Me n this crazy little thing called Polyamory...

[GreenEarthAl]

originally written for my various journals, but I figured it should go here too.

------------------------------------

Have you ever gotten the feeling that people are talking about you. You convince yourself that you're just paranoid but then you see them pointing at you. Or they actually say something loud enough that you can overhear and then you know exactly what they're saying about you?

Right. So, rather than continuing to just walk past the big orange elephant in the corner, I guess I'll be the first to stop and ask "Um, hey. What's up with the orange elephant?"

Before I begin, I would remind us all that this is about to be a response to numerous sources and circumstances so no one person should get all bent out of shape about it, but life being what it is, probably everyone will. So it goes.

Today's Orange Elephant is polyamory. Specifically my polyamory. For those new to the term, polyamory is that crazy notion where you believe you can be in love with more than one person at the same time.

Commitment phobic:
I'll deal with the easiest first. I've actually had some arm-chair psychoanalist give me a dimestore diagnosis and conclude that I'm polyamorous because I'm too "weak willed" to be monogamous, adding that I was selfish and mentally unable to deal with temptation. This was a person who didn't know me, so I'm inclined not to take it so personally, but as most people that know me well can attest to, I spent about twenty teen and adult years being fiercly monogamous, never having cheated on a girlfriend, and... had the right monogamous woman happened along at the right time I could quite easily have been happily monogamous for the rest of my life. I still consider myself somewhat of an advocate for monogamy and really root for the monogamous relationships of my monogamous friends, but I feel like fewer and fewer of them are rooting for mine as they find out it's not monogamous.

You gonna get AIDS and DIE:
That's the most common reaction I get when I try to explain to someone that I'm polyamorous and what it means. A lot of it's societal. We have an American culture that's teaching us not to touch one another and to remain isolated in our homes where it's safe, and I sometimes feel like it'll only be another 10 years or so before America is entirely peopled with OCD type folks stuck in an agorophobic existance spending 10+ hours a day scrubbing themselves with antibacterial soap.

Okay, let's say hypothetically that there's a woman that I totally adore, that really would entertain the idea of a relationship with me, but for the fact that I'm polyamorous and therefore going to get AIDS and DIE. Now, in spite of the fact that I fully intend to love more than one person at a time let's consider the fact that I have been sexually involved with a grand total of one woman in this millenium. And let's estimate that during the time she's been keeping away from me for safety's sake she's had relations of some form or fashion with let's say six people. All things being equal, she'd have given herself six times the risk. But, let's say thing are not equal and let's realistically guess that the average person she's had relations with have had relations with one and a half times as many people as the person I've been with. Now we've assumed 9 times the risk. And factor in things like how much more fervant the average polyamorous person I talk to is about safer sex practices than the average youth out there trying to really impress some new person in a state of quasi-desperation. It's probably not a stretch to say that neither of us runs any particularly high chance of contracting AIDS and dying, but hers could still easily be ten times higher.

I bring this up, not to broadcast my personal business --because I'd much rather not have done that (even though technically my life is an open book, literally, available for purchase)-- and not to alienate someone that totally rocks, but rather, just to make the point that my intention to be in love with more than one person at a time doesn't give me some form of automatic suceptability to various maladies, nor does the intention to settle with one person innoculate you from such. Just because you limit yourself to one at a time and I don't doesn't pan out to the entirety of the equation. There are more factors than that.

Last time I gave blood I was HIV and Hepatitis free and I do truly believe that I am on my way to living a live where I won't be contracting AIDS, and dying from it.

Thanks for your concern though.

If you are with more than one person why not just call yourself single?

Why don't you call yourself a turnip?

I don't call myself single because I'm not single. My relationship with Heather has been ongoing for three really wonderful years and we really intend to grow old and happy together. We have the kind of commitment where any number of days can pass and we still wake up wanting to be together through the good circumstances and the bad. She and I have a level of communication that I never allowed myself to have in any of my previous relationships. I am in love in a way that I never have been before and our polyamory works for both of us. We are both totally into our relationship with one another, we enjoy talking with each other about who we're dating --even as disaterously as that often goes in my case (excessive honesty is I think what they call the problem I have)-- and I appreciate that most people aren't into that, but we are.

You can't be both, you're not being true to yourself:
I've had people on both sides of the issue tell me that I can't be both. I've got to stick to one side or the other. What this says to me is that in any group, it's easy to pick out the idiots. I've gotten to know a lot of polyamorous people over the last couple years, and I really like most of them, and there are some that are total whackalicious freaks. I have found the same to be true of married people or single people or black people or left-handed people or whatever.

When I was 27 I made a decision to completely stop dating until I truly believed I found the right person for myself. A polyamorous person was not anything that I had really ever concieved of or would have wanted to imagine myself involved with. But that's who I met and fell in love with, and it doesn't just work for me a little bit, it TOTALLY works for me. My life has been kicking on all cylinders ever since.

People meet someone they like and change religions for them. To me, converting to Judaism or Catholicism for a person is a MUCH bigger deal than converting to polyamory, and yet people accept that. They acknowledge that that can work out sometimes. Hell, I've met people that have even become Republicans because they were so in love with somebody --talk about sick! But somehow, a "good" monogamist becoming polyamorous for someone is beyond the pale and just... just... not right.

So then...
I feel like I've watched a lot of friends slowly drift off and distance themselves. And they don't talk about it, so I never get to know precisely what's going on. But I feel like a lot of my married and monogamously involved friends don't want me around... because I'm going to turn their significant other Poly, or I'll want to have sex with them. A lot of people seem to think I've become a poly crusader because I put it in my books and such. I put a lot of great examples of happy monogamy in there too, but as soon as you first mention polyamory in a positive light you're suddenly "on their side" and "against our side".

I doubt I have the power to change anyone into anything they don't want to be changeed into. But before I knew anything about polyamory, I knew several people who were polyamorous and didn't know what to call it. My writing about my polyamorous experience is no different than a gay author wanting to talk about the gay experience or a Polish poet wanting to write about the Polish experience etc. I do think there are people who would definitely be helped by knowing that polyamory exists, and further, I think it would even help all the monogamous people because those polyamorous people would stop feeling pressure to form relationships with you that are of a nature where they're doomed to failure.

Your Closing Remarks:

So I guess I got the idea to write something like this when my latest Relations book, Smash Your TV, got mentioned on Polyamory Weekly (http://polyweekly.livejournal.com/12576.html) and I wanted to post about it in my journal and then, for a brief moment I thought to myself, no all of my friends will think I'm pushing my polyamory on them again. And then I realized how sad that is. I'm not ashamed to be polyamorous and it isn't about to become anything I hide. I miss a lot of my old friends that don't really contact me so much anymore, but so it goes. I can always make new friends. And loves.

[Drederick Tatum]

I hope you don't get AIDS, Al.

[Ace42X]

Is it anything like Balamory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/balamory/)?

[HEIRESS]

you have silly friends, I wouldnt stop hanging out with you just cause you like a lil free as a bird lovins

[mp-seventythree]

Keep on keepin on Alex, fuck the haters (excuse the pun)

[Qdrop]

If it truly works for you and for your lovers...go for it.
freedom and liberty and all that...

i just don't see these kinda situations working out well in most cases.

jealousy is a natural and unavoidable emotion...i don't see how neither you nor your lovers ever experiance it on a level that eventually destroys your relationships. it would seem inevitable to me.

but perhaps not.

we, as humans, are in a difficult position in our evolutionary status...
we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous...males mating with as many as possible....females being more selective: choosing the best suitors.....but not necessarrily the same ones every season.
but, as a few other spieces....we more recently began evolving into pac animals with family structures and even PAIR BONDING (mating for life, etc).
both of these sexual behavior sytems have thier strengths and weaknesses in survival (so it seems)...
but the real problem with humans...is that we are still in a state of flux between the 2 behavior sects: pair bonding, with the innate tendancy for multi-mating....
whether you choose a pair-bond, or a multi-partner lifestyle....it's never easy.

[Ace42X]

we, as humans, are in a difficult position in our evolutionary status...
we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous...males mating with as many as possible....females being more selective: choosing the best suitors.....but not necessarrily the same ones every season.

T&F we know very little about the sexualisation of our genetic ancestors. Bonoboes have a polygamous matriarchical society, whereas other social primates have very strict sexual dynamics. For example, chimps have a rigid hierachy.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521525772

That book covers many examples of social monogamy in the animal kingdom.

specifically, monogamous family groups are the common pattern for gibbons, siamangs, titi monkeys, indris, tarsiers, and apparently some pottos.

Besides, arguing about human behaviour based on that of our non-human ancestors is pointless, and leaping head first into naturalistic fallacy.

[Qdrop]

Besides, arguing about human behaviour based on that of our non-human ancestors is pointless, and leaping head first into naturalistic fallacy.

oh, not necessarily....
we clearly inherit and evolved from other species....our genes pretty much ace that. our behaviors evolved from previous species and well...

that does not mean that we act just like monkeys....but similarities are obvious.

basically, the proof is in "the pudding": we do have a pair bond culture, and it evolved long before any complex culture (so it was not simply dictated by any media or complex social orders- it evolved for suvrival reasons)
AND
we DO like our "pussy buffet"....look up any figure from any study on any demographic on any dynamic....and will show you that men and women cheat...and love multiple sex partners.
that didn't come out of thin-air...it's the scars of our ancestors.

we're caught in the crossroads....

[The Notorious LOL]

I told a kid once who said he was polyamorous that I felt it was just a nicer term for being a slut.

[SobaViolence]

if you can work it and not hurt anyone, power to you.

[marsdaddy]

jealousy is a natural and unavoidable emotion...i don't see how neither you nor your lovers ever experiance it on a level that eventually destroys your relationships. it would seem inevitable to me.Myopia will do that to people.

I'm trying to teach my son that there are many ways to do things and what's right for him might not be right for someone else. It's the world view of a 3 year old that when they think they have something figured out, they can't believe it can be done another way.

I think many of your friends are jealous, Alex. Or, to accept your way would somehow invalidate theirs. I know committing to mrs. marsdaddy was a challenge -- more mental and emotional than anything. Also, it wasn't until my son was born that I fully understood what that commitment meant.

[Ace42X]

we DO like our "pussy buffet"....look up any figure from any study on any demographic on any dynamic....and will show you that men and women cheat...and love multiple sex partners.
that didn't come out of thin-air...it's the scars of our ancestors.


Conjecture, speculation and illogic.

[ms.peachy]

I think that a lot of people think that if you're in a polyamourous situation, then somehow what that means is that you're just out sleeping with everybody all the time. And of course every time there's a TV show on about 'swingers', they're always all these really kinda scary lumpy emotional nutbags who really do very little to dispel any of the misconceptions. (Makes for great car-crash telly, though.)

Personally it's not the lifestyle for me, but I've known a handful of couples who are polys, or were in previous relationships, and for the most part they're just pretty normal folks who just aren't monogamous. There's no deception or infidelity, this is just the way they live, and it's not a big deal. (One or two do fit well into that 'nutbag' category as mentioned earlier, though.)

One of mr.peachy's bosses, a partner in his firm, has been fairly openly carrying on an affair for a few years with another woman in the company. Mr.p was really uncomfortable at first about then being at company functions where the guy's wife was also present, but I pointed out that "you don't know that his wife doesn't actually know". For all any of us knows, they may have their own 'marital arrangement' where this is OK. Maybe not. But from what I have learned from the other people I know who are in polyamourous relationships, hey, you just never know.

[TurdBerglar]

how the fuck could you tolerater more than one female at a time?

[Ace42X]

they may have their own 'marital arrangement'

If my wife tried to get a marital arrangement out of me like that, she'd get the back-side of my hand. TO THE MOON, ALICE! Unless it was with another chick and I could join in. Then I might ok it.

Or if she absolutely failed to get any action, while I had to beat the chicks off with a shitty stick, that situation could work, I guess.

Or if I couldn't stand her, and was just married for her money... I wouldn't mind a sham marriage for that sort of thing. Especially if she cooked and cleaned too. And did my laundry.

[marsdaddy]

how the fuck could you tolerater more than one female at a time?It's comments like these that show the only sex you have is with couch cushions.

[TurdBerglar]

couch cushions chafe like you wouldn't beleive

[Ace42X]

couch cushions chafe like you wouldn't beleive

In FHM's "interesting deaths" section, they featured one guy who made a "shag sofa" out of two belt-sanders placed behind a hole in a cussion on his setee. He electrocuted himself when he shot his jizz all over the appliances apparently.

[ms.peachy]

If my wife tried to get a marital arrangement out of me like that, she'd get the back-side of my hand. TO THE MOON, ALICE!
Well, I gather that they married fairly young. Their children are grown, but they are both still reasonably young, fit people. As I say, it's not for me, but I can understand how two people who have built a life together, might well sitll enjoy sex with eachother and not be looking to split up, but might be interested in exploring other options. Especially if they didn't give themselves the opportunity to do so before marriage and kids.

I have no idea if this is their situation or not, and it's hardly like I can ask, but I'm just saying I think it is possible for two mature adults to come to an agreement that gives both parties a bit of sexual license in a way that is honest and doesn't undermine the core marital relationship.

[marsdaddy]

In FHM's "interesting deaths" section...You read that capitalist drivel?

[Ace42X]

You read that capitalist drivel?

Actually, I had it read to me. By my man-servant. While I was bathing in a golden tub, filled with asses milk.

[Qdrop]

Conjecture, speculation and illogic.

so you don't agree that relationship cheating, and non-monogomous-mulit-partner relationships (one night stands, fuck buddies) are prevalant in virtually ALL societies?

where does that come from?

[Ace42X]

where does that come from?

It's based on inductive reasoning.

[Qdrop]

It's based on inductive reasoning.

you're not really answering my question...

do you agree that relationship cheating, and non-monogomous-mulit-partner relationships (one night stands, fuck buddies) are prevalant in virtually ALL societies?

and where do you think that behavior comes from?

[Ace42X]

do you agree that relationship cheating, and non-monogomous-mulit-partner relationships (one night stands, fuck buddies) are prevalant in virtually ALL societies?

Yes, I do disagree depending on how you define "prevalent" and especially how you define non-monogamy. Many societies have had greater taboos and prosecution of infedelity than ours. The modern world makes adultery both easier and more permissable, that says NOTHING about biological evolution.

and where do you think that behavior comes from?

There are five billion and one possibilities that don't require us to resort to fallacy to justify it.

There is NO evidence whatsoever to put it down to the innate behaviours of some unknown distant primate ancestor, and no matter how convieniantly that explanation suits your world view, it DOESN'T change the fact that there is absolutely no logic or evidence for it.

What you have done is extrapolate a trend we can see at the moment, and then work backwards to make a suposition about its origin, just so you can use that origin to make generalisations about a current trend. A mental-doubletake which is the worst kind of sloppy thinking.

It is precisely the same sort of argument Racerstang and 100%Ill try to use, and I really expect better from you.

[Qdrop]

Yes, I do disagree depending on how you define "prevalent" and especially how you define non-monogamy. stop splitting hairs.

Many societies have had greater taboos and prosecution of infedelity than ours. which shows what a problem it is.

The modern world makes adultery both easier and more permissable, that says NOTHING about biological evolution. no?



There are five billion and one possibilities that don't require us to resort to fallacy to justify it. please divulge.

There is NO evidence whatsoever to put it down to the innate behaviours of some unknown distant primate ancestor, and no matter how convieniantly that explanation suits your world view, it DOESN'T change the fact that there is absolutely no logic or evidence for it.

What you have done is extrapolate a trend we can see at the moment, and then work backwards to make a suposition about its origin, just so you can use that origin to make generalisations about a current trend. A mental-doubletake which is the worst kind of sloppy thinking. it's called evolutionary biology/psychology....anthropological psychology....

if you are going to pretend that these mediums are all based on backwards supositions about an origin, just so they can use that origin to make generalisations about a current trend...
well, that is quite a war you are fighting against MUCH stronger foes.....
good luck.


It is precisely the same sort of argument Racerstang and 100%Ill try to use, and I really expect better from you. oh now your just going the ad hominem route...

[Qdrop]

There is NO evidence whatsoever to put it down to the innate behaviours of some unknown distant primate ancestor, and no matter how convieniantly that explanation suits your world view, it DOESN'T change the fact that there is absolutely no logic or evidence for it.

What you have done is extrapolate a trend we can see at the moment, and then work backwards to make a suposition about its origin, just so you can use that origin to make generalisations about a current trend. A mental-doubletake which is the worst kind of sloppy thinking.


"We now have the answer to the question posed above: what functions is the brain likely to perform? If brain tissue is organized like all other tissue, it will perform precisely those functions that facilitate reproduction. More accurately, because evolution by natural selection is an historical process, and because the future cannot be predicted, the brain and body will perform functions that facilitated reproduction (note the past tense). Whether they currently do so will depend on how closely the present resembles the past. If we can develop an accurate picture of a species' reproductive ecology--the set of physical transformations that had to occur over evolutionary time for individuals to reproduce--we can infer those properties the organism is likely to have in order to ensure that those transformations reliably took place. Evolutionary time, the time it takes for reproductively efficacious mutations to arise and spread in the population, is often taken to be roughly 1000-10,000 generations; for humans, that equals about 20,000-200,000 years.

Over the last 200,000 years, humans regularly encountered spiders and snakes, creatures whose toxins would have significantly impeded the reproduction of individuals unlucky enough to get injected with them. Over the last 100 years, humans have regularly encountered automobiles, encounters that also can seriously impede reproduction (e.g., by getting run over). Because 200,000 years is long enough for humans to evolve protective mechanisms, but 100 years isn't, we can predict that humans may well possess an innate aversion to spiders and snakes, but not to automobiles--even though far more people are currently killed by cars than by spiders or snakes. Once we have firmly established that avoiding spiders and snakes would have reliably facilitated the reproduction of ancestral humans, we can then design experiments to determine whether humans in fact possess an innate, cognitive ability to detect and avoid these animals (more on how to do this below). A major lesson of evolutionary psychology is that if you want to understand the brain, look deeply at the environment of our ancestors as focused through the lens of reproduction. If the presumptions of evolutionary psychology are correct, the structure of our brains should closely reflect our ancestral reproductive ecology. Thus, evolutionary psychology provides a method for perceiving the functional organization of the brain by studying the world--currently a far more tractable problem than disentangling neural assemblages."

