Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):597-598 (2000)
|Abstract||Gangestad & Simpson's model of the evolution of within-sex differences in reproductive strategies requires a degree of female choice that probably did not exist because of male coercion. We argue as well that the tradeoff between current and future reproduction accounts for more of the within-sex differences in reproductive strategies than the “good-genes-good parenting” tradeoff they propose.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Holmes Rolston (2006). What is a Gene? From Molecules to Metaphysics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):471-497.
Elisabeth Gedge (2011). Reproductive Choice and the Ideals of Parenting. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):32-47.
Kurt Stocker (2012). The Time Machine in Our Mind. Cognitive Science 36 (3):385-420.
Richard Smith (2011). On Dogs and Children: Judgements in the Realm of Meaning. Ethics and Education 6 (2):171-180.
Peggy DesAutels (2010). Sex Differences and Neuroethics. Philosophical Psychology 23 (1):95-111.
Lisa Bortolotti & Daniela Cutas (2009). Reproductive and Parental Autonomy: An Argument for Compulsory Parental Education. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 19 (ethics suppl.):5-14.
April L. Bleske & David M. Buss (2000). A Comprehensive Theory of Human Mating Must Explain Between-Sex and Within-Sex Differences in Mating Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):593-594.
Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti (2010). Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
Jeffry A. Simpson (1999). The Dual Selection Model: Questions About Necessity and Completeness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):235-235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #245,904 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?