Sex is complicated.

[plotthickens]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?

Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor.
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.
With one small & (frequently) revocable ceremony, sex becomes acceptable, though is considered less desirable than the premarital kind. Subsequent sex (or lack thereof) does not affect honor or value: it is suddenly invisible.
Homosexual sex, for one gender, decreases their honor and value.
Homosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor and value but is greatly desired and fantasised about by heterosexual members of the opposite gender.
Sex by any intergender persons of any sort decreases honor and value.
It seems to me that this is a way to keep heterosexual males on top, if you will forgive the pun. But it's proven to be problematic in that the rest of the population -- the majority -- does not find this little setup to be to their advantage and now the whole thing is being sold and bought, rethought, and fought. And the heterosexual males who insist on it are rather frequently not getting the sex they want.

I don't get it. Who benefits?

Please assume all standard definitions of 'honor' and 'value'.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Neither do I. I used to care alot about such things but now I realise "honor" and "value" are empty concepts-illusions. I consider the most common definitition of honour to ego boosting social approval. If you derive self esteem from yourself rather than society then honour loses it's value. I'll have sex with male,trans,female based on my own desires.

[Kmal]

it looks like no one benefits except those outside the system.

[mormeguil]

One interesting bit. It's more and more common to see woman being excited by male homosexual. Or the idea of two men making love. Especially in Japan with a whole litterature on it that is mostly made by woman, for woman. It does mostly center around the emotion surrouding sex, but some of them are still pretty graphic.

[Marlowe221]

Your question, while a rational one, concerns a topic which (for many) is an emotional one. Logic and rationality are the first casualties of emtional issues.

In all seriousness many of the standards/double standards you point out have their foundation in the schism between the ridiculous religous fanatacism the USA is famous for and the realities of the human condition.

It doesn't make sense and no one benefits in my opinion. Not even us heterosexual males...

[themuzicman]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?

Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor.
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.
With one small & (frequently) revocable ceremony, sex becomes acceptable, though is considered less desirable than the premarital kind. Subsequent sex (or lack thereof) does not affect honor or value: it is suddenly invisible.
Homosexual sex, for one gender, decreases their honor and value.
Homosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor and value but is greatly desired and fantasised about by heterosexual members of the opposite gender.
Sex by any intergender persons of any sort decreases honor and value.
It seems to me that this is a way to keep heterosexual males on top, if you will forgive the pun. But it's proven to be problematic in that the rest of the population -- the majority -- does not find this little setup to be to their advantage and now the whole thing is being sold and bought, rethought, and fought. And the heterosexual males who insist on it are rather frequently not getting the sex they want.

I don't get it. Who benefits?

Please assume all standard definitions of 'honor' and 'value'.

Your confusion is just an example of how screwed up our culture is with respect to sex. A far simpler way to deal with this is this:

- Sex outside of marriage is dishonorable.
- Sex inside the context of marriage is honorable.

No gender inequity, no discrimination. Simple, clean, healthy and effective.

[Synchronicity]

Your confusion is just an example of how screwed up our culture is with respect to sex. A far simpler way to deal with this is this:

- Sex outside of marriage is dishonorable.
- Sex inside the context of marriage is honorable.

No gender inequity, no discrimination. Simple, clean, healthy and effective.

Are these rules arbitrary, or is there a reason to draw the line at marriage?

[themuzicman]

Simple, clean, healthy and effective.

[Synchronicity]

Those are words, not explanations.

[Marlowe221]

Simple, clean, healthy and effective.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiigt..... Despite the human mind's overwhelming desire to do so, it is not possible to reduce everything to a couple of "simple" rules.

Some things are complex. They just are.

[themuzicman]

Those are words, not explanations.

Simple: It does involve whether you are female or male or at an arbitrary number of dates or any of the other stuff.

Clean: Marriage is a clear defining point. No murky wondering whether this relationship has gone far enough.

Healthy:Monogamy is the best way to eliminate STDs and still continue the human race.

Effective: Maintains sex's purposes of pleasure, procreation, relationship and connection.

Figured you could intuit all that.

[plotthickens]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?
Your confusion is just an example of how screwed up our culture is with respect to sex. A far simpler way to deal with this is this:

- Sex outside of marriage is dishonorable.
- Sex inside the context of marriage is honorable.

No gender inequity, no discrimination. Simple, clean, healthy and effective.

MM, that's a good simple explanation, but it speaks to an ideal and not "current basic Western philosophies". I'd like to understand why things are as they are, not what you wish were true. Besides, we have to understand where we are to go anywhere, including your ideal world, or even mine. Do you have any ideas?

[JustMel]

People make sex complicated. Sex is sex. The original design if you will was for procreation but modern birth control methods have made it safe to enjoy sex for the sheer joy of it. But now puritanical beliefs are pushing some groups to believe sex is only for marriage and not for the pleasure that can be found or the stress relief.

Sex without emotion is just as good as sex with emotion. I've done both. I enjoy both. Others do as well.

If waiting for marriage floats your boat fine but don't judge those that swing from the chandeliers because they can and do enjoy it.

[changos]

Your question, while a rational one, concerns a topic which (for many) is an emotional one. Logic and rationality are the first casualties of emtional issues.

In all seriousness many of the standards/double standards you point out have their foundation in the schism between the ridiculous religous fanatacism the USA is famous for and the realities of the human condition.

It doesn't make sense and no one benefits in my opinion. Not even us heterosexual males...
I agree. Long story short is you might have a lover and find benefits in her experience but if love appears that itself might be a problem. It might me related to the way we see "love", our own insecurities and being possessive in some or other way.

[themuzicman]

MM, that's a good simple explanation, but it speaks to an ideal and not "current basic Western philosophies". I'd like to understand why things are as they are, not what you wish were true. Besides, we have to understand where we are to go anywhere, including your ideal world, or even mine. Do you have any ideas?

I don't think the situation is all that complicated for heterosexuals.

Without a cultural expectation of marriage before sex and the advent of cheap, easy abortions, (essentially the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s), the potential consequences of premarital sex for men virtually disappeared. The only risks that remained were child support for a woman who actually goes through pregnancy, which is one reason abortion is popular; and STDs.

Women, OTOH, continue to bear some (albeit reduced) consequences from premarital sex, and the key difference is pregnancy. Yes, the advent of abortion reduced this consequence (and the advent of RU-486 and "morning after" continues to reduce the consequence), but that risk still exists. Thus, a woman engaging in premarital sex is taking this risk, and both extra-marital pregnancy and abortion are viewed negatively, because the potential procreation is not in a stable setting.

Also, women have some additional risks regarding sex, including HPV and cervical cancer.


Thus, the (heterosexual) difference is effectively risk/reward. Men assume virtually no risk, whereas women assume a much larger risk. Thus, for a male to convince a female to engage risks in order to give the man what he desires is a success for the male, thus resulting in honor. The woman, OTOH, has thrown caution to the wind and taken risks that can have some pretty serious consequences.


As for homosexual sex, like it or not, our culture still recognizes the importance of sex in procreation and sustaining population. Granted that this recognition has been reduced as time goes along. Unfortunately, such a reduction, if unchecked, ultimately leads to the end of that culture, which is what Europe is experiencing presently. (Birth rates among European women are as low as 1.2 births/woman, with 2.1 being sustaining population.)

Anywho, because homosexual sex is incapable of procreation, it is viewed negatively. Lesbians have appeal in the porno industry because men are primarily sexually stimulated by the senses, and lesbian sex involves two women.

The same logic applies to intergender relations.


So, yeah, heterosexual males "come out on top" (no pun intended), because there is little cultural expectation of them. If they father a child, the mother has to determine who the father is, and go to court to make him pay. Of course, abortion remains an expectation, which helps them, as well.

Thus, their role in procreation is clear, although they seem to have many avenues to escape further responsibility in this sense.

Does it make sense entirely? No. We're still in a transition from the cultural view of sex having a procreation aspect, and "honor" being doled out on that basis to one where all sex is good sex, and the disappearance of our culture altogether.

[Marlowe221]

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Are you saying that in the rosy-colored past, when paternity tests were not cheap and easy (or didn't even exist at all) that heterosexual men had MORE at stake? Wouldn't they have had even less risk in the days before modern medical technology?

[Storm]

TMM, abortion is not the only form of birth control available. It was the Pill that really allowed for the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.

In other cultures, gay porn aimed at women (like lesbian pron aimed at men) is popular. So goes your theory that men are just more sexual.

Countries with higher income have less children than poor countries because children in rich countries are less likely to die during childhood. Further, richer countries are usually richer because the jobs are of a higher technical nature - which requires more education and resources. Which means it's more expensive to raise a child than a poorer country. Which means richer countries have less children than poor countries. Then, of course, there is the greater availability of birth control in richer countries. Not because a significant amount of people are entering into same-sex relationships.

[larkin]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?

Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor.
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.
With one small & (frequently) revocable ceremony, sex becomes acceptable, though is considered less desirable than the premarital kind. Subsequent sex (or lack thereof) does not affect honor or value: it is suddenly invisible.
Homosexual sex, for one gender, decreases their honor and value.
Homosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor and value but is greatly desired and fantasised about by heterosexual members of the opposite gender.
Sex by any intergender persons of any sort decreases honor and value.
It seems to me that this is a way to keep heterosexual males on top, if you will forgive the pun. But it's proven to be problematic in that the rest of the population -- the majority -- does not find this little setup to be to their advantage and now the whole thing is being sold and bought, rethought, and fought. And the heterosexual males who insist on it are rather frequently not getting the sex they want.

I don't get it. Who benefits?

Please assume all standard definitions of 'honor' and 'value'.

I suppose my first thought here is that the words "honor" and "value" really have much more to do with communal definitions of gender roles that are yes, changing, than they do with sex itself. (That is not a value judgment on the fact that they're changing - as is always the case with change, some changes are good, some are not so good and have unintended consequences, but all are usually inevitable.) Why does it seem like men come out on top? Because they're the ones who assigned the roles.

For example, in sex before marriage: traditionally the gender roles have been that the male has been the pursuer and the woman is pursued; whatever you think of those roles, reward is assigned accordingly. That is, the pursuer is perceived to be successful with the highest number and the pursued is successful with the lowest. It's actually pretty straightforward.

