Dawkins and Roughgarden write about animal species in general and is always tricky to draw conclusions about the human species based on natural animal behavior. (We will look into the difficulties associated with such arguments in our next module.)Nevertheless, do you see some of the ideas proposed and discussed by the authors reflected in human behavior? For example, do you think that human bodies are 'blindly programmed by their selfish genes' when it comes to sexual behavior, resulting in tendencies for more aggressive sexual behavior in males and more reserved sexual behavior in females, or females pursuing 'he-men? Do you think that genes drive males and females in the human species to form bonds through sexual behavior and cooperate in raising children? Or do you think that in our species, sex-specific and general patterns of behavior in connection with sexual reproduction are largely shaped by socialization andIn case you are left with any questions about the readings, please state them. (Posting that you have no questions is not a satisfactory response to this prompt.)

• If there is anything that you find remarkable or problematic about the readings that has not been addressed, please state it. (Posting that there is nothing that you find remarkable or problematic is not a satisfactory response to this prompt.)
• Dawkins suggests that sexual reproduction is characterized by exploitation and competition. Roughgarden suggests that sexual reproduction is characterized by social bonding and cooperation. In your opinion, whose analysis is more convincing, Dawkins' or Roughgarden's?
• Roughgarden demands the abandonment of the theory of sexual selection. Is she right or might there be value in a modified theory of sexual selection capable of explaining various forms of sexual dimorphism and differences in behavioral patterns between males and females of a species, even if such a theory cannot easily account for all the observable diversity in nature?