this book i'm reading, sex at dawn by christopher ryan and cacilda jones convincingly suggests that we are not. essentially we are too closely related to the promiscuous bonobos for any doubt to be left unsettled. marriage is an obligatory societal construction. the advent of agriculture is the root of all our troubles. sex as taboo is abhorrent to our nature. a woman's sexuality should be explored not forbidden. possessing someone is unhuman. my favorite though is, that because we aren't as promiscuous as we should be, our monogamy will lead to widespread infertility. actually this is my favorite. evolution doesn't mean better
they f*cking go balls out. so thoughtfully researched, and funny! found out about this dude on a joe rogan podcast. as a married man, it's hard to read but it makes sense and it isn't untrode ground in my mind nor elsewhere. men who cheat aren't despicable people, they're human. you can scoff at the divorce rates in this country and judge those people. no, what they are doing is pretty f*cking reasonable. we're duped into a contract because it's the norm. it's an industry. how many married folks are living with roommates (i.e. their spouse)? i'm not going to go cheat on my wife now because i've got this information that this natural impulse to f*ck any girl remotely attractive should be just chalked up as acceptable behavior. even the authors aren't sure what to make of their research.
i'm holding out hope that i married the same super cool person who likes to travel and hates to cook however long from now. i do think there's a beauty in marriage though. yeah it doesn't work out a lot of times. but the things you do for your spouse, even if you're sorta contractually required to preform those tasks, it's a pretty selfless thing. i'm doing this for you, not because i don't want to make you angry, but because i want to see you smile. i just hope i married a friend.
with evangelicals accepting a lot of what science has proven, over time, how long will it be before christ or your diety rides off into the sunset? you should try my god, you
I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
(03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
I agree. I do think however we should at some point be able to renegotiate our contracts.
(03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
Having one partner has helped immensely in the survival of our relatively helpless babies and children. We are hardly the only monogamous species. Some bird species are monogamous.
So monogamy is rooted in biology. Our "civilized" customs have just enshrined what we were doing before.
I can't think of any human society where the women were not monogamous. If so, it has been very rare.
(03-04-2016 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
Having one partner has helped immensely in the survival of our relatively helpless babies and children. We are hardly the only monogamous species. Some bird species are monogamous.
So monogamy is rooted in biology. Our "civilized" customs have just enshrined what we were doing before.
I can't think of any human society where the women were not monogamous. If so, it has been very rare.
I think societal pressures, religions, etc push monogomy for the reason you mentioned above. However, it's still natural for a male to want to get with as many females as possible, at least IMO.
(03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
We are different from animals in that we can reason our way out of instinct. Aside from that, I agree.
(03-04-2016 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
Having one partner has helped immensely in the survival of our relatively helpless babies and children. We are hardly the only monogamous species. Some bird species are monogamous.
So monogamy is rooted in biology. Our "civilized" customs have just enshrined what we were doing before.
I can't think of any human society where the women were not monogamous. If so, it has been very rare.
Disagree on your biology. Until Judaism and Christianity took hold, most societies were actually polygamist, not monogomist. The ability to create and set moral values seperates us from animals.
(03-04-2016 12:58 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
Having one partner has helped immensely in the survival of our relatively helpless babies and children. We are hardly the only monogamous species. Some bird species are monogamous.
So monogamy is rooted in biology. Our "civilized" customs have just enshrined what we were doing before.
I can't think of any human society where the women were not monogamous. If so, it has been very rare.
I think societal pressures, religions, etc push monogomy for the reason you mentioned above. However, it's still natural for a male to want to get with as many females as possible, at least IMO.
Agree, if I were better looking and more charismatic, I'd have major problems staying faithful, especially in a dry spell. I wouldn't seek out other women, but I'm not sure how successful I'd be abstaining if the opportunity presented itself.
we are not 'biologically' monogamous, but much like our government, we generally give up some rights 'in order to form 'a more perfect union'
(03-04-2016 12:15 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ]this book i'm reading, sex at dawn by christopher ryan and cacilda jones convincingly suggests that we are not. essentially we are too closely related to the promiscuous bonobos for any doubt to be left unsettled.
More closely related than dogs (not monogamous) and wolves (monogamous)? I mean that's a stupid reason to say we're not monogamous.
Quote:marriage is an obligatory societal construction.
Now yu're conflating marriage and monogamy. They are not the same thing, though in practice there is a lot of overlap.
Quote:the advent of agriculture is the root of all our troubles.
Riiiigggggggggghhhhhhht.... So much better off before we had a dependable food supply and the human mortality rate made monogamy completely impossible.
Quote:sex as taboo is abhorrent to our nature.
The developmental of sex via prudish taboo or casual treatment is abhorrent to our nature.
Sex is to be celebrated (anti-taboo) and respected (anti-sexual liberation crowd)
Quote:a woman's sexuality should be explored not forbidden. possessing someone is unhuman.
I don't possess my wife and more than she possesses me. We have a relationship and together we are one against anything that might come up.
Quote:my favorite though is, that because we aren't as promiscuous as we should be, our monogamy will lead to widespread infertility. actually this is my favorite. evolution doesn't mean better
Actually many promiscuous people end up sterile because a good number of STD's cause sterility.
Quote:As a married man, it's hard to read but it makes sense and it isn't untrode ground in my mind nor elsewhere. men who cheat aren't despicable people, they're human.
You say that like being human and despicable are mutually exclusive.
Quote:you can scoff at the divorce rates in this country and judge those people. no, what they are doing is pretty f*cking reasonable. we're duped into a contract because it's the norm.
Bitter much? look I despise how we treat marriage, but not because anyone is duped. It's because too many people mindlessly thing they need to find that *1* true love, straight out of twilight.
