[Hariar]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You really should read some of the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Gain some perspective, learn about anthropology.

You need to quote/reformulate which bits you find relevant to the topic at hand. I cannot guess which paragraphs and sentences that led you to think like this and that; all the more because your line of reasoning could be flawed in the first place.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by Hariar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You need to quote/reformulate which bits you find relevant to the topic at hand. I cannot guess which paragraphs and sentences that led you to think like this and that; all the more because your line of reasoning could be flawed in the first place.

Your willful ignorance is not my problem. I've provided a source of information to back up my assertions. Furthermore, I've pointed out scientific reasons that humans are not strictly monogamous. Pretty much everything in the book I linked illustrates how modesty, exclusivity, and monogamy are not necessarily standard practice.


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


It details how marriage was central to Greek and Roman culture, and follows the influence through modern Christianity in the West.

[Hariar]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your willful ignorance is not my problem. I've provided a source of information to back up my assertions. Furthermore, I've pointed out scientific reasons that humans are not strictly monogamous. Pretty much everything in the book I linked illustrates how modesty, exclusivity, and monogamy are not necessarily standard practice. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. It details how marriage was central to Greek and Roman culture, and follows the influence through modern Christianity in the West.

The talk about "strict monogamy" is a strawman on your part, as is the "ignorance". I can read any text I am provided, but that does not mean I will agree with the conclusion(s) of person who gave me the text, that's both naive and arrogant.

For a debate to reach a natural end, there must be a continous stream of arguments that either reaches an agreement or that leads to one of the sides abandoning its position.

For this to be possible, the lines of reasoning must be laid bare, and not to be left to guess about as if we were playing lotto, or going on a fishing trip. "Go read this text and be converted" will not suffice.

When you read that several cultures deal with the concept of "promiscuity" differently from us, this does not in itself imply that humans lack a monogamous nature. What strikes me as I read your initial link, is that almost every single culture, no matter how promiscuous, has a concept of "marriage".

What is also strikingly obvious, is that the argument "it's all about culture" becomes self-defeating if not practiced carefully. Instincts of both promiscuity and monogamy can be surpressed by the local culture. One can set up two cultural extremities: on one end, love is considered weakness, while on the other, lust is considered weakness.

You would need to ask the inidividuals of these cultures, does it never happen that you develop feelings for certain individuals of the opposite sex, feelings that sets them apart from the rest? Given the prevalence of the concept of "marriage", a 'yes' to this question seems certainly to be rooted in biology.

A truly promiscuous animal does not look twice at sexual partners; sex is completely detached from concepts of friendship and bonding - any sexual encounter is as socially important between the individuals involved as a handshake would be.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You really should read some of the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Gain some perspective, learn about anthropology.

I started to read this, but I noticed it seemed a little....off. The analysis were shallow and it talked of "us" (the civilized world) v. "them" (the primitive people). Frequently, it talked as though tribal communities are innocent children, unburdened by "our" high-minded ideas. It also seemed the analysis of these people was rather uninformed and simple compared to studies of tribal people I have seen. Then I came across this little line:

	This proves that they_still possess the pristine guilelessness of Adam and Eve in Eden.

Who talks like that? I backed up and saw this book was published in 1921. Not that the book can't have some good points - such as that clothing may have came into use for practical purposes rather than modesty - but it's a bit uninformed to take the whole thing in as the final word on tribal peoples.

From what I've seen, it's hard to tell if there was one single way of mate selection in ancient peoples time. It seems to be more cultural than innate and vary wildly.

[Polymath20]

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

I started to read this, but I noticed it seemed a little....off. The analysis were shallow and it talked of "us" (the civilized world) v. "them" (the primitive people). Frequently, it talked as though tribal communities are innocent children, unburdened by "our" high-minded ideas. It also seemed the analysis of these people was rather uninformed and simple compared to studies of tribal people I have seen. I backed up and saw this book was published in 1921. From what I've seen, it's hard to tell if there was one single way of mate selection in ancient peoples time. It seems to be more cultural than innate and vary wildly.