[Ace42X]

which shows what a problem it is.

Hardly. You could say that society's taboos on incest show what a problem that is, because it is such an evolutionary prerogative.

please divulge.

All cultural. Our society rewards male promiscuity with labels such as "stud" and respect. Women, conversely are "sluts" or "whores."

Thus there are social pressures on women to be monogamous, and on men to be promiscuous.

No doubt you will contend this is a trickle-down genetic phenomenon, however this is again based on supposition. Our society is infinitly more complex than that of even the closest social primate relatives we have, and to equate diverse media demonifying easy women with chimps beating up unfaithful females (which, incidently, doesn't happen. Women are expected to be promiscuous in a lot of simian societies. It is the man's job to deny them males, not boot out horny females) is just plain wrongheaded.

it's called evolutionary biology/psychology....anthropological psychology...

Both notoriously volatile fields that have a complete perspective change every five years as new evidence points out just how wrong the theories are.

And they tend to base their arguments on what we know about our genetic ancestary, not what would make sense given how we BEHAVE now. IE They look at it from the past going forward, not from the present looking back. Very different from the process you tried to use to justify your position.

if you are going to pretend that these mediums

I'm not going to pretend anything about these mediums until actual factual evidence is provided. At the moment, your speculations do not require me to address a field you only mention elliptically.

ad hominem

Hardly. It is precisely the same argument and rationale Racerstan uses, but dressed up with your favourite scientific theory instead of his favourite bible passages. Both are based on the same speculation. You claiming that science agrees with you is no different to Stang contending that God agrees with him.

As for your paragraph (link? Source?) cited:

If we can develop (...) we can infer (...) is likely to have

That is ignoring the fact that none of this is relevant to sexualisation or society.

A major lesson of evolutionary psychology is that if you want to understand the brain, look deeply at the environment of our ancestors as focused through the lens of reproduction. If the presumptions of evolutionary psychology are correct, the structure of our brains should closely reflect our ancestral reproductive ecology. Thus, evolutionary psychology provides a method for perceiving the functional organization of the brain by studying the world--currently a far more tractable problem than disentangling neural assemblages."

If you read it again, you'll see it is "by studying the world" THEN.
IE when snakes and spiders killed more people. The world 200,000 years ago.

"The environment of our ancestors".

You have yet to offer a shred of evidence to suggest that the environmental factors that were operating on our ancestors were any different to the factors that were operating on any one of a number of animal species that mate monogamously and for life.

So far you have yet to show anything that could refute or detract from the assertion that we are genetically monogamous, like many other species, and that our current infidelity is an abberation, an "unnatural" response to living in an unnatural (artificial) environment.

There is no reason to suppose about the nature of our ancestors either way, and until you offer anything to support it, your argument is on thin ice.

Now, there could be supporting evidence out there, and I don't want to get drawn into a long and protracted, and increasingly tedious scientific argument about the merits and drawbacks of various genetic studies, and the development of man. However, as you didn't have access to this information before you made your point, the fact that either of us could draw up sources of information to support our point after the fact is neither here nor there.

Your argument was illogical, even if subsequent evidence supports the conclusion.

Anyway, as of yet, the only environment you have cited is the environment of here or now. Unless you are proposing we are our own ancestors due to a timewarp or paradox, your text is irrelevant.

[Qdrop]

Hardly. You could say that society's taboos on incest show what a problem that is, because it is such an evolutionary prerogative. so incidents of incest are equal to sexual partner cheating,huh?
not very apt.



All cultural. Our society rewards male promiscuity with labels such as "stud" and respect. Women, conversely are "sluts" or "whores."

Thus there are social pressures on women to be monogamous, and on men to be promiscuous.

No doubt you will contend this is a trickle-down genetic phenomenon, however this is again based on supposition. Our society is infinitly more complex than that of even the closest social primate relatives we have, and to equate diverse media demonifying easy women with chimps beating up unfaithful females (which, incidently, doesn't happen. Women are expected to be promiscuous in a lot of simian societies. It is the man's job to deny them males, not boot out horny females) is just plain wrongheaded.
ace , that is just retarted...
but typical of a pronouced socialist/communist supporter. your politics often seem to dictate your scientific/social beliefs....

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/hate.html


Both notoriously volatile fields that have a complete perspective change every five years as new evidence points out just how wrong the theories are. biased cynicism. they are still very young fields, yes..and our knowledge of the mind is very limited....but that doesn't equate to evolutionary psychology being tantamount to creationism.

And they tend to base their arguments on what we know about our genetic ancestary, not what would make sense given how we BEHAVE now. IE They look at it from the past going forward, not from the present looking back. Very different from the process you tried to use to justify your position. yes and no:

" Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach. Three examples: 1) evidence of design clearly identifies bipedalism as an adaptation, but what 'problem' it solved is not at all obvious, nor does the 'evidence of design' philosophy provide much guidance (though more detailed functional analyses of bipedalism are further constraining the set of possible solutions). 2) Language shows clear evidence of design, and there are several plausible reproductive advantages to having language, so why don't many other animals have language? 3) It can be very difficult to determine whether simple traits are adaptations simply because there is insufficient evidence of design. Menopause may be an adaptation, but it has too few 'features' to say based on evidence of design alone (some 'features' of menopause, like bone loss, seem to indicate that it is not an adaptation). Very simple traits will not always yield to a 'design analysis,' simply because there isn't enough to grab onto."

also:

"Convergent evolution vs. phylogenetic inertia. In contrast to early approaches to the evolution of human behavior that emphasized chimp or gorilla models, evolutionary psychology relies heavily on convergent evolution type arguments. The emphasis is on functional design, with little attention paid to traits derived by descent from recent and not-so-recent ancestors. Birds are as likely to be used as models as are baboons or bonobos. Functional arguments also typically pay little attention to phylogenetic constraints. Although it is not exactly clear what kinds of constraints human ancestry might place on human cognition, it surely places some. A synthesis of primate cognitive ethology and human evolutionary psychology that takes into account both the convergent evolution of similar psychologies in response to similar ecological problems, as well as phylogenetic history, has significant potential (as most primatologists would argue, I think)."

the field, itself, is aware of it's possible pitfalls (as any scientific medium or system of empiricism can have)....
again, possiblility of flaws does not equate to flawed theory.


As for your paragraph (link? Source?) cited: this is a good one:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html



That is ignoring the fact that none of this is relevant to sexualisation or society. sexuality has no connection to evolution or psychology?



If you read it again, you'll see it is "by studying the world" THEN.
IE when snakes and spiders killed more people. The world 200,000 years ago.

"The environment of our ancestors". yes, the environment of our ancestors....
seeing as how very little evolution takes place in less than 10,000 years....our psychology is likely nearly identical.

You have yet to offer a shred of evidence to suggest that the environmental factors that were operating on our ancestors were any different to the factors that were operating on any one of a number of animal species that mate monogamously and for life. meaning, if they weren't then such species should have adopted the same psychological response to sex as "us", but they didn't?
but there is more than one way to skin a cat.



So far you have yet to show anything that could refute or detract from the assertion that we are genetically monogamous, like many other species, and that our current infidelity is an abberation, an "unnatural" response to living in an unnatural (artificial) environment. how much research have you done about the evolutionary history of sex? i mean, GENETICALLY...what you are saying is wrong, ace.

There is no reason to suppose about the nature of our ancestors either way, and until you offer anything to support it, your argument is on thin ice. genetics for one.
you need to read up on this more.

Now, there could be supporting evidence out there, and I don't want to get drawn into a long and protracted, and increasingly tedious scientific argument about the merits and drawbacks of various genetic studies, and the development of man. However, as you didn't have access to this information before you made your point, the fact that either of us could draw up sources of information to support our point after the fact is neither here nor there. oh ace, i could draw up sources for you all day on the genetic necessity/proof of the benefits of sexual promescuity...

Your argument was illogical, even if subsequent evidence supports the conclusion. way to cover your ass.

Anyway, as of yet, the only environment you have cited is the environment of here or now. Unless you are proposing we are our own ancestors due to a timewarp or paradox, your text is irrelevant.
so there is no evidence, gentically, anthropologically, or otherwise to support what i am saying, eh?
sure about that?

[Qdrop]

I don't want to get drawn into a long and protracted, and increasingly tedious scientific argument about the merits and drawbacks of various genetic studies, and the development of man.

yeah you do....
come clean.

[Ace42X]

so incidents of incest are equal to sexual partner cheating,huh?
not very apt.

Of course it's not apt, it rebutts one of your arguments.

You argued that it being taboo indicated its genetic prevalency. I showed you how this doesn't hold water. It is Socratic methodology at work. All above board.


ace , that is just retarted...
but typical of a pronouced socialist/communist supporter. your politics often seem to dictate your scientific/social beliefs....

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/hate.html

And typical of your smug self-importance. My scientific beliefs are the product of logical enquirey and several years of study into the field of psychology, resulting in formal academic qualifications. This was LONG before I became politicised.

biased cynicism. they are still very young fields, yes..and our knowledge of the mind is very limited....but that doesn't equate to evolutionary psychology being tantamount to creationism.

What arrogance. Only you would equate me criticising your use of a science as me criticising the science, as if you were the sole embodiment of that school of science...

yes and no:

" Evolutionary psychology (and adaptationism in general) has devoted considerable theoretical attention to the issue of design, the first link in the causal chain leading from phenotype structure to reproductive outcome, but has lumped every other link into the category 'reproductive problem.' This failure to theorize about successive links can lead to spectacular failures of the 'design' approach.

The key word there is "Successive links" not "precursive links."

The emphasis is on functional design, with little attention paid to traits derived by descent from recent and not-so-recent ancestors. Birds are as likely to be used as models as are baboons or bonobos. Functional arguments also typically pay little attention to phylogenetic constraints. Although it is not exactly clear what kinds of constraints human ancestry might place on human cognition, it surely places some. A synthesis of primate cognitive ethology and human evolutionary psychology that takes into account both the convergent evolution of similar psychologies in response to similar ecological problems, as well as phylogenetic history, has significant potential (as most primatologists would argue, I think)."

Which, verbatim, supports my case even more so. Outside bonoboes and chimps, the incidence of specific monogamous relationships in species goes up.

the field, itself, is aware of it's possible pitfalls (as any scientific medium or system of empiricism can have)....
again, possiblility of flaws does not equate to flawed theory.

The field, itself, doesn't necessarily support your initial premise. Infact, everything you have said could just as equally refute it.

sexuality has no connection to evolution or psychology?

Psychology, and evolutionary psychology, is greatly concerned with sexuality. However, you haven't actually posted a single piece of work on the topic of sexuality.

It is the equivalent of you posting schematics of a car's headlights, and me saying "That's irrelevant to the car's ability to move around at speed" and you contending with "moving about at speed has nothing to do with cars?"

A complete non-sequiter.

yes, the environment of our ancestors....
seeing as how very little evolution takes place in less than 10,000 years....our psychology is likely nearly identical.

Here you are very VERY wrongly conflating the huge sphere of psychology with "the development of brain chemistry and structures."

Plenty of psychological phenomenon are PURELY culturally based. This is indisputable fact, as anyone aquainted with the subject can tell you. To say that the psychological profile of people hasn't changed in 10,000 years is a nonsense, given that there are radically different psycholical trends across different countries, let alone continents and millenia.

This is just one of the limitations of biological psychology.

meaning, if they weren't then such species should have adopted the same psychological response to sex as "us", but they didn't?
but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Meaning precisely what I said, as I have no idea what you are driving at.

If you accept that monogamy was a biological trait in our ancestors, just as it is in plenty of other species, then your argument falls down. You haven't given a SHRED of evidence to suggest otherwise, in a lengthy post, despite me asking repeatedly, which just goes to show how illogical the position is.

"It has to be the case, because otherwise our theory, which we all like very much, falls down."

Fix your theory, not the facts.

how much research have you done about the evolutionary history of sex? i mean, GENETICALLY...what you are saying is wrong, ace.

Clearly more than you have, otherwise you'd be arguing with facts instead of supposition.

As I said in another thread, I read an argument which showed that the *inclination* for monogamy is genetic. In the experiment, they studied two sub-species of rodent that were genetically identical, except that some were monogamous and some rutted like crazy. By manipulating a single genetic marker, they were able to turn monogamy on and off. However, whether the "prevalent" trend in humanity is for it (or whatever sophisiticated combination occurs in humans) to be on, off, or somewhere in between isn't addressed by this, OR YOU whatsoever.

Even assuming that our preferences and behaviour are as completely contingent on our genetics as rodents (quite quite wrong), that still doesn't mean that all of humanity is genetically pre-disposed one way or the other.

While I am not a geneticist (and nor are you, for that matter) - I would propose that it is quite possible, thus, that a monogamous and polygamous parents could quite conceivably have a combination of monogamous and polygamous children, just as parents can have children with different hair and eye colours.

HOWEVER, people behave against their genetic predispositions all the time. People can have a genetic predisposition to being argumentative and having fits of rage, and yet still keep their tempers.

It is undeniable that social factors can counter, or even completely reverse a person's genetic predispositions.

Thus, it is just as likely that everyone is genetically monogamous, but social pressures make them sleazy as the inverse. It could just as easily be that polygamous people have a stronger predisposition to following social trends than their genetic predisposition for monogamy, and thus they are polygamous because of society's views.

It could be one in a billion things, and you don't KNOW any different, you just believe it.

genetics for one.
you need to read up on this more.

I dare say I know as much about genetics as you do, if not more. The difference is that I do not put as much credibility in it as you do, due to being more than aware of its limitations.

Did you know that 90% of prostitutes (in the UK) have been in care? Let me guess, people with a genetic propensity for promiscuity also have a genetic propensity for being raised in an instituion, right? Because social factors are so irrelevant.

oh ace, i could draw up sources for you all day on the genetic necessity/proof of the benefits of sexual promescuity...

Yes, and no doubt you'd rest your case there, overlooking the obvious counter that there are plenty of benefits of monogamy and life-bonding, which is precisely why countless species exhibit this behaviour.

way to cover your ass.

Hey, you're in the wrong. I'm not going to let you get away with that. My biggest problem was with your illogical reasoning. Your conclusion is up for debate.

so there is no evidence, gentically, anthropologically, or otherwise to support what i am saying, eh?
sure about that?

To support your argument. Conclusion? If you discount a sound argument, then it is easy to find evidence to support a conclusion.

The scientists who thought that the Earth was stationary, stated that if the Earth rotated - then a brick dropped from a tower would not fall straight down, as while it was in the air, the ground would've moved.

The evidence showed quite clearly that the brick falls straight down.

Of course, the scientists who thought the Earth did move, and the sky stayed still, argued that the evidence proved THEIR point, because if everything on the Earth was moving, that would include the brick too.

When the logic behind an argument is flawed (and yours was) the agreement of the evidence with the expected conclusion is irrelevant.

And you have still yet to give any evidence whatsoever, as I pointed out.

[Ace42X]

yeah you do....
come clean.

I really don't. I'd've donned my tights and been on City of Heroes if it were not for their mapserver being totally bust.

[cookiepuss]

I saw a documentary on a south american tribe of indians that practiced group sex for centuries...until recently. The group sex had been an important spiritual ritual that really brought the tribe together, and it was practiced regularly without jelousy or any negative influence. Then one day, and no one in the tribe knows why...one man became jealous and the whole thing fell apart. this tribe had almost no influence from western cultures and no one know where or why this man suddenly couldn't tollerate the group sex. the tribe no longer practices it, but they interviewed some of the women in the tribe who remember how it use to be and they say... they really miss it and things were better then.

Anyway...to each thier own. With the exception of having sex with children or animals I say whatever type of sex or relationship it works for you, go for it. be happy.

[Ace42X]

With the exception of having sex with children or animals I say whatever type of sex or relationship it works for you, go for it. be happy.

What's the beef with animals? They do it all the time! In Amsterdam... So I gather...

And as for children, what constitutes a "child"? 12-14 ages of adulthood are not historically uncommon.

[cookiepuss]

And as for children, what constitutes a "child"? 12-14 ages of adulthood are not historically uncommon.


it was not historically uncommon because historically people's life spans were much shorter. when many people died by the age of 30, it was not uncommon for humans to biologically mature faster and be capable of starting famlies in thier teens. People live much longer now and teens don't need to start procreating at 12 even though they may still be biologically able to.


when animals can talk and tell you if they want to have sex with you, then it will be ok. until then, they are victims.

[Ace42X]

when many people died by the age of 30, it was not uncommon for humans to biologically mature faster and be capable of starting famlies in thier teens. People live much longer now and teens don't need to start procreating at 12.

Actually, according to Ray Winston, the opposite is true. Humans mature biologically faster when they have a comfortable life style. According to statistics, girls are becoming sexually mature younger now than ever before, hence the rise in teenage pregnancies, etc.

Teens don't need to, but have a greater biological capacity and drive to.

when animals can talk and tell you if they want to have sex with you, then it will be ok. until then, they are victims.

One would assume they want to if they go around mounting people and fucking them. Infact, animals are all sexual animals, and lack of sex can seriously harm them. Many animals either lose the will to live, or actively try to commit suicide if denied the prospect of sex.

And, presumably, this means you are against castrating animals too? What with them being unable to tell you if they want their nuts off?

[cookiepuss]

One would assume they want to if they go around mounting people and fucking them. Infact, animals are all sexual animals, and lack of sex can seriously harm them. Many animals either lose the will to live, or actively try to commit suicide if denied the prospect of sex.

And, presumably, this means you are against castrating animals too? What with them being unable to tell you if they want their nuts off?

gawd you're so full of it. first of all casterating an animal does not rob them of thier sex drive. It can curb some of thier desire but even neutered animals will hump things even though they don't produce sperm or eggs.

Animals also mount other animals (or people) to show thier donimance over them not because they desire to procreate.

I insist you provide proof of this supposed loss of the will to live and attempted sucide in animals without sex. :rolleyes: bullshit. Let's take for example the Gray Wolf. In a pack of wolves only the alpha male and female mate (and they mate for life). All of the other wolves in the pack do not breed. so by your theory all the beta wolves have lost the will to live and are trying to kill themselves? yeah ok.

