Sep 20, 2004 02:07
19 yrs ago
English term
to the advantages of a mate
English
Art/Literary
Poetry & Literature
Men might be open to the advantages of a mate but were driven by evolutionary drives to spread their seed.
Responses
Responses
+1
3 mins
Selected
Men might be open to a monogamous relationship
... but instead, spread their seed and look for several mates.
The sentence would be more clear if instead of "a mate" it read "one mate."
The sentence would be more clear if instead of "a mate" it read "one mate."
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much!"
+4
2 mins
to the benefits of having a significant other, or being part of a pair, a companion
Merriam-Webster
3 : one of a pair: as a : either member of a couple and especially a married couple b : either member of a breeding pair of animals c : either of two matched objects
Mike :)
3 : one of a pair: as a : either member of a couple and especially a married couple b : either member of a breeding pair of animals c : either of two matched objects
Mike :)
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Deborah Workman
1 hr
|
Thank you, Deborah - Mike :)
|
|
agree |
Armorel Young
: benefits of being "paired" with one particular person
5 hrs
|
Thank you, Amorel - Mike :)
|
|
agree |
Rajan Chopra
6 hrs
|
Thank you, langclinic - Mike :)
|
|
agree |
Ana Juliá
3 days 6 hrs
|
-1
1 hr
grammatical comment (verb tenses)
I think the verb tenses are not in sink (correct me if I'm wrong)
try: might have been... were
or: might be...are
try: might have been... were
or: might be...are
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Tegan Raleigh
2 hrs
|
disagree |
Richard Benham
: That's "sync" (or even "synch"--short for "synchrony" or "synchronization"). "Might" is subjunctive *or past* of "may".
3 hrs
|
disagree |
Tony M
: echoing Richard's scomment. "Men might (still today) be open to the idea... except that historically they were obliged for evolutionary reasons..."
5 hrs
|
4 hrs
to the advantages of having a mate..Men might be open to the advantages of a monogamous relationship
to the advantages of a mate => to the advantages of having a mate
Men might be open to the advantages of having a monogamous relationship
Men might be open to the advantages of having a monogamous relationship
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Richard Benham
: I tink it's more about having a mate *and* the odd "bit on the side"--hardly monogamy in the popular sense of the term.//If reading books on evolutionary psychology counts as experience, yes!
39 mins
|
is your 'take' flavored by personal experience??
|
+2
4 hrs
might be willing to take on a mate because of the advantages of this.
This is not very elegant, sorry, but I assume you wanted an explanation rather than a rephrasing. I think you should be wary of some other suggestions concerning monogamy. I believe that what is being described here is the so-called male dual strategy. There are evolutionary advantages to having a mate and keeping her faithful: your offspring with her, being cared for by both parents, have better prospects of surviving and reproducing. But you can do this and "spread your seed" (i.e. screw around) at the same time. The additional cost of casual sex is negligible, and so it doesn't matter, from an evolutionary point of view, that any offspring resulting from this won't have the benefit of two parents: they're a bonus. Of course, better stil, is to father children by someone else's mate and have him put in the sacrifices of protecting, feeding and rearing them.
None of this relates to how we men in civilised society behave, though, does it?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs 8 mins (2004-09-20 07:15:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Tense of \"might\". This is, according to Collins and my native-speaker intuitions, either subjunctive or past tense (indicative) if \"may\". (Cf \"could\" in relation to \"can\".) For the correct sequence of tenses, it needs to be past tense. So it is not really expressing a hypothetical possibility. It is saying, yes, they had the possibility of doing this, and (by implication) some at least actually did. But they also did the other thing. I get the strong feeling that the men who availed themselves of the advantages of a mate and the men who \"spread their seed\" were not disjoint groups.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 6 hrs 55 mins (2004-09-23 09:02:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"Might\" revisited. I think, on reflection, that might is present subjunctive/conditional (I don\'t want to get into a fight with Dusty over terminology). But I don\'t take it a s counterfactual. It means, IMHO, that some men at least do take mate (most of us do, in fact), but that we are driven by evolutionary forces to ALSO \"spread our seed\". See, e.g. David Buss, \"The Evolution of Desire\" (I think htat\'s right), for an explanation of this.
THanks to Dusty for alerting me, albeit indirectly to this grammatical possibility.
I find \"were driven\" a little misleading; I would prefer \"have been driven\", although, admittedly, the simple past has some currency in US Englishin such contexts.
None of this relates to how we men in civilised society behave, though, does it?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs 8 mins (2004-09-20 07:15:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Tense of \"might\". This is, according to Collins and my native-speaker intuitions, either subjunctive or past tense (indicative) if \"may\". (Cf \"could\" in relation to \"can\".) For the correct sequence of tenses, it needs to be past tense. So it is not really expressing a hypothetical possibility. It is saying, yes, they had the possibility of doing this, and (by implication) some at least actually did. But they also did the other thing. I get the strong feeling that the men who availed themselves of the advantages of a mate and the men who \"spread their seed\" were not disjoint groups.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 6 hrs 55 mins (2004-09-23 09:02:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"Might\" revisited. I think, on reflection, that might is present subjunctive/conditional (I don\'t want to get into a fight with Dusty over terminology). But I don\'t take it a s counterfactual. It means, IMHO, that some men at least do take mate (most of us do, in fact), but that we are driven by evolutionary forces to ALSO \"spread our seed\". See, e.g. David Buss, \"The Evolution of Desire\" (I think htat\'s right), for an explanation of this.
THanks to Dusty for alerting me, albeit indirectly to this grammatical possibility.
I find \"were driven\" a little misleading; I would prefer \"have been driven\", although, admittedly, the simple past has some currency in US Englishin such contexts.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Tony M
: Thanks, R. for the stimulating discussion. I bow of course to your superior linguistic knowledge. The more I read it, the less sure I feel... it would be interesting to know the wider temporal context... I'd almost have expected 'might HAVE been open...'
1 hr
|
Thanks!//I take "might" as concessive, but your interpretation is possible...my only qualm being that I think many men *are* open to the advantages of a mate!//See my (second) note on the tense of "might".
|
|
agree |
Ana Juliá
3 days 1 hr
|
Something went wrong...