Men prewired to spread seed?

[shadowofman]

Do you have any point to any of this???

Absolutely! The OP says that men are prewired to spread seed. All I'm saying is that the genes want us to spread seed. Your genes accomplish this by making one want to be promiscuous. The average person's (maybe men and women) gene's push one into a promiscuous sexual orientation. How one lives their life, what relationships they build, and how they handle the demands of said relationship is up to them.

[uniqueone]

Absolutely! The OP says that men are prewired to spread seed. All I'm saying is that the genes want us to spread seed. Your genes accomplish this by making one want to be promiscuous. The average person's (maybe men and women) gene's push one into a promiscuous sexual orientation. How one lives their life, what relationships they build, and how they handle the demands of said relationship is up to them.

 

This is the most convoluted argument I've heard in a long time.

[shadowofman]

Sorry if it seems convoluted. My point is to make distinction between cheater and a promiscuously oriented person. We can all agree that a cheater did something wrong. But the point of the OP is to make the claim that "men are prewired to spread seed". I am merely correcting this statement as I see it.

"People" (a percentage, possibly men and women), are prewired to be promiscuous. That would be more accurate, as I see it.

[uniqueone]

Sorry if it seems convoluted. My point is to make distinction between cheater and a promiscuously oriented person. We can all agree that a cheater did something wrong. But the point of the OP is to make the claim that "men are prewired to spread seed". I am merely correcting this statement as I see it.

"People" (a percentage, possibly men and women), are prewired to be promiscuous. That would be more accurate, as I see it.

 

And a percentage are prewired to be murderers too.

 

Well I know I sure can rest easier tonight knowing all these "facts".....

[shadowofman]

Ahhh... But an insignificant number of people are wired to be murderers. I'm suggesting that over half of the population is wired to be promiscuous. And, that we need to acknowledge this fact if we ever want to see peace in this "war of the sexes".

Promiscuous people need to acknowledge their promiscuous orientation and seek out other promiscuous people. Monogamous people are still stuck in the position of weeding out the liars from the truely monogamous. Demonizing promiscuity is not a good way to get the truth out of anyone.

I'm not trying to make anyone "rest" easier. Just talking about the truth as I see it.

[magenificent]

Absolutely! The OP says that men are prewired to spread seed. All I'm saying is that the genes want us to spread seed. Your genes accomplish this by making one want to be promiscuous. The average person's (maybe men and women) gene's push one into a promiscuous sexual orientation. How one lives their life, what relationships they build, and how they handle the demands of said relationship is up to them.

 

 

 

Dogs are prewired to pee on the carpet, unless they're taught it's unacceptable. The ones that don't get it get sent to the pound.

 

This is another example of someone extrapolating a meaning out of science to prove the point they're trying to make. I've read middle school debate teams make more well-founded arguments.

 

Get a grip, grow up, emerge from your adolescent cocoon and accept the fact that just because boys have kickstands it doesn't make them any more prone to "ho-ing" around.

 

I've heard plenty of arguments that people are all selfish, jealous beings, but that doesn't make it acceptable. There's a reason we live in what's called the "civilized world;" there are norms and rules that were developed because we are more than just two-legged animals. The rules keep the society in order, so it doesn't go directly to hell in a handbasket.

 

Some of these rules are:

 

Don't kill. It's fairly traumatic and hurtful.

 

Don't steal. True, you may WANT things (selfishness, jealousy, etc.) but that doesn't make it acceptable for a mature adult.

 

Also: don't sleep with everyone you feel like sleeping with. This is more of a norm than a rule, but there are a few reasons: if you're in a relationship, it tends to violate an inherent fidelity upon which relationships are built. It also just hurts the other person. If you're not in a relationship, it's icky. Condom or no, there are germs and bugs that hang out down there and get shared when two people "swap gravy." It's like why you're supposed to wash your hands after you sneeze and not wipe your butt with your hand. It's gross and it spreads germs.

 

Nice try, though.

[shadowofman]

What exactly is unscientific about my ideas?

All you are saying is that we should ignore all of these human observations and just go with tradition.

All I'm saying is that a percentage of people want to be promiscuous and there is a biological root to it all.

[uniqueone]

Ahhh... But an insignificant number of people are wired to be murderers. I'm suggesting that over half of the population is wired to be promiscuous.

 

 

Do you have the data on that? I'd like to peruse it. How did you do your studies btw? Murderers on one side...promscuous people on the other.......or were they mice? Was there cheese?

 

And, that we need to acknowledge this fact if we ever want to see peace in this "war of the sexes".