[Ace42X]

first of all casterating an animal does not rob them of thier sex drive. It can curb some of thier desire but even neutered animals will hump things even though they don't produce sperm or eggs.

It heavily "curbs" their desires, by seriously reducing the amount of sex-hormones in their bloodstream. This is precisely why the chick on "its me or the dog" (which was on the TV about an hour and a half ago) always tells the people with problem mutts to off the nuts.

Animals also mount other animals (or people) to show thier donimance over them not because they desire to procreate.

They also often have sex to reinforce relationships. Dolphins, for example, have purely social sex. However, none of this means the animal doesn't WANT to do the mounting.

I insist you provide proof of this supposed loss of the will to live and attempted sucide in animals without sex. :rolleyes: bullshit.

Finding sensible citations is near to impossible. Search for sex and animals and you come across all manner of irrlevant topics. However, I came across this phenomenon when writing a dissertation on animal behavioural disorders due to forced capitivity. It stood out, because I was more expecting to find only boring material about elephants swaying through boredom, and baboons ruining their fingernails on enclosure walls. The article I cited stood out because it pointed out that the animals in question stopped self-destructive behaviour when a mate was put into the enclosure with them. Placing another mail in had little to no effect. I think the animals in question were some species of oriental rodent, but this was the best part of a decade ago.

Let's take for example the Gray Wolf. In a pack of wolves only the alpha male and female mate (and they mate for life). All of the other wolves in the pack do not breed. so by your theory all the beta wolves have lost the will to live and are trying to kill themselves? yeah ok.

That is an illogical rebuttal. I didn't say "some species, including gray wolves" or "and from this we can conclude that all species including gray wolves..."

And I think you'll find that beta males in all societies engage in sexual behaviour of some sort. Without wanting to go and research the breeding habits, I'd wager that few to no gray wolves die virgins. In wild dog packs, the Alpha male has priority, but not exclusive rights. It is the same for food as for mates. Generally they protect the females that are *in heat* - protecting breeding, not sex, rights.

[cookiepuss]

They also often have sex to reinforce relationships. Dolphins, for example, have purely social sex. However, none of this means the animal doesn't WANT to do the mounting. You are implying that the animal makes some sort of cognitive descion about wanting to have sex. MOST Animals brains tend to be associative not cognitive. therefore a certain smell such as that of a female in season, or the posture of the animal inviting sexual behavior, triggers thier intinctive response. They don't "think" about it the way we do, which means thier basis of desire is also different than ours.




Finding sensible citations is near to impossible. Search for sex and animals and you come across all manner of irrlevant topics. However, I came across this phenomenon when writing a dissertation on animal behavioural disorders due to forced capitivity. It stood out, because I was more expecting to find only boring material about elephants swaying through boredom, and baboons ruining their fingernails on enclosure walls. The article I cited stood out because it pointed out that the animals in question stopped self-destructive behaviour when a mate was put into the enclosure with them. Placing another mail in had little to no effect. I think the animals in question were some species of oriental rodent, but this was the best part of a decade ago. Unfortunately this does not support your theory either because you are talking about animals in forced captivity, who are not behaving as they would in thier normal environment. There are simply too many external contributing factors in the psychological process of an animal that is being kept in a pseudo habitat to say that thier behavior is caused by the lack of sex alone. secondly, many species of animals have difficulty mating in captivity (pandas for one) and refuse to produce offspring while in captivity. The lack of desire for these animals to breed does not support your theory that they can not "live" without sex.



And I think you'll find that beta males in all societies engage in sexual behaviour of some sort. Without wanting to go and research the breeding habits, I'd wager that few to no gray wolves die virgins. In wild dog packs, the Alpha male has priority, but not exclusive rights. It is the same for food as for mates. Generally they protect the females that are *in heat* - protecting breeding, not sex, rights. Well it's unfortunate that you don't want to do the research, but i have been studying the gray wolf since I was in my teens. Wild dogs and wolves are not the same thing and thier breeding habits do differ slightly. in the wolf pack ONLY the alpha male and female mate. If the Alpha male dies then another wolf can fight his way toward becoming the next alpha. Or occasionally the alpha will allow another male to breed with the alpha female but it doesn't happen often. But again there is only one litter of pups in a wolf pack and it is exclusively the alpha pairs. If the betas want to breed they have to leave the pack and try to assert themselves into another neighboring pack. Canines only mate when a female comes in to heat. Again any monting done by canines of females that are not in heat is a result of a play for dominance not breeding, therefore it has nothing to do with sex. canines do not have sex to reinforce relationships, or for fun.

That is an illogical rebuttal. I didn't say "some species, including gray wolves" or "and from this we can conclude that all species including gray wolves..."
Again...you made a blanket state ment that ALL animals are sexual and will lose the will to live and even attempt sucide if they can't. and now you wana come back and say you weren't talking about wolves? you were talking about all animals, which includes wolves, so there's nothing illolocal about my response.

[jammytastic]

snoozefest.

bring out the beer n titties!

[cookiepuss]

yes but Jammy, I was just getting ready to explain to the Ace the differnece between what happens when canines actually fuck as opposes to mounting/humping. don't you wanna hear about that? ;)

[jammytastic]

id love to but id rather pluck out all my pubes with a tweezers.

:D

[marsdaddy]

Which one of you is Dan Akroyd?

[jammytastic]

umm... i dunno. is it me?

[Ace42X]

You are implying that the animal makes some sort of cognitive descion about wanting to have sex. (...) They don't "think" about it the way we do, which means thier basis of desire is also different than ours.

By that argument they don't "want" food or their squeaky toy. The quality or nature of their desire has no bearing on the argument. Just the fact that they desire.

Unfortunately this does not support your theory either because you are talking about animals in forced captivity, who are not behaving as they would in thier normal environment.

And pets are "wild" animals I suppose?

The lack of desire for these animals to breed does not support your theory that they can not "live" without sex.

Again, you are confusing "some animals self-harm without sex" with "All animals, including giant pandas".

A nice way to score cheap points, but totally irrelevant to the argument. You could just as well argue that "fish spend their whole lives underwater, so clearly saying that some animals don't like being held underwater is wrong..."

Well it's unfortunate that you don't want to do the research, but i have been studying the gray wolf since I was in my teens.

Well then, you're in luck if ever we have to argue about the sexual behaviour of gray wolves. But as your initial post wasn't "I'm against people having sex with gray wolves" it seems to be rather insignificant.

Wild dogs and wolves are not the same thing and thier breeding habits do differ.

And yet, knowing this, you decided to base your argument on an exception?

Again...you made a blanmket state ment that ALL animals are sexual and will lose the will to live and even attempt sucide if they can't.

Actually, I said, verbatim Many animals either lose the will to live, or actively try to commit suicide if denied the prospect of sex.

You might not understand the qualifier "many" - but that usually means "not all". It doesn't necessarily even mean "most" or "the majority"

But don't let what I SAID get in the way of your argument.

and now you wana come back and say you weren't talking about wolves? you were talking about all animals, which includes wolves, so there's nothing illolocal about my response.

No, I wasn't talking about all animals. Only an illiterate could take the word "many" to mean "all" - the two are mutually exclusive.

Infact, as most people neither have the capability or desire to have sex with wolves, that should have excluded them automatically.

Here is a straw-man, he likes being hit.

As for packs, while sorting scientific papers from bestiality documents, I found this:

According to Ray Coppinger, co-author of Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, when wolves settle near a garbage dump, and are able to scavenge for a living, rather than having to hunt large prey, the pack's "social structure" becomes much less clearly defined. Other wild canids, such as coyotes and jackals, only form packs when the conditions in their environment make it necessary for them to hunt large prey in order to survive. When they don't need to hunt large prey, they don't form packs. It's also notable that lions are the only social cats in nature, and they hunt in a similar manner to the way wolves chase and ambush large prey. Meanwhile, the wild dogs of Africa, who are so distantly related to dogs, genetically speaking, that they're practically not a member of the same family, not only hunt large prey as a pack, they also hunt small prey this way as well. And they're the most social mammals on the planet.

Which I think is relevant to the thread in a wider context too.

On the other hand, puppies raised in a family from 4 weeks of age (becoming used to dogs, cats and/or children), without renewed contact with the laboratory dogs, show greater familiarity with people than with dogs. An adult sheltie (who had lived with a cat and two children) showed sexual attraction for the cat and attacked all dogs (male and female alike); a beagle became "attached" to a vacuum cleaner bag; a basenji (who lived with a female dog) became a delinquent stray who attacked other dogs (Scott and Fuller, 1965).

Some of the more common illnesses seen in Macaws are (...) feather picking (results of boredom, poor diet, sexual frustration, lack of bathing)

http://animal-world.com/encyclo/birds/macaws/MacawProfile.htm

Searching for a list of symptoms of sexual frustration in canines is less successful, offering only a list of sites talking about the benefits of neutering a dog to relieve their sexual frustration. Presumably sexual frustration is problem enough to perform surgery on a pet, but not enough for it to justify relieving that sexual frustration manually.

[marsdaddy]

What about the sexual habits of Grizzly Bears with one gimpy parent?

[jammytastic]

what about it marsdaddy?

[cookiepuss]

Well perhaps if you were more specific about which animals you were talking about that lose the will to live and try to kill themselves then we could have avoided this whole argument in the first place. Regardless you implied that there were a great MANY animals that this applied to, to which I disagree, and feel if you really want to study it, you'll find there are very few.

I'm confused about your retort that "And pets are "wild" animals I suppose?" No. pets are domestic animals who behave differnetly in captivity because they were born with a relationship to humans where as wild animals did not. duh? i guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say there. As for the rest of it I'm not even going to bother anymore.

but there is just one more thing before I go home.......

I'm just wondering Ace, how many animals have killed themselves over being denied sex with you? :p

[marsdaddy]

what about it marsdaddy?No, I'm not talking about mating rituals with voodoo priestesses.

[Ace42X]

I'm just wondering Ace how many animals have killed themselves over being denied sex with you?

I was wondering how long that would take you. Can't win an argument, so you have to allude to deviancy. Why not call me a paedophile while you are at it? Perhaps an anti-semite?

Let me remind you that it is YOU who has been studying gray wolves since puberty, and YOU who was about to describe the intricacies of dogs mating, as opposed to mounting / humping.

I don't keep any pets, nor would I. Horrible messy things. You'd have to ask some of the dutch posters here, their country allows that sort of thing.

Anyway,
In addition, if animals are prevented from performing behaviours for which they have a strong motivation, this can lead to suffering and adverse mental states such as frustration, depression and anxiety (Dawkins 1990; Duncan, 1992; Sherwin and Nicol, 1998).

QED.

if you really want to study it, you'll find there are very few.

Actually, a cursory google finds plenty. The problem is that none of them could have voluntary sex with humans, and thus are irrelevant. You see, unlike you, I am not trying to create straw-man arguments left right and centre, so pointing out that countless species of birds exhibit self-destructive behaviour (including hundreds of species of parrot, chickens and other exotics) is irrelevant to the main thrust of the argument. I only mention it because you are determined to move away from the main thrust of the argument (that animals experience sexual frustration, that sexual frustration is unpleasant for them, and thus releaving sexual frustration is "pleasant.") solely on the basis of a point of information I only included for information's sake.

Likewise, the article I found that stated sexually frustrated baboons will gnaw at their own extremities was irrelevant, due to it not being likely that people would have sex with rare baboon species.

It is only relevant at all because you, for reasons best known to yourself, brought up gray wolves as an example.

pets are domestic animals who behave differnetly in captivity because they were born with a relationship to humans where as wild animals did not. duh? i guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say there.

All captive animals are born with a relationship to humans, and all inhabit artificial enclosures. My point was that your distinction was thus meaningless and in need of clarification. An animal born into an enclosure is not necessarily in a setting any less "natural" than a pet in a house. If anything a house is, by definition, less natural - as a house is 100% artificial, whereas an enclosure, no matter how artificial, generally makes use of natural features. Trees, open sky, grass, dirt, etc.

Pets need not be domesticated. Squirrels can be kept as pets, and have not been domesticated in the sense that dogs and cats have. Whether the former have been bred over millenia to be household pets, many exotic species that serve as pets have not been.

[Ace42X]

Back onto topic (incidently soemthing I stumbled upon whilst reading up on the sexual behaviour of various animals for the previous post):

Clearly, the idea that males and females conform to rigid gender profiles still dominates sex role discussions. According to this model, passionate males with cheap sperm pursue coy females with expensive eggs. Females look for males with the best genes, whereas males want to fertilize as many females as possible. Genetically superior males distinguish themselves as the winners of male-male combat, as with jousting elk, or by having the most expensive and beautiful ornaments, as among peacocks. These male and female profiles, together with the cheap sperm/expensive egg rationale, comprise what biologists call "sexual-selection theory." Throughout nature, it would seem, delicate discerning damsels welcome horny handsome warriors to bed.

This is rubbish.

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/2005summer/stories/sexual.html

In biology, an animal's sex is defined by the size of its gametes, or sex cells. Females make big gametes, or eggs, while males make small gametes, sperm or pollen. The biggest mistake being made in biology today is extrapolating the gender definition for gametes out to the whole-organism level, where it often breaks down.

Sexual identity is not about having a Y chromosome. That's only a mammal thing, and doesn't even apply to all mammals. Male and female mole-voles, for example, don't bother with any sex-chromosomal differences. In turtles, crocodiles, and some lizards, the temperature at which the egg is reared determines whether it will turn into a male or a female. Among birds, females, not males, possess the special sex chromosome. It's called a W, not a Y.

Among species with just two genders, the sexes can play roles completely opposite to those that sexual-selection imagines. Among these creatures, coy, drab males are pursued by passionate, showy females. Well-studied examples include mormon crickets, bush crickets, and katydids; the two-spotted goby, and North-Sea pipefish (relatives of seahorses); and among birds, the wattled jacana, red-necked phalarope, and spotted sandpiper.

Sexual selection theory also teaches that because eggs are larger and more expensive to produce, females must conserve this resource by playing hard to get. Conversely, because sperm are small and easy to manufacture, males can spread them around with little loss on investment. But in fact, sperm are not cheap. The relevant comparison is not between individual sperm and egg, but between ejaculate and egg. An ejaculate often has a million sperm whereas an individual egg is often a million times as large as an individual sperm, making the mating investment of both male and female about the same. As a result, in many species a mating for a male may be just as costly as for a female, even when there is no male investment in raising the offspring.

Female rhesus monkeys, lion-tail macaques, and baboons may offer sex to males, yet males regularly refuse. Female lion-tail macaques initiate almost 70 percent of sexual encounters but only 59 percent of those solicitations end in mounts.

According to sexual-selection theory, more sex is always better for males. Males who mate whenever the opportunity presents itself, and make their own opportunities when possible, will sire more progeny. Mammals seem to follow this pattern. About 90 percent of mammal species are polygynous, with one male servicing many females.

However, monogamy not only exists, but is quite common. Fully 90 percent of bird species are economically monogamous--a male and female bird cooperate in raising the eggs together in their nest. Often some of those eggs are sired by neighboring males, and females deposit some eggs in adjacent nests, so that parental relationships are distributed in neighborhoods. Thus, in birds economic monogamy often occurs without reproductive monogamy. Turning to monogamous mammals, males contribute to parental care by building a den, burrow, or lodge, defending the family's feeding territory, feeding his mate when she's nursing, and carrying the young around the way humans drive their kids to after-school soccer. Although not as common as in birds, mammalian monogamy does happen. Most wild canines, as well as 15 percent of primates, are faithful to a single mating partner. Monogamy too contradicts sexual selection.

Joan Roughgarden is professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, California.

[TAL]

I thought the topic was GEA.

[GreenEarthAl]

I thought the topic was GEA.

For about 3 posts. Then it got blindsided.

[The Notorious LOL]

MORAL OF THE STORY: I think its idealistic and if you can just dismiss jealousy altogether, maybe it works for you.


if it does work, enjoy.


lock this thread now.

[befsquire]

not to hijack the thread from q and ace back to the author / subject, but...

gea, your life is yours to live and love, and whether that falls into anyone else's ideals is irrelevant. as long as you are loving exactly the way you want and need, then i'm happy for you. i'd guess your friends are jealous because they wish they had everything they dreamed of getting out of love.

not that you asked, but what works for me is loving one person intensely and completely, and receiving the same in return.

it's a beautiful thing when you are allowed to love someone how you love to love without restriction / restraint.

[cookiepuss]

Ace, I still think you're lame. I never said animals couldn't become sexually frusterated what I'm debating with you is if they'll DIE from it. you said they loose the will to live and/or try to kill themselves. But then again you're probably one of those guys who told girls you made out with in highschool that you'd die from blue balls. :rolleyes: I'm also not the one who more or less eluded to the idea that perhaps there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals because after all they are sexual beings (I however don't think that their sexual nature has anything to do with them wanting to have sex with humans or any species other than thier own).


p.s. Squirrels can be kept as pets but they shouldn't be. most "exotic" pets really shouldn't be kept (by the average person) as a pet, because they have special needs the average person either isn't aware of or doesn't understand. There are reasons that some animals haven't been domecticated over centuries as the dog and the cat were. Some animals really don't have the personality traits for being truly compataible with humans. cat and dogs are both "pack" animals which makes them predisposioned for the family unit in human life.



hey did some one say something about polyamory?

[Ace42X]

I never said animals couldn't become sexually frusterated what I'm debating with you is if they'll DIE from it.

I know someone whose rabbit pined away after its mate escaped, and rabbits aren't generally monogamous AFAIK. Then there was that swan that fell in love with a pedallo, and refused to eat after it got taken away. I am sure there are plenty of other examples around, and I am sure there is plenty more anecdotal evidence on offer if you ask around.

you said they loose the will to live and/or try to kill themselves.

Pining away and self-starvation are precisely that.

And you are concentrating on just one part of a post, which, as I have constantly stated, was hardly the crux of the argument.

Presumably you think keeping pets in a situation where they are sexually frustrated, to the point where *cutting their bollocks off* is the humane answer to the problem, is perfectly humane. Not like keeping them hungry, or anything.

I'm also not the one who more or less eluded to the idea that perhaps there is nothing wrong with having sex with animals because after all they are sexual beings

Perhaps there isn't. The dutch legal authorities certainly don't think there is. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but I think you'll find there are plenty of people who would take issue with it around the world.

