Reddit Reddit reviews The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

We found 73 Reddit comments about The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Personal Transformation Self-Help
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
Harper Perennial
Check price on Amazon

73 Reddit comments about The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature:

u/Pelusteriano · 81 pointsr/biology

I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):

u/Tree-eeeze · 24 pointsr/funny

Ok, before everyone gets all high and mighty here (too late) maybe you should consider the fact that for the VAST majority of our evolutionary history there was no advantage to a girl who slept around indiscriminately. It carried a huge burden (potentially 9 months of pregnancy and single-parenting) for almost zero likelihood that her genes would be any better off. In fact it was more likely they were worse off. It made much more sense for her to be choosy and find what she considered a high-value mate, or at least someone who she could expect to say around and help raise the child.

In that same time period it made significantly more sense for a guy to sleep around (if he was able) because he would have a better chance of ensuring the spread of his genes, though not necessarily the same success as if he chose a monogamous relationship and had several kids. It was just a valid competing strategy, whereas for women it was not, because it's inherently disadvantageous for them.

It continues to exist today despite radical changes in society/technology. That doesn't make it right but don't act like it's some arbitrary shit that exists for no reason.

I suggest The Red Queen and
The Selfish Gene
for further reading and many more insights.

Evolutionary psychology is not infallible by any means... but it can offer a lot of insight by examining the time period where we spent most of our evolutionary history (which is huge compared to the comparatively tiny amount of time we've spent in the modern world...or even the last few thousand years).

u/Raisinhat · 16 pointsr/biology

I'm sure every subscriber here has already read it, but the top book has got to be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Reading it really opened my mind to how evolution actually worked in a way that my teachers at school never had. Even if later on when I started learning about social insects I had to start questioning some of those ways of looking at an "individual".

Back on topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture, Genome, and The Red Queen, as each are accessible yet still highly informative looks into various aspects of evolution.

For those interested in human evolution there's Y: The Descent of Men by Steve Jones and The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes.

All of those fall more under the category of books that should be read between high school and college if you are interested in studying Biology. Once you get to grad school level books might be a neat introduction to a topic, but any real learning would come from primary literature. I've read lots of fantastic papers but they start becoming so specialized that I would hesitate to put forward specific suggestions, because what might be fascinating to ecologists will probably be dire to molecular biologists. I know that as someone with a focus on zoology, most of the genetics papers I read left me more confused that enlightened.

u/rgower · 15 pointsr/atheism

I recently read The Red Queen by Matt Ridley and it tackles this very question. Quite an interesting read, I'd definitely recommend it. The following is taken from an amazon editorial review:

> Why do we have sex? One of the main biological reasons, contends Ridley, is to combat disease. By constantly combining and recombining genes every generation, people "keep their genes one step ahead of their parasites," thereby strengthening resistance to bacteria and viruses that cause deadly diseases or epidemics. Called the "Red Queen Theory" by biologists after the chess piece in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass which runs but stays in the same place, this hypothesis is just one of the controversial ideas put forth in this witty, elegantly written inquiry.

u/[deleted] · 15 pointsr/TheRedPill

A very indepth introduction to evolutionary psychology by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby:

A collection of some university evolutionary psychology notes and modules:

Pop science Evolutionary Psychology book recomendations:

The Moral Animal

The Red Queen

The Mating mind - and a Summary

The Evolution of Human Sexuality - Most comprehensive of the books, a bit more academic than the others. Written by one of the founders of evolutionary psychology.

u/Rfksemperfi · 14 pointsr/seduction

A few, in no particular order:

The Way of the Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Women, Work, and Sexual Desire

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Collins Business Essentials)

Mastering Your Hidden Self: A Guide to the Huna Way (A Quest Book)

My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies

Introducing NLP: Psychological Skills for Understanding and Influencing People (Neuro-Linguistic Programming)

What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

Outliers: The Story of Success

Iron John: A Book About Men

u/mgbkurtz · 14 pointsr/Accounting

Take a break from accounting and finance books. I have a few recommendations from my recent reading:

The Intelligence Paradox

The Evolution of Everything

Delusions of Power

Equal is Unfair

The Feminine Mystique

How an Economy Grows - And Why It Crashes

Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist Lost and Found in New York's Underground Economy

Buddha's Brain

The Red Queen

Obviously there's a political bend in some of those choices, but I can suggest others (it's always important to challenge your beliefs).