Of course, I think those roles can be rather silly - most women I know have been both pursuers and pursued. Still they prefer generally the role of pursued, and that's fine, like most choices regarding gender roles I think the more choice the better. I know many disagree, but I would still rather have the choice to depart from the traditional gender role as needed. And now that the definitions have been challenged heterosexual men are becoming more aware of the ways the role they defined for themselves are limiting, too.

I tabled others listed because it's too much to unpack in one post. But an aside: one play that describes all of this very well is Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Many think of it as not his best comedy, but I thought the analysis of what happens with gender roles in relationships at a variety of levels (Helena has sex before marriage, Hermia chooses not to; Hippolyta is about to be married, Titania is in a marriage after children) was probably as close to an across-the-board picture of gender roles throughout life - and an indictment of society's judgment on women who "give it up", or really, lose - as any before or since.

[Billy]

honor, meh... who cares what other people think if something makes you happy? too many people place emphasis on honor aka what other people think about them, its absurd.

[larkin]

So, yeah, heterosexual males "come out on top" (no pun intended), because there is little cultural expectation of them. If they father a child, the mother has to determine who the father is, and go to court to make him pay.

In many ways, you and I said the same thing - women who have sex before marriage are perceived of as "losing", and in many ways that's the reality - with pretty dramatically different conclusions.

Your conclusion for women - accept these rules and roles for what they are, don't have sex before marriage, don't lose. My conclusion - fuck those rules. Accept what you choose to about the roles, take sensible precautions for the real risks involved, stop thinking that your sexuality should be governed by anyone but yourself.

[themuzicman]

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Are you saying that in the rosy-colored past, when paternity tests were not cheap and easy (or didn't even exist at all) that heterosexual men had MORE at stake? Wouldn't they have had even less risk in the days before modern medical technology?

Abortion has pretty much changed all that. It is almost expected of a woman who is unmarried and pregnant.

[JustMel]

Abortion has pretty much changed all that. It is almost expected of a woman who is unmarried and pregnant.

Bullshit. Far more women have the children and raise them as single parents than have abortions.

This is just one more attempt to turn yet another debate about sex and how it's viewed into an abortion debate.

[themuzicman]

TMM, abortion is not the only form of birth control available. It was the Pill that really allowed for the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.

Yes, it with abortion reduced the risk for women such that they really had no good reason to say no.

In other cultures, gay porn aimed at women (like lesbian pron aimed at men) is popular. So goes your theory that men are just more sexual.

Never said that. I said that they were stimulated more by the senses.

Countries with higher income have less children than poor countries because children in rich countries are less likely to die during childhood. Further, richer countries are usually richer because the jobs are of a higher technical nature - which requires more education and resources. Which means it's more expensive to raise a child than a poorer country. Which means richer countries have less children than poor countries. Then, of course, there is the greater availability of birth control in richer countries. Not because a significant amount of people are entering into same-sex relationships.

In general, that's true (although saying that countries become rich, and then can't afford education is a bit silly), but that doesn't change the perception of sex as procreative.

---------- Post added 05-04-2010 at 01:56 PM ----------

Bullshit. Far more women have the children and raise them as single parents than have abortions.

This is just one more attempt to turn yet another debate about sex and how it's viewed into an abortion debate.

I didn't say it actually happened that way. It is simply a perception change that reduced the risks for women.

---------- Post added 05-04-2010 at 01:58 PM ----------

In many ways, you and I said the same thing - women who have sex before marriage are perceived of as "losing", and in many ways that's the reality - with pretty dramatically different conclusions.

Your conclusion for women - accept these rules and roles for what they are, don't have sex before marriage, don't lose. My conclusion - fuck those rules. Accept what you choose to about the roles, take sensible precautions for the real risks involved, stop thinking that your sexuality should be governed by anyone but yourself.

If men and women made rational decisions about sex every time, this might work. But they don't. That's why we have an ongoing STD problem, an ongoing single motherhood problem, and (IMO) a high divorce rate.

[runoverazebra]

Abortion has pretty much changed all that. It is almost expected of a woman who is unmarried and pregnant.

That's a very offensive statement. More women choose to have a baby than terminate it. You may see it as an expectation, but there are many outspoken pro-choice advocates that would argue otherwise. Additionally, many pro-choice women choose to have their child and raise it. This expectation may exist in your own head, but doesn't actually exist to most people.

[Zsych]

@plotthickens: I don't think its intended to be to the benefit of heterosexual males. I think it was a natural consequence of being the human animal (for the most part).

Lets say lions. A new pack leader kills the old one to take power. The new leader even kills the cubs of the previous one, insuring his own line continues over that of the previous one. That you see - is a system. A system that has been stable for a long time. Issues of what people feel is right or wrong and concepts of gender equality and the value of life, are for example not necessarily meaningful in the way we may want to think in the animal world.

I think humans can be taught to act in ways that violate our instincts and basic nature. Nevertheless, there is probably a natural range of how humans are supposed to feel about a lot of these things normally - because like lions - we too are animals, and we are products of not necessarily a great system, but a system that used to work in a fairly stable fashion... That is why we're alive after all.

[themuzicman]

That's a very offensive statement. More women choose to have a baby than terminate it. You may see it as an expectation, but there are many outspoken pro-choice advocates that would argue otherwise. Additionally, many pro-choice women choose to have their child and raise it. This expectation may exist in your own head, but doesn't actually exist to most people.

As I said before, the expectation isn't often realized when the time comes to abort. It may not even be rationally understood.

But it exists, and along with birth control contributed greatly to the sexual revolution.

(FYI, last I saw, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 pregnancies are aborted in the US)

[gps]

I don't get it. Who benefits?

Please assume all standard definitions of 'honor' and 'value'.

Robert Persig dealt with this issue in `Lila: An Inquiry into Morals (1991)'

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Persig attempted to address the issue by the distinction between `static' and `dynamic' forms of `quality'.

For me the premise of `standard definitions' applied to such abstractions as `honor' and `value' ARE-personally absurd.
What I value and honor ARE personal -- not `standard' or statistically normal.

The sociolinguistic phenomena resulting in individuals `acting as if' do come in handy for measuring the deltas and differentials between stereotypical semantics and actual individual semantics/meaning.

[runoverazebra]

As I said before, the expectation isn't often realized when the time comes to abort. It may not even be rationally understood.

But it exists, and along with birth control contributed greatly to the sexual revolution.

(FYI, last I saw, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 pregnancies are aborted in the US)

If the expectation isn't realized when it comes time to abort, when goes it? By others whose opinions don't matter on the pregnancy in question?

If the statistic you cite is true, it means that at minimum 67% of pregnancies are kept, which tilts the argument in my favor.

[themuzicman]

If the expectation isn't realized when it comes time to abort, when goes it? By others whose opinions don't matter on the pregnancy in question?

Remember that the vast majority of women aren't INT, but rather are ExFx. They are concerned with what their society thinks, especially those around them.

If the statistic you cite is true, it means that at minimum 67% of pregnancies are kept, which tilts the argument in my favor.

In 2009, 1.7m out of 4.3m births were to married folks. So, around 3/5s of births are to married women, leaving around 2/5s of the 67%, or 25%. That means that 33% of pregnancies are aborted, and only 25% are to single women. That argues in my favor. (This assumes, of course, that all single motherhood pregnancies are unexpected.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[runoverazebra]

Remember that the vast majority of women aren't INT, but rather are ExFx. They are concerned with what their society thinks, especially those around them.

I can actually cite several examples of ExFx women that have kept their pregnancies, but I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much. At same time, it seems that you are basing your opinion on anecdotal evidence rather than reality.

However, you have yet to prove that society actually has the expectation that you claim. It seem to me that society is actually much more tolerant of single mothers than you seem to believe.

In 2009, 1.7m out of 4.3m births were to married folks. So, around 3/5s of births are to married women, leaving around 2/5s of the 67%, or 25%. That means that 33% of pregnancies are aborted, and only 25% are to single women. That argues in my favor.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The very article you cite claims that births to unwed mothers is on the rise. The expectation of abortion is not as prevalent as you claim.

Are you trying to argue that of the aborted pregnancies, they all belong to single women?

[themuzicman]

I can actually cite several examples of ExFx women that have kept their pregnancies, but I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much. At same time, it seems that you are basing your opinion on anecdotal evidence rather than reality.

If I were making a point about ExFX and pregnancy, you might have said something, but I wasn't. I was talking about the importance of social acceptance to ExFx, which I think you'll find hard to dispute.

However, you have yet to prove that society actually has the expectation that you claim. It seem to me that society is actually much more tolerant of single mothers than you seem to believe.

They are tolerant. But it still isn't considered honorable. You'll recall in the OP that it was about honorable or dishonorable.

The very article you cite claims that births to unwed mothers is on the rise. The expectation of abortion is not as prevalent as you claim.

They article said nothing about abortions. From the tenor of the article, my sense is that the rise in births is at the expense of children born in marriages, not at the expense of abortions.

Are you trying to argue that of the aborted pregnancies, they all belong to single women?

LOL.. You get toasted on a point, and then you try to shift the focus away from your failure? Nice try, but no.

[larkin]

If men and women made rational decisions about sex every time, this might work. But they don't. That's why we have an ongoing STD problem, an ongoing single motherhood problem, and (IMO) a high divorce rate.

What difference does it make what decisions other people make? Make your own rational decisions about sex.

As for the rest: I don't see the link between sex before marriage and a divorce rate, and I doubt it exists; I don't consider single motherhood to be, by default, a "problem"; and the risk for STDs can be mitigated with the appropriate precautions. Or, by becoming a lesbian, although I doubt that was the policy prescription you were looking for.

[Trevor Black]

Good luck finding answers. The subject of sexuality is so difficult that only a few decades ago they coined a new scientific discipline called sexology (a mixture of sociology, psychology, anthropology...) that attempts to answer them.

[larkin]

Remember that the vast majority of women aren't INT, but rather are ExFx. They are concerned with what their society thinks, especially those around them.

Seems like you're projecting here - you're the one who seems overly concerned about what society thinks. You couch it in terms of concern for women on an individual level, which I've no doubt you also have, but society is clearly a concern for you too:

We're still in a transition from the cultural view of sex having a procreation aspect, and "honor" being doled out on that basis to one where all sex is good sex, and the disappearance of our culture altogether.