However, you haven't actually said what is wrong with it, other than "animals can't talk." Which is hardly informative. It's not like a man has to give his consent to the woman he is mounting, or else she is raping him...

They way you portrayed it, a woman putting some peanut butter on her flaps is guilty of abusing the dog, as if him getting a lick of a tasty treat is a horrible trap, so that her cooter can bite its head off like in a John Carpenter movie.

I however don't think that their sexual nature has anything to do with them wanting to have sex with humans or any species other than thier own

It's the micro-chips those perverts are putting in their brains, right?

Squirrels can be kept as pets but they shouldn't be.

More shoulds and shouldn'ts from our moral compass.

There are reasons that some animals haven't been domecticated over centuries as the dog and the cat were.

For the most part, because people can't be bothered. Domesticating Dogs and Cats has served a purpose, spotted parrots, not so much. And of course time is a factor. However, for domestication to occur, people have to keep pets domestically. If you had told the first people to domestic dogs, "you shouldn't be doing that" - we'd have no dogs as pets.

Some animals really don't have the personality traits for being truly compataible with humans.

Like the gray wolf?

cat and dogs are both "pack" animals which makes them predisposioned for the family unit in human life.

Cats are pack animals? That's news to me. Apart from the lion, that is news to me. What with one of the articles I cited saying that the lion is the only major feline group that hunts in groups.

The BBC documentary "the velvet claw" cited lack of pack behaviour as the reason most of the great cats (for example the sabre toothed family) died out, due to more efficient competition from canine pack competitors.

[befsquire]

jesus christ. enough. is it that important for you^ to be right that you have to destroy every thread you enter?

stop arguing and go have either polyamorous or monagamous sex with either the same or the opposite gender.

[Ace42X]

stop arguing and go have either polyamorous or monagamous sex with either the same or the opposite gender.

Your mum?

[Qdrop]

Of course it's not apt, it rebutts one of your arguments.

You argued that it being taboo indicated its genetic prevalency. I showed you how this doesn't hold water. It is Socratic methodology at work. All above board. okay, let's back to your original statement and start again:

"Yes, I do disagree depending on how you define "prevalent" and especially how you define non-monogamy. Many societies have had greater taboos and prosecution of infedelity than ours. The modern world makes adultery both easier and more permissable, that says NOTHING about biological evolution."

your argument is that, yes, adultry/promescuity exist...but not due to genetics or evolution?

okay, well there is no ONE statement you or I can state that proves or disproves that....it would just be dance of why taboos and prevalancies exist...genetics OR cultural environment being 2 possible alternatives.

And typical of your smug self-importance. praise from caesar.

My scientific beliefs are the product of logical enquirey and several years of study into the field of psychology, resulting in formal academic qualifications. This was LONG before I became politicised. so you say.


What arrogance. Only you would equate me criticising your use of a science as me criticising the science, as if you were the sole embodiment of that school of science... my point being...my views here are not alone in the dark.
these aren't "Qdrop's" beliefs unto himself.

i am echoing a very prominent train of thought in todays scientific world. you are echoing another.


The key word there is "Successive links" not "precursive links." jesus, you love to split hairs and jump into lateral arguments to confuse the subject...

like when Bill Clinton debated the meaning of the word "was"....during his impeachment trials...



Which, verbatim, supports my case even more so. Outside bonoboes and chimps, the incidence of specific monogamous relationships in species goes up. and that's the other thing you are doing...creating a strawman.
if you would go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that i stated that monogomy IS ALSO an evolved and prevalant trait among many mammals, including humans:

"we, as humans, are in a difficult position in our evolutionary status...
we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous...males mating with as many as possible....females being more selective: choosing the best suitors.....but not necessarrily the same ones every season.
but, as a few other spieces....we more recently began evolving into pac animals with family structures and even PAIR BONDING (mating for life, etc).
both of these sexual behavior sytems have thier strengths and weaknesses in survival (so it seems)...
but the real problem with humans...is that we are still in a state of flux between the 2 behavior sects: pair bonding, with the innate tendancy for multi-mating....
whether you choose a pair-bond, or a multi-partner lifestyle....it's never easy"

"basically, the proof is in "the pudding": we do have a pair bond culture, and it evolved long before any complex culture (so it was not simply dictated by any media or complex social orders- it evolved for suvrival reasons)"

again, my point was that we are caught in the crossroads.

The field, itself, doesn't necessarily support your initial premise. Infact, everything you have said could just as equally refute it. that's just not true, i'm getting many of these sentiments FROM that field (you're just accusing me of mucking it up) as well as numerous other fields of study. i'm not a one-trick pony.

Psychology, and evolutionary psychology, is greatly concerned with sexuality. However, you haven't actually posted a single piece of work on the topic of sexuality. would you like me to?

Here you are very VERY wrongly conflating the huge sphere of psychology with "the development of brain chemistry and structures."

Plenty of psychological phenomenon are PURELY culturally based. This is indisputable fact, as anyone aquainted with the subject can tell you. To say that the psychological profile of people hasn't changed in 10,000 years is a nonsense, given that there are radically different psycholical trends across different countries, let alone continents and millenia.

This is just one of the limitations of biological psychology.

the congitive stucture hasn't changed. the innate behavior structures haven't changed. this includes basic sexual behaviors.
i'm certainly not saying that cultural differances haven't arrissen in the past 10,000 years...and of course part of the human mental design is the ability to intellectualize, to weigh options, cost/benifits, make choices....
so obviously there can and will be behavioral changes in a social culture throughout time.
but i don't believe this means you can throw out innate evolved behavior at the same time. we cannot pretend it does not influence or create conflict.

If you accept that monogamy was a biological trait in our ancestors, just as it is in plenty of other species, then your argument falls down. i have stated we are in a CROSSROADS. evolution of ANY kind does not simply happen overnight....it is transitory...
we are in mid-transision.
this was my point from the beginning.


Fix your theory, not the facts. try reading my posts, particularly the earlier ones, nextime.

you jumped on this strawmen from the get go.....

As I said in another thread, I read an argument which showed that the *inclination* for monogamy is genetic. In the experiment, they studied two sub-species of rodent that were genetically identical, except that some were monogamous and some rutted like crazy. By manipulating a single genetic marker, they were able to turn monogamy on and off. However, whether the "prevalent" trend in humanity is for it (or whatever sophisiticated combination occurs in humans) to be on, off, or somewhere in between isn't addressed by this, OR YOU whatsoever. need it be? i was contending that monogomy and pair bonding HAVE evolved in our species...again, from the beginning of this thread.

Even assuming that our preferences and behaviour are as completely contingent on our genetics as rodents (quite quite wrong), that still doesn't mean that all of humanity is genetically pre-disposed one way or the other. if you follow evolutionary psychology, it does. genetic, cognitive structures must be pan-human.

While I am not a geneticist (and nor are you, for that matter) - I would propose that it is quite possible, thus, that a monogamous and polygamous parents could quite conceivably have a combination of monogamous and polygamous children, just as parents can have children with different hair and eye colours. a prevalancy of predisposition could waiver from person to person...sure. from child to child, sure. i'm with you.
but such behavior is doubtfully just "one gene"....
such behavior is likely arrissing from multiple gene sets and behaviors....
the basic root is pan-human...but tendancies could be pushed either way by other genetic markers...and/or, yes, environment.

HOWEVER, people behave against their genetic predispositions all the time. People can have a genetic predisposition to being argumentative and having fits of rage, and yet still keep their tempers. certainly, choice is alive and well.

It is undeniable that social factors can counter, or even completely reverse a person's genetic predispositions. a source of much debate.

Thus, it is just as likely that everyone is genetically monogamous, but social pressures make them sleazy as the inverse. It could just as easily be that polygamous people have a stronger predisposition to following social trends than their genetic predisposition for monogamy, and thus they are polygamous because of society's views. but again, it doesn't appear that we are simply one or the other....


Did you know that 90% of prostitutes (in the UK) have been in care? Let me guess, people with a genetic propensity for promiscuity also have a genetic propensity for being raised in an instituion, right? a very likely hypothesis.
Because social factors are so irrelevant. of course they are relevant...
we are dealing with theory, here...

[ms.peachy]

Q. Ace. Get a fucking room already.

[Qdrop]

Q. Ace. Get a fucking room already.

you can't stop our love!

PDA!!

[BangkokB]

I'm more in love with the idea that I can ball as many women as I like while my wife stays home and makes sure my shirts are a pearly white and the slacks have a crease like a razor. I don't know if that's the poly or the amory but whichever it is I would like to sign up for that. From my experience: thai women don't care unless she sees the other poly's number on the phone bill. As long as your not "In your Face about it" no love no loss

However, I had a friend in HS that his mom was a part of the machine you're speaking of and the other half was a broken man. The only time I met him his wife was getting ready to go out on a date and he seemed like a victim of a crime that would put his anus in danger. But to each their own

[Freebasser]

Insomniacs Anonymous called.

They want their thread back.

[Nuzzolese]

GEA, Isn't it difficult to find people to have meaningful "dating" relationships with who don't care that you have a girlfriend? I mean, I get that you don't care, and your girl doesn't care, but what about the third person who knows she's just the short term third one who fills in when your gf is absent? I assume you're honest and upfront with these other people, so what is it you tell them and how do they usually react? You explained it as loving more than one person, so it's not just sex, it's relationships. Multiple relationships - god, what a hassle! Maintaining and devoting yourself to just one is hard enough. I think this is the reason more people don't do it. It sounds like an assload of work! To give out all that romantic attention and emotion and caring and intimacy, emotionally would be so draining.

[BangkokB]

Nope, the way I sell that sizzle instead of the steak is I don't love her...It's you I love and come home to. But the last one created such a blowback that it made me appreciate what I have. It's great to lose what you have~it builds character. And it's good to see how others see love bc not everyone can~And that's a scary thought. Love is a tricky game and there are no guarantees. Having said that Bird in the hand...So, odds are, I won't subscribe to that way of thinking anymore...hopefully, but this is temptation central

Now, I see my earlier way of thinking as being selfish. But that's just me. Everyone looks at the landscape of life different. Thank God for that. To each their own

[Ace42X]

The modern world makes adultery both easier and more permissable, that says NOTHING about biological evolution."

your argument is that, yes, adultry/promescuity exist...but not due to genetics or evolution?

Not necessarily due to. My initial and continued premise is that your argument is based on illogic and conjecture.

my point being...my views here are not alone in the dark.
these aren't "Qdrop's" beliefs unto himself.

And Racerstang's aren't his unto himself. You can Ipse Dixit all you like, by all means.

like when Bill Clinton debated the meaning of the word "was"....during his impeachment trials...

It is a significant difference. The difference between sucessive and precursive is the difference between the Ford Focus being a decendent of the Model T and vice versa.

and that's the other thing you are doing...creating a strawman.
if you would go back to the beginning of this thread,

Ok, lets.

"we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous."

And what species, precisely, are these? What is their name and taxonomy? What genetic sequences out of their totally mapped genome proves this?

Going "right back to the beginning of this thread" we have my prime problems with your assertions. They are based on speculation, without any offering of evidence.

males mating with as many as possible....females being more selective: choosing the best suitors.....but not necessarrily the same ones every season.

Which is roundly contradicted in the article I cited.

pair bonding, with the innate tendancy for multi-mating...

I take it that is an intentional tautology then? "Innate pair-bonding with the innate tendency for multimating, meaning there is no innate tendency at all" ?

"basically, the proof is in "the pudding": we do have a pair bond culture, and it evolved long before any complex culture

While prehistoric anthropology isn't my strong point, I am unaware of any evidence of this. What with it being pre-historic and all. Many of the oldest cultures have diverse attitudes to relationships. Polygamy is not uncommon.

again, my point was that we are caught in the crossroads.

And as physical evolution has slowed to a crawl due to our confortable life-styles, over-taken by Social Evolution (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SOCEVOL.html), what conclusion do you draw from that? Our genetic predospositions are in a state of flux, and, balance on a knife-edge, other factors determine which way we jump?

Then, given the neutrality of genetic functions, what tips the balance? Could it be... Social pressures?

that's just not true, i'm getting many of these sentiments FROM that field

Again, you haven't quoted anything that out and out contradicts what I have been saying.

would you like me to?

If it's pertinent, interesting, and useful.

the innate behavior structures haven't changed. this includes basic sexual behaviors.

Not really. A house doesn't need to be physically altered in order for usage patterns to change. Having a spare bathroom doesn't mean that using that spare bathroom is an innate compulsion.

Alterations to a brain structure doesn't automatically mean that it must operate differently, just as a brain can operate differently without changes to a brain structure. It is a mistake to equate complex behavioural patterns with genetic patterns.

i'm certainly not saying that cultural differances haven't arrissen in the past 10,000 years...and of course part of the human mental design is the ability to intellectualize, to weigh options, cost/benifits, make choices...

That is the least important part. It is the sub-conscious influence of culture that is significant.

so obviously there can and will be behavioral changes in a social culture throughout time.

Rational thought can only effect the individual having them. Cultural influences can be genetic (but not pan-human) or unconscious.

but i don't believe this means you can throw out innate evolved behavior at the same time. we cannot pretend it does not influence or create conflict.

And yet you haven't mentioned cultural behaviour that is as deeply engrained as any innate behaviour, and entirely the product of socialisation.

simply happen overnight....it is transitory...
we are in mid-transision.

Last I heard, we are on pause. Natural selection has all but frozen, due to socialogical factors.

you jumped on this strawmen from the get go...

Hardly. I pointed out, as I pointed out above, that you were engaged in speculation and illogic. The fact that you then moved into other areas on a point by point basis isn't *my* fault, nor detracts from my initial assertion.

need it be? i was contending that monogomy and pair bonding HAVE evolved in our species...again, from the beginning of this thread.

And, going back to that again:

we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous

... Presumably what you meant to say was "and from species whose aren't," making the whole sentence irrelevant.

as a few other spieces....we more recently began evolving into pac animals with family structures and even PAIR BONDING (mating for life, etc).

How recently? What taxonomy? What genomes were introduced, from when, what region, how did this spread?

What evidence have you got to support any of this, at all?

if you follow evolutionary psychology, it does. genetic, cognitive structures must be pan-human.

Yes, in that people can't function without a speech centre of the brain. No, in that this says little to nothing about what the import of this is. An Iris must be pan-human, but the colour not.

and/or, yes, environment.

As an aside, environment must ALWAYS have the final say. If there is no opportunity for infidelity, there can be no infidelity...

certainly, choice is alive and well.

Choice doesn't come into it. I was referring to social pressures, whose influence is on behaviour, not decision making.

a source of much debate.

Even if you choose to reduce it down to genetic tendancy towards socialisation over-riding a genetic tendancy to impulsive behaviour, the practical upshot is the same. The behaviour is driven by society, it is sociology.

but again, it doesn't appear that we are simply one or the other...

A strong argument against genetic tendancies. Genes can't be in flux, social trends can.

Now, this is an aside, and I don't want to pejor you, but if you have such faith in the overwhelming influence of genes, where do you stand on issues such as racial tendancies?

A recent study showed that something like 90% of European Jews originated from 7 different Jewish monthers. The net is full of articles pointing out genetic similarities across global Jewish communities.

Would you put forward that it is possible to ascribe (not necessarily current, or well known) Jewish stereotypes to this similarity?

There are plenty of examples of genetic isolationism in various races in various communities and capacities across the world.

Do you think that we can divide people into groups of social tendancies based on these genetics? What do you think of the implications?

[GreenEarthAl]

GEA, Isn't it difficult to find people to have meaningful "dating" relationships with who don't care that you have a girlfriend?

Yes. Very.

Optimally, I would prefer that they "don't mind" rather than "don't care".

I mean, I get that you don't care, and your girl doesn't care, but what about the third person who knows she's just the short term third one who fills in when your gf is absent?

Fairly accurately describes what I'm not looking for. The type of woman who would regard herself as a 'fill-in' doesn't sound very appealing.

I assume you're honest and upfront with these other people, so what is it you tell them and how do they usually react? You explained it as loving more than one person, so it's not just sex, it's relationships. Multiple relationships - god, what a hassle!

When it goes sour, it is a huge hassle. When it works well, it aleviates hassle. In an ideal situation it provides more parents, more income earners, more chores-doers, and best of all, more romantic possibilities.

The reactions I've gotten have varied. I had a woman that I really adore tell me she felt very demeaned by the very suggestion, I have a really good friend who thinks it's not for her but we still have a very amorous friendship where she would ask a lot of curious questions in between boyfriends, there are women who seem like they're maybe thinking about it, there are a couple women who seem interesting in the idea but it would mean more long distance relationships which is something I'm not really looking for right now. So, it varies, and I'm in no big rush.

Maintaining and devoting yourself to just one is hard enough. I think this is the reason more people don't do it. It sounds like an assload of work! To give out all that romantic attention and emotion and caring and intimacy, emotionally would be so draining.

Again, relationships that work well free you from work rather than create more work. The point of entering into partnerships of any sort is to work together to make things easier. That is certainly true of my relationship with Heather, and I expect it will be more true with more people.

[GreenEarthAl]

Just in case anyone has a passing interest in this type of information:

There are lots and lots of different ways that people choose to be polyamorous. People have attempted to categorize them and come up with different terminology to help describe how some people have worked it out for themselves...

polyfidelity (polifi) - is akin to monogamy except it just has more than two people in it. Some number of people, more than two, agree to enter into an exclusive relationship. Most commonly a triad or a quad, three people or two couples or whatever forming a family with more parents than normal.

line marriage (sometimes called a V, N, M based on how many hinges it has) - a situation where one person has more than one committed relationship to people who have (and want) no relationship with one another. (i.e. joe loves sally, sally likes joe and jim, jim likes sally and sue: where the people don't have any interest in the people other than the hinge they're connected to). Optionally the ends of a line marriage can connect and form a ring or a closed system (which, tends to make people breathe easier than an open system).

tribe - some closed, usually geographic region where a community of people live together and interlove as they will.

network - a mixture of some of everything, basically polyamory freeforall.


Presently none of this necessarily applies to my own personal situation as I would like to actually find the person(s) that will be a part of our family and then all decide together where we proceed from there.

