Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):597-598 (2000)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
What is a Gene? From Molecules to Metaphysics.Holmes Rolston - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):471-497.
Reproductive Choice and the Ideals of Parenting.Elisabeth Gedge - 2011 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):32-47.
On Dogs and Children: Judgements in the Realm of Meaning.Richard Smith - 2011 - Ethics and Education 6 (2):171-180.
Reproductive and Parental Autonomy: An Argument for Compulsory Parental Education.Lisa Bortolotti & Daniela Cutas - 2009 - Reproductive Biomedicine Online 19 (ethics suppl.):5-14.
A Comprehensive Theory of Human Mating Must Explain Between-Sex and Within-Sex Differences in Mating Strategies.April L. Bleske & David M. Buss - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):593-594.
Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness.Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti - 2010 - Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
The Dual Selection Model: Questions About Necessity and Completeness.Jeffry A. Simpson - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):235-235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #673,161 of 2,133,066 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #384,179 of 2,133,066 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.