I love to read, can provide some other recommendations, but those were just some recent books I just pulled off my Nook. There's some fiction as well.

u/fromclouds · 13 pointsr/AskReddit

Oh man, if you really, really want to know, I suggest you read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. It is fascinating (provided you can slog through the first chapter on evolutionary biology) and lucidly written. I highly recommend it, even if you are only mildly curious about the answer.

From page 237:

>"Cuckoldry is an asymmetrical fate. A woman loses no genetic investment if her husband is unfaithful, but a man risks unwittingly raising a bastard. As if to reassure fathers, research shows that people are strangely more apt to say of a baby, "He (or she) looks just like his father," than to say, "He (or she) looks just like his mother"--and that it is the mother's relatives who are most likely to say this. It is not that a woman need not mind about her husband's infidelity; it might lead to his leaving her or wasting his time and money on his mistress or picking up a nasty disease. But it does imply that men are likely to mind even more about their wives' infidelity than vice versa. History and law have long reflected just that. In most societies adultery by a wife was illegal and punished severely, while adultery by a husband was condoned or treated lightly. Until the nineteenth century in Britain, a civil action could be brought against an adulterer by an aggrieved husband for "criminal conversation." Even among the Trobriand islanders, who were celebrated by Bronislaw Malinowski in 1927 as a sexually uninhibited people, females who committed adultery were condemned to die.
>The double standard is a prime example of the sexism of society and is usually dismissed as no more than that. Yet the law has not been sexist about other crimes: Women have never been punished more severely than men for theft or murder, or at least the legal code has never prescribed that they be so. Why is adultery such a special case? Because man's honor is at stake? Then punish the adulterous man as harshly, for that is just as effective a deterrent as punishing the woman. Because men stick together in the war of the sexes? They do not do so in anything else. The law is quite explicit on this: All legal codes so far studied define adultery "in terms of the marital status of the woman. Whether the adulterous man was himself married is irrelevant."[47] And they do so because "it is not adultery per se that the law punishes but only the possible introduction of alien children into the family and even the uncertainty that adultery creates in this regard. Adultery by the husband has no such consequences."[48] When, on their wedding night, Angel Clare confessed to his new wife, Tess, in Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles, that he had sown his wild oats before marriage, she replied with relief by telling the story of her own seduction by Alec D'Urberville and the short-lived child she bore him. She thought the transgressions balanced.
>----"Forgive me as you are forgiven! I forgive you, Angel."
>----"You--yes you do."
>----"But do you not forgive me?"
>----"O Tess, forgiveness does not apply to the case! You were one person; now you are another. My God--how can forgiveness meet such a grotesque--prestidigitation as that!"
>----Clare left her that night.

EDIT: formatting.
EDIT2: More formatting... is there a good way to <tab> without going to a monospaced font?

u/ghelmstetter · 11 pointsr/AskReddit

Every male (and possibly every female, though I can't speak from their perspective) should read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley to understand what is really going on with human sexual behavior, as opposed to what has been drilled into our heads by culture.

The biological perspective is dispassionate and brutally rational/optimizing, at least at the genetic level. It helps explain the best and worst of human behavior. It doesn't provide excuses or let anybody off the hook (cultural norms are still real, afterall), but it helps everything make sense and can help people avoid devastating surprises. People are biological first and foremost (before psychological). Understanding the implications of this make us much better equipped to deal with others sexually.

u/respeckKnuckles · 8 pointsr/askscience

Let's first clarify something: we don't exactly know what it is that allows us to be so intelligent. Sure, we know that the brain does something, but exactly what that is we can't describe to a level of detail sufficient to duplicate. So this is a problem in knowing what to select for.

That being said, we could select for things we think led to the evolution of our brains, like bigger skulls (simply having more space for the brain to grow into might do...this is discussed in the book "The Red Queen" [1]), or perhaps some other physical neurobiological feature that would make their brains at least look like ours. Whether that would generate a human-level intelligence's not possible to tell at this point with any degree of confidence past speculation.