Promiscuous people need to acknowledge their promiscuous orientation and seek out other promiscuous people. Monogamous people are still stuck in the position of weeding out the liars from the truely monogamous.

 

Oooohh....I know! Let's get DNA testing!

 

Seriously though, if we follow your *ahem* theory.....wouldn't it follow that this so-called promiscous gender would have a particular chromosomal pattern? Hetero men do....hetero women do.....hermaphrodites do......

 

So what's the chromosomal pattern for the promiscuous person?

Lemme guess.....XXX?

 

[uniqueone]

What exactly is unscientific about my ideas?

All I'm saying is that a percentage of people want to be promiscuous and there is a biological root to it all.

 

What's unscientific you say?

 

Given that promiscuous people spread more diseases (see the advent of A.I.D.S. for documentation of that).....one could argue that Darwinistic principles would weed out (aka kill off) promisuous individuals.

 

You see, we want our species to survive. That's what we're programmed to do at all costs (despite how much we try to screw everything up). In this struggle for survival, our system works to get rid of that which is unhealthy. Promiscuous people breed diseases. The human population has been fighting diseases since the beginning of time. How did we stay alive? When one pops up....WHAM! We erradicate it.

 

Promiscuous people, being exposed to countless bacteria and virus's would therefore have weakened immune systems. At first, their immune system would become stronger and try to fight off the invaders, but that wouldn't last very long at all (as seen with AIDS) and overall they would become weak. And their offspring would become weak....and sickly.

 

Things don't look too good for PP (promiscuous people) anymore, do they? And forget antibiotics. We've seen what those can do and they've made things worse.

 

Afraid your kind is going the way of the dinasaur, dude.....

 

 

(hmmmmm....maybe the dinasaurs were just too damned promiscuous.....)

[shadowofman]

Do you have the data on that? I'd like to peruse it. How did you do your studies btw? Murderers on one side...promscuous people on the other.......or were they mice? Was there cheese?

Well, concidering that there is a hell of a lot more cheating going on, than murder, I would say that the data is unnessessary. Plus, I believe that only a fraction of murderers are actually "wired" to be murder. Psychopaths are very rare.

Seriously though, if we follow your *ahem* theory.....wouldn't it follow that this so-called promiscous gender would have a particular chromosomal pattern? Hetero men do....hetero women do.....hermaphrodites do......

So what's the chromosomal pattern for the promiscuous person?

Lemme guess.....XXX?

Again, I don't know if this thing is gender specific. Lots of people are telling me that it's women just as much as men. And yes, we should be able to find this in our genes, but we have only just recorded the human genome. Give it some time.

Given that promiscuous people spread more diseases (see the advent of A.I.D.S. for documentation of that).....one could argue that Darwinistic principles would weed out (aka kill off) promisuous individuals.

Yes, one could conclude that if you knew little about natural selection. There needs to be environmental pressure on breeding in order for anyone to be "weeded out". Most STDs are not terminal. In this same line of thinking, you could conclude that diabeties should be long gone. The problem is that people with STDs and diabeties and countless other diseases still procreate, maintaining the genetic status quo.

Promiscuous people, being exposed to countless bacteria and virus's would therefore have weakened immune systems. At first, their immune system would become stronger and try to fight off the invaders, but that wouldn't last very long at all (as seen with AIDS) and overall they would become weak. And their offspring would become weak....and sickly.

AIDS is immune system specific, so of course it affects the immune system. I reject the notion that all promiscuous people have or will have VD. This is a strawman arguement. Nobody is suggesting that you should be promiscuous, so why do you feel the need to demonize promiscuity. Everyone, promiscuous or monogamous, should protect themselves from disease.

Things don't look too good for PP (promiscuous people) anymore, do they? And forget antibiotics. We've seen what those can do and they've made things worse.

Afraid your kind is going the way of the dinasaur, dude.....

(hmmmmm....maybe the dinasaurs were just too damned promiscuous.....)

I never suggested that things are looking good for anyone, promiscuous or monogamous. Things look pretty bleak to me. No one is learning anything. Intolorence is still fashionable so promiscuous people will continue to pretend to be monogamous, breaking hearts and families.

[RecordProducer]

A man of substance isn’t about to dilute his genetic makeup with an inferior woman as he tends to expect that his children will do better than him.

This is actually incorrect! Nature performs the selection through trial - the best will survive, the weakest will die. Nature doesn't complicate things by homogenizing the gene pool. On the contrary, variety leads to progress; when you mix primitive aggressiveness with brilliant innovativeness, you get leaders. You think of people in black-and-white terms: they either have substance or not. What is substance to you? I can tell you that speaking about human reproduction patterns without adequate knowledge in anthropology doesn't speak of much substance (unless we're talking about booze).