When it comes to my decisions about sex, I promise you I could give a fuck, so to speak, about what other people think is the "disappearance of our culture." Even though I somewhat regularly test as an ExFx.

[runoverazebra]

If I were making a point about ExFX and pregnancy, you might have said something, but I wasn't. I was talking about the importance of social acceptance to ExFx, which I think you'll find hard to dispute.

If this so called expectation actually exists, then the issue of social acceptance would matter. I grant you that. You can't argue that social acceptance is important, and then say that such acceptance doesn't apply in the situation of pregnancy. Clearly, such an expectation would matter on the issue of pregnancy/abortion. You have still yet to prove that the expectation exists.

They are tolerant. But it still isn't considered honorable. You'll recall in the OP that it was about honorable or dishonorable.

I think that many people would argue that abortion is dishonorable, but they tolerate it.

I do recall that the OP was asking about honorable vs. dishonorable, however you brought up the claim that there is an expectation for women to abort pregnancies in the case that they are unwed. This has nothing to do with honor.

They article said nothing about abortions. From the tenor of the article, my sense is that the rise in births is at the expense of children born in marriages, not at the expense of abortions.

That may be the tenor of the article, but you can't ignore that it states births to unwed mothers are on the rise. It seems to imply the opposite of this expectation to abort that you claim is prevalent.

LOL.. You get toasted on a point, and then you try to shift the focus away from your failure? Nice try, but no.

It was actually requesting a clarification on your argument. I'm glad that you're so willing to clarify.

[Storm]

In general, that's true (although saying that countries become rich, and then can't afford education is a bit silly), but that doesn't change the perception of sex as procreative.

I didn't say that people can't afford education, it's more expensive, so you have less kids. And, yes, actually it does. You said that it's important for people to be in heterosexual relationships because otherwise the population drops. Actually, population drops for other reasons. Hence, you are wrong about the importance of demonizing and prohibiting same-sex relationships.

[Distance]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?

Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor.
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.
With one small & (frequently) revocable ceremony, sex becomes acceptable, though is considered less desirable than the premarital kind. Subsequent sex (or lack thereof) does not affect honor or value: it is suddenly invisible.
Homosexual sex, for one gender, decreases their honor and value.
Homosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor and value but is greatly desired and fantasised about by heterosexual members of the opposite gender.
Sex by any intergender persons of any sort decreases honor and value.
It seems to me that this is a way to keep heterosexual males on top, if you will forgive the pun. But it's proven to be problematic in that the rest of the population -- the majority -- does not find this little setup to be to their advantage and now the whole thing is being sold and bought, rethought, and fought. And the heterosexual males who insist on it are rather frequently not getting the sex they want.

I don't get it. Who benefits?

Please assume all standard definitions of 'honor' and 'value'.This is a fantastic breakdown and cracks me up!! Nicely done.

What I can't understand the most, is why sex is tied into ego. Unbind that component and the rest falls into place.

[JustMel]

Remember that the vast majority of women aren't INT, but rather are ExFx. They are concerned with what their society thinks, especially those around them.



In 2009, 1.7m out of 4.3m births were to married folks. So, around 3/5s of births are to married women, leaving around 2/5s of the 67%, or 25%. That means that 33% of pregnancies are aborted, and only 25% are to single women. That argues in my favor. (This assumes, of course, that all single motherhood pregnancies are unexpected.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But it doesn't count the number of women who are living with but not legally married to their child's father. Therefore they aren't really single mothers. Furthermore the assumption that all births to an unmarried mother are unplanned. That is not true in the least. People plan and do have children before they get married.

[ZincLysine]

Sex should be for straight people that love each other enough that they are married and it is the natural consequence of their actions.

[JustMel]

Sex should be for straight people that love each other enough that they are married and it is the natural consequence of their actions.

This reasoning never ceases to amaze me. Sex is ENJOYABLE and a good way to relieve stress but you think it should be reserved for marriage. For yourself perhaps. For people who disagree it's none of your business nor is it anyone's business if the woman down the street is fucking a different guy morning, noon and night provided she's not asking you to join her. Nor is it your place or anyone's to judge whether a relationship between same sex couples is "appropriate".

I don't see same sex couples looking at heterosexual couples and saying "That's disgusting" and I've seen some disgusting heterosexual couples.

We who are heterosexual seem to think we have the right to tell everyone else who it's okay to have sex with and who it's okay to love but we don't.

People should spend more time worrying about their own lives or lack of instead of the lives of others who are not their concern. And before someone throws out the old Christian comment about god being concerned with every soul--- you can save it. Not interested in anymore hypocrisy than I've already read today.

[Valiyn]

Sex should be for straight people

Nobody in wheelchairs then? Oh, you mean heterosexual people? Stop the gender discrimination that males must like females and females must like males because it's unnatural for heterosexual relationships to be the only kind. Infact, homosexual relationships make up of 10% of known mammal relationships (-/+ an average of 3% or less).

that love each other enough that they are married But what about those who can't get married? Say those with De la Chapelle syndrome ((XX Male) and Swyer syndrome (XY Females)? XY females, because homosexual marriages are not allowed, can only marry XX females (That's right folks, some people in the US can only have a valid marriage if it's homosexual because homosexual marriages are illegal). Homosexuals can't get married because people are too primitive to get past their beliefs it will somehow destroy heterosexual marriages (that fail 50% of the time no less anyway! - actually, homosexual couples have a higher rate of stability with their domestic partnerships). And some cultures even don't have marriages and don't get married when immigrating to a country where it's the norm. Well fuck them for being different, no marriage, no sex! And of course divorce is such a tricky issue, why bother going for the title of marriage anyway if it wasn't for the benefits provided to the first class citizens who are worthy of that kind of love? Maybe we could atleast get some of those Roman marriages (and maybe Roman orgies while we're at it) in here too. Some temporary marriages would do us all some good and lowers the divorce rate considerably.

and it is the natural consequence of their actions.Sex is the natural consequence of any 2 or more lifeforms that are in love or want to pass on their genes to the next generation.

[TheBlackKnight]

This whole discussion (and JustMel's avatar) remind me of wolves. All wolves have the urge to mate; the alpha pair is the only one societally allowed to do so, and will physically stop the others from mating.

In the US, heterosexual males are the alphas. Everyone else can go screw themselves. But not literally.

[Storm]

This whole discussion (and JustMel's avatar) remind me of wolves. All wolves have the urge to mate; the alpha pair is the only one societally allowed to do so, and will physically stop the others from mating.

In the US, heterosexual males are the alphas. Everyone else can go screw themselves. But not literally.

People are not pack animals, we are social animals. Comparisons to how pack animals work are misplaced. Actually, justifications for human interactions by looking at other species is almost wholly misplaced regardless, but you could at least compare animals that are somewhat similar.

[ZincLysine]

This reasoning

......And before someone throws out the old Christian comment about god being concerned with every soul--- you can save it. Not interested in anymore hypocrisy than I've already read today.

I say what I do because I have reasoned it through with thought and drawn my own conclusions. For one thing, I am not Christian.

Its nice to know you respect the opinions of people that agree with your view regardless of whether those people have tought and built their own conclusions.

I say what I say because I know it to be right. You are free to choose your own path, but be respectful of other views.

......

Sex is the natural consequence of any 2 or more lifeforms that are in love or want to pass on their genes to the next generation.

My internal values system and my thought process led me to conclude that while both the above can occur, one is simply more advantageous. Hence, I gave my complete definition in regard to the matter.

[Distance]

People are not pack animals, we are social animals. Comparisons to how pack animals work are misplaced. Actually, justifications for human interactions by looking at other species is almost wholly misplaced regardless, but you could at least compare animals that are somewhat similar.Surprisingly, wolves are similar to human beings. They have a complex social structure, as well as complex forms of communications.

Within a pack, each animal has its place in the hierarchy. This includes roles like peacemaker, enforcer (which isn't the alpha male or female), alphas, etc.

[JustMel]

I say what I do because I have reasoned it through with thought and drawn my own conclusions. For one thing, I am not Christian.

Its nice to know you respect the opinions of people that agree with your view regardless of whether those people have tought and built their own conclusions.

I say what I say because I know it to be right. You are free to choose your own path, but be respectful of other views.



My internal values system and my thought process led me to conclude that while both the above can occur, one is simply more advantageous. Hence, I gave my complete definition in regard to the matter.

I'd be respectful of the views if they weren't based on the premise of subjugating the choices of others.

[plotthickens]

Surprisingly, wolves are similar to human beings. They have a complex social structure, as well as complex forms of communications.

Within a pack, each animal has its place in the hierarchy. This includes roles like peacemaker, enforcer (which isn't the alpha male or female), alphas, etc.

Chickens also have pack hierarchy and enforce peace -- even between other species. You may want to look at African Wild Dogs. They have more empathatic social structures that we understand better than the more common wolf.

I don't think chickens, wolves, or african wild dogs have much space in this discussion. Perhaps bonobos or orangs?

[ZincLysine]

Choice alone is worthless. It must be backed by values and reasoning. Yours just differ from mine in this instance. Far from anything major.

[Storm]

Surprisingly, wolves are similar to human beings. They have a complex social structure, as well as complex forms of communications.

Within a pack, each animal has its place in the hierarchy. This includes roles like peacemaker, enforcer (which isn't the alpha male or female), alphas, etc.

Wolves live in nuclear families. The "alpha wolves" are actually the parents. The children do not reproduce with each other, but stay on to help raise the pups born the year after them. They then leave to form their own pack. The "alpha wolf" and "beta wolf" thing is a phenomenon found mainly in captivity. The idea of roles is found in literature, not reality.

Again, humans are social animals and live in a much more complex structure than wolves. Nor do humans have a clearly define hierarchy or role. Only in literature and myth is life so simple.

[Distance]

Wolves live in nuclear families. The "alpha wolves" are actually the parents. The children do not reproduce with each other, but stay on to help raise the pups born the year after them. They then leave to form their own pack. The "alpha wolf" and "beta wolf" thing is a phenomenon found mainly in captivity. The idea of roles is found in literature, not reality.

Again, humans are social animals and live in a much more complex structure than wolves. Nor do humans have a clearly define hierarchy or role. Only in literature and myth is life so simple.Watch the documentary called "Living with Wolves" by Jim and Jamie Dutcher.