Quote:i'm holding out hope that i married the same super cool person who likes to travel and hates to cook however long from now.
And how do you know you will be that person? Marriage is the begining of a journey taken together, in love.
(03-04-2016 01:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:58 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:54 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:27 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]From biological aspect I would assume no as the primary purpose is to maintain life and having only one partner goes directly against that. Having said that, humans are not baboons so I don't mind it.
Having one partner has helped immensely in the survival of our relatively helpless babies and children. We are hardly the only monogamous species. Some bird species are monogamous.
So monogamy is rooted in biology. Our "civilized" customs have just enshrined what we were doing before.
I can't think of any human society where the women were not monogamous. If so, it has been very rare.
I think societal pressures, religions, etc push monogomy for the reason you mentioned above. However, it's still natural for a male to want to get with as many females as possible, at least IMO.
Agree, if I were better looking and more charismatic, I'd have major problems staying faithful, especially in a dry spell. I wouldn't seek out other women, but I'm not sure how successful I'd be abstaining if the opportunity presented itself.
What is it that Chris Rock said, "Men are only as faithful as their options".
(03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
so, what i'm gathering from this book is that the hunter/forager of yore wasn't interested in spreading his seed for the survival of the species. he/she certainly couldn't accommodate a roving pack of hungry mouths in their gypsy quest for sustenance. rather, it was a bunch of caveman going at the same willing women whenever either sex wanted some special attention.
i do agree that you cannot act like that now even if it would make things less complicated. they have for example contemporary
lugu lake in isolation in china where women accept men into their bedrooms and they leave the next day. the society is kinda like vegas. they don't share their gossip. the chinese government couldn't even persuade them to change their ways. there is shared parentry which is an original concept inherent from our ancestors. males who impregnated various women look after spawn that might or might or might not be their progeny (as other males' sperm lurked the midst). the whole notion of it takes a village to raise a child was true and is true in many cultures still thriving
(03-04-2016 02:15 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
so, what i'm gathering from this book is that the hunter/forager of yore wasn't interested in spreading his seed for the survival of the species. he/she certainly couldn't accommodate a roving pack of hungry mouths in their gypsy quest for sustenance. rather, it was a bunch of caveman going at the same willing women whenever either sex wanted some special attention.
i do agree that you cannot act like that now even if it would make things less complicated. they have for example contemporary lugu lake in isolation in china where women accept men into their bedrooms and they leave the next day. the society is kinda like vegas. they don't share their gossip. the chinese government couldn't even persuade them to change their ways. there is shared parentry which is an original concept inherent from our ancestors. males who impregnated various women look after spawn that might or might or might not be their progeny (as other males' sperm lurked the midst). the whole notion of it takes a village to raise a child was true and is true in many cultures still thriving
Unfortunately "it takes a village" has a whole different meaning the way leftist approach it.
(03-04-2016 01:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
We are different from animals in that we can reason our way out of instinct. Aside from that, I agree.
We totally agree. That what I meant by us choosing to be monogamous.
(03-04-2016 02:15 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
so, what i'm gathering from this book is that the hunter/forager of yore wasn't interested in spreading his seed for the survival of the species. he/she certainly couldn't accommodate a roving pack of hungry mouths in their gypsy quest for sustenance. rather, it was a bunch of caveman going at the same willing women whenever either sex wanted some special attention.
i do agree that you cannot act like that now even if it would make things less complicated. they have for example contemporary lugu lake in isolation in china where women accept men into their bedrooms and they leave the next day. the society is kinda like vegas. they don't share their gossip. the chinese government couldn't even persuade them to change their ways. there is shared parentry which is an original concept inherent from our ancestors. males who impregnated various women look after spawn that might or might or might not be their progeny (as other males' sperm lurked the midst). the whole notion of it takes a village to raise a child was true and is true in many cultures still thriving
I think there is some evidence that having a larger group structure helped some with survival...especially when hunting. Lot easier to take down large animals in packs than alone. I get what you say though....Evidently men are conditioned like to screw anything willing. I won't deny that. I do have a contention about women. They seem far more selective in this arena. Maybe it had to do with having sex with the stronger and more likely to provide cavemen? See...nothing has changed!!!!
(03-04-2016 02:15 PM)Lush Wrote: [ -> ] (03-04-2016 12:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I believe we choose to be monogamous. We are just animals at our core and there is some caveman left over in all of us. There is nothing particularly wrong with us wanting to spread our seed everywhere. We can't help those thoughts. Acting on them is another thing entirely now. We no longer need to have large amounts of offspring to make our species survive. I wonder if at one point we will evolve to not have these urges?
so, what i'm gathering from this book is that the hunter/forager of yore wasn't interested in spreading his seed for the survival of the species. he/she certainly couldn't accommodate a roving pack of hungry mouths in their gypsy quest for sustenance. rather, it was a bunch of caveman going at the same willing women whenever either sex wanted some special attention.
i do agree that you cannot act like that now even if it would make things less complicated. they have for example contemporary lugu lake in isolation in china where women accept men into their bedrooms and they leave the next day. the society is kinda like vegas. they don't share their gossip. the chinese government couldn't even persuade them to change their ways. there is shared parentry which is an original concept inherent from our ancestors. males who impregnated various women look after spawn that might or might or might not be their progeny (as other males' sperm lurked the midst). the whole notion of it takes a village to raise a child was true and is true in many cultures still thriving
Lions go in and kill the children of previous males. Pretty prevalent among kings when they took over a kingdom. Kill off the male children of their rivals. The Mongols would go in, kill the males and haul off the women. Don't think "it takes a village" is very human.