Re: Why do women have MONTHLY periods?

From: Sylvia Knörr (sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam__at_t-online.de)
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:24:15 +0200

"Comm" <no@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6Xs1e.5782$H06.3043@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:d22at3$13n$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:bW10e.1420$gI5.796@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:d1q4rf$k2u$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> >> > "Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > news:%YY%d.1829$H06.810@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >> > IMO, it is a good thing that it´s hidden and not known to men AND
> >> > women.

> >> I disagree. I see no gender war among animals that still have estrus
and
> >> seasons.

> > The reason why there is no gender war among animals is because they
don´t
> > have self-consciousness to question their gender roles, not because they
> > have estrus.

> Disagree. Humans don't have self consciousness to get into "gender roles"
> either - and not all humans HAVE gender roles at all. It's something
taught
> in some cultures (but not in every single culture).

Well, physical differences effects that men and women can´t always do the
same things - men don´t have pregnancies and can´t breast feed babies for
instance. In a modern urban society we can escape these differences to a
certain degree, but for the largest part of human history we couldn´t, hence
humans developed a gender-based division of labor. Of course, this could be
more ore less strict, divisive or egalitarian depending on the particular
society.

> >> Uh, where have you been? Most humans do not maintain good relationships
> >> with partners at all. What you said sounds like idealism. It's far
FAR from
> >> the reality of human history and gender relations.

> > Of course, relationships are far from being perfect, but do you think it
> > would be any better if humans had visible estrus?

> Yes. People with sex on the brain all the time, even when they are not
even
> horny, are imo, the most boring and bored people on the planet. That's
> where the whole idea of 'sex ruining the life' comes from in some of the
> monotheistic religions. It doesn't ruin the lives of cats or dogs - who,
> btw, have no gender roles.

Depends on what you consider 'gender roles' at all. For me, it just means
that males and females do different jobs in case they are social animals at
all. Dogs are social animals, and as far as I know only the female dogs care
for the puppies. That´s 'different gender roles' in my book, although the
dogs just do what instinct orders them to do. They don´t have much of a
choice about that.
Humans on the other hand HAVE a choice. In some societies fathers engage in
child raising business a lot and in others they don´t.

> Everybody being in a state
> > of sexual excitement and trying fervidly to mate - all at the same time?

> Anyone that's horny 24/7 is not getting off.

Although humans theoretically *could* mate whenever they want, we can see
people doing many other things instead. Those who are REALLY horny 24/7 are
mostly young lads between 15 and 25 with temporary exuberant testosterone
levels. :-)

> > Chimps have it that way, and I don´t think it would be helpful in an
urban
> > society. :-)

> Which chimps? Chimps do not have it that way. Definitely, cats and dogs
> don't either.

I think chimps, cats and dogs HAVE perceivable estrus.

> >> Most societies are not monogamous. 50% of people that get married get
> >> divorced in about 5 years. If that rate of failure occurred during
> >> heart
> >> transplants, they'd abandon the procedure.

> > It need not be LIFELONG monogamy, but most people seek at least faithful
> > relationships for a few years - long enough to raise a child.

> No, 50% get divorced within 5 years - not long enough to raise a kid. As
> soon as the women COULD free themselves from the men, they DID free
> themselves. That's how that happened.

This is true for industrialized societies where children can be raised by
single mothers with the help of public support. This is a quite NEW
phenomenon. And perhaps you agree that children generally are better off
when BOTH parents raise them.

> >> > This detail had a big impact on human social life. As far as I know,
> >> > humans are the ONLY primates with hidden estrus.

> >> Yes, and humans have not really been around long enough for us to even
> >> figure out if we are "successful" or not as a species. That might have
> >> been a signal of something gone very wrong. Take a look at the world -
and
> >> its history.

> > If you equate "successful" with longevity, yes. If you take the mere
numbers
> > of human population and the fact that humans live in virtually all
corners
> > of the globe, I would call us successful.

> Nope. Humans have overpopulated the planet and in most of the world live
in
> miserable conditions.

I was reading "success" as a biological term and not as a value assessment.
For a biologist a species is successful when its individuals can spread and
fill every available biological niche. Among mammals, humans are one of the
most successful species next to rats.

> If a nuclear war wipes us away
> > from the face of the earth, I draw back my argument. :-)

> We don't need that. We are overpopulated right now. Wait till the next
30
> years.

Okay. But if there won´t be a severe decrease in numbers of human kind until
then, I will still call us successful. :-)
Whether humans behave reasonably or not is a quite different issue.

Relevant Pages