Xref: utzoo soc.men:3001 sci.bio:967
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!sunybcs!bingvaxu!vu0112
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.bio
Subject: Sexual selection (was: Basketball and other things with a genital prerequisite)
Message-ID: <913@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 88 04:37:31 GMT
References: <1566@mmm.UUCP> <3138@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> <1164@microsoft.UUCP> <3455@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <3232@zeus.TEK.COM> <13400@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Reply-To: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY
Lines: 27

In article <13400@sri-unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.sri.com (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>Sigh. I didn't say height was a sex-linked genetic characteristic.
>Although some men here seem to be arguning that it is !!!
>I MEANT that the much-above-average-height-and-build women were
>discriminated against in the selection process...not because they 
>weren't "the fittest" as some have argued that they are, but because
>the male-imposed norms for female desirability have made them less
>preferred as mates.
>
>This is getting tedious.

Yes, this seems to be the only possibility.  Nor should we be surprised:
in classical evolutionary theory it is described as "sexual selection."
It is used to describe various and sundry typcially male charactersitics
as peacock tails and other silly and seemingly useless features.  While
I've read about this, it has never made any sense to me.  

I'm cross-posted to sci.bio.  Could someone please explain the theory of
sexual selection to us, try to justify it (I've never believed it,
despite the evidence), and relate it to common sexual dimorphism like
height, etc.?

O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician 
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .