Lord_hanson:

Vicky, when you have a comment complimenting yourself and that super smug smilie it really sickens me.

Mateusz:

It's not a "take advantage" instinct, but a "protect" instinct. Just look at the numerous video experiments of actors staging girl beats up boy/boy beats up girl, and see the night and day reactions.

Men have a protective instinct towards women (not all men have it, but it's a generality, and we do shame and condemn men who harm women far more than women who harm men), and women play up this to attract men, as attracting mates is what humans are wont to do.

Conversely, men will do anything to not be seen as vulnerable, as women are attracted to men who can be protectors. Historically, the role of protector on a societal level has been predominately male (soldiers, fire fighters, police). A women crying in the streets elicits sympathy. A man crying in the streets elicits scorn. If a man can't even protect himself, then he certainly can't protect others. Women are more attractive by appearing weaker, and men are more attractive by appearing stronger.

coineineagh:

@Mateusz: I don't disagree with what you say. However, from an Evolutionary perspective, this behaviour you describe sprang from sexual reproduction. Females are the childbearers, men are not. Men seek opportunities to take advantage of apparrently vulnerable females. During most animals' mating season, females are observed to assume submissive and vulnerable positions. They do this consciously, to attract the mate they want when he is nearby. Most women still don't judge men by how well they can protect, but by how virile they percieve him to be. Chinese families pressure their daughters to sell themselves off to the richest man, which by your reasoning would be a positive focus on protection rather than charisma. But it's not difficult for us expats, with or without cash, to sleep with girls. Sometimes married girls. These girls don't see us as rich anymore, but as charismatic/virile. In short: The protection aspect came later and is definitely an improvement, but our base instincts are just our DNA doing sexual reproduction mathematics, and it's up to us to act on it or not.

Mateusz:

Hmmm, I would posit (not saying that it’s a true, but a conjecture) that it’s based on evolution from a time when life expectancy was less than half of what it is now, and many babies never saw their second birthday. In that situation, it was necessary to keep producing and raising kids to replace the ones lost to disease/war/predators/etc.  The human population was at one point close to extinction (well, relatively speaking).

Women would be vulnerable while carrying a baby, and soon after giving birth. Since she was going to get pregnant again soon (to replace the kid eaten by a dire wolf), she would need to spend a lot of her life unable to defend herself. Additionally she could’t provide for herself, since providing resources meant (sometimes literally) back breaking labor. A pregnant woman can’t throw spears at mastodons.

Women would want to find a man she could reasonably expect to protect her while she was vulnerable, and provide for her when she was unable to. The conditions of society have advanced much faster than genetics, and our old instincts have a weird time fitting in,

I think you’re right about protection to some degree. The state (in the generic sense) provides protection, with the invention of organized police forces and military, but there’s still pressure for men to defend their wives and girlfriends. Though, I think resource control is top. A rich and powerful man can provide protection beyond what he can do personally (a king could command a personal bodyguard detachment, even if he himself wasn’t much of a fighter). A rich person can afford to live in a gated community with 24 hour guards, thus indirectly providing protection.

It is true that our base instincts are just carrying out old programming from ages long past, and we can choose to go along, or examine what we do and why, and then decide if we really want to keep going along with it.

coineineagh:

As much as I wish your protection hypothesis were true, it just doesn't add up. In order to spread our genes, we would logically choose a strong and fit partner, not one that appears weak. Sexual selection is not always logical however: Female peacocks are attracted to males with feathers so enormous that they can't escape from predators. Our attraction to young and vulnerable women is merely a biological holdover compelling us to be opportunistic. It's our culture and intelligence that counterbalance our impulses with civility.

ScotsAlan:

Interesting stuff.  I go with coineineagh.

I think it's more to do with taking advantage than protection.

Because what are you protecting her from?  You see a doe eyed waif, and you want to protect her because she seems vulnerable to abuse. The desire to protect her is in itself an alpha male instinct to posses what is desirable.  And of course, it would be hoped the offspring would be equally desirable to keep the family genes going.

Lord_hanson:

very interesting points. I like the part about the peacock. Although I think the female chooses the peacock with the big feathers on purpose. If a predator comes along then it eats the male instead of the female.

dokken:

I hope you're not a teacher because you sound like a moron.

HelloKittyBoxers:

everyone is a teacher, we all teach in one form or another. there must be something that you can learn from me...you know, i am cool in away that no one else can compare with ;P