 

This explains the social/economical differences in society. The upper classes tend to have less children, and having more resources and a better understanding of what it takes to produce a quality person devotes more energy and resources to each child. The lower classes tend to have more children, more out of wedlock children, and those parent, regardless of their affections for their children tend to be rather negligent in seeing to each child’s development.

... and this speaks of lack of knowledge in history, geography, basic demographic statistics, and cultural/social factors. You base the history of humanity on the last 12 years and the region of your immediate neighborhood. Not to mention your discrimination against people of low socio-economic standard.

 

To say that one is pre-wired to spread his seed far and wide is not any different than saying that one will have sex with literally anyone and anything.

Actually it's very different. You are pre-wired to eat every day, which doesn't mean you will eat any time and anything.

 

"World War II only proves one thing-the Good Guys don't always win."

 

What did you mean by that last statement?

I think he meant that nature doesn't always have an intelligent concept of keeping the best and destroying the worst, given that around 61 million of Allies (the good guys) lost their lives in WWII, as opposed to 11 million of Axis (the bad guys: Germany, Italy, and Japan). I can see what confused you though - the fact that the good guys did win the war.

 

 

So you are saying that you are just a machine unable to decide for your self how to live your life?

The main deal of who we are is genetically pre-determined. You can choose to not have sex, but you can't choose to not want sex. Accepting that you have some very compelling instincts can only help you control them and integrate them into your ethical codes. Denial and puritanistic prejudices only put more burden on the already difficult and complex core of human nature.

 

And why is it that we have so many negative words in our language for a woman doing that??? :confused:

Because women have the power of controlling the number of birth. I am not talking about birth control; I am talking about inherent ability to reduce or augment the number of births through mere existence. Few females equals fewer babies. From this ability to control the outcome of birth - religion derived the only birth control method it had: no premarital sex for girls. Hence the cultural myth of "sluts, who have babies out of the wedlock." At some point in time, this made a lot of sense actually.

[shadowofman]

The main deal of who we are is genetically pre-determined. You can choose to not have sex, but you can't choose to not want sex. Accepting that you have some very compelling instincts can only help you control them and integrate them into your ethical codes. Denial and puritanistic prejudices only put more burden on the already difficult and complex core of human nature.

How can you say everything I've been trying to say in just on paragraph. Promiscuousness is a biological sexual orientation. Promiscuity is a choice.

Accepting the fact that you are or could be a promiscuously oriented person is maybe the best way to prevent this crazy problem of cheating. Knowing that you are biologically oriented toward promiscuity, you will likely seek out other promiscuous people. You may be less likely to assume that your new girlfriend would be into group sex eventually.

If you are a promiscuously oriented person with preconceived monogamous notions of sexual morality, you are, in my opinion, infinately more likely to have a weak cheating will. You will crack under your own pressure to remain monogamous.

[RecordProducer]

How can you say everything I've been trying to say in just on paragraph.

Thanks.

 

Promiscuousness is a biological sexual orientation. Promiscuity is a choice.

Accepting the fact that you are or could be a promiscuously oriented person is maybe the best way to prevent this crazy problem of cheating. Knowing that you are biologically oriented toward promiscuity, you will likely seek out other promiscuous people. You may be less likely to assume that your new girlfriend would be into group sex eventually.

If you are a promiscuously oriented person with preconceived monogamous notions of sexual morality, you are, in my opinion, infinately more likely to have a weak cheating will. You will crack under your own pressure to remain monogamous.

Promiscuity refers to sexual behavior of a man or woman who engages in sexual relations with multiple partners on a casual and/or regular basis. However, I think some people are more promiscuous than others. I personally need sex, but I don't like it with strangers or men with whom I am not in love. My goal is to find a man who will be mine forever and have sex with him. I am currently in a sexless marriage and that reason alone is enough for me to want to have sex with another man. But this is not promiscuity. I simply have to have my needs fulfilled and they transcend the basic sexual physics. To me it's also a humongous emotional hole that I need to take care of. I think men are generally more promiscuous though. At least some men.