[marsdaddy]

I'm not sure it's THAT much more difficult than finding that ONE right person, other than you're looking for one who doesn't mind being part of something non-traditional, non-conformist, etc. One fear I can imagine is that this new person might fall in love with you and in the back of her mind, she might think eventually she can have you all to herself.

I apologize if this is already covered, but are you and your girlfriend only looking for females to join your relationship?

[Qdrop]

Not necessarily due to. My initial and continued premise is that your argument is based on illogic and conjecture.
uh huh.
now answer the question:
"your argument is that, yes, adultry/promescuity exist...but not due to genetics or evolution?"

And Racerstang's aren't his unto himself. You can Ipse Dixit all you like, by all means. again, my logic is as faulty as racer's? but consider the differance of mine and racer's sources.

Ace, stop being a dick.
i'm not just taking tiny fragment of shit that i heard somewhere and filling the cracks with bullshit.

if you REALLY want me to link/cut/paste...we can turn this thread into such.
i thought you specified you didn't want to do that.
make a decision.



It is a significant difference. The difference between sucessive and precursive is the difference between the Ford Focus being a decendent of the Model T and vice versa. oh, do explain. please....please cloud the already muddy debate with more lateral arguments...
perhaps we can turn this into a dictionary definition debate...oh those are fun.

"we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous."

And what species, precisely, are these? What is their name and taxonomy? What genetic sequences out of their totally mapped genome proves this? jesus take your pick. where did life begin....what forms of life were they? how did they produce? what were there mating habits?
when did family oriented family structures begin? with which species? were we direct decendants? no original life forms had pairbond mating habits, ace.
obviously that came later....sooooooooooooo, polygimous behavior came....umm...FIRST!!

see, according to you...none of this matters...because such connections would be "false" and "sloppy thinking"...
our ancestoral past and evolutionary past have NO bearing on our current behaviors...as far as your concerned. right? it's all about current environement and current social pressures.
hmm...funny how this belief coincides with your disdain for the premise for innate human nature....with coincides with *gasp* your socialist beliefs...
politics rears it's head again.

and don't just say that's MY connection and conjecture....
dude, you know the game....



Which is roundly contradicted in the article I cited. shit man, you want me to cite some articles to the contrary?
it will take a few minutes.
and would have NO effect on your beliefs....



I take it that is an intentional tautology then? "Innate pair-bonding with the innate tendency for multimating, meaning there is no innate tendency at all" ?
no ace, meaning we have both tendancies. we are in a transition of sexual behaviors.
jesus, it isn't that complex.



While prehistoric anthropology isn't my strong point, I am unaware of any evidence of this. What with it being pre-historic and all. Many of the oldest cultures have diverse attitudes to relationships. Polygamy is not uncommon. so you think the pair bond behavior in humans didn't begin until more complex forms of human society formed?

shit...
i'm not gonna do all the research for you. you need to correct yourself on that.
you have plenty of time....



And as physical evolution has slowed to a crawl due to our confortable life-styles, over-taken by Social Evolution (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SOCEVOL.html), what conclusion do you draw from that? Our genetic predospositions are in a state of flux, and, balance on a knife-edge, other factors determine which way we jump? yeah, as i've said before....i don't entirely agree with this.
i CAN do that, can't I?

Then, given the neutrality of genetic functions, what tips the balance? Could it be... Social pressures? neutrality?



Again, you haven't quoted anything that out and out contradicts what I have been saying. well, i gave you a link that pretty much explains much of the stance of evolutionary psychology. but i guess you forgot about that.


Not really. A house doesn't need to be physically altered in order for usage patterns to change. Having a spare bathroom doesn't mean that using that spare bathroom is an innate compulsion. yes yes....i know your stance. there is no innate behavior. environment shapes behavior.

which, again....just HAPPENS to coincide with your marxist beliefs.
stunning.

Alterations to a brain structure doesn't automatically mean that it must operate differently, just as a brain can operate differently without changes to a brain structure. It is a mistake to equate complex behavioural patterns with genetic patterns. those waters are simply too muddy for ANYONE to successfully argue.



That is the least important part. It is the sub-conscious influence of culture that is significant. yeah, i know your politics.



Rational thought can only effect the individual having them. Cultural influences can be genetic (but not pan-human) or unconscious. you'll have to broaden that a bit. what are you saying?



And yet you haven't mentioned cultural behaviour that is as deeply engrained as any innate behaviour, and entirely the product of socialisation. i certainly have mentioned the environmental role in behavior....in this thread.



Last I heard, we are on pause. Natural selection has all but frozen, due to socialogical factors. yeah, i really don't buy into that. depends on what source you subsribe to.



... Presumably what you meant to say was "and from species whose aren't," making the whole sentence irrelevant.

no, i said what i meant. "we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous"



What evidence have you got to support any of this, at all?
so we DO want to cite sources and articles and what not? okay. i'll collect some stuff and post it for you.
i should get paid for this...seriously.




Yes, in that people can't function without a speech centre of the brain. No, in that this says little to nothing about what the import of this is. An Iris must be pan-human, but the colour not.
no, go back to the links i cited earlier.
read.




As an aside, environment must ALWAYS have the final say. If there is no opportunity for infidelity, there can be no infidelity...
fair enough.
evolution reacts to the changing environment after all.





Now, this is an aside, and I don't want to pejor you, but if you have such faith in the overwhelming influence of genes, where do you stand on issues such as racial tendancies?

A recent study showed that something like 90% of European Jews originated from 7 different Jewish monthers. The net is full of articles pointing out genetic similarities across global Jewish communities.

Would you put forward that it is possible to ascribe (not necessarily current, or well known) Jewish stereotypes to this similarity?

There are plenty of examples of genetic isolationism in various races in various communities and capacities across the world.

Do you think that we can divide people into groups of social tendancies based on these genetics? What do you think of the implications?
did you even read those links?

no ace, there has not been enough time in the evolutionary scale for any isolated humans to evolve "racial" differances that are anything more than minor (skin color, diet immunities, perhaps some disease suseptability). nothing in the range of significant intelligance or distinct behaviors.


but again....the real roots of this argument come down to your politics.
i know you object...but your socialist beliefs REQUIRE a disbelief in innate human behaviors that could perhaps lean towards capitalist tendancies.
that just doesn't jive with marxism, socialism, communism....
anything connecting behavior to evolution, genetics, innate ANYTHING sends up a red flag for you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

[GreenEarthAl]

I'm not sure it's THAT much more difficult than finding that ONE right person, other than you're looking for one who doesn't mind being part of something non-traditional, non-conformist, etc. One fear I can imagine is that this new person might fall in love with you and in the back of her mind, she might think eventually she can have you all to herself.

This being the real world and all that's always a concern.

I apologize if this is already covered, but are you and your girlfriend only looking for females to join your relationship?

I, personally am not bisexual or bicurious or any such. Nor am I looking to form some kind of harem where I get to be the Alpha-monkey. Nor am I needful of being the one who makes all of the decisions and determines how everything will go.

And to some extent there are other males involved already. When we go to Opus every year we have a boyfriend. A guy who says he falls in love with couples. I'm pretty sure that he's pretty pansexual. He's a cool guy, a bit odd, but the three of us really enjoy hanging around together. Heather had relationships with other males when she and I got together. Tough to say whether there are other males, other than him, involved in our relationship or not.

Right now, we're mostly a couple with a lot of ancilary and unsure love interests floating around the perifery. Heather's probably moving back here in March and there are other big changes for her lately and so our relationship is really in a big state of flux right now and who knows how it will all shake out so it's difficult to describe being so difficult to define.

[Nuzzolese]

I know this is unfounded, it will sound mean and closed-minded. Think what you will of me for saying it, but I think the whole idea is apalling. I think it's unrealistic and unnecessary in this day and age. (unless your goal is to do a lot of work around the farm and populate the planet with your offspring - a goal I find unecessary) I realize it makes you happy, but I personally find it disgusting and dishonorable and devaluing (is a word?) to everyone involved. Pukey pukes. I appologize for not being able to understand.

[GreenEarthAl]

I know this is unfounded, it will sound mean and closed-minded. Think what you will of me for saying it, but I think the whole idea is apalling. I think it's unrealistic and unnecessary in this day and age. (unless your goal is to do a lot of work around the farm and populate the planet with your offspring - a goal I find unecessary) I realize it makes you happy, but I personally find it disgusting and dishonorable and devaluing (is a word?) to everyone involved. Pukey pukes. I appologize for not being able to understand.

No problem that it doesn't appeal to you. It doesn't for most people.

Unrealistic, is not applicapble, as it is a real thing that exists and has worked for people throughout the ages in some form or fashion.

Unnecessary, seems to lack relevance. Many things are unnecessary that people will chose to adopt regardless. I'm having difficulty understanding where farming comes in. I'm personally resigned to an urban setting. Nor do I understand how family size needs to be a factor one way or another. I know a lot of polyamorists in permanent 0 children settings, I know polyamorists who became such after divorces and after all children left the roost, I've known polyamorists in small families. I've yet to encounter a polyamorous situation with lots of young children, but that could be just because I haven't encountered enough polyamorous situations yet. I'm very eager to raise children personally, and would not be adverse to a situation with a lot of co-parenting in it so maybe I'll be my own first example?

"Pukey pukes" sounds pajorative. Do you hate me? :(

[befsquire]

Your mum?
if only you'd asked before we cremated her remains

[Ace42X]

uh huh.
now answer the question:
"your argument is that, yes, adultry/promescuity exist...but not due to genetics or evolution?"

No, my argument isn't that. My argument is that you, personally, do not know, as there is no logic to your point.

again, my logic is as faulty as racer's? but consider the differance of mine and racer's sources.

Ipse Dixit fallacy. Your sources can be impeccable, but if the logic is faulty, they are irrelevant.. IE the argument has coherency, but that does not make it correct.

Ace, stop being a dick.

When you start arguing using fact, rather than inserting sources into your hodge-podge understanding of the subject in a vague attempt to cover up the complete lack of revelance.

i'm not just taking tiny fragment of shit that i heard somewhere and filling the cracks with bullshit.

Funny, because that's exactly what it looks like.

if you REALLY want me to link/cut/paste...we can turn this thread into such.
i thought you specified you didn't want to do that.
make a decision.

Bit late for that. You have already put up several links, whose relevance I have already refuted.

oh, do explain. please....please cloud the already muddy debate with more lateral arguments...
perhaps we can turn this into a dictionary definition debate...oh those are fun.

Or you could just concede that what you quoted said, quite clearly and in very plain language, nothing of relevance. If you provided relevant sources, I'd not have to point out that the words in them make the sources irrelevant.

jesus take your pick. where did life begin....what forms of life were they? how did they produce? what were there mating habits?
when did family oriented family structures begin? with which species? were we direct decendants? no original life forms had pairbond mating habits, ace.
obviously that came later....sooooooooooooo, polygimous behavior came....umm...FIRST!

"Original life forms" ? You mean protozoa? They don't have polygamous behaviour either, they reproduce asexually.

Or do you mean that notorious "missing link" that you have an exclusive DNA profile of, combined with indepth analysis of its elusive mating habits?

So, you can't actually name a single ancestor species that has genetically innate polygamous behaviour, then. You could've just said "Yes, Ace, my argument was based on supposition and conjecture" and saved us a lot of hassle, you know. It is ok for you to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, I won't hold it against you.

see, according to you...none of this matters...because such connections would be "false" and "sloppy thinking"...

Correct, your inability provide factual evidence or a sound logical argument does make the "connections" "sloppy thinking" and thus irrelevant. Politics doesn't come into it.

our ancestoral past and evolutionary past have NO bearing on our current behaviors...as far as your concerned. right?

Strawman. They could have a bearing, however that does not follow that they do have an exact bearing, nor the bearing you choose to conclude.

Our ancestoral past and evolutionary clearly has "no bearing" on a current behaviour if that behaviour is not influenced by our ancestoral past. If I choose to stop at a traffic light, I am not responding to some deep primal urge. That behaviour has no practical basis in "our ancestral past."

The same applies to processes in ordering a coffee, defragmenting a hard-drive, or any one of a number of completely modern behaviours that are totally driven by rationality, not by biologic compulsion.

I pick these because there are no confounding biological variables to consider. No, imagine a hypothetical person making a rational decision in precisely the same way, but where biological factors *could* be in play. Just because biological factors cannot be discounted from the decision making process, it does not mean they MUST be at work in any significant capacity.

it's all about current environement and current social pressures.
hmm...funny how this belief coincides with your disdain for the premise for innate human nature....with coincides with *gasp* your socialist beliefs...
politics rears it's head again.

Coincide is the right word. It is also funny that it coincides with objective scientific thinking, and clear simple logic. We know that the current environment and current social pressures effect behaviour. It can be seen every day and is undeniable. There is a vast wealth of empirical evidence available. Thus any sort of behavioural analysis can be tested in a rational way according to scientific method, and processed statistically.

There can be NO empirical evidence regarding an invisible missing link, or the behaviour patterns of unobservable creatures. Until someone creates a time-machine, the precise behavioural patterns of long-dead ancestor species are the product of speculation and guesswork. Even the best archaeological evidence is open to interpretation, and there is little to no scientific experimentation that can be done to verify it. At best we can DNA test *some* isolated remains, which actually tells us nothing other than "this one create had this genetic structure" - there is no guarantee that those precise genes were passed on to us, there is no guarantee that those genes resulted in polygamous behaviour in the animal, there is little to no guarantee of anything.

and don't just say that's MY connection and conjecture....
dude, you know the game...

Yes, I know the game. The fact that my arguments come straight from a psychology class that I took a decade ago has nothing to do with it. Politics which I have subscribed to *since* is the REAL reason I have a preference for empirical evidence...

Because, on top of formal qualifications in genetic evolution, you also have a PhD on the subject of my life! I was forgetting that you wrote your dissertation on "the history of Ace42's opinions".

Pompous ass.

shit man, you want me to cite some articles to the contrary?
it will take a few minutes.
and would have NO effect on your beliefs...

By all means refute the Stanford university specialist professor. Afterall, it's not like they had any "effect on your belief" that the entire scientific community supports you in this one thread...

no ace, meaning we have both tendancies. we are in a transition of sexual behaviors.
jesus, it isn't that complex.

No, it isn't complex, just without any sort of meaning.

so you think the pair bond behavior in humans didn't begin until more complex forms of human society formed?

shit...
i'm not gonna do all the research for you. you need to correct yourself on that.
you have plenty of time....

No, I do not "think that..." - As I said, I "don't know" precisely when it first began. And neither do you. So don't try to bluff me with that "you go off and research it..." crap.

yeah, as i've said before....i don't entirely agree with this.
i CAN do that, can't I?

Of course you can. It's entirely your prerogative to "let your politics decide what theories you do and don't adopt" and because of your turbulent home life, and conservative up bringing, and your pet dying, and whatever ad hominem hypocritical crap you'd like to bring in to the mix in order to "muddy the waters".

neutrality?

"We have both tendancies" - Either we have an overiding tendancy one way or the other, or we have an equal tendancy in both directions, effectively neutral. You're the one who said: "meaning we have both tendancies." and that it "wasn't that complex."

well, i gave you a link that pretty much explains much of the stance of evolutionary psychology. but i guess you forgot about that.

Yes, I forgot about it. If by that you mean "read it, quoted it, and ignored what wasn't directly relevant."

yes yes....i know your stance. there is no innate behavior. environment shapes behavior.

If you knew my stance, then you'd not be attributing that strawman to me.

which, again....just HAPPENS to coincide with your marxist beliefs.
stunning.

What, a very simple logical analogy coincides with marxism? So you are saying that marxism is logically valid, then? Or are you just slandering what you cannot rebutt?

those waters are simply too muddy for ANYONE to successfully argue.

It is a simple set of logical principles. You simply put them in order, analyse the relationship of the precepts, and either point out faulty precepts, or accept the conclusion is logically valid.

Here, I'll even get you started:

1. Alterations to a brain structure doesn't automatically mean that it must operate differently

First precept - do you have a problem with that? Are you, in effect, saying that there can be no alteration to a brain, no matter how small or abstract, which leaved its operations unchanged?

2. just as a brain can operate differently without changes to a brain structure.

Second precept - do you have a problem with that? Are you, in effect, saying that unless a brain *structure* is physically altered, it will always operate in exactly the same way?

It is a mistake to equate complex behavioural patterns with genetic patterns.

Conclusion, and admittedly I was not intending to create a syllogism when I voiced it, so there is not perfect agreement with the premises - Given that. 1 you can alter a brain without altering its functions, and 2. you can alter functions without altering the brain, you must conclude that you cannot necessarily *assume* behaviour (functions of the brain) based solely on the fact that there are physical changes (or the lack thereof) in the brain.

See, it isn't that hard...

yeah, i know your politics.

No, you think you do. Another assumption put forward as fact.

you'll have to broaden that a bit. what are you saying?

That if someone thinks "I'm going to put a lot of conscious effort into monogamy" - that doesn't make anyone else more or less monogamous. Choice has a very limited effect.

Social pressure, however, has a much more significant impact on people.

It is the difference between McDonalds going out and tell individuals why they should buy a burger from them, and splashing around vacuous jingles and carefully selected advertising.

i certainly have mentioned the environmental role in behavior....in this thread.

Not the same.

yeah, i really don't buy into that. depends on what source you subsribe to.

What, you mean like Socialist Worker monthly?

no, i said what i meant. "we evolved from species who's mating behaviors were primarily polygimous"

And their mating behaviours were secondarily monogamous? They were monogamous with their second dicks? They were monogamous right after they were polygamous?

So where did this monogamy come into the mix, if not from "species we evolved from" ? God inserts it into every generation with his magic wand?!?

so we DO want to cite sources and articles and what not? okay. i'll collect some stuff and post it for you.
i should get paid for this...seriously.

You'd only get paid if you ANSWERED THE FUCKING QUESTIONS. Just "posting some stuff" doesn't cut it.

You will, however, be awarded a gold star if irrelevant material you collect is particularly interesting in its own right.

no ace, there has not been enough time in the evolutionary scale

Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria states that great diversification can happen in a very short space of time. That is his explanation for "explosions" in the fossil record. His theory suggests that the "slow and steady" Darwinian model doesn't match up to recorded evidence for precisely this reason.

for any isolated humans to evolve "racial" differances that are anything more than minor (skin color, diet immunities, perhaps some disease suseptability). nothing in the range of significant intelligance or distinct behaviors.

