[kidsthesedays]

"Well, you really ought to back up these assertions, because they may be a bit unsettling for some folks" doesn't do it here because of the nature of the comment. It was complete BS, 100% stupid, and completely off topic. You don't usually see comments that bad here.

Ok, lets break it down - humans are a large group of people with a lot of different life goals and motives and their selection of mates can't be generalized as such. Not all humans fit into little boxes such as "alpha male." Or even "male" and "female." What are "good genes" anyways that these "alpha males" supposedly possess? Why are they good or desirable? Do women care about genes when selecting a partner or are partners selected some other way such as the mere-exposure effect or for cultural reasons? Who are these "alpha males" who desire to never setting down ever and do nothing but have sex with multiple women for the rest of their lives? There certainly isn't a dichotomy of men - those with "good" genes that women swoon over but refuse to raise a child and those with "bad" genes that women don't want but will raise children. Then the rapist hiding in the shadows who are somehow not part of society and don't have consensual sex ever? That is obvious if you spend some time with, well, anyone. Making extremely broad and silly assumptions about groups of people is just not productive.

Every single person I know who is male and has lots of sexual partners are the ones who really do want to raise children and "settle down," probably moreso than their peers with less sexual partners. But they wanted to have years of sex with lots of women first then when they get older raise children. The women they have sex with don't want "genes."

What about people who want to adopt, gays who may or may not want children, asexuals who may or may not want children? Etc. Most people who don't desire children also desire a mate so what do they look for?

Anyways, it was completely off topic. It doesn't relate to lizards in any way whatsoever.

[angersock]

So, first, your assertion that it was "complete BS" (despite you, in another post, providing anecdotal data for the rape fantasy claim--with which there is nothing wrong, let me be clear) and "100% stupid" is exactly what I mean by closemindedness.

As for your questions, those are all excellent points, even if only a handful of easy references into popular culture or literature would be enough to answer them. I particularly like your observation about "well, they want a lot of banging first, then later want to raise kids": that suggests perhaps a temporal or maturity aspect to the whole thing.

The "want to adopt", "gays", "asexuals", etc. are all, bluntly, not representative of the popular as a whole nor worth considering from the timescale of thousands of years if we are going after an evolutionary explanation for this, which is the ultimate direction of the proposed sort of theories of human courtship.

It's not as off-topic as you assert because the paper suggests a three-strategy approach that loosely maps onto the theory put forth above. It's not a clean mapping, and there are a lot of valid criticisms with it, but it's not totally unrelated either.

[tablewatcher]

Your questons are very basic, if you actually want an answer start reading some books on evolutionary biology.

[angersock]

You need to supply some links to papers or articles supporting your claims, or mention the books you handwavingly reference. If you want people to take your (somewhat incendiary) assertions seriously, you need to provide some evidence or at least sources.

Otherwise, they're right to dismiss you as a crank.

[Dewie3]

> But they wanted to have years of sex with lots of women first then when they get older raise children.

Right. The "get it out of my system"-type. Thinking that they want to spend 'the rest of their life' with a person, if they just bang a lot of chicks first.