An interesting study, courtesy the BBC, states the following:
"A Queen's University, Ontario, team examined volunteers' walks and the levels of sex hormones in their saliva.
They found those with alluring walks were the furthest away from ovulation.
A British expert said the research, featured by New Scientist magazine, supported the idea women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners."
'Women disguise their fertility to deter unsuitable partners.' I, for one, am shocked. And I'm not sure if the shock is one of genuine surprise or outright sarcasm.
It's interesting to think that something so seemingly innocent as swishing hips would in fact be a deceptive con. Why should this be the case? That is, are we dealing with a biological or social phenomenon?
Such inquiry leads to unusual places. Did early female humans deter their mates wish hip sways? It seems somehow unlikely. We assume that life for less civilized humans was more difficult. Surely mating would be a top priority and concern. The more mating, the better chance of survival. Look at the mating habits of rabbits. Or squid. Lots of babies ensures at least some survive in difficult times.
A different peice of research states that in stressful times female births are far more likely than males. That leads one to think that in a stressful climate it requires only a few hardy males to impregnate numerous females, and so it is a natural check to help the population along.
So we establish that there are biological incentives as well as mechanisms in place to help increase the population, at least in stressful climates. Perhaps, then, it is only in less stressful climates that hips are deceiving. In these areas women may be more choosy about their mating habits, and so are able to cont heir partners. After all the deception is designed specifically in mind, as I see it, that should mating occur it's biological objective will not be achieved. If some dude is scoping some chick with active hips then the carnal intentions' side effects, leading to carnal actions, will be undermined by the ruse.
That doesn't answer the society-scince/nature-nurture argument of why any of this is the case, but I must confess that I had no real intention of doing so from the start. It was all a ploy to get you interested and reading. And I feel no regret.
After all, the nature-nurture debate has gone on since at least the Enlightenment. Why should it be resolved now?
In personal news: I have a nice lead for my Field Work Term job working in a high school in Dorchester. Registration for classes starts today. I finally got around to starting Aristotle's Metaphysics. Bowlarama on Friday instead of Midnight Movies.
Swashbuckling! High Adventure! Romance!
And A Variety Of Other Excuses Why I've Not Updated For The Last Week!
Apologies to follow...