I find that dubious. There can be radical differences in intelligence (and behaviour) from parent to offspring (in extreme cases, Downs syndrome, mongolism, etc) based on genetic differences.

Are you saying you find it unbelievable that, in all the time it has taken for humans to diversify all of the racial phenotypes, it is unthinkable that much less pronounced (IE differences that are not going to be bred out due to being a disdvantage), but still significant mental differences could be bred through too?

That the sunniness of the climate can cause skin colours to diverge, but other environmental and climatelogical factors had no effect on the brain, which is potentially MORE important to survival than how well you can cope when exposed to strong sunlight?

but again....the real roots of this argument come down to your politics.

Hardly, it was just a question, not an argument.

but your socialist beliefs REQUIRE a disbelief in innate human behaviors that could perhaps lean towards capitalist tendancies.

Sanctimonious nonsense. It might ease your anxiety to marginalise my arguments like that, but it certainly doesn't make your case. What you mean is the "socialist beliefs you choose to ascribe to me" - because time and time again it comes back to you telling me what I think. And you wonder why people here mention your dime-a-session psychoanalysis?

If you think back to the thred when we were talking about this very subject, you would recall that it was I who was saying that "innate" tendancies can be harnassed and directed. You disagreed with that, but it still hardly squares with you saying that "my beliefs REQUIRE a disbelief..."

But that's always the way with you, you wrap your speculations up in a nice little bow, and tell everyone that you have the world in a box. Whatever doesn't fit, you sweep under the carpet.

anything connecting behavior to evolution, genetics, innate ANYTHING sends up a red flag for you.

Yeah, ANYTHING... Oh, except for all those times that I said that mankind has an innate reluctance to kill...

Whoops, I guess that means that it isn't "anything" at all. I guess that means you are FULL OF SHIT! But don't let all the exceptions and logic errors get in the way of you passing off a speculative theory as fact. You certainly haven't so far in this thread.

Oh, and considering that I am not actually arguing from a partisan position, the MSN article is particularly irrelevant.

The only one who is politising the argument here is YOU, but don't let that get in the way of the ad hominems and muddying the waters, and setting up latteral arguments.

Oh, and why not throw your goold old friend "red herring" in there too, while you're at it.

I'll get your hat, Mr Pope, sir.

[Ace42X]

if only you'd asked before we cremated her remains

I think you underestimate my ingenuity. And perversion. And desperation.

[Qdrop]

"Original life forms" ? You mean protozoa? They don't have polygamous behaviour either, they reproduce asexually. no ace, the thousands upon thousands of species that existed before us and left no evidence of family structures or pair bonding, per sey.

Or do you mean that notorious "missing link" that you have an exclusive DNA profile of, combined with indepth analysis of its elusive mating habits? meaning archeology and anthropology are not exact sciences with 100% proof, therefore not usable in a debat about behavior?

true, not 100% accurate, and subject to conjecture...but i trust the people who conduct the studies and theorize. yes, sometimes they are wrong....and we change our understanding when that happens....

So, you can't actually name a single ancestor species that has genetically innate polygamous behaviour, then. You could've just said "Yes, Ace, my argument was based on supposition and conjecture" and saved us a lot of hassle, you know. It is ok for you to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, I won't hold it against you. ace, do you truly find it necessary to list of the primate anscestors of homosapiens, as well as the previous ansestors of primates....and list off thier mating habits?

are you contending that that wouldn't matter, because that doesn't prove it was genetic, just coincidental behavior based on the environment and culture.
you want proof of a "polygomy gene" in each of our ancestors?



Correct, your inability provide factual evidence or a sound logical argument does make the "connections" "sloppy thinking" and thus irrelevant. Politics doesn't come into it.

Tell you what...here a few of sources (on my bookshelf), to show you were i get some of my sentiments from...there are actually well rounded selections, so of which have varying opinions on the subject we are talking about....i don't simply buy what i want to hear, and exlude the rest.

The Third Chimpanzee- Jared Diamond
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060984031/qid=1138283018/sr=8-4/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-3029549-2599246?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

"t's obvious that humans are unlike all animals. It's also obvious that we're a species of big mammal down to the minutest details of our anatomy and our molecules. That contradiction is the most fascinating feature of the human species."

-Diamond is officially a physiologist at UCLA medical school

Why is Sex Fun?- Jared Diamond
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465031269/qid=1138283018/sr=8-5/ref=pd_bbs_5/002-3029549-2599246?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

"This book, written by an evolutionary biologist, explains how all the weird quirks of human sexuality came to be: sex with no intention of procreation, invisible fertility, sex acts pursued in private--all common to us, but very different from most other species."

The Red Queen: sex and the evolution of human nature - matt ridley
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060556579/qid=1138283347/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3029549-2599246?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

"Ridley, a London-based science writer and a former editor of the Economist , argues that men are polygamous for the obvious reason that whichever gender has to spend the most time and energy creating and rearing offspring tends to avoid extra mating. Women, though far less interested in multiple partners, will commit adultery if stuck with a mediocre mate. In Ridley's not wholly convincing conclusion, even human intellect is chalked up to sex: virtuosity, individuality, inventiveness and related traits are what make people sexually attractive."

The Naked Ape: a zoologist's study of the human animal - desmond morris
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385334303/qid=1138283726/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3029549-2599246?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

""A startling view of man, stripped of the facade we try so hard to hide behind." In view of man's awesome creativity and resourcefulness, we may be inclined to regard him as descended from the angels, yet, in his brilliant study, Desmond Morris reminds us that man is relative to the apes--is in fact, the greatest primate of all. With knowledge gleaned from primate ethnology, zoologist Morris examines sex, child-rearing, exploratory habits, fighting, feeding, and much more to establish our surprising bonds to the animal kingdom and add substance to the discussion that has provoked controversy and debate the world over. Natural History Magazine praised The Naked Ape as "stimulating . . . thought-provoking . . . [Morris] has introduced some novel and challenging ideas and speculations."

"He minces no words," said Harper's. "He lets off nothing in our basic relation to the animal kingdom to which we belong. . . He is always specific, startling, but logical.""

You also wanted some other sources:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566394_11/Human_Evolution.html

"Paleoanthropologists and archaeologists have studied many topics in the evolution of human cultural behavior. These have included the evolution of (1) social life; (2) subsistence (the acquisition and production of food); (3) the making and using of tools; (4) environmental adaptation; (5) symbolic thought and its expression through language, art, and religion; and (6) the development of agriculture and the rise of civilizations."

"Human fossils also provide information about how culture has evolved and what effects it has had on human life."

"Scientists believe that several of the most important changes from apelike to characteristically human social life occurred in species of the genus Homo, whose members show even less sexual dimorphism. These changes, which may have occurred at different times, included (1) prolonged maturation of infants, including an extended period during which they required intensive care from their parents; (2) special bonds of sharing and exclusive mating between particular males and females, called pair-bonding; and (3) the focus of social activity at a home base, a safe refuge in a special location known to family or group members."

"Pair-bonding, usually of a fairly short duration, occurs in a variety of primate species. Some scientists speculate that prolonged bonds developed in humans along with increased sharing of food. Among primates, humans have a distinct type of food-sharing behavior. People will delay eating food until they have returned with it to the location of other members of their social group. This type of food sharing may have arisen at the same time as the need for intensive infant care, probably by the time of H. ergaster. By devoting himself to a particular female and sharing food with her, a male could increase the chances of survival for his own offspring."

The Blank Slate- Stephen Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142003344/qid=1138287365/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3029549-2599246?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

"Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's mind is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited universal structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit with plenty of room for cultural and individual variation. For those who have been following the sciences in question including cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology much of the evidence will be familiar, yet Pinker's clear and witty presentation, complete with comic strips and allusions to writers from Woody Allen to Emily Dickinson, keeps the material fresh. What might amaze is the persistent, often vitriolic resistance to these findings Pinker presents and systematically takes apart, decrying the hold of the "blank slate" and other orthodoxies on intellectual life. He goes on to tour what science currently claims to know about human nature, including its cognitive, intuitive and emotional faculties, and shows what light this research can shed on such thorny topics as gender inequality, child-rearing and modern art."

now for actual citations:

And here is a fantastic source:
http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep01138154.html

"The mother-child bond is undoubtedly homologous with that of other primates (and mammals). However, the man-woman pair bond and man(to)child pair bond are not paralleled by any terrestrial primate nor many mammals. Hence, knowledge of primate behavior would not be predictive of the pan-human (i) social father and (ii) the extended pair bond between a man and woman (with the cultural overlay of marriage). It is suggested that female choice of mating partner shifted in the direction of a canid analogue in which men’s motivations to share resources with the female and to exhibit paternalistic behaviors were positively selected. Accordingly, it would be predicted that, compared to other terrestrial primates, the neuro-hormonal bases for the mother-child affiliative bond would be similar, but the bases of man-woman affiliative bond and the man(to)child affiliative bond would be dissimilar."

"Humans, across cultures, have two types of attachments which would not be predicted from the homologues of the great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas. Humans - as a large, terrestrial primate - do illustrate (1) a reciprocal man-woman bond which can last years (this extended pair bond has the cultural overlay of marriage 2. and (2) a man(to)child bond which also can last years, i.e., the on-going social father. None of the great apes exhibits either of these two features."

"Typically, these adult males compete amongst themselves to achieve greater dominance within a male hierarchy; then females mate preferentially with the more successful males."

"With the putative shift, females had to evaluate, not just the physical dominance and assertiveness of the competing males (who won), but also the psychological profile of the competing males: i.e., trustworthiness in reciprocity over time. Framed a little differently, sperm is essentially infinite. Female-female competition over mating protocols has little pay-off for the victor. The winner would accrue no advantage. However, food is finite and is valuable. Incremental food (via the male) gained from any successful female-female competition, would have survival value for the winning female. Whereas access to sperm may be a constant, access to food is a variable.

Thus, male-male competition for mating partners incorporated an additional psychological parameter (enhanced reliability or trustworthiness), and female-female competition for mating partners (who would reliably share food) arose to become important."

"Indeed, terrestrial primates are more prone to be polygynous than are arboreal primates"

a great symposium discussing how both humans and gibbons convergantly evolved monogomous/pair bond behaviors....(meaning from polygimous ones)
http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/meetings/coe99/report/Brockelman.html

now, do you want actual citation that shows that our evolutionary ancestors were polygomous in nature?

Our ancestoral past and evolutionary clearly has "no bearing" on a current behaviour if that behaviour is not influenced by our ancestoral past. If I choose to stop at a traffic light, I am not responding to some deep primal urge. That behaviour has no practical basis in "our ancestral past."
but then it becomes a question of how do you prove that human sexual behaviors and our evolutionary ancestors sexual behaviors ARE or ARE not genetic rather than cultural.

the thing is....they are BOTH genetic and cultural.

I pick these because there are no confounding biological variables to consider. No, imagine a hypothetical person making a rational decision in precisely the same way, but where biological factors *could* be in play. Just because biological factors cannot be discounted from the decision making process, it does not mean they MUST be at work in any significant capacity. well, yes...i agree with that.


There can be NO empirical evidence regarding an invisible missing link, or the behaviour patterns of unobservable creatures. Until someone creates a time-machine, the precise behavioural patterns of long-dead ancestor species are the product of speculation and guesswork. Even the best archaeological evidence is open to interpretation, and there is little to no scientific experimentation that can be done to verify it. At best we can DNA test *some* isolated remains, which actually tells us nothing other than "this one create had this genetic structure" - there is no guarantee that those precise genes were passed on to us, there is no guarantee that those genes resulted in polygamous behaviour in the animal, there is little to no guarantee of anything. certainly....that is where theory and OPINION comes in.


"We have both tendancies" - Either we have an overiding tendancy one way or the other, or we have an equal tendancy in both directions, effectively neutral. You're the one who said: "meaning we have both tendancies." and that it "wasn't that complex." sounds good to me.


What, a very simple logical analogy coincides with marxism? So you are saying that marxism is logically valid, then? Or are you just slandering what you cannot rebutt? marxism: a nice theory that doesn't jive with innate human nature.
yes, that is my stance.


Conclusion, and admittedly I was not intending to create a syllogism when I voiced it, so there is not perfect agreement with the premises - Given that. 1 you can alter a brain without altering its functions, and 2. you can alter functions without altering the brain, you must conclude that you cannot necessarily *assume* behaviour (functions of the brain) based solely on the fact that there are physical changes (or the lack thereof) in the brain.[quote] but is not automatically wrong to link behaviors with genes, ace.
yes, you are showing how that can be in error....but that does not make it intellectual death sentance.
see, if we can show behavior linked to genetics in our species....it is not impossible or even illogical to extrapolate and make connections to our anscestors...or to work backwards.


[quote]That if someone thinks "I'm going to put a lot of conscious effort into monogamy" - that doesn't make anyone else more or less monogamous. Choice has a very limited effect. not true. while i beleive in innate behavioral tendencies, part of the human condition-and the human mind- is the ability to rationalize, weigh options...make decisions.
our choices ARE part of our behavior....
it's our ability to make conscious choices that are pan-human...yet it is those variations in our choices that makes each of us unique AND responsible for our actions.

Social pressure, however, has a much more significant impact on people. again, opinion....but with merit.


And their mating behaviours were secondarily monogamous? They were monogamous with their second dicks? They were monogamous right after they were polygamous?[quote] so it's a matter of conflicting vocabulary, eh?
okay...generally monogomous behavior with dabblings in adulterous or polygamous behaviors.
god, this isn't a truth table, ace...you can have conflicts. it musn't be so black and white.

[quote]So where did this monogamy come into the mix, if not from "species we evolved from" ? God inserts it into every generation with his magic wand?!?[quote] monogomy likely evolved from cultural needs...which in turn produced some genetic changes toward innate behavioral monogomy...
but again..this likely VERY recent in evolutionary time. we are still in mid-flux.


[quote]You will, however, be awarded a gold star if irrelevant material you collect is particularly interesting in its own right.

where's my star, bitch.


Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria states that great diversification can happen in a very short space of time. That is his explanation for "explosions" in the fossil record. His theory suggests that the "slow and steady" Darwinian model doesn't match up to recorded evidence for precisely this reason. granted this theory is still very controversial....
i honestly haven't made up my mind on punctuated vs. gradual evolutionary change.
both have weaknesses.

but as far as "time". time relative to evolutionary scale.
things like distinct congnitive differances take long long periods of time....50,000-200,000 years (based on archeological findings on cultural behaviors).
"races" as we know them....just have not been around that long.

I find that dubious. There can be radical differences in intelligence (and behaviour) from parent to offspring (in extreme cases, Downs syndrome, mongolism, etc) based on genetic differences. these are individual differances, not group differances.
how many generations does it take for a genetic anomoly to take hold in a group, if at all.
look that up.

Are you saying you find it unbelievable that, in all the time it has taken for humans to diversify all of the racial phenotypes, it is unthinkable that much less pronounced (IE differences that are not going to be bred out due to being a disdvantage), but still significant mental differences could be bred through too? that's what SCIENCE says. any differances in intelligence or behavior (while mathmatically possible) are unlikely...or very minor if in existance.
you want some citations for that?
The Blank Slate nails that down well.

as does "Race and IQ"- which includes an article on THAT VERY subject by your hero Gould.
look that up too.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195018842/qid=1138287248/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-3029549-2599246?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[ms.peachy]

Jeezus H Christmas, you two - how long is this mutual wankfest going to go on?

[Nuzzolese]

They'd take it to PM but the character limit would inhibit them.

No problem that it doesn't appeal to you. It doesn't for most people.

Unrealistic, is not applicapble, as it is a real thing that exists and has worked for people throughout the ages in some form or fashion.

Unnecessary, seems to lack relevance. Many things are unnecessary that people will chose to adopt regardless. I'm having difficulty understanding where farming comes in. I'm personally resigned to an urban setting. Nor do I understand how family size needs to be a factor one way or another. I know a lot of polyamorists in permanent 0 children settings, I know polyamorists who became such after divorces and after all children left the roost, I've known polyamorists in small families. I've yet to encounter a polyamorous situation with lots of young children, but that could be just because I haven't encountered enough polyamorous situations yet. I'm very eager to raise children personally, and would not be adverse to a situation with a lot of co-parenting in it so maybe I'll be my own first example?

"Pukey pukes" sounds pajorative. Do you hate me? :(

I think it's unrealistic in this day and age, I understand that it may have seemed to work in the past, but I'm under the impression/assumption that in those cases it was of necessity or one person's indulgence at the expense of the others (harems) or it was just a sexual thing and not real relationships (couples who swap). I mean they would end up favoring one above the rest anyway. Isn't it hard to escape favoritism in people you're not related to? I would think an urge to favor one above the others would take hold, and though you care for others, there is one you share the most with, a best friend/lover/thing.

I mean it sounds unneccessary because I think the bad aspects outweigh the good ones. I just think that even if you enjoy it, it would only lead to more trouble. More money more problems, only replace money with people. And when you said more people help distribute the weight of life or something, and help each other out, I could only think of things like chores or baby-birthing or some kind of mission-oriented situation where you have a lot of things to do and need more hands and teats.

Because if you meant to say that more people help each other out emotionally, well I don't get that because the more people you add to a situation, the more the individual has to be concerned about. When it's two people and it's balanced (ideally) or some how complimentary, I see some symmetry in effort, a trade-off, but when you have four people that's like, each person gets to give off more but they have to do just as much if not more because there are three people they have to divide themselves out to, so like if you take a pie and you share it between two then each gets half a pie but if you share it between four then each person gets less pie because you have to cut smaller pieces, it's like math and shit.

[Nuzzolese]

And, I don't hate you. I just don't understand you.

[Qdrop]

They'd take it to PM but the character limit would inhibit them.



that...and then we couldn't show off.

are you saying you all aren't impressed?
come on...

[fucktopgirl]

that...and then we couldn't show off.

are you saying you all aren't impressed?
come on...


personnally i follow the first exchange and after that,,,i kinda loose interest!!

