From: usenet@baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message   
   , David   
   Friedman  writes   
   >In article ,   
   > "Suzanne Blom"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> > But seduce and abandon is a more attractive strategy for males than for   
   >> > females, reproductively speaking.   
   >>   
   >> Ah? I would think that dropping the kid off somewhere quick would be   
   >> attractive for a woman as well.  The femme fatale is not currently in vogue,   
   >> but seems to be a viable strategy.  In Medea, one of the oldest tales we   
   >> have, the woman kills the kids to get back at the man.   
   >   
   >...   
   >   
   >> > More generally, the reproductive payoff to being a very successful male   
   >> > is higher than to being a very successful female, and the reproductive   
   >> > payoff to being an unusually unsuccessful male is lower than that to   
   >> > being an unusually unsuccessful female. And that's all my argument   
   >> > requires.   
   >> >   
   >> Again, you're ignoring environment.  Or, in other words, in how many   
   >> societies over how long a span of time?---You (& I) have no clue.   
   >   
   >Probably in almost all societies over almost all of the history of our   
   >race, given the biology of reproduction. Wombs are a scarce resource,   
   >sperm isn't.   
   >   
   But it's not the quantity of sperm available that's the issue, it's the   
   opportunity to place that sperm where it might result in a conception.   
   How one would arise at a figure for this I don't know, but it's a far   
   smaller number than you are implying by constant reference to sperm   
   versus wombs.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)