SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66253)12/18/2004 1:30:03 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71178
 
I think your links support my interpretation of the term sexual selection.

Esp. the dictionary.com link
"Selection driven by the competition for mates, considered an adjunct to natural selection."

If a man has sex with a woman but she doesn't become pregnant because she uses contraception she is still his mate.

Of course once you have a mate they still have to be fertile, and woman can now make themselves deliberately infertile. I don't disagree that this could be an important consideration in terms of selection or evolutionary pressure, I just don't think its accurate to call it sexual selection. Abortion seems even further from sexual selection than contraception. The woman is fertile and conceives, she just kills her offspring before it develops. That doesn't seem to be sexual selection any more than infanticide is.

Sexual selection is about success in getting a mate. If a male can't get a mate his genes get selected out. (It can work the other way as well but usually females don't have a problem getting a mate, at least if they are not to picky). His genes can get selected out for other reasons. Perhaps his mate in not fertile (either naturally or through contraception), perhaps his mate kills his offspring, or maybe his mate has poor genes and the offspring doesn't survive. Those are all cases of selection, just not sexual selection.

Tim

Edit

stanfordalumni.org