[JustMel]

Choice alone is worthless. It must be backed by values and reasoning. Yours just differ from mine in this instance. Far from anything major.

I disagree. You feel that choice alone is worthless yet choice is what makes the world go 'round. Everyday choices are what decide how a person acts, believes, lives etc. Without choices we would exist not live.

[Storm]

Watch the documentary called "Living with Wolves" by Jim and Jamie Dutcher.

Are you denying that wolves live in nuclear families?

At any rate, the social structure of people is much more complicated than that of wolves. I wouldn't be justifying human interactions on that of another species.

[Distance]

Are you denying that wolves live in nuclear families?

At any rate, the social structure of people is much more complicated than that of wolves. I wouldn't be justifying human interactions on that of another species.I'm denying that all wolves live in nuclear families. Regardless of nuclear families, the alpha pair aren't always the parents and the children aren't the only wolves who live within every pack. And I'm most vehemently denying that hierarchy/social structure doesn't exist in wolf packs.

I don't disagree that human interactions are different than wolves but not as different as you might think. Biologically, we're all geared towards reproduction and food supply.

[ZincLysine]

I disagree. You feel that choice alone is worthless yet choice is what makes the world go 'round. Everyday choices are what decide how a person acts, believes, lives etc. Without choices we would exist not live.

And a person comes to decisions regarding those choices based on their values and constraints. So those aren't blind random choice. Of those choices, the majority have little signficance too.

[Storm]

I'm denying that all wolves live in nuclear families. Regardless of nuclear families, the alpha pair aren't always the parents and the children aren't the only wolves who live within every pack. And I'm most vehemently denying that hierarchy/social structure doesn't exist in wolf packs.

I don't disagree that human interactions are different than wolves but not as different as you might think. Biologically, we're all geared towards reproduction and food supply.

Then you misunderstand what I'm saying. First, wolves do mainly live in families from what I've read - but that's irrelevant to the point. Wolves do not live in anything nearing the social complexity of humans. They live in separate packs which do not interact socially with other packs. They constantly fight for positions in their pack, and most wolf packs are just a parent with their pups (most wolf packs are only about 8 wolves). Unlike people, who have many roles and interact with other "packs" globally. We form complex societies involving hundreds and even millions of people. We have varied social "roles" that change upon who we're interacting with. We have a large variety in our family structure and how those families are run.

To say that because wolves are one way justifies any sort of human arrangement, and to say that straight males are the "alpha" for all of humanity and therefore you should shut up and accept is, frankly, laughably simple. It denies the reality of the world, its great variance of human social structure even within the same culture, and is just a thinly veiled rationalization of how some people wish the world was ran.

[Distance]

Then you misunderstand what I'm saying. First, wolves do mainly live in families from what I've read - but that's irrelevant to the point. Wolves do not live in anything nearing the social complexity of humans. They live in separate packs which do not interact socially with other packs. They constantly fight for positions in their pack, and most wolf packs are just a parent with their pups (most wolf packs are only about 8 wolves). Unlike people, who have many roles and interact with other "packs" globally. We form complex societies involving hundreds and even millions of people. We have varied social "roles" that change upon who we're interacting with. We have a large variety in our family structure and how those families are run.

To say that because wolves are one way justifies any sort of human arrangement, and to say that straight males are the "alpha" for all of humanity and therefore you should shut up and accept is, frankly, laughably simple. It denies the reality of the world, its great variance of human social structure even within the same culture, and is just a thinly veiled rationalization of how some people wish the world was ran.The wolf population was deliberately decimated by human beings from over 2 million, down to approximately 200,000 throughout the world, all within very recent history. Who knows what would have happened had their population been allowed to naturally expand.

As it stands, wolves are territorial just like humans. They maintain their territory through different types of howls and marking their territory, to reduce physical conflict, as well as enforcing their territory through physical force. This is similar to humans. We use fences, laws and if necessary, enforce through physical force.

Whether or not their societal actions can be applied to human actions is debatable, although as a one to one direct comparison, both species are at different levels of development so in this, we do agree to a degree. But I think we can learn something about ourselves by studying animals like wolves, gorillas, chimpanzees and other animals who have social hierarchies.

[Storm]

When learning about people, I prefer to study people. Just as when I wish to learn about the elephant, I do not study the giraffe. Just because wolves may or may not have alphas does not mean that humans have an equivalent.

And it's still a poor justification for why heterosexual males should get to call the shots. Surely, that's not what you're arguing? Because that was the original point that someone brought up about wolves.

[Tough Love]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?
[LIST]
Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor. - in the eyes of men
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.
- in the eyes of men

I have never once looked down on a girlfriend for acting promiscuous, and vice versa. It is men who value a woman by how little she has 'been around'.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------

One interesting bit. It's more and more common to see woman being excited by male homosexual. Or the idea of two men making love. Especially in Japan with a whole litterature on it that is mostly made by woman, for woman. It does mostly center around the emotion surrouding sex, but some of them are still pretty graphic.

Two men having sex is a turn on for me. The expressions on their faces are so much hotter than straight porn.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 05:02 PM ----------



(FYI, last I saw, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 pregnancies are aborted in the US)

There is more than one reason to abort. Premarital sex not being exclusive.

[Distance]

Chickens also have pack hierarchy and enforce peace -- even between other species. You may want to look at African Wild Dogs. They have more empathatic social structures that we understand better than the more common wolf.

I don't think chickens, wolves, or african wild dogs have much space in this discussion. Perhaps bonobos or orangs?I don't any have any knowledge about chickens or African Wild Dogs so I can't agree or disagree.

For certain we can learn something by studying Bonobos and Orangutans. But I wouldn't discount studying non-apes for clues to human interaction, including sexual interaction.

When learning about people, I prefer to study people. Just as when I wish to learn about the elephant, I do not study the giraffe. Just because wolves may or may not have alphas does not mean that humans have an equivalent.

And it's still a poor justification for why heterosexual males should get to call the shots. Surely, that's not what you're arguing? Because that was the original point that someone brought up about wolves.That's your preference and one I can respect. But it's not my preference and potentially others, so this is something you should respect.

I wasn't rebutting your rebuttal of the other member's usage, although I'm not so quick to discount some relationship, rather keeping an open mind to the possibility. That part of the debate is between yourself and the other member. My intent was to qualify that there are similarities between humans and wolves, through social structure and IMO, we as humans beings can learn much from studying all kinds of animal forms to understand our own development and behaviours.

[themuzicman]

But it doesn't count the number of women who are living with but not legally married to their child's father. Therefore they aren't really single mothers. Furthermore the assumption that all births to an unmarried mother are unplanned. That is not true in the least. People plan and do have children before they get married.

Which only pushes numbers further in my favor.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 01:20 PM ----------


There is more than one reason to abort. Premarital sex not being exclusive.

And what percentage of abortions don't fall into this category?

(Hint: rape, incest and Life of mother combine for around 5%)

[Marcus Septim]

As complicated as you make it,im complicated enough i think ^^

[Tough Love]

Fetal complications, mental health of the parents. All I'm saying is that if abortion were not legal, we'de go back to the days of illegal abortions and women throwing themselves down staircases.. Enough said.

[Storm]

That's your preference and one I can respect. But it's not my prefererce and potentially others, so this is something you should respect.

Justifying human interaction or determining how human interaction should be by looking at other species is not a "preference" it's a weird kind of illogical rationalization. Birds build nest, why don't we? You can justify as you like, but I still think it's a rather silly thing to do.

I wasn't rebutting your rebuttal of the other member's usage, although I'm not so quick to discount some relationship, rather keeping an open mind to the possibility. That part of the debate is between yourself and the other member. My intent was to qualify that there are similarities between humans and wolves, through social structure and IMO, we as humans beings can learn much from studying all kinds of animal forms to understand our own development and behaviours.

Sure, there are similarities between humans and wolves. I wasn't denying that. I think we can learn about how we are related to other animals or evolved from other animals by studying them, but I don't think we can say "Because wolves live in packs, we must live in packs, too" as much as we could say "Because monkeys live in trees, we must live in trees, too."

[pip]

And since when can an obsolete religious ceremony with no logical meaning or value be used as a benchmark for anything?

Let anyone screw whoever the hell they want.
Let anyone who does and doesn't want a child get rid of it.
Pushing your values on anyone else in the name of morality or right says more about you than it does about the 'problems' you decry.

Please proceed outside forthwith, and have a word with yourself.

[Antares]

Sex only becomes complicated when it involves children and disease. Otherwise, it amuses me greatly to see all the fuss about premarital sex, especially in the context that no children or disease is involved. Apparently, according to my ex boyfriend, I ought to be ashamed of myself for snogging a guy shortly after I broke up with him. And that's not even fucking. People are funny that way.

[Blse]

I don't understand the current basic Western philosophies of value around the act of sex. Can someone explain it to me?

Premarital heterosexual sex, for one gender, increases their honor.
Premarital heterosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor.



Sex drive exists to ensure the survival of the species. That is most efficiently done if males fertilize as many females as possible. It only takes 1 male but several females to produce dozens of kids.

Society wants to perpetuate its existence and thus needs to ensure a growing (or at least stable) population with as many strong genes as possible. Thus, it stands to profit from perpetuating the dynamics established by evolutionary biology.

Oh please, we're way past this primitive biology! Not quite. Modern society is more monogamous and less acceptant of male sexual promiscuity. Yet, if mating was a rational process we would have romantic resumes and interview (like we do for the rationally organized job market). Let's face it, romantic attraction, sex and dating are irrational processes governed by primeval emotions.



With one small & (frequently) revocable ceremony, sex becomes acceptable, though is considered less desirable than the premarital kind. Subsequent sex (or lack thereof) does not affect honor or value: it is suddenly invisible.



Western society is technologically sophisticated, requiring more and more socialization and education. This in turn requires parental support which is promoted by monogamy.

Furthermore, marriage was not supposed to be reversible, it has become so because of modernity (which I, personally, think is good - note that I necessarily support the way things are but am just explaining them).



Homosexual sex, for one gender, decreases their honor and value.
Homosexual sex, for another gender, decreases their honor and value but is greatly desired and fantasised about by heterosexual members of the opposite gender.



