Hi Mansour,

Why do you hope that I have a contrary view to the hypothesis below?? I
think it is a heck of a hypothesis if the following fundamental
assumptions are true:

1. That promiscuity is a genetic trait
2. That it is heritable
3. That it is not sex-linked

At any rate, it is unlikely that an analytical solution will be available
considering the complexity of the issues involved. For example, a
geneticist would consider gene mutation and/or crossovers important... An
economist might consider capturing this with a poisson arrival process.
Right there you have in your hands Stochastic Differential Equations. Do
you really want me to complicate it further with chemical equations?? 

However, I have reason to believe that male promiscuity is a learned
behaviour. Just like homosexuality, there is nothing genetic about it. The
environment is the chief designer!!                                            

Have a nice day!

Madiba. 

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, MUHAMMED CEESAY wrote:

> Madiba:
>
> I only hope you are simply forwarding this and does not in any way 
> reflect your endorsement with chemical equations!  I will send you a 
> private mail later
> Mansour
> 
> 
> Why men are promiscuous
> - by James A. Fabunmi
> 
> Why explain the obvious? It is difficult to be yourself when everyone
> around you expects you to be different. Very often, the male species is
> confronted with an assortment of accusations, among which is their
> propensity for indiscriminate sexual liaisons. I am speaking in averages
> now. There are women who are every bit as promiscuous as men. But then,
> why does the law of averages tend to place men at a higher risk of being
> unable to resist promiscuous behavior? The most faithful husband (on the
> surface), faced with a gorgeous bimbo on an isolated tropical island,
> has no chance. Why? Well, I have always had a theory about this, and I
> have articulated this theory on a number of occasions to very carefully
> selected audiences. The only reason that I am able to write publicly
> about this theory, is because I read the same argument in no less a
> magazine than Glamour (May 1999 p.306 “Why are men so easy?”). Yes, I
> read Glamour magazine. If you want to survive in this world, you need to
> know the secrets that women share among themselves. A good place to find
> those secrets is in Glamour magazine.
> 
> It would really be easier for me to derive a differential equation for
> my theory, but I might loose out on the majority of my audience. So, I
> will try to narrate the concepts, hoping that my point will come across
> somehow. The easiest way to visualize what I am about to state is to
> imagine two separate islands A and B. Island A is populated by women
> alone, while island B is populated by men alone. Let us attempt a
> controlled experiment. On island A, we introduce a pair of males. One
> promiscuous, one normal (whatever that means). On island B, we introduce
> a pair of females, one promiscuous, one normal. The normal male on
> island A finds a mate and remains faithful to her. Over the course of
> one year, they are able to produce no more than one offspring (except of
> course if they have twins or triplets or whatever). On the other hand,
> the promiscuous male on island A, technically speaking could reproduce
> as many offsprings as he can find women to copulate with him. As you can
> see, in a matter of one year, the population distribution on this island
> is already infested with more people with promiscuous genes in them. Of
> course there will be male and female among those offsprings. Lets now
> look at island B. Over the course of one year, each of the females can
> only produce one pregnancy, regardless of how promiscuous one is,
> compared to the other. The growth of promiscuity within a population
> does not depend on the starting ratio of promiscuous women to
> non-promiscuous ones.
> 
> The picture painted above is used to establish the basis that the rate
> of change of promiscuity within a population is governed by the rate of
> production of promiscuous males within that population. For the simple
> fact that the non-promiscuous males are not going to spread their genes
> nearly as fast as the promiscuous males, it is not difficult, even for a
> non-mathematician to speculate that at any given moment in time, the
> statistical tendency is for the males within that population is to be
> promiscuous. This brings me to the issue of morality. It is clear that
> the only way to stem the rate of growth of promiscuous males within a
> society is to contain their natural tendencies with laws of all sorts.
> There are two components to these laws. One component aims at making the
> male species feel guilty about their biological tendencies. The other
> component aims at discouraging the females from cooperating with these
> males. We can throw in to this mix the impact of contraceptive
> technologies. The rest of the analysis is left as an exercise for the
> reader.
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------