I did mention that it was dated when I initially linked it. When they compared the tribal people's nakedness to the immodesty of Adam and Eve I knew that it was written from a very righteous perspective, however this does not detract from the observations made of other cultures.

The bolded part is my overarching point. Monogamy is no more or less "natural" than polygamy and any other practice. The influences going back through time from Greece to Rome to the rise of Christianity have spread a very specific type of culture. We are so surrounded by it's influence that we tend to believe that it is "natural" and the "way it should be".

@Hariar - provide evidence that monogamy is any more or less "natural" than any other method of mate selection and I will concede your point. My argument has been that monogamy, exclusivity, and modesty are cultural constructs handed to us from Judeo-Christian influences. I've provided evidence for this. What exactly is your argument against that? I've provided evidence that other cultures practice things differently and it is just as "natural" for them.

[Hariar]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@Hariar - provide evidence that monogamy is any more or less "natural" than any other method of mate selection and I will concede your point. My argument has been that monogamy, exclusivity, and modesty are cultural constructs handed to us from Judeo-Christian influences. I've provided evidence for this. What exactly is your argument against that? I've provided evidence that other cultures practice things differently and it is just as "natural" for them.

The thing is you assume that monogamy excludes promiscuity. It does not.

If person A has on average 1 [new] sexual partner per week; but then falls in love and [following his/her instincts] have only this one person as his/her sexual partner the next months, then person A has a monogamous nature.

The examples in the text you linked to do, for the most part, only mildly violate the concept of monogamy. Take for instance:

	The Maloyali, a mountain tribe, accept unfaithfulness on the part of their wives quite lightly, unless the partner belongs to another caste; if a woman lives for a time with a lover and has children during this time, the husband will on her return recognise the children as his own.

we are still talking about relationships of two persons, and the acceptance can be explained as culture overriding biology. What you are actually looking for, is the following:

	Among some castes, such as the Irulas and Kurumbas, formal marriage is completely unknown, an almost unbridled sexual promiscuity taking its place.

which is rare, precisely because humans have monogamy as part of their of their biological nature. It is as easy as ever to get away from a relationship that includes sexual exclusivity, yet such relationships will voluntarily last for months/years/the rest of the life. This points to a monogamous nature. As do paragraphs such as this one:

	Should a girl become pregnant, the probable father is expected to marry her. If he refuses, he has to pay damages, and the girl is at liberty to marry some one else, which she can do without any difficulty.

[Melchizedek]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Could you cite a reference? My knowledge of European history cannot validate what you have said. The influences from Roman and Greek culture on the early civilization of Europe provides a male-dominated, chauvinistic framework from which much of Europe descended. Feudal kingdoms during the dark ages were run and owned by men. Women's place was already firmly cemented in the home during the Renaissance. The stereotypical place of women in the West is very much where Roman Catholicism says it should be. I have to disagree with your assertion.

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


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

[seekingclarity]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What exactly do you mean by "side"? Again, observing human proclivity towards not having one partner at a time, the preponderance of "cheating" - I'd say your observation is not entirely accurate.

Polymath,
Is it really that their cheating stems from purely, primitive sexual urges or that it comes from a tormented psyche? I mean, most people, when they fall in love with another, wouldn't dream of being with anyone else. They actually lift to a higher state of consciousness where they are willing to put another's needs before their own. Unfortunately, that fragile state of ecstatic love gets tested once the ego begins its insecure attempts at sabotaging such a blissful state because ego is incapable of comprehending union.
I am not underestimating primal sexual urges. But to reduce the human psyche to something as simple as primitive urges that ultimately justify cheating is flawed, in my opinion. Your quote about Tiger Woods is silly in that the man has obvious and major psychological issues. It isn't just his penis motivating him. His narcissism definitely has something to do with his adultery.
We are more evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom psychologically, so we must assume our sexuality is just as evolved/complicated/fragile.