[1]: )

u/Devo9090 · 7 pointsr/biology

If you're looking for another good read on evolution, I highly highly suggest The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.

u/SurprisedPotato · 6 pointsr/changemyview

> highschool-university girls/boys

You observe these people not matching up, and propose a theory. Other commenters have pointed out problems with your theory (if makeup didn't work, people wouldn't use it).

Here's another theory that fits the facts, and also explains why people use make-up.

  • people are highly selective about who they match up with, and instinctively know that in HS/Uni, there's really no urgency.
  • people don't really know 100% if they are a 5 or 7 or 9. Even if they do, it makes sense for a 5 to aim for a 9 when there's still time to be choosy. They might get lucky, but if not, it's no great loss, there's still time. Artificially bumping their number with make-up or clothing or regular gym visits increases their odds of getting lucky.
  • Partly, in HS/uni, people aren't actually trying to find their match, their are practicing the social queues that they'll need when they do try.
  • It's only when the pool starts to deplete as people actually get engaged and married that people start to settle for matches at their "actual" numbers.
  • most importantly all this is subconscious, people play these strategic dating & mating games without really being aware of what they're doing.

    Here's a book I'd recommend that sheds some light on this whole topic.
u/CurseOfTheRedRiver · 6 pointsr/The_Donald

Birds (and ants) are some of the most fascinating animals to read about. Suggested reading on the sexual history behind evolution: The Red Queen by Matt Ridley

Betas have been getting cucked for eons, while alphas spread their more successful seed and the betas pay for it. Humans are nothing special, and this is nothing new. We've just grown a self-awareness about it, and those who can't figure out that getting cucked is bad are truly pathetic

u/SleepNowMyThrowaway · 5 pointsr/LesbianActually

Make sure he insists on a paternity test, no matter her threats or BS. It's a long shot in this case, but at least he'll know for sure if it's his.

Life often serves a shit sandwich and it looks like he's got 18 years of them inbound.

> This is making me reevaluate my stance on a lot of things...

For some meaty reading check out Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. 4.8 stars, and a used copy at your door for 15 bucks.

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature also sticks in my mind as an eye-opening tome.

Finally, Lex iniqua lex non est. "An unjust law is no law at all."

Your friend will be told many things, and many threats will be applied...he can choose to submit - or not.

We all have that choice.

u/Bobsutan · 5 pointsr/relationships

The female sexual response is characterized by a dual nature, colloquially referred to as "Alpha fucks, Beta bucks".


Sperm Wars

The Red Queen

u/escaday · 5 pointsr/italy

L'ho tirata fuori perché le uniche obiezioni alla famiglia omosessuale sono di natura religiosa. Ti consiglio la lettura di questo, è interessante.

> Ah, se poi il fatto che lo stato naturale abbia selezionato l'ambiente dotato della complementarietà dei sessi come l'unico adatto alla perpetrazione della specie non ti sembra un buon fondamento…

Eh però qui ti stai avventurando in campo che non ti conviene. La complementarietà dei sessi è necessaria alla perpetrazione della specie dal punto di vista riproduttivo. Maschio + femmina = figlio. Da nessuna parte nel nostro codice genetico c'è un istinto alla monogamia. Anzi siamo fatti esattamente al contrario (ti consiglio la lettura di Sperm Wars o di The red queen se vuoi chiarirti le idee). La crescita dei figli non è perfettamente sovrapponibile al concepimento dal punto di vista biologico. L'idea che la "famiglia tradizionale" sia il costrutto sociale ideale per la crescita dei figli non ha un fondamento scientifico.

u/QQMF · 4 pointsr/Python

I got a good laugh when I started reading through the Critter Specific functions and saw how much more sophisticated the mating function was than the rest of the actions. Even the code mimics life. XD

It is evident reading through the code that you put a lot of thought into this design. Even though there is a lot to absorb as an outside observer (eating an elephant comes to mind), there is a clear logical structure to everything. The OOP design structure is a natural complement to an evolution simulation. The overall structure makes it easier to grok your design intent in the same way that a descriptive iterator name can make a conditional statement read almost like a sentence in natural language.

