Talk:Menstruation and the origins of culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

The information in this article would be more balanced if incorporated into concealed ovulation and culture and menstruation. As it stands now, it is just advocating the (flawed in many ways, IMO) theories of three guys. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this suggestion. The focus and topic of this article is quite specific - the origins of culture. Neither of the other 2 articles have this focus, and there is no logic in having a broader topic being subsumed within an arguably narrower one (e.g. concealed ovulation). A better way forward would be to simply have good cross references between the 3 articles, so that anyone searching on any of the main topics (e.g. menstruation/menstruation and culture/origins of culture) will find their way to all 3 articles. Not much is served if the articles are merely in the same 'space'. In any event, merging this article with the other 2 would duplicate information. Finally, this article does not advocate the views of 3 individuals. It is well referenced and disagreement with the content of the article should make reference to these sources. Martinklopstock 11:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My issues with the article as it currently stands:

• No opposing viewpoints are considered. Yes, it is well referenced, but as it stands, this article presents the theories of Knight et al. as fact. The fastest, least-effort way to incorporate other theories into the content of this article is to merge it with related articles that already have discussion of those other theories.
• Bonobos also have concealed ovulation. The genus Homo is not unique in this, even though this supposed uniqueness seems to be a basis for this entire theory.
• Bleeding does not indicate fertility or imminent fertility. Annovulatory cycles, long cycles (where bleeding and ovulation may be seperated by months, not days or weeks), and mid-cycle bleeding are all common today. Malnutrition common in early human development would have made these conditions even more common.
• Bleeding as a primary indicator of fertility is disputed. See Concealed ovulation#Discussion of the claim that women do not know when they are fertile
• Bleeding is not always externally detectable. To a woman's sexual partner, yes, but to someone just near the woman, only if she is letting the blood run freely.
• menstrual imagery has been central in initiation rites, myth, religion and all other aspects of symbolic culture? Really? Deities were just a side aspect of religion, menstruation was the center? All initiation rites have menstruation as the central symbol? I believe this is what the sources say, but it is facially implausible that this statement is uncontested truth.
• A would-be male philanderer can easily tell the difference, in terms of fertility prospects, between a heavily pregnant female, a female in early stages of breast-feeding or a female who is currently menstruating.

• Observation of bleeding does not seem to come up in this sentence. Rather, the hypothetical male is seeing small belly, no baby attached to breasts, must be fertile. So this sentence does not tie in well with observation of bleeding being so critically important.
• Early stages of breastfeeding? The type of breastfeeding practiced in traditional human cultures, combined with borderline malnutrition, caused literally years of infertility in most breastfeeding women. "Early stages" does not seem really relevent.

• I am lost from the heading "The world's first ritual". The remainder of the article seems to be talking about a number of disparate topics (what do pictures of deities have to do with proof or disproof of this theory?) and not tying any of them in with menstruation as an indicator of fertility. They are (very loosely) tied in with the simple existence of menstruation, but from the intro and the first parts of the article I thought the supposed imminent fertility signaled by menstruation was central to this theory?

Reasons I believe it could be merged into other articles:

• Concealed ovulation is not just a biology article.

• It contains a debate over whether menstruation is the primary indicator of fertility in primitive cultures (i.e. was ovulation actually concealed). Knight et al.'s arguments in favor of menstruation-as-fertility-signal would fit in great here.
• "Concealed ovulation" also has a section "Theories for behavioral implications". This article is a theory for behavioral implications of menstruation, and as such could easily be a sub-topic of the concealed ovulation header.

• The "Evidence" heading seems to have much recent cultural information. Sleeping Beauty, for example, was not written in an ancient society. Khoisan culture exists today. This information would seem better placed in a culture article (like culture and menstruation) than in an article about a theory on the origin of culture.

Concerns I have over this topic remaining as its own article:

• "Menstruation and the origins of culture" implies that menstruation must have been significant to the development of human cultrue. This article title is not receptive to including other theories about the origins of culture. It seems unlikely that anyone would publish material on "why menstruation did not cause the origination of culture"; rather, they would publish their own originating theory. This competing theory, being unrelated to menstruation, would not be included in this article. So it self-excludes competing theories, does that make sense?
• The article seems to be somewhat mistitled. All great apes menstruate, and yet only humans have highly developed culture. Knight et al. must have had something more unique in mind when they developed the theory.