Men are, by virtue of their physiological and psychological nature, more visual than women. That's why the vast majority of porn, strip-clubs and brothels cater to men, not women. As a matter of fact we know that there are substantial differences in eye sight between the genders and the way visual information is interpreted by the brain (women's brain halves are connected differently than those of men).



Sex by any intergender persons of any sort decreases honor and value.



Society wants to ensure its continued existence so it stigmatizes behavior that does not lead to people passing on their genes.


It seems to me that this is a way to keep heterosexual males on top, if you will forgive the pun. But it's proven to be problematic in that the rest of the population -- the majority -- does not find this little setup to be to their advantage and now the whole thing is being sold and bought, rethought, and fought. And the heterosexual males who insist on it are rather frequently not getting the sex they want.

How does this set-up favor straight guys if they end up not getting what they want?

[themuzicman]

Fetal complications, mental health of the parents. All I'm saying is that if abortion were not legal, we'de go back to the days of illegal abortions and women throwing themselves down staircases.. Enough said.

lol.. The fantasy days of lore.... which never really existed.

[Merak]

Simple: It does involve whether you are female or male or at an arbitrary number of dates or any of the other stuff.

Clean: Marriage is a clear defining point. No murky wondering whether this relationship has gone far enough.

Healthy:Monogamy is the best way to eliminate STDs and still continue the human race.

Effective: Maintains sex's purposes of pleasure, procreation, relationship and connection.

Figured you could intuit all that.

Assuming you are using the word "marriage" to be synonymous with monogamy, what happens when people marry for wrong reasons? Do they divorce, or stay together in disharmony? If they do divorce, do they lose out on sex there on after? Every "marriage" after the first increases the chance for your healthy reason. If no other marriage or sex after the first, then it destroys your reasoning for effective.

The problem is not sex, but drawing up specific rules for everyone to adhere to, which is never simple. This is the same reason why there is much argument over politics/government, as it is trying to draw up rules on how to run and live in a country/society.

[themuzicman]

Assuming you are using the word "marriage" to be synonymous with monogamy, what happens when people marry for wrong reasons? Do they divorce, or stay together in disharmony? If they do divorce, do they lose out on sex there on after? Every "marriage" after the first increases the chance for your healthy reason. If no other marriage or sex after the first, then it destroys your reasoning for effective.

The problem is not sex, but drawing up specific rules for everyone to adhere to, which is never simple. This is the same reason why there is much argument over politics/government, as it is trying to draw up rules on how to run and live in a country/society.

Having a particular cultural standard doesn't mean that it is adhered to 100%. But, as a culture adheres to good standards, it becomes healthier.

[Merak]

Having a particular cultural standard doesn't mean that it is adhered to 100%. But, as a culture adheres to good standards, it becomes healthier.

Who decides what is good standards? Whatever helps the species prosper? What if those standards negatively effect other species or the environment? How about groupthink or brainwashing? What about clashing cultures? If said standards help both thrive, which one is the correct one?

[themuzicman]

Who decides what is good standards? Whatever helps the species prosper? What if those standards negatively effect other species or the environment? How about groupthink or brainwashing? What about clashing cultures? If said standards help both thrive, which one is the correct one?

I think you could use some good sociology classes.

[GrnEyz]

Sex drive exists to ensure the survival of the species. That is most efficiently done if males fertilize as many females as possible. It only takes 1 male but several females to produce dozens of kids.

Society wants to perpetuate its existence and thus needs to ensure a growing (or at least stable) population with as many strong genes as possible. Thus, it stands to profit from perpetuating the dynamics established by evolutionary biology.

Oh please, we're way past this primitive biology! Not quite. Modern society is more monogamous and less acceptant of male sexual promiscuity. Yet, if mating was a rational process we would have romantic resumes and interview (like we do for the rationally organized job market). Let's face it, romantic attraction, sex and dating are irrational processes governed by primeval emotions.



Prior to modern society, the dominant male mated with several different females for two reasons... 1) The dominant male defeated and dismissed all of the other males... 2) The females preferred to mate with the dominant male.

Modern society has done away with fighting for the right to mate and God only knows what thought process is used by modern females.

[Merak]

I think you could use some good sociology classes.

This perhaps is true. If I have the time and interest, I may do so in the future. But since I lack the knowledge, help me out.

Even with my obvious lack of knowledge on sociology, it would seem to me that it is still quite a complex issue, even under the traditional rules of monogamy and marriage. Am I mistakened?

[themuzicman]

Not really.

Sex in the context of marriage: Honorable.
Sex outside the context of marriage: Dishonorable.

What's complex about that?

[Tough Love]

Prior to modern society, the dominant male mated with several different females for two reasons... 1) The dominant male defeated and dismissed all of the other males... 2) The females preferred to mate with the dominant male.


So if this is true, the only real 'losers' in this equation are submissive males.

[Merak]

So how about the following example:

Man and women get married. Man becomes abusive and forcefully takes sex in a violent manner.

Man has sex with many women, but treats all with respect.

So by societies standards, the first man lives an honorable life as far as sex is concerned, but the second man is dishonored? These would fall under good standards?

Yes, true, the man in the first scenario is technically dishonored by his actions, not by the act of sex itself. The whole issue still seems complex to me.

How about a woman who marries three times over the course of two decades, compared to a woman who marries and has sex with three different men within a matter of weeks. Is the first honorable, simply because the span of time?

How about if someone marries several times throughout their life compared to someone who has one monogomous partner? The second fits your description of simple more than the first, but still falls under dishonored.

I just cannot understand how one can even attempt to draw up a simple general rule, when all the pieces vary so greatly amonst cultures, individuals, and time spans.

[themuzicman]

So how about the following example:

Man and women get married. Man becomes abusive and forcefully takes sex in a violent manner.

Man has sex with many women, but treats all with respect.

So by societies standards, the first man lives an honorable life as far as sex is concerned, but the second man is dishonored? These would fall under good standards?

Yes, true, the man in the first scenario is technically dishonored by his actions, not by the act of sex itself. The whole issue still seems complex to me.

How about a woman who marries three times over the course of two decades, compared to a woman who marries and has sex with three different men within a matter of weeks. Is the first honorable, simply because the span of time?

How about if someone marries several times throughout their life compared to someone who has one monogomous partner? The second fits your description of simple more than the first, but still falls under dishonored.

I just cannot understand how one can even attempt to draw up a simple general rule, when all the pieces vary so greatly amonst cultures, individuals, and time spans.

Exceptions only serve to more clearly define the rule.

And, no, regardless of how will you treat women with whom you have sex outside of marriage, it is dishonorable.

[GrnEyz]

So if this is true, the only real 'losers' in this equation are submissive males.

As it should be... mating with non-dominate males does not pass along the best available genetics.

[Merak]

So the gold digger who moves from marriage to marriage lives an honorable lifestyle, as far as sex is concerned. The one who has sex with one partner for a lifetime, but without marriage is dishonored. *boggled*

I cannot say I agree, but hey, it won't be the first time I don't agree with society.

I also wonder if society reinforces good standards, then why is it we are moving away from marriage and monogomy? But that is for another thread, perhaps.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 04:50 AM ----------

As it should be... mating with non-dominate males does not pass along the best available genetics.

But is this still the case? As far as "best" available genetics go in the past, it would be which male is more adapt to survive and reproduce.

However, we are far past the point where any of us really struggle to live long enough to reproduce.

Which genes would you rather pass down?

- Drunkard with a family history of health issues, but has several babies with numerous women, doesn't bother helping raise any of them.

- Highly educated intellect who does not see any logical reason to reproduce, but as far as family history goes, is in good health.

*Obviously being a drunk or educated has nothing to do with genes, but this furthers complicate the question. Regardless of health issues, who would you rather have raise the next generation of humans?

[GrnEyz]

I also wonder if society reinforces good standards, then why is it we are moving away from marriage and monogomy? But that is for another thread, perhaps.

We're moving away from marriage and monogamy because females are becoming more financially independent. Modern society places dominance on financial well being.

This has lead to the majority of females selecting males based on earning potential, not genetic superiority.

The result is a genetically inferior society and greater need for healthcare.

[JustMel]

And, no, regardless of how will you treat women with whom you have sex outside of marriage, it is dishonorable.


IN YOUR OPINION. This is not a fact. This is not a law. This isn't even the general consensus now. What you seem to miss is that just because you feel that way doesn't mean it is right. It's just your opinion.

I've had a lot of sex outside of marriage and I never once felt dishonored nor do I believe they felt that it was dishonorable. Neither of us wanted marriage we simply wanted to scratch an itch. Everyone was happy.

[Tough Love]

As it should be... mating with non-dominate males does not pass along the best available genetics.

So submissive males in an ideal world dont get sex? Or they have sex with each other?

[GrnEyz]

So submissive males in an ideal world dont get sex? Or they have sex with each other?

Non-dominant males would be forced to seek other areas where they would be dominant. This scenario would put the best genetics in all areas and strengthen the species.

[pip]

Not really.

Sex in the context of marriage: Honorable.
Sex outside the context of marriage: Dishonorable.

What's complex about that?

It's not complex, it is merely of no relevance whatsoever.
It hinges entirely on a logical non-entity, which is not required for any degree of said interaction.

Sex in any context: Is sex.

Deal with it, and stop trying to ram your bible down our throats.
(Some people might like that though, so ask around and you might get lucky ;) )

[Merak]

Non-dominant males would be forced to seek other areas where they would be dominant. This scenario would put the best genetics in all areas and strengthen the species.

But again, what determines dominant this day of age? If financially wealthy, but genetically cursed man is able to lay several women and raise several familes in the course of his lifetime, is that really better for the species than the genetically healthy man living in poverty?

I suppose one could make the argument that the financially wealthy man is able to afford additional health care to make up for genetics, but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting passed on, where as the poor man may not be able to raise [many]children.

[Tough Love]

Non-dominant males would be forced to seek other areas where they would be dominant. This scenario would put the best genetics in all areas and strengthen the species.

Having been given the same urges as dominant males when it comes to sex, who or what would actually force them into the areas in which they would be most productive - rather than forming a culture of illicit sex? I also see rape as an issue.