I also like the balance between sophistication and simplicity, although I have to admit that I'm already thinking of ways to increase the sophistication. For instance, the whole genome system could be cloned into a "meme" system, which could then act as a loose abstraction of culture. The memes spread via communication, which is really just the mating function, perhaps with some tweaks so that it can spread maybe by proximity to multiple other critters at a time.

The really interesting part would come via gene / meme interactions; for instance, say you have an "aggressive" meme - it could be very deadly to other critters when paired with a high constitution gene, but very dangerous to the critter itself when paired with a low constitution gene. There could also be a "cooperative/symbiotic" meme which causes a critter only to attack when attacked - or perhaps even when another in its immediate proximity is being attacked, and so on and so forth. Let the populations develop, then await the inevitable "meme wars". XD

The dynamics between genome and meme/culture (acting as a barometer of intelligence) would then start to replicate behavior as described in The Red Queen - that intelligence itself is a mating strategy of genes for the propagation of genes (i.e. the critters are just a vessel), which in theory creates healthier gene pools to create greater intelligence, thus creating a virtuous cycle.

u/youreallmeatanyway · 4 pointsr/AskWomenOver30

That's a cute way of saying "I cant dispute anything you've said, so I'm going to pretend to know better, mock you, and then run away".

Go read "The Red Queen". You'll learn a lot on this subject and I think you'll begin to understand where your mistakes lie.

u/4amPhilosophy · 4 pointsr/relationship_advice

The tone of this poster is very inflamatory, but the information in the above post is backed by some serious research. Reproduction is major business, after all animals have adapted to their detriment to attract mates (think male peacocks, those tails make them easier prey.) Humans are just as influenced by biology as any other animal. We however, can educate ourselves and modify our behaviors as we see fit. I highly recommend the following books to anyone with the smallest interest in this topic. They are all fascinating reads and I guarentee brain = asplode when you read them.

Sperm Wars by Robin Baker

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, by Matt Ridley

The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins

The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People by David P. Barash Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton

Also, I'm a gal, and understanding how evolutionary biology made humans behave the way they do has been a real eye opener. Let me tell you, bars and clubs are infinitely more amusing now. The people watching has taken on a whole new level of entertainment!

EDIT: The links were messed up, had to fix that.

u/newportgroup · 4 pointsr/polyamory

Don't forget these fiction/non-fiction works too:

Stranger in a Strange Land

The Red Queen

The Harrad Experiment

Open Marriage

u/Eropoferonder · 3 pointsr/FreeDutch & ?

Het boek van Pinker heb ik ooit gelezen, maar evolutionaire psychologie / biologie is een prille wetenschap die in de jaren behoorlijk wat controverse over zichzelf heeft afgeroepen.

>Daar zijn verschillende diagnoses voor te stellen met als mogelijke prognoses dat het of uitzichtloos is of wij als Nederlandse samenleving tekort schieten deze mensen te integreren; in beide gevallen voel ik er niks voor samen verder door te gaan. Ik denk dan ook niet dat het onze taak is dit huwelijk te doen slagen. Veel meer wil ik er eigenlijk ook niet over kwijt, aangezien dit—zoals je zelf hopelijk begrijpt—behoorlijk glad ijs is.

Heb je de prognose van Scheffer overwogen? Conflict als noodzakelijke voorwaarde voor integratie? Allicht eens Land Van Aankomst lezen, dat boek is toegespitst op de Nederlandse context en bevat zowaar een opportunistische boodschap.

u/luxury_banana · 3 pointsr/MensRights

There is a much longer book in which the author (Roy Baumeister) covers these topics more in-depth.

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men

Other good reads which are related include The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

u/EternalEnterprise · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This idea of sex in private is actually discussed in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.

Animals that have multiple sexual partners in with monogamous social structure will have sex in private so they won't get caught doing so by a jealous wife or husband. Humans and certain monogamous species fall under this category.
I'd recommend reading this book as it is very interesting. It also discusses the origin of genders.

u/Xiudo · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

According to The Red Queen The volume is seamen ejaculated will nearly double if the male suspects the female of infidelity.

u/-SoItGoes · 3 pointsr/askscience

Ah, I feel so smart knowing (what I hope is) the answer to a question. As for the first question, sexual reproduction constantly mixes and matches genes and allows for a much greater diversity within a population. A population that is genetically diverse is much less likely to be wiped out by any single cause, such as a virus or bacteria targeting a specific gene or feature. As hosts we are in an evolutionary arms race, trying to evolve faster than the parasites targeting us. Sex is an efficient mechanism to accomplish this.