[AnotherAvatar]

Wake up and stop listening to what 'experts' and 'talking heads' are telling you.

If a girl says she doesn't like sex, don't go out with her. She's a nut.

Thread ENDED.

[Lofwyr]

	Originally Posted by seekingclarity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We are more evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom psychologically, so we must assume our sexuality is just as evolved/complicated/fragile.

Uhh...why is that exactly?

[zibber]

It really is horribly annoying that with any mention of nonmonogamy, most everyone starts talking about promiscuity. Promiscuity is not specifically related to either monogamy or nonmonogamy. One can experience intense amorous love for more than one person at a time, sex or no.

	Originally Posted by Hariar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You would need to ask the inidividuals of these cultures, does it never happen that you develop feelings for certain individuals of the opposite sex, feelings that sets them apart from the rest? Given the prevalence of the concept of "marriage", a 'yes' to this question seems certainly to be rooted in biology.

I appreciate your eloquence and deliberateness, but this paragraph struck me as a bit rushed. With one clanky appeal to a hypothetical anthropological study, you naturalize both monogamy and heterophilia. Surely, this is not science.

[Hariar]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It really is horribly annoying that with any mention of nonmonogamy, most everyone starts talking about promiscuity. Promiscuity is not specifically related to either monogamy or nonmonogamy. One can experience intense amorous love for more than one person at a time, sex or no.

But is rather the exception than the rule. Yet, I do not recall see anyone claiming humans are exclusively/completely monogamous.

	I appreciate your eloquence and deliberateness, but this paragraph struck me as a bit rushed. With one clanky appeal to a hypothetical anthropological study, you naturalize both monogamy and heterophilia. Surely, this is not science.

For the latter part, what does it even mean to be attracted to the other sex? The views of what constitutes attractive and unattractive in either sex can vary so much. What does it even mean, literally and strictly, to be attracted to a particular sex (as a whole or otherwise) - does it at all make sense most strictly speaking? But my intent is not to delve into such detail.

For the first part, it is not alone from "marriage" that I deduce the validity of monogamy as a part of human biology. I intended rather to say that it is another occurence that points towards a monogamous aspect of human biology, one of many.

We can look to our own culture. If sexual monogamy was not a frequently ocurring part of human biology, then one would at least expect the concept of swinging to catch on gradually and become the norm. It's easy to play the culture card, but often culture is just an exaggeration/manifestation of biological inclinations, as far as I can tell.

[Distance]

Of course, that’s easy for me to say. My culture tells me I’m supposed to like sex, supposed to make it a high priority, indeed supposed to define my worth as a person by it. I’m a man, after all. The study also talks about very sexual women having to fight slut-shaming, both internal and external, and having to deal with a culture that wants to pretend they don’t exist. These are not problems I have as a very sexual man. One of the perks of male privilege, I guess.

I have a problem with the bolded and some of the other perspectives. While I agree that men and women enjoy sex, what he's selling, I'm not buying.

His spin is over-the-top focused on the importance of sex. This isn't libido driven. This is the belief that sex defines whereby the more partners, the more validation.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have a problem with the bolded and some of the other perspectives. While I agree that men and women enjoy sex, what he's selling, I'm not buying. His spin is over-the-top focused on the importance of sex. This isn't libido driven. This is the belief that sex defines whereby the more partners, the more validation.

For men, that's often quite true...

What is your problem with the statement?

[Haumea]

	This is the belief that sex defines whereby the more partners, the more validation.

The higher your levels of testosterone, the more you will be more ego-driven, and the more likely this will be true.

Back to OP: to paraphrase Mystery, my girlfriends aren't bitches, they're just bitches to you. In other words, certain maxims apply for certain situations, being neither wholly false nor wholly true.