Perhaps an article origins of culture could be started with this material. That much more neutral title would invite addition of opposing theories much more readily than the current title. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a number of points that deserve a more detailed response. This might take some time. For the moment, I would like to leave you with this comment: I think the issue of whether concealed menstruation as a sexual signal is controversial or not is a separate issue as to whether this article should be chopped up and integrated into existing other articles. This would, in my view, destroy the narrative coherence of the piece, and the reader would not be able to put the argument together in a coherent way. If the issue you are really concerned about is to reflect opposing/alternative views, then this is swhat we should focus on - rather than assuming automatically that 'merger' with other articles is the best remedy. Martinklopstock 8:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC

You are right that my main concern is to also present alternative views. My merger suggestion was just the first thing that came to mind to do this; I am open to other ways of addressing this issue. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have seen that several amendments were made to the text, suggesting that not all researchers agree on all issues (which is always the case...). It would be helpful, if you could remove the merger tags, as they current prevent editing the first para. We've also lost the 'Introduction' header. We want to invite alternative views - but the merger tags feel a little like a sword of Damocles. Once the tags are removed we can focus on making sure the content is as open as possible. One final thought: the whole point of the piece is to talk about the origins of human culture and the possible significance of menstruation in that context. The coherence of the piece is premissed on the view that menstruation is a possible key factor here. The piece can only use existing evidence (which is, as you suggest, often contested) to create a model which allows for predictions, which in turn can be tested. What the piece suggests is that the model presented here has two advantages: it is coherent and consistent with existing evidence (referenced in the sources), and it allows for testable hypothesis formation. The fact that alternative models might come to different conclusions is not the main focus, as this is a piece specifically on the origins of culture from the perspective of menstruation as a potentially important contributing factor. Someone else might want to write the entry on the 'origins of culture' that present all current hypotheses. In that case we would not object to 'merger' talks. I hope this goes some way to address the issues you have. We would be grateful, if you could remove the tags. Thank you.

I did see the amendments made, and appreciate the effort. The kinds of changes I had in mind, though, were more along the lines of this. I was not aware new users could not edit merge tags; I think the 'new account' period is fairly short and you should be able to remove them yourself soon. In the meantime, I have re-added the header 'Introduction' so you can edit that section. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for putting back the Intro heading. We will review your suggested amendments in your sandbox - and respond. I can't find any info about editing merger tags for new accounts. We'll wait and see. If we can't do anything next week I might have to get back to you. Thanks for your comments. Martinklopstock 8:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of further changes have now been made to the article. We would appreciate it, if any further discussions could now be made on the article itself, but that any disagreements are substantiated by reference to relevant literature. As a result of the changes we have also taken off the merger tabs and hope this is acceptable.

Concerns

As I have expressed before, I have quite a number of concerns over the current format of the article. I've listed some of them below. I'm hesitant to just add this material, not wanting to get into an edit war with the authors of the article. I'm hoping to work out any major differences here on the talk page, and then we can work together to get the wording right in the article itself. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Concealed ovulation

One of the basic premises of this article is that ovulation is concealed. The arguments against concealed ovulation in primitive societies are strong enough to have elicited a direct response: Is ovulation concealed?. While that article claims there is a flat coital frequency across the menstrual cycle, most studies investigating coital frequency near ovulation have used very poor indicators of ovulation. Studies using the most modern forms of ovulation detection (Women's sexual experience during the menstrual cycle: identification of the sexual phase by noninvasive measurement of luteinizing hormone - see pp.14-15,18-22) have found a definite peak in (female-initiated) sexual activity during the fertile period.

As documented by Dr. Evelyn Billings (who, with her husband John Billings, spent decades researching the female reproductive system), several modern primitive tribes are known to be aware of the connection between cervical mucus and fertility. Research by Billings and Dr. James Brown in the 60s and 70s has shown that cervical mucus is a highly accurate indicator of ovulation - so knowledge of cervical mucus would argue against ovulation being concealed.

The above idea of mucus revealing ovulation is surely only valid for the individual who's mucus it is. Its an intimate signal, not public display like the swollen genitals accompanying ovulation in chimpanzees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.77.227 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, and is also true of the peak in female-initiated sex around ovulation. The lack of any pattern related to menstruation in male-initiated sex would argue against menstruation as an indicator of fertility to males, though, too. Hmm.

