. Only two previous cases of chimp warfare have been recorded, neither as clear-cut as the Ngogo case.
In one, a chimp community first observed by Jane Goodall in Tanzania’s Gombe National Park split into two and one group then wiped out the other. But the chimps had been fed bananas, to enable them to be observed, and some primatologists blamed the war on this human intervention. In a second case, in the Mahale Mountains National Park of Tanzania, Toshisada Nishida of Kyoto University noticed that a chimp group had disappeared, presumably killed by its neighbors, but he was not able to witness the killings or find the bodies.
Dr. Mitani’s team has now put a full picture together by following chimps on their patrols, witnessing 18 fatal attacks over 10 years and establishing that the warfare led to annexation of a neighbor’s territory.
The benefits of chimp warfare are clear enough, at least from the perspective of human observers. Through decades of careful work, primatologists have documented the links in a long causal chain, proving for instance that females with access to more fruit trees will bear children faster.
But can the chimps themselves foresee the outcome of their behavior? Do they calculate that if they pick off their neighbors one by one, they will eventually be able to annex their territory, which will raise their females’ fertility and the power of their group? “I find that a difficult argument to sustain because the logical chain seems too deep,” says Richard Wrangham, a chimp expert at Harvard.
A simpler explanation is that the chimps are just innately aggressive toward their neighbors, and that natural selection has shaped them this way because of the survival advantage that will accrue to the winner.
Warfare among human groups that still live by hunting and gathering resembles chimp warfare in several ways. Foragers emphasize raids and ambushes in which few people are killed, yet casualties can mount up with incessant skirmishes. Dr. Wrangham argues that chimps and humans have both inherited a propensity for aggressive territoriality from a chimplike ancestor. Others argue the chimps’ peaceful cousin, the bonobo, is just as plausible a model for the joint ancestor.
Dr. Wrangham’s view is that since gorillas and chimps are so similar, their joint ancestor, which lived some seven million years ago, would have been chimplike and therefore so would the joint ancestor of chimps and humans when they parted ways two million years later. “So I think it’s very reasonable to think this behavior goes back a long way,” he said, referring to the propensity to wage war against one’s own species.
Dr. Mitani, however, is reluctant to infer any genetic link between human and chimp warfare, despite the similarity of purpose, cost and tactics. “It’s just not at all clear to me that these lethal raids are similar sorts of phenomena,” he said. More interesting than warfare, in his view, is the cooperative behavior that makes war possible.
Why do chimps incur the risk and time costs of patrolling into enemy territory when the advantage accrues most evidently to the group? Dr. Mitani invokes the idea of group-level selection — the idea that natural selection can work on groups and favor behaviors, like altruism and cooperation, that benefit the group at the expense of the individual. Selection usually depends only on whether an individual, not a group, leaves more surviving children.
Many biologists are skeptical of group-level selection, saying it could be effective only in cases where there is intense warfare between groups, a reduced rate of selection on individuals, and little interchange of genes between groups. Chimp warfare may be constant and ferocious, fulfilling the first condition, but young females emigrate to neighboring groups to avoid inbreeding. This constant flow of genes would severely weaken any group selective process, Dr. Wrangham said.
Samuel Bowles, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute who has worked out theoretical models of group selection, said the case for it “is pretty strong for humans” but remains an open question in chimpanzees.
Chimp watching is an arduous task since researchers must first get the chimpanzees used to their presence, but without inducements like bananas, which could interfere with their natural behavior. Chimpanzees are immensely powerful, and since they can tear each other apart, they could also make short work of any researcher who incurred their animosity.
“Luckily for us, they haven’t figured out that they are stronger than us,” Dr. Mitani said, explaining that there was no danger in tagging along behind a file of chimps on the warpath. “What’s curious is that after we do gain their trust, we sort of blend into the background and they pretty much ignore us.”

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Marshall

It's easier to physically control a woman from this position.....you have the use of your hands and body weight to hold her down as well as leverage.....also, she can't use her legs to kick you.....if necessary, your hands are in a good position relative to her head and face.....

Okay, does anyone else find it creepy that Marshall seems to know just a bit too much about this?

[charlestudor2005]

Maybe he'll be attractive to the ladies that said they liked the "just fuckin fuck me" article.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Maybe he'll be attractive to the ladies that said they liked the "just fuckin fuck me" article.

not funny. what does consensual sex outside the plain vanilla area have to do with being raped? I don`t see the connection.