[Qdrop]

I think it's unrealistic in this day and age, I understand that it may have seemed to work in the past, but I'm under the impression/assumption that in those cases it was of necessity or one person's indulgence at the expense of the others (harems) or it was just a sexual thing and not real relationships (couples who swap). I mean they would end up favoring one above the rest anyway. Isn't it hard to escape favoritism in people you're not related to? I would think an urge to favor one above the others would take hold, and though you care for others, there is one you share the most with, a best friend/lover/thing.

I mean it sounds unneccessary because I think the bad aspects outweigh the good ones. I just think that even if you enjoy it, it would only lead to more trouble. More money more problems, only replace money with people. And when you said more people help distribute the weight of life or something, and help each other out, I could only think of things like chores or baby-birthing or some kind of mission-oriented situation where you have a lot of things to do and need more hands and teats.

Because if you meant to say that more people help each other out emotionally, well I don't get that because the more people you add to a situation, the more the individual has to be concerned about. When it's two people and it's balanced (ideally) or some how complimentary, I see some symmetry in effort, a trade-off, but when you have four people that's like, each person gets to give off more but they have to do just as much if not more because there are three people they have to divide themselves out to, so like if you take a pie and you share it between two then each gets half a pie but if you share it between four then each person gets less pie because you have to cut smaller pieces, it's like math and shit.

yeah, i really gotta side with Nuzz on this subject.

i just don't see how the benefits out-weigh the negatives.

it still just seems like a rationalization to bang more than one chick and not feel guilty.

[Nuzzolese]

I enjoyed the book references.

[fucktopgirl]

In a family context that would just be wrong to have many lovers.IT will not be a saine environnement for kids,,i beleive!POlyamory sound interesting on the sex level,,i mean if you are tired to sleep with one partner then you can swicht to another one,but you dont have the strong tied that couple have togethers,the intimacy that build between two person who decide to be exclusive to each others.I dont want to denigrate your thing Gea,,it just seem like a situation so volatile.Insert in there jealousy,,emotional battle,,because at one point you might prefer one girl but she may prefer this others guy,and a chain reaction happen,,,so tension between people can escalade..no??To me too ,it would feel like i was dispersing my energy in every direction,thus not creating something lasting and strong.KInda out of focus!!Is like anything in life,,when you put your energy on one thing,,better result and satisfaction derive from it!!

What about experiencing exclusivity,,thta an awsome feeling,you feel like you are the center of the world and vice versa,,its boost your self esteem and propulse you in the stratosphere!!Now i am just deblatering!!
Anyway i would feel so lost in that kind of context but if you feel good,,that is what import the most!!

MAybe its just a stage in your life too?Or you really feel fulfill in this polyamory circle?



Sorry for my grammar!! :o

[Nuzzolese]

I'm not saying that above all else it's impractical, I'm saying mainly that I find it disrespectful, like that you would not value one person so much that you would devote yourself completely, that this is the only person with whom you will have this certain relationship. And if it's unrealistic to expect one person to be the end-all be all everything to another, then it seems unfairly cruel to subject two people to each other, making them look one another in the eye and expect them not to get competitive over your favor. It seems insensitive, to denigrate the other person (am I using that word correctly) just degrading I guess, to say "we're all going to share each other" and to me would seem like you actually don't care incredibly deeply for any of them, to be so happy with sharing.

[Nuzzolese]

In a family context that would just be wrong to have many lovers.IT will not be a saine environnement for kids,,i beleive!POlyamory sound interesting on the sex level,,i mean if you are tired to sleep with one partner then you can swicht to another one,but you dont have the strong tied that couple have togethers,the intimacy that build between two person who decide to be exclusive to each others.I dont want to denigrate your thing Gea,,it just seem like a situation so volatile.Insert in there jealousy,,emotional battle,,because at one point you might prefer one girl but she may prefer this others guy,and a chain reaction happen,,,so tension between people can escalade..no??To me too ,it would feel like i was dispersing my energy in every direction,thus not creating something lasting and strong.KInda out of focus!!Is like anything in life,,when you put your energy on one thing,,better result and satisfaction derive from it!!

What about experiencing exclusivity,,thta an awsome feeling,you feel like you are the center of the world and vice versa,,its boost your self esteem and propulse you in the stratosphere!!Now i am just deblatering!!
Anyway i would feel so lost in that kind of context but if you feel good,,that is what import the most!!

MAybe its just a stage in your life too?Or you really feel fulfill in this polyamory circle?



Sorry for my grammar!! :o

I'm with her ^


And I'm sorry, GEA, if you feel attacked and bombarded...but, you did make this thread just for that.

[Qdrop]

what is it about one woman that doesn't satisfy you?

just the fact that you CAN have more than one, doesn't mean one should.

you CAN have 10 cars (if you can afford them), but isn't that just stupid?

it just seems glutonous...

[Nuzzolese]

Oh that insatiable Alex!

[Qdrop]

Oh that insatiable Alex!

can you imagine him at Wendy's...picking from the dollar menu?

"umm...i want ....3 OF EVERYTHING....I WANT IT ALL!"

[beastieangel01]

Interesting read, GEA. It's something I really never got involved with myself, but it sounds like you definitely know what you are doing (and I don't think I worded that well but I hope you know what I mean). Your heart is in the right place. People are far too quick to put their own opinion down before they realize "hey, this person is not ME, this works for THEM, I should respect that."

[Qdrop]

People are far too quick to put their own opinion down before they realize "hey, this person is not ME, this works for THEM, I should respect that."

i think we ARE giving alex the benifit of the doubt....and realize what works for some, may not work for others.

i think what we are saying here is how can this work for ANYONE? we just don't see how it works at all.

[beastieangel01]

I didn't even read anyone elses posts other than the original one, so I'm not trying to call out anyone that commented. Just saying my piece in response to what he said (i.e. people that told him he is selfish and the like).

[Nuzzolese]

Questions:

1. Do you think it's possible to get really good at another person? Figuratively speaking, I mean. Could you, through time and training and such, get to be really skilled and knowledgeable in handling, being with, loving and understanding one other person?

2. Do you think that building this kind of thing would be something valuable and worth time and effort? Worth devotion and narrowness of purpse?

3. Do you think that devoting efforts and time to others would dilute and hinder the process of getting really specialized in being with that one person, causing you to be a jack of many, master of none? Resulting in, basically, a few slightly shallow relationships instead of one extremely full and complex one?

SOmetimes I like to surround myself with things I love and enjoy, like good music, a good movie, good food, a great friend...etc. But if I try to have them all at the same time, I'm not really appreciating each thing as much as I would if I was just focusing on one at a time. I mean it's hard to enjoy a movie and a person talking to you at the same time. One has to give. I enjoy them in different ways, separately. I'm trying to use that as a small scale comparison here, that to me, a relationship is like all encompassing, of my life. I mean, if I love someone then I love them all the time no matter who I'm with or not with at the moment. You don't feel that way? Exclusivity seems like a priviledge you honor someone with. And to take it away or never grant it seems like a dishonor or a lack of commitment.

[Sarky Devotchka]

I think some people are capable of loving more than one person. and I think that if you can be satisfied knowing that you have a circle of loving people around you, rather than just having one person that loves you and thinks you're the most special...then it could work out fine.

I would be extremely jealous, because I just want to be one person's special girl. even in friendships sometimes. In college, Cort and I lived with another girl who's still our best friend, but there was a lot of tension sometimes...one of us would get jealous if we thought we were being left out, or we'd hold grudges over stupid things like who didn't do the dishes again. We've grown up some since and realized that we all love eachother and that we were just making most of the stuff up in our heads. And even recently, when I was dating my last boyfriend, Cort had to deal with me being away all the time and she said, "I guess I just have to get used to not being number 1 anymore".

so, yeah, I don't know, human relationships are pretty complicated, sexual or not.

[Nuzzolese]

I'm trying not to challenge as much as discuss, which is hard when you disagree with someone. I mean, if Alex wants to keep discussing it thats great because I'm interested, because I still don't quite "get it", maybe I never will.

[Qdrop]

I think some people are capable of loving more than one person. and I think that if you can be satisfied knowing that you have a circle of loving people around you, rather than just having one person that loves you and thinks you're the most special...then it could work out fine. sounds nice....but it just doesn't seem practical.

I would be extremely jealous, because I just want to be one person's special girl.
exactly...and that's natural. you're SUPPOSED to feel jealous if your mate is giving intimate attention to someone else.
i would find it odd if someone DIDN'T get jealous....like they had a self-esteem problem or something.

[beastieangel01]

I'm with Nuzz in the sense that I don't really 'get it,' although I respect it because it sounds like he knows what he is doing and what is in his heart. That and I don't like imposing myself in a way that would challenge him. To me, as long there are consenting adults, okay.

However, just on my own, I would get super jealous and I'd have to choke a bitch. But you know. To each their own.

[Nuzzolese]

i would find it odd if someone DIDN'T get jealous....like they had a self-esteem problem or something.

Or like they just didn't care! Like they could take you or leave you and be happy either way.

[Qdrop]

Or like they just didn't care! Like they could take you or leave you and be happy either way.
yeah...
what kind of relationship is that?

[Nuzzolese]

yeah...
what kind of relationship is that?

Don't get me all riled I'm trying to stay calm.

[marsdaddy]

Can you two give me some child rearing advice, too? What's natural?

[Nuzzolese]

Does it look like I'm giving advice? I'm having a conversation. I'm expressing opinions. People say "it's not for me, I don't really understand it, but way to go you" because they're supportive of their friends. I'm just trying to understand.

[Qdrop]

Can you two give me some child rearing advice, too? What's natural?

feed them little.
beat them with sticks.
let them watch porn when they hit age 7.
lots of manual labor.
teach them to solve problems with a sharp knife and no witnesses.
fire is thier friend.
always pull a strange dogs tail.
looking both ways is for pussies.

[marsdaddy]

feed them little.
beat them with sticks.
let them watch porn when they hit age 7.
lots of manual labor.
teach them to solve problems with a sharp knife and no witnesses.
fire is thier friend.
always pull a strange dogs tail.
looking both ways is for pussies.Anyone else want to hit this one off the tee?

[Qdrop]

Anyone else want to hit this one off the tee?

you'll probably have to do it, mars...

i don't think many people read your posts....

[marsdaddy]

Fine. I can tell when I'm not wanted.

[cookiepuss]

what is it about one woman that doesn't satisfy you?

just the fact that you CAN have more than one, doesn't mean one should.

you CAN have 10 cars (if you can afford them), but isn't that just stupid?

it just seems glutonous...


I don't think it has anything to do with not being satisfied by one person. It sounds like GEA is VERy satisfied with his partner, it's just that they accept that are open to allowing other people into thier lives. A person can connect with one person in one way and other in another way and it makes each relationship no less important. From what it sounds like to me, Polyamory is love with out posession and I think there is something very freeing about that, eventhough it may not be right for everyone.

I know what it's like to care deeply and have sexual feelings for two very different people. And I've been torn apart by having to choose between them. but my choice is that I need a commitment with just one person, because while I might like to have my cake and eat it too, I would be very jealous over my cake being eaten by others. and therefore polyamory is not right for me, because I couldn't truly be fair and open minded about it.

[Nuzzolese]

A lot of people are saying they would be into it if it weren't for their jealousy. Alex, do you ever feel jealous and insecure when Heather is out with one of her other boyfriends? And I'm not talking about being fair and not acting on feelings that you might suppress, I'm asking if the jealous/insecure feelings are even there at all.


I guess, bottom line is some people feel satisfaction and fulfillment from committed monogamous relationships, some get none of that from them. Only GEA is the only 'polyamorous' person I've ever heard of...meaning it's all about other relationships and not just sex.

[mickill]

Regardless, it's always going to be quality over quantity for yours truly.

[Nuzzolese]

Also, I'm to understand that Heather is your main squeeze while the others are just friends with benefits? Or would you ideally have a thing going where Heather and you are each romantically seriously dating like 3 different people?

[Nuzzolese]

Regardless, it's always going to be quality over quantity for yours truly.

He's saying you don't have to sacrifice either if you just let go of your hangups. That was so 70s!

[Qdrop]

and it really comes down to commitment and jealousy.

i just don't see, objectively, how you can really commit to more than one person.
intimate relationships, particularly marriages, are VERY time consuming, stressful, emotional, tiring....
how can you do that with more than one person without someone getting shorted?

and jealousy. how can you possibley be okay with the person you love getting loved and boinked by someone else? that just doesn't jive with how humans operate....
i mean, you must have to excercise an OBSCENE amount of rationalizing and self control to keep your jealousy in check.
no one is just naturally "not jealous" unless they suffer from some mental issue or severe self-esteem issues.

[hpdrifter]

I think the idea in these types of relationships is that you don't give an equal level of commitment to all partners. So you'd have one, your primary, who you share the most with, who you are the most connected to. And the others... varying levels.

I don't see how this could work but it does for some people. I think the lines would get way too blurred and you'd be confused but that's who I am.

[mickill]

He's saying you don't have to sacrifice either if you just let go of your hangups. That was so 70s!
Some of us have seriously high standards. Standards that few are likely to meet. I doubt that I'd find enough willing topnotch thoroughbreds to get it on simultaneously with to be able to lead such a lifestyle.

[JimmyTheScumbag]

I'll swing it around a bit.

[Ace42X]

Bah, browser ate my post thanks to the infamous backspace key. So, the short short version.

no ace, the thousands upon thousands of species that existed before us and left no evidence of family structures or pair bonding, per sey.

So not the "original" ones then. Original meaning "preceding all others."

meaning archeology and anthropology are not exact sciences with 100% proof, therefore not usable in a debat about behavior?

Meaning whatever you want it to mean, evidently. The fact that it is not 100% proof is irrelevant. It is the fact that there is little to no way of actually proving the reliability, in this case, that is of concern. We don't even know if it is at 50%, 25%, 3%. Expecting 100% reliability is unreasonable, however expecting a high degree of reliability is not.

Not that it matters in the context of this debate. Without actual factual evidence, the reliability of it is irrelevant. it says nothing about the reliability of the authors of the citations you gave, and thus the unknown value of the speculations (theories) put forward.

true, not 100% accurate, and subject to conjecture...but i trust the people who conduct the studies and theorize.

Well, that's ok then. As long as the "immutable facts" that you put forward are only, actually, based on you trusting someone else's speculations.

(Ipse dixit)

ace, do you truly find it necessary to list of the primate anscestors of homosapiens, as well as the previous ansestors of primates....and list off thier mating habits?

Just key ones, with a decent sample for each to disprove localisation.

are you contending that that wouldn't matter, because that doesn't prove it was genetic, just coincidental behavior based on the environment and culture.

Yes, exactly. And the key aspect of this is "doesn't prove". As it was proof (and logical proofs) that I was pointing out the lack of, it is the exact evidence. It was you passing off supposition as scientific fact.

Your citations below also make this point.

The gibbons, or Lesser Apes, are the most distant relatives of humans among the apes, hence it is unclear what we might learn about the evolution of human social structure by studying them. In addition, many anthropologists would argue that human social structure is so highly variable and culturally controlled, unlike the more rigidly programmed social structure of gibbons, that we cannot even discuss its evolution. But human social structure can be viewed as a complex set of adaptive responses to a highly variable environment, and as such we can compare human social structure with that of other animals as a set of solutions to similar ecological and social problems.

"Unclear, cannot even discuss, responses to environment." All there in the first paragraph.

you want proof of a "polygomy gene" in each of our ancestors?

Or a combination of genes responsible, in a decent cross section of ancestors.

And here is a fantastic source:
http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep01138154.html

It is fascinating, although almost entirely speculative as the language itself states. I did go into great depth with this one, but I don't have 2 hrs to spend on just this, so I will try to be brief and quote-lite.

Firstly, the only mention of ancestors is australoptithicus, and then the only evidence given was that they are more sexually dimorphised than we are now. Hardly conclusive, and not exactly informative either.

When it comes to comparing actual real-world behaviours, we get:

the behavioral profiles which are similar probably reflect behavioral convergences which, in turn, reflect ecological constrictions (analogues) rather than genetic continuity (homologues).

Given that it says we cannot extrapolate human behaviour from that of comparable primates, WHOSE BEHAVIOUR WE CAN OBSERVE, I am interested to see why you contend invisible ancestor species are so much more reliable.

Interestingly, in YOUR citation, it says:

Although most (approx. 85%) of known societies have allowed polygyny, most men in these societies have only one wife at any one time. With the exception of the rare polyandrous societies, virtually all women are in monogamous marriages.

"Most men have only one wife at any one time..." Hardly the "prevalency" you suggested.

now, do you want actual citation that shows that our evolutionary ancestors were polygomous in nature?

You mean actually answer the question? Yes, I thought it was clear that they were not rhetorical. I also thought me repeating in god-knows how many times over the course of several posts would suggest that.

Names, genes, dates, and something to suggest that there isn't a sizeable number of contradictory cases.

but then it becomes a question of how do you prove that human sexual behaviors and our evolutionary ancestors sexual behaviors ARE or ARE not genetic rather than cultural.
the thing is....they are BOTH genetic and cultural.

This is completely off the point, and it is all my fault. I'll put my hands up to this one, I have no idea what point I was trying to make, nor what significance it has. Discount at will.

well, yes...i agree with that.

Well, good. But, despite this, you are still attributing an innate biological basis, which doesn't necessarily effect the decisions (as you jsut agreed), to the population at large. This is a logic error.

certainly....that is where theory and OPINION comes in.

Indeed, which is why your theorising and opining shouldn't be passed off as immutable scientific fact. The whole point of my post, which preceded this whole thorny discussion.

sounds good to me.

So, if the two are effectively neutral (in equilibrium, maybe - adaptiveness to change is a vital survival mechanism. Hard-wiring responses to a changing environment is a short-sighted biological response) - what determines which way a person will fall? The genes are innate, so not they. However, society is variable. Societies' effects can change at the drop of a hat.

This is why I put such significance on society in this case. Where a choice (or even unconscious inclination for) is balanced on a knife-edge, it only takes a little force to make the world of difference. Society, culture, can make that difference, and frequently does. And, society has a massive effect on our behaviour. Read up on some sociology and it will open your eyes - it certainly did for me when I came across it.

but is not automatically wrong to link behaviors with genes, ace.
yes, you are showing how that can be in error....but that does not make it intellectual death sentance.