However, I'm still not clear on the exact mechanics of the authors' view menstruations' signalling process, though (see the sub-topic below); it's hard to tell if I agree with something or not if I don't understand it. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it affects the validity of this theory, arguments against concealed ovulation should be presented to balance out the article. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing interest in our theory. Many of your comments have stimulated us to improve the piece, so many thanks. We are specially glad to have been pointed to Frank Marlowe's lovely article, which illlustrates and amplifies many of our points beautifully. I think we are suggesting that an entry concerning a fairly well-known body of theory doesn't have to turn into a full-scale debate on the merits or demerits of every detail or preliminary assumption. For example, an entry on the 'big bang' theory of the origin of the cosmos doesn't have to be in itelf an encyclopaedia of astrophysics or of its recent history. It just has to inform readers as to what the theory actually is - what the claims are and what the claimed reasoning is. We have tried to make it clear that ours is just a theory. Once we have said, 'It is argued that' at the top, surely there is no reason to insert words like 'argued', 'claimed', 'asserrted' etc. all the weay through? Readers will take that as read.

Unless you feel you are a scholar in the same discipline as ourselves, namely Darwinian anthropology and human origins research, I hope you will respect the idea that there should be a place in Wikipedia for this theory to be summarised, preferably by specialists competent in the field. Maybe if you are an expert on ovulation concealment, you should make a link to an entry dealing just with that topic and deal with it there?

Our model ('menstruation and the origins of culture') simply takes as read one particular theory about ovulation concealment. It is simply a fact that we do that, and readers are entitled to know. If they are interested in other theories about ovulation concealment, maybe they should go to a separate part of Wikipedia?

Chris d knight 11:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Also, I think we need to avoid terms like 'primitive tribes'. The point is whether the human male is biologically well-adapted to tell when his partner is ovulating. He is not (Baker and Bellis 1993 - see reference at the end of current Wikipedia entry). If you are referring to hunter-gatherer peoples, menstruation is typically strongly advertised whereas ovulation is not advertised at all. We know this because our team includes professional anthropologists and Ph.D. students working among the Hadza (bow-and-arrow hunter-gatherers in Tanzania).

I am a heat treater. The company I work at processes hundreds of tons of steel through our furnaces every day. If I am an "expert" at anything, it is that. However, everything I do on Wikipedia is strictly hobby, and I do not claim expertise. I do not respect the idea that Wikipedia articles should only or mainly be edited by experts in the topic. Experts are welcome at Wikipedia, but they do not hold any special status here.

Not being familiar with anthropology research, I am not familiar with the correct terms to use. I will in the future avoid the phrase 'primitive tribes' when referring to early human societies or to hunter-gatherer people.

Whether qualifiers such as "argued" are inserted throughout an article seems to depend on how accepted the topic is. The article on evolution, for example, includes a mention of creationism in the header but never suggests it is "only a theory". Whereas intelligent design is littered with qualifiers. Being completely unfamiliar with anthropology, I'm not at all qualified to judge how accepted the topic of this article is. Of course, as the authors, I would argue you are not so qualified, either.

This body of theory is probably not well-known to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers, including myself. I accept that menstruation is strongly advertised but still am not understanding this article's argument on the fertility-menstruation relationship.

I apologize for my confrontational attitude; as I get more into it, I think part of my disagreement with the article stems from simply not understanding the arguments it is trying to make. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses, it seems sensible to try to keep articles as comprehensible to as wide an audience as possible. This may mean that theories and terms that are readily understood within certain professional communities will need to be spelled out and explained in Wikipedia articles. To me, the recent changes have greatly improved how this theory is presented. I think there are still changes I would like to make, but am going to take some time to read the new article and think about it before pursuing it any further. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Menstruation as fertility signal

Vaginal bleeding does not necessarily indicate fertility. While normal menstrual cycles have ovulation approximately two weeks from menstruation onset, from here: "9% to 30% of reproductive-aged women have menstrual irregularities requiring medical evaluation."

Malnutrition (somewhat obviously) is going to lower fertility rates. From Health and the Rise of Civilization: "fertility [of prehistoric populations] was probably below the averages of more sedentary modern populations. The prehistoric acceleration of population growth after the adoption of sedentism and farming, if it is not an artifact of archaeological reconstruction, could be explained by an increase in fertility or altered birth control decisions that appear to accompany sedentism and agriculture. This explanation fits the available data better than any competing hypothesis." The mechanism of lowered fertility is going to be in the form of menstrual irregularity, above the 9-30% rates estimated in modern populations.

Because it is so central to this theory that menstruation is a fertility signal, these types of opposing viewpoints should also be presented.

The mechanism by which the menstruation "signal" is broadcast to potential "philandering males" is also not made clear in this article. Is it posited that menstruation was not contained, so that menstruating females walked around with blood flowing down their legs? Or that it was contained, but had a distinctive odor? Or something else?