As for gender, the answer is similar, but a little more complicated for me to explain (probably because I know so little of the subject). As it turns out, not only do we as hosts compete against parasites that wish to infect us, but it turns out that our genes are also competing against each other to determine which we be passed down. Now genes must work together to some extent, or the organism they exist within may possibly fail to reproduce and pass them on. But it is also possible for genes to be a parasitic freeloaders, or to pass itself along without actually improving the fitness of the organism (transposons). Sex is advantageous to genes because they are allowed to move freely within the population of hosts, and not be stuck with genes that are of poor quality or worse yet, parasitically catching a free ride at their expense (think of a superstar player on a sports team, leaving their losing team to be traded onto a winning one).

As it turns out, the mechanisms through which we have sex are very effective at dealing with these parasitic genes, reducing the chance they may be passed on, as well as filtering out any viruses or bacteria that may also try to accompany the males sperm to the egg (remember, the sperm is stripped of EVERYTHING as it enters the egg, leaving only the genetic material). Gender was the outcome of the process by which two parent cells could form a new cell; the larger immobile gametes (female) could contain the information necessary for the cytoplasmic genes, leaving the male gametes smaller and more mobile (also, since this male gamete only had to pass on its nucleus, this cut down on the risk of infection by any parasitic organisms). This rise of two roles is what created male and female genders. I don’t really have any information on when this process evolved, sorry.

This is the Red Queen Hypothesis, probably poorly explained, and GROSSLY oversimplified. Even better than the wiki page is Matt Ridley's book, The Red Queen, from which I crudely summarized most of this answer (specifically, Chapter 4; Genetic Mutiny and Gender). It is easily one of my favorite books, and if you were curious enough to ask this question I think you would find this fascinating as well.

u/ObyrenOfDorne · 2 pointsr/seduction

The Red Queen. I downloaded ot off of YouTube and it was a great listen.

u/gentlemanofleisure · 2 pointsr/intj

aha i understand now.

are you aware of the new research in evolutionary psychology that talks about the social functions of sex in humans? there are some very interesting points raised.

sex at dawn and the red queen really changed the way i see this sort of stuff. basically, there are some things that people do that may at first seem off but when you understand the effects they make a lot more sense.

u/darien_gap · 2 pointsr/science
u/CoolZillionaire · 2 pointsr/science

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature!

Very interesting book, starts out a bit slow by talking about the sexual habits of various animal species but eventually comes together as they are then compared to those of humans.

u/jcausey · 2 pointsr/atheism

A great book on the development of sexual reproduction is The Red Queen. It discusses how genders came to be, with some especially intriguing info on organisms like certain mycotans that have upwards of a dozen 'genders'. The latter half of the book delves into why certain characteristics were selected for in human sexuality, and how that shapes our interactions. It's a really interesting read -- highly recommended.

u/shadowboxer47 · 2 pointsr/

> I am sure the question could be phrased by his generous language abilities in a better way than that.

No, I'm quite sure he was very deliberate.

u/encouragethestorm · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

I took a fascinating course on Evolution and Society during my freshman year of college, in which we spent a lot of time studying Matt Ridley's The Red Queen. I really, really wish I'd kept my notes... the course began with a foundational introduction to the principles of evolution and history of the theory (at which point evolution struck me as simply obvious), and then progressed to an in-depth analysis of how human behavior and contemporary human society are shaped by human evolution.

u/raxical · 2 pointsr/trippinthroughtime

>because they're conditioned

This is false. This book explains why. It's part of an evolved mating strategy.

>these women then hold men to the similarly high aesthetic standards.

There is no evidence to back this up. All the evidence points to women holding men to different standards than men hold women. This doesn't mean that one sex is better, just that their standards are different. I don't think I need to go into the differences because they're well known.

Boiled down, you're saying that somehow (you didn't say how) women place a higher emphasis on their own visual presentation, which, I agree with. You then claim that they expect this level of visual presentation from their mates. This is false. I'm not just using that word as a way to disagree with you. The science, and there is a lot of it, does not even remotely back up that claim.