[GrnEyz]

But again, what determines dominant this day of age? If financially wealthy, but genetically cursed man is able to lay several women and raise several familes in the course of his lifetime, is that really better for the species than the genetically healthy man living in poverty?

I suppose one could make the argument that the financially wealthy man is able to afford additional health care to make up for genetics, but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting passed on, where as the poor man may not be able to raise [many]children.

It's a sad state of affairs that will continue to deteriorate. The path has been set. The species in general will continue to weaken until such time that genetics of the children can be manipulated by science.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 09:21 AM ----------

Having been given the same urges as dominant males when it comes to sex, who or what would actually force them into the areas in which they would be most productive - rather than forming a culture of illicit sex? I also see rape as an issue.


The non-dominant males would migrate from place to place, challenging the current dominant male, until such time he is able to defeat a dominant male. At that point, he would have to defeat other non-dominate males that would inevitably appear to challenge.

[themuzicman]

It's not complex, it is merely of no relevance whatsoever.
It hinges entirely on a logical non-entity, which is not required for any degree of said interaction.

Sex in any context: Is sex.

Deal with it, and stop trying to ram your bible down our throats.
(Some people might like that though, so ask around and you might get lucky ;) )

Where, exactly, did I mention the bible?

[Tough Love]

The non-dominant males would migrate from place to place, challenging the current dominant male, until such time he is able to defeat a dominant male. At that point, he would have to defeat other non-dominate males that would inevitably appear to challenge.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? It kind of spells chaos to me.

[GrnEyz]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? It kind of spells chaos to me.

Quite the contrary... each clan would have a dominant male who is the ultimate authority. Those who could not tolerate the rules simply find another clan. Peace would prevail the majority of the time. Transient non-dominant males will rarely challenge unless they believe they have a legitimate shot at dethroning the dominant male. Multiple clans with dominant males would produce the strongest children and insure survival of the species.

[Zsych]

When learning about people, I prefer to study people. Just as when I wish to learn about the elephant, I do not study the giraffe. Just because wolves may or may not have alphas does not mean that humans have an equivalent.


Considering that humans no longer properly listen to their instincts, using similar animals as reference for what could potentially be correct for humans, or as a source of ideas, isn't really a bad choice.


And it's still a poor justification for why heterosexual males should get to call the shots. Surely, that's not what you're arguing? Because that was the original point that someone brought up about wolves.

Any choice is going to leave some people upset. That some people benefit from a choice more than others does not affect its correctness. Although I'm not going to offer any judgments here, what matters for any species, is that they have a system that is stable and beneficial in the long run. People can be taught to behave in any number of ways, to believe any number of things, and to be happy in different circumstances depending on how they were raised.
Its not like how you were raised does not change your views on sex.

[Tough Love]

Quite the contrary... each clan would have a dominant male who is the ultimate authority.

The ultimate authority on what? And why is it the dominant male receives this position? In my humble opinion, i think any man in such a position would be prone to an overtly large ego which in turn may cause him to do overtly stupid things. It has happened before.

[pip]

Where, exactly, did I mention the bible?

Hi (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Hello (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Hi again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Over here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
No, here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Feel free to believe whatever you like, no-one really cares.
But if you shove it in someones face with the equivalent of screaming I'm right! I'm right! You're evil!, then don't be too surprised when someone shoves it right back.

[Seriously]

We're moving away from marriage and monogamy because females are becoming more financially independent. Modern society places dominance on financial well being.

This has lead to the majority of females selecting males based on earning potential, not genetic superiority.

The result is a genetically inferior society and greater need for healthcare.

I disagree. As females become more financially independent they no longer look to men for financial support. They now choose based on other criteria. Hence you are starting to see more and more older women who are financially sound in and of themselves taking up with younger men. The wheel is turning....

And to the OP - We have been living in a male dominated society. It stands to reason the rules would be slanted toward them.

[Storm]

Quite the contrary... each clan would have a dominant male who is the ultimate authority. Those who could not tolerate the rules simply find another clan. Peace would prevail the majority of the time. Transient non-dominant males will rarely challenge unless they believe they have a legitimate shot at dethroning the dominant male. Multiple clans with dominant males would produce the strongest children and insure survival of the species.

What fantasy world was this? This just just something you made up based on the myth of how you wish things were in the past. Please, go study some modern tribes, they are not like this. They vary widely by culture.

For instance, the Hadza people are serial monogamous for the most part. With the woman usually picking out the mate and, often, the one who decides to end the relationship, too. There is not one breeding male in the "clan." Do you realize how ridiculous that would be? Inbreeding would take place quick.

Sex has never solely been about making children. Some Aborigine clans used their wives as a kind of peace treaty. They would send their wives to a tribe they were warring with for sex. If the enemy tribe accepted the offer and had sex with the wives, peace would be upon the land. If the enemy tribe sent the women back without having sex with them, there would be war.

There was and has never been one ancient culture we can look back on to determine how things "really should be."

[runoverazebra]

And, no, regardless of how will you treat women with whom you have sex outside of marriage, it is dishonorable.

According to some of your other posts (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the forum, if you truly believe this rule, it makes you dishonorable.

[themuzicman]

Feel free to believe whatever you like, no-one really cares.
But if you shove it in someones face with the equivalent of screaming I'm right! I'm right! You're evil!, then don't be too surprised when someone shoves it right back.

I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp context.

First, my question was in the context of this thread. Nowhere did I mention the bible, here.

Second, my solution was on that I propose based upon making honor and dishonor in sex simple, clean, healthy and effective, rather than the rather complicated situation we have today. It was not a moral judgment.

Third, no where did I demand of you or anyone else that they must submit to my proposal.

So, when you're done and over your religious bigotry with respect to Christianity, we can have a rational discussion.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 11:34 AM ----------

According to some of your other posts (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the forum, if you truly believe this rule, it makes you dishonorable.

At one point, I was. I'll admit to that.

Since then, however, I am not.

*Mental note to keep track of zebra's personal life to use against him in the future.

[runoverazebra]

At one point, I was. I'll admit to that.

Since then, however, I am not.

*Mental note to keep track of zebra's personal life to use against him in the future.

First of all, I am female.

Secondly, you can try to use my personal life against me if you so choose, however, I don't ascribe to your belief that sex outside of wedlock is dishonorable. There is nothing wrong with having sex with my fiance as often as I choose. When I was single, there was nothing wrong with having sex with 40 men a week if that was what I wanted. I wouldn't have been harming anyone.

You shouldn't be throwing stones when you are guilty of the same crimes that you believe to be so wrong.

[themuzicman]

First of all, I am female.

Secondly, you can try to use my personal life against me if you so choose, however, I don't ascribe to your belief that sex outside of wedlock is dishonorable. There is nothing wrong with having sex with my fiance as often as I choose. When I was single, there was nothing wrong with having sex with 40 men a week if that was what I wanted. I wouldn't have been harming anyone.

You shouldn't be throwing stones when you are guilty of the same crimes that you believe to be so wrong.

So, you're saying that anything that anyone has ever done wrong in their past, even if it was 25 years ago, and they've done all they can to make amends for their error, they can never say that others shouldn't do that?

[runoverazebra]

So, you're saying that anything that anyone has ever done wrong in their past, even if it was 25 years ago, and they've done all they can to make amends for their error, they can never say that others shouldn't do that?

That's not what I'm saying exactly. You're not just saying that people shouldn't have premarital sex; you're calling them dishonorable. Insulting someone is not the same as saying that they shouldn't behave in a certain way. I think you should be prepared that when you make such an argument, past mistakes may serve to invalidate the argument in the eyes of others.

[ZincLysine]

past mistakes may serve to invalidate the argument in the eyes of others.

So people that learn, grow, develop and mature are to be ignored?

You just told me that every human should be ignored.

Life needs to come with a manual. In its absence, most people do trial and error. The best people build on that experience and share their wisdom with others.

[larkin]

How does this set-up favor straight guys if they end up not getting what they want?

I made the point earlier that I didn't think gender roles happened to favor straight men at all, even though they were established by them. There are plenty of guys today who would like to have the choice to stay home and help raise kids. Or don't feel the need to to engage in a variety of bullshit that, according to guys like GrnEyz, establishes someone as the "dominant" male who is supposed to pass on their awesome genes and stregthen our glorious culture.

That women are increasingly not attracted to guys like that (because of the unsurprisingly high likelihood those guys might cheat on them or make bad fathers, and generally be intolerable for men and women alike to spend any amount of time with) is a perversion of nature, of course, rather than evolution at work. Funny how a lot of folks on here are using some half-assed, poorly understood version of evolutionary biology (or anthropology, or sociology - whatever's handy) to justify beliefs they support while rejecting ones they don't. Aren't all of society's decisions part of evolution?

lol.. The fantasy days of lore.... which never really existed.

Say what you want about abortion, I've mixed feelings on it myself. Hell, even bring it up in a variety of threads, including this one, where it's tangentially relevant at best. But don't you fucking dare dismiss the plain fact that women who are not in a position to have children, for many reasons not all related to marital status or money, have often sought life-threatening ways to end their pregnancy. And that it happens a good deal more in places where women have fewer options. I've seen it happen and it's tremendously ugly.

It's not something for you to laugh away and claim is "fantasy" to forward your political beliefs on the matter.

[plotthickens]

So people that learn, grow, develop and mature are to be ignored?

You just told me that every human should be ignored.

Life needs to come with a manual. In its absence, most people do trial and error. The best people build on that experience and share their wisdom with others.

When they show evidence of growing, yeay yippee skip let's talk. Until then, stupid is as stupid does.

[larkin]

So people that learn, grow, develop and mature are to be ignored? [...] You just told me that every human should be ignored.

No, people who make moral judgments on others for the same decisions they have made are to be questioned. Had he phrased it "that's a bad decision" rather than "that's dishonorable," which is a personal judgment, it would be a different discussion.

[runoverazebra]

So people that learn, grow, develop and mature are to be ignored?

You just told me that every human should be ignored.

Life needs to come with a manual. In its absence, most people do trial and error. The best people build on that experience and share their wisdom with others.

Larkin said what I was trying to say in a much more eloquent way.

I agree that people should learn from their mistakes and should share their wisdom with others. They should not do it in a condescending, judgmental way.