Correct. Like I said, an argument can be illogical, but the conclusion still be correct. You said I was covering my ass, I was pointing out the crux of my argument. And, just to make sure we are speaking the same language, it is not the behaviours which are linked, it is the *tendancy*.

I am sure you will concede that behavioural *tendancies* can also be significantly effected by culture.

see, if we can show behavior linked to genetics in our species....it is not impossible or even illogical to extrapolate and make connections to our anscestors...or to work backwards.

Yes, we can go back and speculate on our ancestors based on what we know about now.

Yes we can speculate (theorise) about us now based on what we know about our ancestors.

What we cannot do is speculate about our ancestors, and then speculate about us based on those speculations.

While this is a great way of coming up with exciting new theories, it isn't scientifically rigorous. Anyone can build speculation upon speculation upon speculation, while maintaining internal coherency.

is the ability to rationalize, weigh options...make decisions.
our choices ARE part of our behavior....
it's our ability to make conscious choices that are pan-human...yet it is those variations in our choices that makes each of us unique AND responsible for our actions.

And what about non-innate, non-conscious, non-rational behaviours? Operant conditioning operates beyond the conscious, the BEHAVIOURS (not the process of conditioning) are not innate, the effects are incredibly powerful.


so it's a matter of conflicting vocabulary, eh?
okay...generally monogomous behavior with dabblings in adulterous or polygamous behaviors.
god, this isn't a truth table, ace...you can have conflicts. it musn't be so black and white.

Science deals with black and whites, true and false. Hypothesis proven, hypothesis refuted. The whole system is designed to deal with abberations, shades of grey. Standard deviation, weighted measurements, statistical analysis, degrees of freedom, etc etc.

As for conflicting vocabulary - the distinction is significant. Primary and secondary is weighted, there can be a number of confounding variables that make the distinction marginal. Primary could merely mean predominance. Secondary behaviour could be either "less common" or "less important" or "less significant" (for a number of reasons) - it could occur within a social unit, or it could be seperated - a proportion of the society may be purely monogamous or predominantly monogamous, where other sections are not.

Two simple words can have a multitude of connotations, and thus precision is important.

monogomy likely evolved from cultural needs...which in turn produced some genetic changes toward innate behavioral monogomy...
but again..this likely VERY recent in evolutionary time. we are still in mid-flux.

"evolved from cultural needs" - there isn't spontaneous generation in natural selection. It doesn't "create", it refines. The chances of it being a mutational introduction (especially a recent one) are unlikely as far as my understanding of genetics goes. "Monogamy likely evolved from a tendancy in our genetic ancestors" - just like polygamy. And to give polygamy some sort of preference based solely on "it was there first" is incredibly unscientific.

where's my star, bitch.

You deserve several, I admit.

granted this theory is still very controversial.

Which is reason enough to be careful when making pronouncement of "fact." When what you are basing an arguement on is "controversial theory."

i honestly haven't made up my mind on punctuated vs. gradual evolutionary change.
both have weaknesses.

Both can operate independantly (or inter-relatedly) from each other.

but as far as "time". time relative to evolutionary scale.
things like distinct congnitive differances take long long periods of time....50,000-200,000 years (based on archeological findings on cultural behaviors).

How so? How can it be harder for small neurological variations to occur and be passed than small dermatalogical ones?

"races" as we know them....just have not been around that long.

these are individual differances, not group differances.
how many generations does it take for a genetic anomoly to take hold in a group, if at all.
look that up.

Generations is impossile to look up. It depends on too many extraneous factors. However, genetic anomalies seldom take hold, if ever.

you want some citations for that?
The Blank Slate nails that down well.

As a matter of interest.

as does "Race and IQ"- which includes an article on THAT VERY subject by your hero Gould.

I dunno, you cite a guy once...

[GreenEarthAl]

I think it's unrealistic... I would think an urge to favor one above the others would take hold, and though you care for others, there is one you share the most with, a best friend/lover/thing.

Some polyamorous people are into polyamorous heirarchy, where a people may have one or more primary love interests and one or more secondary, turtiary or whatever. It seems to work out for people, so bully for them. Heather considers herself fiercly non-heirachical and is inclined to say things like "you wouldn't tell your children, you're my primary child and your brother and sister are my secondary children" etc. Me, me I see lots of situtations where polyamorous people prefer to be in a secondary type situation. And even if you do mean for it to be, if one relationship is long distance and another is not, or if, for example, one relationship's been going on for 10 years and another one for 10 months, the expectation that they're going to be of exact equal quality is kind of silly.

My own preference is just to let each situation grow to it's own level, keep the communication flowing, honesty abounds, and if people are geting what they need out of the relationships, then each relationship and all of the inter-relationships flourish.



Because if you meant to say that more people help each other out emotionally, well I don't get that because the more people you add to a situation, the more the individual has to be concerned about. When it's two people and it's balanced (ideally) or some how complimentary, I see some symmetry in effort, a trade-off, but when you have four people that's like, each person gets to give off more but they have to do just as much if not more because there are three people they have to divide themselves out to, so like if you take a pie and you share it between two then each gets half a pie but if you share it between four then each person gets less pie because you have to cut smaller pieces, it's like math and shit.

Math hats! Math hats! Lets all don our Math hats and have soda and PIE! Mmmmm PIE!

Consider:
Two people = 1 pie
Three people = 1.5 pies

You are still half a pie slice, and now you have to divide your constitution instead of being reserved all for one person, but that one person has pie portion from pie .5 to make up the missing.

Assuming that Four people = 2 pies, the equation remains the same. No one ends up with actual less pie, only less specialization. If you are only interested in one kind of pie, there would be no appeal to dividing the pie in this fashion. If the quantity of pie all has different ideas on who is to get how much of what, chaos will certainly ensue. But, sometimes with mature adults who can come to a verbal decision on what their pie plans are before they just start making a mess in the kitchen, it can all work out very well and people enjoy some pie variety.

[GreenEarthAl]

In a family context that would just be wrong to have many lovers.IT will not be a saine environnement for kids,,i beleive!POlyamory sound interesting on the sex level,,i mean if you are tired to sleep with one partner then you can swicht to another one,but you dont have the strong tied that couple have togethers,the intimacy that build between two person who decide to be exclusive to each others.I dont want to denigrate your thing Gea,,it just seem like a situation so volatile.Insert in there jealousy,,emotional battle,,because at one point you might prefer one girl but she may prefer this others guy,and a chain reaction happen,,,so tension between people can escalade..no??To me too ,it would feel like i was dispersing my energy in every direction,thus not creating something lasting and strong.KInda out of focus!!Is like anything in life,,when you put your energy on one thing,,better result and satisfaction derive from it!!

What about experiencing exclusivity,,thta an awsome feeling,you feel like you are the center of the world and vice versa,,its boost your self esteem and propulse you in the stratosphere!!Now i am just deblatering!!
Anyway i would feel so lost in that kind of context but if you feel good,,that is what import the most!!

MAybe its just a stage in your life too?Or you really feel fulfill in this polyamory circle?


At age 35, I'm guessing it's probably not just a stage or a phase. It was quite a journey getting my brain to here from monogamyville, I don't have much interest in going back the way I came.

There is a growing polyamory community. There are websites for it and yahoo groups (even one for my little are where I've had meet n chat's with other poly folks from western New York) and we even have our own magazine and conventions and the like. I've read about a great many polyamorous parents who seem perfectly sane, with children who seem more well adjusted than the average North American child (which, admittedly, isn't saying much).

Each problem that you keep insisting has to occur in every polyamorous instance, in practice, seems to happen far more in the monogamous situations I observe. The jealousy, in practice, seems to factor into the monogamous relationships I observe much more than poly situations I observe. The bottom line, as I see it, is that couples with open and honest communication thrive, others crumble. I have seen a few polyamorous relationships implode disasterously, but given that most polyamorous people understand from the very beginning that open and honest communication is their only chance, a lot more of them start discussing the important asdpects of their relationship from the very beginning. Makes love happy.

[GreenEarthAl]

it seems unfairly cruel to subject two people to each other, making them look one another in the eye and expect them not to get competitive over your favor.

Any situation where one person is the Alpha-person 9trumpet blast] and the other involved persons are relegated to supporting cast competing for stage space is undesirable whether relationship related or not. But, try to imagine for a moment that it's not ONLY ABOUT YOU. It's not Queen Alpha and the suitors competing for her time, the suitors either like each other or have other people that they're involved with and the system communicated and renegotiates itself and keeps itself at the level that affords maximum happiness for each involved.

It seems insensitive, to denigrate the other person (am I using that word correctly) just degrading I guess, to say "we're all going to share each other" and to me would seem like you actually don't care incredibly deeply for any of them, to be so happy with sharing.

I spent roughly 20 years as a dating age monogamous male. During that time, I had about ten girlfriends all of whom I was unwilling to share with anyone. I cared less about each of them than I care about Heather, who I am willing to share.

Long ago, I understood your "logic" and felt like "Of course! That's the only way to think." But having thought in other ways now, the whole "if you're willing to share someone you must love them less" paradigm fails me.

[GreenEarthAl]

what is it about one woman that doesn't satisfy you?

just the fact that you CAN have more than one, doesn't mean one should.

you CAN have 10 cars (if you can afford them), but isn't that just stupid?

it just seems glutonous...

Lemme try to go back to the beginning and explain. No, actually, let me summarize.

Broke up with a girl for whatever reason and really broke her heart and decided to myself, that's it, totally done breaking women's hearts, I will not have sex or say I love you or any of it until I'm sure it's THE ONE. Figured it might take a year or so to find HER. Then life started happening. Had to take care of my sick mom for years, mom died, hated all human beings for a while, etc. Anyway. I had been into my celibacy thing for 4 years and still no sign of HER. (Just ask people on this board that were around 4 and 5 years ago, some of them will remember how annoying I was with the celibacy and everything)

Things began to seem fairly hopeless. I was only interested in women who could understand how much the world sucked and were actively involved in fixing it. And then they had to be okay with me being me (which is kinda hard to take for todays generation since I'm so square and all (I never drink, smoke, do drugs, don't own a car, buy a buch of cheap plastic crap at the Wal-Mart, eat meat) (you get the idea))

So one day I'm going to Washington to yell some random shit about how Bush is an asshole and that this whole Iraq war is gonna be the shit idea of the century when along happens Heather. And like BLAMO! We hit it off, and she not only doesn't mind all of the things that I am, she likes them, and she is many of them herself. We started talking about the research we had each independantly done on the Monsanto corporation and we like like WOW. It was quite hippietastic.

So then I ask her on a date and she eagerly agrees and we go on a date and have a great time and so I ask her to be my one and only and she says that she doesn't think that her boyfriend would approve of that. Right. Deflated as fuck all! She starts explaining about polyamory, but I don't really care, that shit is definately not for me. But I do like the conversations so maybe we could be friends and talk once in a while.

So. The plan was: Whatever you do don't fall in love. Didn't work. Back up plan was: Whatever you do don't have sex with her. Didn't work. Alternate plan was just be in love with her for a little while and then break up with each other.

For some reason we thought that plan might work. I was, quite frankly jealous as all fuck. I wanted her to mention her boyfriend and her girlfriend to me as little as possible. Especially when I found out it was more than one other boyfriend. I was a bonifide emotional basket case. But it was like moth and flame "can't look away from the fire, so pretty, so pretty" and so our totally crazy revized plan was: Okay, you can move in and save up money to go be with Br and meanwhile I love you and as soom as you move out east we'll break up and you do your poly thing with your poly people and I'll get back to finding HER.

Crazy sounding as the plan may have seemed it had potential. I was becoming a much more confident person with the people I was meeting through Heather and the things that I was doing to try to impress her and the things she was doing that we impressing me. She had written a memoir, so I wanted to write an autobiography. She knew TONS of activist people and all I had really done was just run my mouth a lot on the political forum. I wanted to meet all the people and make speeches and I was becoming the person that could do all that.

So, she had just about saved up enough to go be with Br when he broke up with her and told her he was becomming monogamous. Which hurt her. Up until that point I was always hoping, secretly, that she would see enough monogamy and see how good it was and change and "become monogamous", but seeing her in that moment, shattered like that, there was no doubt in me that polyamorous was at the core of who she was and always would be, and as much as I had come to love her I no longer wanted to change her into something she couldn't be.

We went to the Opus thing (our anual Hippytastic Unitarian Universalist thing) and she met someone new and that drove me insane with jealousy anew. I tried my very best to unlove her. And I was surrounded by awesome women that had qualities similar to Heather but different. I met J. Beautiful. I tried to become as fond as fast as I could so that my Heather hurt could be the least severe.

Back at home Heather and I started to communicate and clear up all the misconceptioons and false perceptions and I still couldn't stop loving her. Every atempt left me more in love with her. But now I was thing about J all the time. And it occured to me: "What if J and Heather both wanted to be your girlfriend." and the only answer I could come up with was "I would like it." So then I asked myself if I could ever see myself as polyamorous and the shocking as shit answer was YES.

So I took a few months to think it over. Heather had gotten her dream job out east so she was still moving there even if the boyfriend deal out there had fallen through. Our plan was always to break up when she moved. We tried. It lasted about 2 hours. We couldn't do it. We couldn't figure out what else to do. So I told her about my considering polyamory. That was the only new plan we could come up with so we were gonna give that a go.

It took a good 6 months to wrap my brain around it. To actuall fall for other women without feeling guilty about it. To actually want Heather to find meaningful relationships closer to her. I had to develop an entirely new bag of tools at my advanced almost as old as Echewta age. But after about a year I was pretty totally into it. And after another year of it, it feels natural to me. I think with a polyamorous brain now and don't much bother about thoughts that used to dominate my brain.

Heather and I have a super intense relationship no matter how much time we spend apart we're like two (or more) peas in a pod. We know each other insanely well. The year we lived together we barely ever argued we did all kinds of things as a team and that was when we were mono/poly. Now that we're poly/poly we're all the more old-married-couple-ish. We're a part of each other's forever. When we hand around with groups of poly folks we quite enjoy ourselves. We've never hooked up with anyone as a pair or anything of the sort, but the future is out there. I have lots of other women that I love. I've now met tons of women who agree that the world sucks and actively do something about it. I've met women that aren't to put off by all of my various straight edge tendencies. None yet who've concented to make the jump into the lifestyle, and if none ever does that's fine because Heather is enough for me all by her self. But our preference would be to include some like minded folks into whatever familial situation we forge.

*pant pant*

That was as short as I could press 9 years into. Sorry that it was still to long.

*shrug*

[GreenEarthAl]

not that it's Mikey's "fault" but when I was a real emotional wreck, when I had just first found out about her polyamory, I started IMing MikeMars. He was all trying to be rational and I was not functioning so well, and he would try to lead me through the steps to figure out what to do and every ten minutes I would arrive at the step "I don't want to ever talk to her again" and then a few minutes later I'd arrive at "I want to tell her I love her" and all that anguish. And at the end of it all Mike was like, "I guess you should probably give love a chance. What have you got to lose?"

What indeed. Some of the best free advice I ever got. I was probably just looking for someone to tell me it was okay to keep talking to her, I'm sure I would have anyways on my own, but I'm glad Mike was there to slap my brain around and tell me to snap out of it.

That's why you're my favorite Mike. And all my other BBMB friends are secondaries.

SHAZAM!

[GreenEarthAl]

I was at work all day.

I'm caught up now.

Carry on.

[Knuckles]

Great posts GEA. (y) I can see why polyamory would be a good idea for some folks, like yourself, but I have a couple questions for you. Do you think that polyamory is something only for the young? Do you ever see a time in the future when it will be just you and Heather?

[Nuzzolese]

I still fail to see why it would be a good idea in the long term, or in a familial situation of multiple committed couples. Obviously it's working for you these days and for her. I'll never approve of it for people who claim to be serious about living that lifestyle. I guess I'm mentally handicapped in the understanding sector. At least there will be plenty of people at our prom. And four people doesn't equal the equivalent of two pies because the distribution of pie is going to be uneven when you have like two people eating from one pie and from another while leaving some left from each for the others. The Jefferson's were monogamous and even though their relationship wasn't always perfect, they finally got a piece of the pie. See? Beans don't burn in the kitchen, is all I'm saying. Take that to the cleaners.

[Nuzzolese]

I respect your honesty, Al. I respect most of the things you do and say...just not this. Not like you need my respect or anything, I really don't matter of course. But you know, since the thread and everything...

[Maisailana]

do you plan to raise children in this particular lifestyle?

[marsdaddy]

It's all the fault of that Que Sera Sera songwriter.

It was from the movie, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" -- thanks Google!

[GreenEarthAl]

do you plan to raise children in this particular lifestyle?

yes

[kate]

i don't feel like reading 5 pages, so if this has already been answered just point to the right page number.

what happens if you want to live with your woman, and she agrees, but she also wants to live with one of her other boyfriends, so you all move in together, but then you don't love him?

[GreenEarthAl]

i don't feel like reading 5 pages, so if this has already been answered just point to the right page number.

what happens if you want to live with your woman, and she agrees, but she also wants to live with one of her other boyfriends, so you all move in together, but then you don't love him?

That's cool. You're allowed to live together with people you don't love. I don't love my current roommate.

So, life just goes on as normal I guess.

[kate]

you're weird.

[GreenEarthAl]

This is news?

[rirv]

Does it work that all four of a polyamorous group are all in love with each other, or is it like a tree? So you love a b & c, but b loves you d & e and c loves b you & e and a doesn't love you at all?

[GreenEarthAl]

It's like life, so you can configure it whatever way everyone agrees to. If you're going to live with people you should at least get along, which true of a situation that involves romantic situations or not.

re: relastionship = a lot of work -> more relationships = more work.

For some people relationships make life easier. For me, personally, that's why I have relationships, they make my life easier. And the more the merrier.

[insertnamehere]

maybe i need lots of boys to give me all the attention i need. that way when one doesnt want to hang out with me i can go be with the other. except boys are jelouse and possesive...... hey wait a second....ummm.... so al...... :D




anyone want to take in a stray? im lonley and need cuddles. im house broken and i dont eat very much, and i dont really own possesions so i cant make a mess with my things. ok i lied, somtimes i can eat a lot, but i like cheap food a lot. i can speak spanish and sorta a tiny bit of japanese. and i can cook.