A related issue, the significance of the blood itself as a fertility signal is not explained. Particularly in the sentence A would-be male philanderer can easily tell the difference, in terms of fertility prospects, between a heavily pregnant female, a nursing female or one who is currently menstruating, it is not clear if the male is actually observing menstruation, or simply using deductive reasoning based on the absence of a swollen belly or leaky breasts. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to ChrisDKnight for adding the information about how menstruation is observed by people other than the woman herself.

While the idea of menstruation being a source of such fascination by early humans that it prompted the first expressions of symbolic culture seems plausible to me, most of the rest of this article does not. I just don't understand how menstruation is argued to change the sexual behavior of males, or how it is related to depictions of deities. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Promiscuity deleterious to females?

The traditional view that it is in female interest to be monogamous, and male interest to be promiscuous (Bateman's principle), is highly relied on by this theory. Modern evidence that promiscuity benefits females (presented very accessibly in Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson) should also be presented. She particularly discusses evidence for human female promiscuity by pointing out how testical size in other apes is related to the sexual habits of females: in chimpanzees, where males have a lot of sperm competition from other males, their testicles are very large (and produce high numbers of sperm) in relation to their body size. In gorillas, where dominant males have exclusive sexual access to females, their testicles are very small (and produce much lower numbers of sperm) in relation to body size. Human relative testicle is somewhere in between, strongly implying that there is some (though not as strong as in chimps) evolutionary benefit to promiscuous human females.

The flip side of this promiscuity-benefits-females theory is that males must spend time trying to ensure female faithfullness (thus increasing their chances of father children) rather than going philandering (where they are competing with other male's sperm to try to impregnate the woman). Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

one obvious benefit of concealment is that it denies males information that would allow male philanderers to ‘hit and run’ - I disagree. One "obvious" benefit of advertised ovulation is that it allows a female to have sex with multiple males during her fertile period, thus a)increasing her chances of becoming pregnant and b)confusing the issue of paternity so that multiple males are obligated to support her offspring in the hopes of continuing their own genetic line. Males that "hit and run" are significantly less likely to have offspring survive to adulthood; in a species like humans that requires significant parental investment in offspring, there is not an obvious evolutionary benefit to the "hit and run" strategy. The stated argument is only one that can be made, and is not "obviously" true. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"The promise of imminent fertility is very interesting to males"

Please provide some sort of reference that most men find menstruating women to be more sexually attractive than women not currently experiencing vaginal bleeding. Or change the wording of this sentence. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Style question

Beginning with the second paragraph in the Sexual signals section, the verb 'argue' is used a little excessively:

Some Darwinian palaeoanthropologists argue... Knight, Power and Watts argue... They argue... It is argued...

I had changed one of those verbs to 'assert' to try to alleviate some of the repetition. It was changed back in a recent edit - I was just curious as to why. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Reasearch

I stumbled across this article while on vandal watch and noticed some of the text was very POV. Reading further also leads me to believe that this article contains original research. Though some of the facts may be true, it's still written with heavy POV and original research with suspicion that the editors may be citing their own original work.--I already forgot 09:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They are citing their own original work, but it's published, so it doesn't violate Wikipedia's NOR rule. I agree, however, that the article is POV, and I have strong suspicions that it is factually inaccurate, but have not had the time to do the research to effectively argue my case. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you both have a problem: 'leading you to believe' and having 'strong suspicions' does not, unfortunately, constitute real engagement. It does not make sense to accuse authors of a very heavily referenced article of POV when your own suspicions are not even well-evidenced. Otherwise accusations of bias etc. are simply a symptom of the malaise they are trying to address. Can we agree that the banners at the top of the article remain removed until such a time as you have actual evidence that POV is involved?86.132.127.123 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a heavily referenced article doesnt mean its written without a NPOV. The tags are added to invite other wikipedians into the disucssion of POV and OR for this article.--I already forgot 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - lots of references don´t prove neutrality. However, you have so far not provided any substantial reasons for POV. Until you do, I will remove the tags. Otherwise you could simply put tags on all articles. I don´t think that just having a suspicion is enough of a reason to doubt neutrality. Put the effort in to provide some proof - or get someone else to do it. I think that is the minimum level of engagement required here.80.133.115.41 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in engagement, only keeping up the quality of standards at wikipedia. So instead of niggling over what constitutes pov and a tag rv war, I have edited the intro to provide an example. You can see I have no interest in the topic (though interesting), just the encyclopedic presentation.--I already forgot 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)