If you're interested, read that book. It's about the best summary you're going to get and you won't be disappointed.

u/ih8urshit · 2 pointsr/editors

>What careers are women genetically designed for, exactly?

Read and find out for yourself

I am all for anyone who wants in this business, man, woman, or trans, but lets face facts. Most women don't want to work long hours away from home. Most women don't want to work in dark corners not being social with other people. Most women want to have a life more robust than the one the film life offers.

How many young women have you met, that once you explained your job to, started getting joyous at the prospect of doing your job? How many do you think it would be if you started doing it more? I'm sure I can get more girls interested in being engineers than you can get to be film making.

I am simply of the belief, that do to biological factors, most women aren't interested in the career of film making because it doesn't appeal to their primal biology. This isn't good, this isn't bad, it just is.

I'm all for more women in this career, but I'm not going to force it on them if they aren't interested. It's 2016, so many people have access to the basic tools of film making, I'm honestly surprised there isn't more female driven films happening. Maybe that says something.

u/stephenlabit · 2 pointsr/IAmA

There is a really good book called The Red Queen that I highly recommend which discusses this question.

> ^Referring ^to ^Lewis ^Carroll's ^Red ^Queen ^from ^Through ^the ^Looking-Glass, ^a ^character ^who ^has ^to ^keep ^running ^to ^stay ^in ^the ^same ^place, ^Matt ^Ridley ^demonstrates ^why ^sex ^is ^humanity's ^best ^strategy ^for ^outwitting ^its ^constantly ^mutating ^internal ^predators. ^The ^Red ^Queen ^answers ^dozens ^of ^other ^riddles ^of ^human ^nature ^and ^culture ^-- ^including ^why ^men ^propose ^marriage, ^the ^method ^behind ^our ^maddening ^notions ^of ^beauty, ^and ^the ^disquieting ^fact ^that ^a ^woman ^is ^more ^likely ^to ^conceive ^a ^child ^by ^an ^adulterous ^lover ^than ^by ^her ^husband. ^Brilliantly ^written, ^The ^Red ^Queen ^offers ^an ^extraordinary ^new ^way ^of ^interpreting ^the ^human ^condition ^and ^how ^it ^has ^evolved.

u/tibetan_knight · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

If you're interested in further reading, The Red Queen attempts to answer this very question from a number of viewpoints. It's a fascinating read.

u/Irish_machiavelli · 2 pointsr/seduction

I'd like to inject some evolutionary biology into this discussion.
Women select mates based on status then "strength", and then attractiveness. Attractiveness in this context means something approximating "desirability," because your attractiveness is based upon how many females you are attracting generally.

Ever wondered why they tell you to go to the club with girls, even if they're only friends? You just found out.

So, don't get caught up on the attractiveness. It's only one of three elements upon which women select. Further, wardrobe and grooming do a lot in the way of boosting men's attractiveness, and these are both well within your control.


u/emergent_properties · 2 pointsr/sex

There is a book I recommend call The Red Queen. In it, the author puts sex in perspective in terms of evolution... it's a really insightful read IMO.

A lot of it, not just sociology, spawns from the unique circumstances that a male and female emerge from. Each one has a different evolutionary strategy that they need to find.

It's effectively a war of biology. Not just from male vs female goals or needs.. but even sperm engage in biowarfare against other sperm! Yes, there are even carnivorous sperm that eat the gonads of other sperm, once they fertilize the egg. Such trickery.

u/mechanosm · 2 pointsr/sexover30

There is an interesting book on sexual selection (and to some extent monogamy) called The Red Queen, which has quite a bit to say on this topic. The cool thing to think about is that we are not done changing, hence the title of the book.

u/phido · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley explores this idea in great depth.

u/basilwhite · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

The Red Queen comes to mind.

u/MartBehaim · 1 pointr/AskWomen

Of course! Reproduction is the most important thing in life. All our anatomy, physiology and psychology are subordinated to it if we are adult and heterosexual. You are part of life and life is reproduction. But reproduction is also very "costly". Women even can die directly because of it and men indirectly competing with other men to get better sexual partner. Also keeping offspring is costly. So there must be very strong forces moving people to do something so crazy and risky.