Wisdom is not invalidated by previous mistakes, as that is how one gains such wisdom. Moral judgments on others for making the same mistake that you have previously made do become invalidated.

[themuzicman]

That's not what I'm saying exactly. You're not just saying that people shouldn't have premarital sex; you're calling them dishonorable. Insulting someone is not the same as saying that they shouldn't behave in a certain way. I think you should be prepared that when you make such an argument, past mistakes may serve to invalidate the argument in the eyes of others.

So, you are unable to learn from the mistakes of others when those others say "don't make the same mistakes I did."

Really?

I mean, if I accept that what I did was dishonorable 25 years ago, and that I was dishonorable then, what is to prevent me from saying that it was dishonorable then and would be dishonorable now?

Unless, of course, you're more interested in smearing me personally to try to blunt a good point. Are you really going to claim that my point is invalid because I didn't live up to it 25 years go, but have since?

[Merak]

No, people who make moral judgments on others

I don't even think that much is fair. Even if your way is "right" (I don't believe there is a right, as can be assumed from my posts in this thread) then the person that is "wrong" simply made a mistake, and should have the opportunity to learn from it - not to simply be judged by it.

[larkin]

I don't even think that much is fair. Even if your way is "right" (I don't believe there is a right, as can be assumed from my posts in this thread) then the person that is "wrong" simply made a mistake, and should have the opportunity to learn from it - not to simply be judged by it.

Those that don't judge, don't get judged. I see no need to extend a courtesy to someone who would never extend (and explicitly hasn't extended) the same to others.

[runoverazebra]

So, you are unable to learn from the mistakes of others when those others say "don't make the same mistakes I did."

Really?

I mean, if I accept that what I did was dishonorable 25 years ago, and that I was dishonorable then, what is to prevent me from saying that it was dishonorable?

Unless, of course, you're more interested in smearing me personally to try to blunt a good point. Are you really going to claim that my point is invalid because I didn't live up to it 25 years go, but have since?

It's perfectly acceptable to say, "Don't make the same mistakes that I did." It is not acceptable to make moral judgments of others and insult them for taking the same actions that you previously have.

I'm not interested in smearing you. I'm just trying to make the point that you have not been saying, "Don't repeat my mistakes." You have been saying, "You're dishonorable." Those two statements convey very different messages. One is advice. One is a condescending judgment.

[Seriously]

I don't even think that much is fair. Even if your way is "right" (I don't believe there is a right, as can be assumed from my posts in this thread) then the person that is "wrong" simply made a mistake, and should have the opportunity to learn from it - not to simply be judged by it.

When you make judgment calls on other people for things you did yourself then yea it's fair.

You can learn from your mistakes and change your mind about something but to judge someone for making the same mistake as you...that's hypocritical.

[Tough Love]

I mean, if I accept that what I did was dishonorable 25 years ago, and that I was dishonorable then, what is to prevent me from saying that it was dishonorable then and would be dishonorable now?

But you would never have admitted that you had done the same if ROZ hadnt called you out on it. We would never have known that. Also, if she had seen what you had written previously and hadnt called you out on it, she would most likely to have thought you to be a screaming hypocrite. Language is key. Word yourself the way you want to be heard.

[themuzicman]

Say what you want about abortion, I've mixed feelings on it myself. Hell, even bring it up in a variety of threads, including this one, where it's tangentially relevant at best. But don't you fucking dare dismiss the plain fact that women who are not in a position to have children, for many reasons not all related to marital status or money, have often sought life-threatening ways to end their pregnancy. And that it happens a good deal more in places where women have fewer options. I've seen it happen and it's tremendously ugly.

The key word, here, is "often." Within the context of US culture, women have access to more than enough resources to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, from free prenatal care to adoption services. In the case where a woman's life is threatened, I know of no one who would say that she should not have the option to abort.

I remember hearing a member of the group that testified that thousands of "back alley abortions" were performed every year because it wasn't legally available admit that they completely fabricated the number, and had no data to support it.

Furthermore, just because people do it doesn't mean we should give them access to do it legally. Why not legalize bank robbery for those who need money to reduce the threat to bank tellers and police officers and the bank robbers themselves? Oh, because it's wrong? But people are still doing it. People prepare to use deadly force against other people and subject themselves to being harmed or killed just to rob a bank. If we legalized it, all that threat to human life would go away.

Do you see how this is an appeal to emotion that doesn't really carry a lot of rational weight?

Yes, I am compassionate towards women who have unwanted pregnancies. Yes, I contribute to organizations who help women with unwanted pregnancies. My wife has spent many hours volunteering helping these women. They do need our assistance.

But, the fact that some (unknown number of) women might take extraordinary and dangerous measures to end an unwanted pregnancy has little bearing on whether it should be legal or not.

As for "often", you'll have to demonstrate that, because other than a claim that was later recanted as fabrication, I have no basis for believing that these are very isolated.


It's not something for you to laugh away and claim is "fantasy" to forward your political beliefs on the matter.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Storm]

I mean, if I accept that what I did was dishonorable 25 years ago, and that I was dishonorable then, what is to prevent me from saying that it was dishonorable then and would be dishonorable now?

Don't you have a wonderful family and marriage because of the action you took 25 years ago? Perhaps things aren't as simple as you want them to be.

[themuzicman]

But you would never have admitted that you had done the same if ROZ hadnt called you out on it. We would never have known that. Also, if she had seen what you had written previously and hadnt called you out on it, she would most likely to have thought you to be a screaming hypocrite. Language is key. Word yourself the way you want to be heard.

Um... SHE POINTED OUT A THREAD WHERE I FREELY ADMITTED IT.

Second, I didn't attempt to cover up or push aside what she said. I immediately and freely admitted to my action, and pointed out both the time frame in which it occurred, and said that I had been honorable towards my wife ever since.

Furthermore, I never claimed to live perfectly by it.

So, I call bull on your accusation. It's nothing more than a smear.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

Don't you have a wonderful family and marriage because of the action you took 25 years ago? Perhaps things aren't as simple as you want them to be.

Well, the first five years weren't so wonderful. There were some fairly bad consequences for myself, my wife and my older kids because of our actions.

And the wonderful family I have today is the result of the honorable actions I took as a result of my dishonor, in taking responsibility for them. My dishonorable actions didn't just automatically result in what I have today.

[Tough Love]

Yes, I am compassionate towards women who have unwanted pregnancies. Yes, I contribute to organizations who help women with unwanted pregnancies. My wife has spent many hours volunteering helping these women. They do need our assistance.


Well all i can say is thank God for abortion otherwise who knows where i would be now... Shunned by my family and competely destitute or using other peoples well earned money to support myself and a child who would not have had a father.

Another point - Ever heard of honour killings? They werent our problem until recently.

[themuzicman]

Well all i can say is thank God for abortion otherwise who knows where i would be now... Shunned by my family and competely destitute or using other peoples well earned money to support myself and a child who would not have had a father.

There are consequences for dishonorable behavior.

Just FYI, I was shunned by my family for quite some time after my dishonorable actions. Perhaps it might not have been as bad as you think.

[Storm]

There are consequences for dishonorable behavior.

Just FYI, I was shunned by my family for quite some time after my dishonorable actions. Perhaps it might not have been as bad as you think.

What if your family and you saw sex as something you do in a safe and committed relationship, but not necessarily marriage. And you and your partner practiced safe sex, reducing the odds of a pregnancy to less than 1%? And if there was a pregnancy anyway, you decided to get married, but with your family's support?

Perhaps all this honor/dishonor is just a social construct. Things don't have to be the way you experienced them.

[themuzicman]

What if your family and you saw sex as something you do in a safe and committed relationship, but not necessarily marriage. And you and your partner practiced safe sex, reducing the odds of a pregnancy to less than 1%? And if there was a pregnancy anyway, you decided to get married, but with your family's support?

Perhaps all this honor/dishonor is just a social construct. Things don't have to be the way you experienced them.

That social context would define what is honorable, which is different than what I proposed.

[Tough Love]

This is bullshit and you know it. Your beating a dead donkey. You said something silly (dishonourable) and now you are going to hound it til the end to save your pride.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 06:36 PM ----------

Watch the way you use that word. You throw it around flippantly.
Needless to say, the context in whcih you apply the word 'dishonourable' only pertains to women. A man need not be judged. Therefore I believe you show indicators of subscribing to a sexist attitude which pushes me away from your 'veiws' further.

[GrnEyz]

I disagree. As females become more financially independent they no longer look to men for financial support. They now choose based on other criteria. Hence you are starting to see more and more older women who are financially sound in and of themselves taking up with younger men. The wheel is turning....


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing to... we're on the same wavelength here.

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 02:01 PM ----------

The ultimate authority on what? And why is it the dominant male receives this position? In my humble opinion, i think any man in such a position would be prone to an overtly large ego which in turn may cause him to do overtly stupid things. It has happened before.

Prior to modern society, males were the ultimate authority. Insubordination was not tolerated and dealt with immediately. The dominant male was the strongest, and in most cases, the largest of the Clan and therefore was rarely challenged.

[Storm]

Prior to modern society, males were the ultimate authority. Insubordination was not tolerated and dealt with immediately.

How are you defining "modern society"? Again, you have this fantasy world of how things use to be that. That there was one ancient culture which had a very simple social structure. Sorry, modern tribal and a brief study into history will show you that you are sorely mistaken.

[larkin]

Furthermore, just because people do it doesn't mean we should give them access to do it legally. Why not legalize bank robbery for those who need money to reduce the threat to bank tellers and police officers and the bank robbers themselves? Oh, because it's wrong? But people are still doing it. People prepare to use deadly force against other people and subject themselves to being harmed or killed just to rob a bank. If we legalized it, all that threat to human life would go away.

I have no interest in debating abortion with you; as I said, my feelings on it are mixed, which doesn't seem to sit well with people who are convinced that they are right on the matter.

Along those lines, if you can't see the flaw in your analogy (speaking of an appeal to emotion), there really is no use discussing this, and as before it's irrelevant to the thread. Although the analogy doesn't really speak to much compassion to women in difficult circumstances, does it? No matter how loudly you proclaim otherwise.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

When have I ever been as dismissive to your argument - which I don't even necessarily disagree with, whatever it is - as you were to women facing an unwanted pregnancy? You "laughed out loud" and called actual incidents with actual women, no matter the number, fantasy. How respectful and honorable.

