You all know the TV/movie cliche about fathers objecting to who their daughters date. We've all heard of guys like that in real life too, and it stands to reason you'd expect as much; tribes that put the interests of the tribe over whatever traits our ancestors before that evolved to find attractive might've survived longer. Presumably, this would be magnified in girls, who for most of evolution couldn't get a second pregnancy for at least 9 months after the first, raising the decision stakes, as opposed to guys who could cause a new one sooner.
However, MLP:FIM had an interesting take on this a year ago; (damn, it's really been more than a year?) to depict mothers objecting as much; or at least almost as much; to who their sons dated as fathers did to who their daughters dated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKvErCpVpZg#t=1m51s
And yet, even that ended with her getting over it and letting his girlfriend into the family.
Of course, this is the same show that previously portrayed a girl objecting to who her brother was dating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zyJ51c-AWs#t=2m46s
One thing that rarely gets brought up is the extent to which the "overprotective dad/brother" can be gender-flipped. But now a fandom whose very existence has challenged other gender stereotypes is naturally catered to with a show that follows suit.
What I'm wondering is; how much truth is there to this stereotype, and/or gender-flips thereof? I can't help but notice that debates over the "nice guys finish last" stereotype; yes, even more so than others; are often made out to be about jealousy. Yet the fact that fathers object to who their daughters date suggests there's more to it than that, unless the people assuming such are accusing overprotective dads of being pedophile-wannabes.
In theory, taking the relationship to the level of marriage suggests copulating with her and only her. In practice, that's not always the case. And for most of evolution it never was. So the 9 months vs. sooner dichotomy is still a factor, if not the entirety. And even for our ancestors, adultery might've ended in an STD brought back to the wife, though it's unclear whether they might've managed to prevent that anyway by keeping it within the tribe. And even if they didn't, it'd still have been a tradeoff between "increasing genetic quality but otherwise diseased" vs "stagnant gene quality." Assuming they have some OTHER reason to consider genes for adultery "low quality."
How gender-neutral would you presume such things are or are not, NSG?