If you like natural science read the book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

u/jetsamrover · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

Seriously, read "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature"

Amazon link:

I'm seriously tired of people complaining about cheating without understanding human nature and sexuality.

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight


The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley



Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show



u/LittleHelperRobot · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Non-mobile: The Red Queen

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble.

u/tuxedotee · 1 pointr/todayilearned

What you are describing has a name, hybrid vigor.

you might like this

u/JackGetsIt · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Satoshi Kanazawa is a good start. He doesn't hit on all your points but he does address a few. There are a few posts on redpill that go through all the peer reviewed connections. It might take me a while to find the best. Here's an easy start on Satoshi.

I believe the "Red Queen" also covers this stuff as well. I've bought the book but I haven't read it yet. It reccomended often in redpill discussion but I only have so much reading time.

u/dbabbitt · 1 pointr/socialskills

According to The Red Queen, people that don't get a high enough spike of testosterone in the womb tend to grow up to be reticent and soft spoken.

u/celeryroot · 1 pointr/books

I'm in the same boat as you and just started reading a lot of science stuff.

It might be a good idea to pick up an edition of The Best American Science [and Nature] Writing for lots of topics all at once.

I also second the Brian Greene books, early Dawkins, and The Red Queen. But I don't really understand all the Hofstadter hype... I really didn't like I Am a Strange Loop--I found it extremely poorly written, off-topic, at times pretentious, poorly constructed, and overall not a very pleasant experience.

Most of my interest is in biology and evolution, so my recommendations would be:

My favorite animal rights book: Created From Animals - Rachels

A really fun read about poisonous plants: Wicked Plants - Stewart

Another Stewart book about earthworms: The Earth Moved - Stewart

Also anything by Michael Pollan, and to complement that, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver.

u/thekingsdaughter · 1 pointr/TwoXChromosomes

I feel like this could easily be a crazy tangent but whatev.

No, we're not lions but we are animals. Any way you slice it, we are... and there's a lot of evidence to support the scientific theory that everything we do is in the interest of sex. We groom our bodies to attract a mate, we have sex with many people to practice for our preferred mate, we work hard to make money to do whatever to attract and keep a mate. Even my writing this to you, is because you are, in a manner of speaking, part of my community and so my passing on this information is my attempt to help you become a more intelligent person so you will become a more desirable mate for whom so ever you choose. Granted it is a theory, nicely laid out in the wonderfully titled Red Queen, but theory or not it seems to fit. We're all just trying to progress the species... and sex as used for anything other than reproduction can still be argued that it is being used for reproduction, for instance sex used for tension relief relieves tension... so you're healthy, relaxed, and ready to reproduce.

u/disposableboyfriend · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

Books about evolutionary psychology. Two that come to mind:

u/antonivs · 1 pointr/askscience

Ordinary sexual selection explains it without requiring some sort of gene proximity hypothesis. Animals with characteristics that are found attractive tend to pass on their genes more successfully. Attractive characteristics are those that are associated with animals that pass on their genes most successfully. That's the feedback loop, and it can result in all sorts of characteristics being selected for attractiveness.

The common factor between characteristics that are found attractive is that they're generally associated in some way with health - either directly, as with healthy musculature or healthy skin/fur, or indirectly, as in decorative displays that indicate an excess of energy. The peacock's tail is the classic example of a purely decorative feature. Large human female breasts are a combination of decorative and functional.

The book "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" provides a very accessible exploration of this topic at a popular level (i.e. it's not a scientific textbook.)

[Edit: relevant post on /r/MapPorn today: Boobs vs. Butt Searches on PornHub].

u/evilbombadil · 1 pointr/adultery

Yes, what I stated is mostly the mainstream view in the field. Nothing too controversial about it.

The best starting place I would suggest is this book:

u/ReturnOfThePing · 1 pointr/videos

I feel that you, like feminists from the 70's, are trying to erase gender differences. Women do more often require a man's protection than the other way around. Women do predominantly follow a mating strategy that emphasizes quality rather than quantity, where as men have been designed to enthusiastically pursue all mating opportunities. Women do get pregnant and have a much greater investment in the offspring. Women are smaller, weaker, and have a much shorter reproductive life span. The differences are profound and numerous and are reflected in every culture ever since the beginning of humanity. Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Somoa has been discredited.

