via AFP: “Cost of coitus: Male monkeys pay for sex”. Weekly rag New Scientist is all over this paper by Gumert, who, surprise surprise, teaches evolutionary psychology, not primate biology. (I can’t get to full versions – can anyone?)
From the AFP article:
On average, females had sex 1.5 times per hour.
But this rate jumped to 3.5 times per hour immediately after the female had been groomed by a male — and her partner of choice was likely to be the hunky monkey that did the grooming.
Market forces also acted on the value of the transaction. If there were several females in the area, the cost of buying sex would drop dramatically — a male could “buy” a female for just eight minutes of nit-picking. But if there were no females around, he would have to groom for up to 16 minutes before sex was offered.
The work supports the theory that biological market forces can explain social behaviour, the British weekly says.
“There is a very well-known mix of economic and mating markets in the human species itself,” said Ronald Noe of France’s University of Strasbourg. “There are many examples of rich old men getting young attractive ladies.”
As tigtog said, “Grooming is a sign of commerce rather than affection why exactly?”?
Pared-down 4-point critique, only of logic-wormhole jump to “human biological markets” guff, not of original methodology and statistics, which may well be utter crap also for all I know:
1. Grooming != money. Economics really is the prime example of a one-hammer toolbox, isn’t it?
2. Monkeys != people.
3. Females != inevitably, always, and across-species gatekeepers for sex compared to always-ready-to-go males.
4. Occurs in nature != good/right/moral/reasonable/equitable.
But cue antifeminist evpsychers whooping and hollering about how prostitution is NATCHERAL and therefore GOOD!!1! and/or about how WOMEN are all WHORES!!1! in 3…2…1…