[Seriously]

We're moving away from marriage and monogamy because females are becoming more financially independent. Modern society places dominance on financial well being.

This has lead to the majority of females selecting males based on earning potential, not genetic superiority.

The result is a genetically inferior society and greater need for healthcare.

I disagree with the bolded part. Women in general may have placed more emphasis on earning potential in the past but as we begin to become more financially independent it matters less.

[GrnEyz]

How are you defining "modern society"? Again, you have this fantasy world of how things use to be that. That there was one ancient culture which had a very simple social structure. Sorry, modern tribal and a brief study into history will show you that you are sorely mistaken.

As the ancestors of humans began to walk upright and use their hands, and as their brains evolved to become larger and their throats evolved to enable speech, they began forming tribal laws and customs to regulate their social behavior, and in particular, their reproductive behavior.



Different populations often developed different customs depending on their unique tribal histories and the survival strategies that best suited their particular environment. Whenever different groups came into contact, whichever culture facilitated the survival of more healthy young was more likely to dominate and spread.


Prehistoric hunter gatherers roamed the land in small family tribes. While men focused on physically demanding tasks like hunting large animals and protecting the group, women focused more on maintaining the camp, gathering and preparing food, and caring for family members. Intertribal marriage was a common way of establishing wider social networks and ensuring shared access to larger areas of land.


With the beginnings of agriculture and the formation of farming villages, areas of farmland could sustain much larger populations. Farming villages grew into towns populated by specialists such as carpenters, merchants, and tailors, who all contributed to an integrated economy.



Marriages were usually arranged by families. Sons or daughters were often sold into marriage for a price. Multiple wives were common in communities that were ravaged by war, where men were often killed and women taken away as slaves. In places where women were rare, marriages were sometimes arranged with multiple husbands.



Dominant male behavior (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) still occasionally happened, like in the case of ancient kings and medieval sultans who took hundreds of wives and concubines. Men driven by power and desire could do as they pleased as long as no rival force could stop them.

[Blse]

That women are increasingly not attracted to guys like that (because of the unsurprisingly high likelihood those guys might cheat on them or make bad fathers, and generally be intolerable for men and women alike to spend any amount of time with) is a perversion of nature, of course, rather than evolution at work. Funny how a lot of folks on here are using some half-assed, poorly understood version of evolutionary biology (or anthropology, or sociology - whatever's handy) to justify beliefs they support while rejecting ones they don't. Aren't all of society's decisions part of evolution?

I think what's important to understand is that evolutionary biology only sets up a certain foundation, certain ground-rules of attraction. How those ground rules are interpreted is under extensive cultural influence. We can see that when we look at the relationship between weight and sexual attractiveness. Nature simply gives people the instinct to mate with someone who is healthy and of comparably high status. In the past that meant someone overweight, today it means someone who's thin (in Western society).

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 12:46 PM ----------

Prior to modern society, the dominant male mated with several different females for two reasons... 1) The dominant male defeated and dismissed all of the other males... 2) The females preferred to mate with the dominant male.

Modern society has done away with fighting for the right to mate and God only knows what thought process is used by modern females.

Well, I'd argue a modern adaptation of that process is used. Alphas are still more attractive to women and more successful than betas. Women still seek good providers who can protect the investment that is the family.

What has changed is the definition of an Alpha. For instnace, money, career and intelligence have largely replaced physical strength (b/c mula & brains ensure survival of the family, whereas brawns are just a hot little bonus). Confidence and ambition remain the top triggers of attraction, but they too are manifested differently than in ancient times.

So if this is true, the only real 'losers' in this equation are submissive males.

Submissiveness is not attractive to the vast majority of women. I've made that argument at length elsewhere.

[Storm]

Post

So, there wasn't one breeding male and culture would differ according to resources available? Some cultures, men would have multiple wives, most men would just have one wife, and some cultures women would have multiple husbands? How spouses were picked depended on culture? Thanks for verifying what I said.

[firebee]

Considering that humans no longer properly listen to their instincts, using similar animals as reference for what could potentially be correct for humans, or as a source of ideas, isn't really a bad choice.

Humans, it seems, have an unfortunate tendency to exhibit preferences that do not fit with the one true hunter-gatherer society presented by such scientific literature as "B.C.". These preferences are incorrect -- they are unnatural preferences brought about in reaction to the unnatural environment that humans have created for themselves, not something that arises through natural means. They therefore cannot be trusted; we must instead read books that other people have written, in order to be told what we really want based on questionably-accurate descriptions of the mating habits of canids. That's the natural way for a human to behave...

[GrnEyz]

boast

I never once said that there was a single social structure, I was merely pointing out possibilities. It is logical for the strongest to prevail and I am certain that clans existed where there was only a single dominant male. Being combatant doesn't contribute to or enlighten the discussion.

[dice]

I like the sterilized approach you took in explaining sex, but you forgot asexuals. Regardless of your preference, you're still viewed quite differently from those who lack it completely.

[Storm]

I never once said that there was a single social structure, I was merely pointing out possibilities. It is logical for the strongest to prevail and I am certain that clans existed where there was only a single dominant male. Being combatant doesn't contribute to or enlighten the discussion.

The "strongest" is so vague. What does that mean? The smartest? The best hunter? The most money? The best looking? It varies. Unless you just meant to say "If you pass on genes, you are the strongest" In which case, it's an even more meaningless statement. You might as well say "Those who have children, pass on genes." Sure, there could have been some clans that existed that had one breeding male (although I challenge you to find evidence of such). Making broad and unverifiable claims about how things "use to be" and thus "should be" does not contribute to or enlighten the discussion. It's like saying "Ancient gods were men because men are powerful!" and someone else says "Actually, many ancient and current deities were female." And your retort is "So! Some gods were men! Stop bringing fact in to ruin my theory!!!!"

[reckful]

Speaking as a guy with a few anthropology courses under his belt, I have to say that the majority of GrnEyz's contributions to this thread are quite a hoot. Here are some of the choicer nuggets:

Prior to modern society, the dominant male mated with several different females for two reasons... 1) The dominant male defeated and dismissed all of the other males... 2) The females preferred to mate with the dominant male.

The non-dominant males would migrate from place to place, challenging the current dominant male, until such time he is able to defeat a dominant male. At that point, he would have to defeat other non-dominate males that would inevitably appear to challenge.

Quite the contrary... each clan would have a dominant male who is the ultimate authority. Those who could not tolerate the rules simply find another clan. Peace would prevail the majority of the time. Transient non-dominant males will rarely challenge unless they believe they have a legitimate shot at dethroning the dominant male. Multiple clans with dominant males would produce the strongest children and insure survival of the species.

Prior to modern society, males were the ultimate authority. Insubordination was not tolerated and dealt with immediately. The dominant male was the strongest, and in most cases, the largest of the Clan and therefore was rarely challenged.

Modern society places dominance on financial well being.

This has lead to the majority of females selecting males based on earning potential, not genetic superiority.

The result is a genetically inferior society and greater need for healthcare.

Although some of this stuff (but really, not much of it) might serve as part of a first-order approximation of life in a baboon troop, it bears little resemblance to the way most humans have lived over the past 50,000 years or so of our evolutionary history.

Although many human cultures (including pre-modern cultures) have permitted polygyny (multiple wives), it has rarely been the norm. On the contrary, and unlike, say, baboons, throughout human evolutionary history monogamous couples have been the norm, and the majority of both men and women have produced children.

Have various elements of purely "physical" fitness played a significant role in reproductive success? No question about it. But so have countless other elements of human "fitness" -- from standard measures of intelligence to elements of what you'd be more likely to call emotional intelligence. Human children need and benefit from parental and other social support to a much greater degree, and for a substantially longer period of time, than most animals, and the vast majority of humans have lived within social groups. Since the evolutionary goal is not to maximize the number of children you have, but rather to maximize the number of your children who in turn survive to have children of their own, managing to impregnate a woman is only the beginning of the job for a human male. Pure physical fitness/strength and other Rambo-ish "dominance" traits of the kind GrnEyz is focused on are just one component of what has mattered from the standpoint of male reproductive success.

What's more, much of human evolution has occurred in the context of arranged marriages, where males didn't "compete" for spouses in any way -- either through physical competition or as part of some kind of mate-selection process where the woman had any choice -- but instead were paired with a spouse based on the position of each partner in a kinship, tribal or other social network or other factors independent of the male spouse's personal qualities.

As a final historical note: Am I saying many human groups haven't been led by a guy whose macho traits helped him become the Top Dog? Not at all. I'm pointing out, first, that the vast majority of human groups have not operated in such a way that the Top Dog mated with most of the women and most of the other guys beat sand. And second, I'd also note that, assuming you're a guy living in that kind of group, being various degrees of "submissive" -- or rather, having plenty of submissiveness in your temperamental repertoire -- can just as well lead to long-term reproductive success as failure over the many years it takes to come of age, have kids, and help the kids come of age. For every Rambo who ends up on top, with an above-average number of children, there can easily be another Rambo, or two, or three, who die (or suffer serious injury) trying, or whose agressiveness otherwise leads them to a lack of long-term reproductive success. And in any event, it's safe to say that GrnEyz's depiction of human males in an endless Top Dog quest in which "the non-dominant males would migrate from place to place, challenging the current dominant male, until such time he is able to defeat a dominant male," bears no real resemblance to any known phase of human evolutionary history.

Moving to the present day, GrnEyz is concerned that, since Rambo-like aspects of male "dominance" aren't as important to male reproductive success today as in those golden days of yore (and, again, they rarely had the kind of importance he's suggesting), the quality of the human gene pool is deteriorating. But there's no reason to think that, for every human trait that isn't as important today as it used to be (and with respect to which the gene pool might thereby be said to be "deteriorating"), there aren't one or more traits that are more important today than they used to be, and with respect to which the gene pool is improving.

The science of evolutionary biology is still in its childhood in many respects, and nobody's really in a position to say whether, taken as a whole, the human gene pool is currently deteriorating or improving. So it makes sense to ignore the assertions of anyone who claims to know otherwise -- and that goes double if it's a guy trying to peddle you a portrait of human evolution that bears about as much resemblance to historical reality as an average episode of the Flintstones.