Here, read some books on evolutionary psychology, starting with this one.

u/itsarrie · 1 pointr/polyamory
u/iluminatiNYC · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

First of all, I would like to state that before mentioning my additions that books should be thought of like classes in college. Yes, you need the basic knowledge to go do what you're going to do, but you also need to get off your ass and apply it.

Without further ado, here are my recommendations in addition to what was mentioned.

Pimp by Iceberg Slim (Robert Beck). It's a nice introduction to the psychology of gaming women on top of an interesting exploration of race, gender and intersectionality. It's smarter than it's rep.

The Mystery Method by Mystery (Erik von Markovik). It's not a great book, but it gives you immediate actionable steps to apply immediately. Then, once you read the theory and get experience, you can apply what you learned.

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. This should be read with the next book to up your fundamentals in evo-psych.

Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan. Written as a critique of the first book, these two will give you some deeper theory of evo-psych.

u/mittondr · 1 pointr/evolution

I think the train is still out on why so many organisms have sex. Lots of good ideas but there is still good work to be done. Ridley's The Red Queen is still the best overview of the question.

Any other recommendations?

u/PartDigital · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

The Red Queen by Matt Ridley

It's slightly different take, though utterly fascinating and great for conversation. It completely changed the way I think about male/female relationships. The thing I liked the most about it is that it took a purely scientific approach.

He takes a "gene-centric" approach to his arguments. The female doesn't want the best male, she wants the best genes. This means she wants a male who can provide her with the best quality genes that she can get for her young.

But how do you know if you have the best genes? Through competition.
What is competition? Evolution.

As a species we didn't evolve by growing wings, or grow very tall or strong. We became SMART. But back in the day of caveman we didn't have to solve complicated equations or put a man on the moon, so how or why did our intelligence evolve? What was the advantage?

To out smart each other!

We had to compete with other humans for the best food, mates etc. So we had to become clever, resourceful and cunning. We had to know how to work with other people and form alliances and then crush our competition.

Fast forward to today, a smart man who is clever, good with people and driven usually does well in society. They are the ones with the fancy car, the nice home and big bank account. All these outward rewards are representative of the man's inner qualities, his genes. That's why women want him.

The book also provides an answer for a lot of other questions such as:

  • If all women want the top male, why are there plenty of women happy with lower quality males?
  • Why would a woman cheat?
  • Why would a man cheat?
  • How can homosexuality be explained if it's all about the genes?

    Just talking about this makes me want to read the book again haha.

u/M_Knight1 · 1 pointr/seduction
  1. Fundamentals of Female Dynamics

  2. Models

  3. No More Mr Nice Guy

  4. Influence

  5. The Red Queen Theory

    Some one mentioned Meditations here. That book is awesome, even if its not directly game related.

    Read The Game if you want to hear a fun story but not necessarily obtain applicable advice

u/12V_man · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

The Black Swan sorry, no not the Natalie Portman movie

The Red Queen


u/ehcolem · 0 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

This subject is reasonably well covered in the book The Red Queen. Worth reading if you want to really dive into this issue in a different way:

u/idioma · 0 pointsr/exmormon

Been there. Read books, especially this one: NSFW and start watching porn, find out what excites you and what doesn't. Mostly just learn to be honest with yourself.

u/Aerothermal · 0 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I am guessing English isn't your first language?

>could Humans eventually gain the same adaptability traits as a Virus, or a Parasite?

What traits are you referring to?

>would it be possible to adapt so quickly enough with the changing environment we could live in any conditions in the future?

You imply that parasites and viruses can live in any conditions; simply not true.

Might I suggest the wikibook on evolutionary biology, the works of Richard Dawkins or The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.

u/Dishmayhem · -2 pointsr/sex
u/00101011 · -5 pointsr/OneY

This man deserves no downvotes! Science is on his side! Read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature and it will change the way you think about sex forever... in a scientific and logical way.

u/BreeMPLS · -5 pointsr/AskReddit

Like I said, you appear to have a gross misunderstanding of how people work. I care little for your anecdotal argument. Do a little reading and then reread your own post.

Start here: