Quote:
Originally Posted by
smakdak 
Technology will never replace nature. This information , to be news, means we have lost all connection with the human world. We are becoming so out of touch that pretty soon we may be mystified that babies are naturally born from a woman and not a test tube. What the heck is going on with common sense?
If we're talking pure "nature" where males and females both partake in rearing of the child (i.e., serial monogamy or monogamy as naturally practiced by birds, wolves, and yes humans), it's the males who must be pretty to attract a female, and not vice-versa. In the case of birds for e.g., males sing to attract a female. He who is prettiest with the best and strongest song just might entice a female, when "ready" to check out the nest he built (thus singing its readiness to her). If it's not strong enough she'll leave, no matter how pretty he is or sings (it's for the little birds he hopes to have, y'see). In the case of wolves, alpha males mate with alpha females, but the male had best have the prettiest fur but at the same time be strong enough to fend off all the other males, etc. Yet she, too, must be strong enough to fend off the other females (there can only be one mating pair, and these are the alphas). Is anthromorphizing animals proper? Most scientists say "no" though we can learn something from their behavior, provided we understand first why it is they do what it is that they do. That said, of course males instinctively know when she's in the mood (body language, etc., or she takes you by the paw ...). How else are you gonna get all those baby birds and/or wolf pups from a test tube

(obviously kidding). EDIT: that is indeed the problem, Tagut. Psychology Today and thus the "estrus (cavewoman)" theory is, well, pop-psychology in turn--i.e., there's no cavewomen around to ask, I'm afraid. Part of the caveman brain remains a part of us, but the evidence respecting sexual relations b/w men and women today tells us that this theory is, well, non-scientific.
tl/DR: psych-today and "evolutionary psych" are pop psychology, and the whole caveman/cavewoman "theory" --including this one--traces to romantic fiction of the Victorian era (which isn't science but fantasy fiction, akin to Harlequin novels today). Then again, at one time, some who thought themselves to be scientists believed in alchemy (magic) and dragons, too ...