 

If we refer to instincts as a way to justify promiscuity and infidelity, we certainly need to consider that some people ARE monogamous by nature. This puts the promiscuous ones as well as their long-term partners at a huge disadvantage, given that there IS a choice between promiscuous and non-promiscuous people. Things become even more complicated when we add the instinct of possession; a cheater doesn't want to be cheated on. So in a way, the promiscuous people are victims of their instincts and if they are married, they make their spouses miserable.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be happy with a man who has to struggle with his promiscuous instinct. Wishing to have sex with someone else is the same as cheating in my book. I just told my husband that I have been unfaithful to him in my mind, because every night I fall asleep with the fantasy of my imaginary lover. I dream of someone else, because I am not getting affection and intimacy from my husband. The only reason why I haven't engaged in sex with others is because I am afraid of the practical consequences of my actions (I am alone in this country, jobless, and with two kids on my back; I can't afford to be kicked out in the street). But how is this really different from cheating? On the other hand, how can it be cheating when I am not having a real relationship with my husband? My only motivation for this (imaginary) infidelity is the disappointment in my marriage; it's not the tendency for sexual variety.

 

Sorry, this sounds like a big digression, but my point was that not all people (or even men) are promiscuous by nature. And somebody proves me wrong, ie. if all men are promiscuous and need a strong will to keep their pants zipped, then I'll shoot myself immediately.

[pollywag]

In the animal kingdom the male of any species uses sex as a means to procreate or spread the seed if you will, working in cycles. The dolphin is the only animal that has sex for the sheer pleasure of it, even a male reptile such as the crocodile will submit to a female crocodile and lure and swoon her into having sex with him when he is in heat and as soon as he is done he is back to being a viscious beast with little to no empathy. The human male operates much like an animal from basic instincs, the male instictually is programmed to spread the seed and move on. A perfect example of why a man usually moves on after a one night stand or casual sex is because there is no emotional tie for him to consider sticking around for more. His basic instinct tells him the seed is spread now time to move on. Sex is just sex to him much like it is to an animal. In humans, logic and the emotional developemnt is cultivated and nurtured and therefore designed so that given the opportunity for emotions to develop the male will have a certain kind of "glue" with a woman holding him back from continuing to spread the seed with new partners. Without this, long term relationships would not exist. Left up to man's instinctual needs we would all be baaaastard children and having baaaastard children. A man who has a hold on his sexual needs vs his emotions is no less a dud than one who doesn't he is just a man who has the rationale more accutely developed than the average joe and therefore can make the distinction between sex with no ties, vs sex with emotion. It boils down to maturity and emotional intelligence, but if we look at how a man is formed instintinctually he really is no different than a male animal. Some male humans are further developed, some males are simply crocodiles that can speak.

[shadowofman]

However, I think some people are more promiscuous than others. I personally need sex, but I don't like it with strangers or men with whom I am not in love. My goal is to find a man who will be mine forever and have sex with him. I am currently in a sexless marriage and that reason alone is enough for me to want to have sex with another man. But this is not promiscuity. I simply have to have my needs fulfilled and they transcend the basic sexual physics. To me it's also a humongous emotional hole that I need to take care of. I think men are generally more promiscuous though. At least some men.

I believe that some people are naturally monogamous, that is that they have no inclination toward promiscuity. And I agree that you are not promiscuous, just in an unfullfilling relationship. This is the same that can be said for promiscuous people in monogamous relationships. Whatever their reasons, they shouldn't have gotten involved in a monogamous relationship.

If we refer to instincts as a way to justify promiscuity and infidelity, we certainly need to consider that some people ARE monogamous by nature. This puts the promiscuous ones as well as their long-term partners at a huge disadvantage, given that there IS a choice between promiscuous and non-promiscuous people. Things become even more complicated when we add the instinct of possession; a cheater doesn't want to be cheated on. So in a way, the promiscuous people are victims of their instincts and if they are married, they make their spouses miserable.

I only attribute promiscuousness with instinct. Actually being promiscuous and cheating on a partner are simply expressions of weak will power. And all of humanity certainly is at a disadvantage. I think we will be relatively ok whenever promiscuous people understand their natures in spite of cultural pressures to be something else. They do not understand this about themselves because, as you have said, they are victims of their instincts. But only in the face of a more dominate culture.

Wishing to have sex with someone else is the same as cheating in my book.

I agree! Although, people really can't help that. This is instinct for a promiscuously oriented person. This is neccessity for one such as you.

Sorry, this sounds like a big digression, but my point was that not all people (or even men) are promiscuous by nature. And somebody proves me wrong, ie. if all men are promiscuous and need a strong will to keep their pants zipped, then I'll shoot myself immediately.

Oh, there are monogamous men. I think I know a couple. In fact my best friend is monogamous. He always ends up with promiscuous women. They have sex with his friends and he never really keeps a long term relationship. Don't shoot yourself yet.

[uniqueone]

In the animal kingdom the male of any species uses sex as a means to procreate or spread the seed if you will, working in cycles. The dolphin is the only animal that has sex for the sheer pleasure of it, even a male reptile such as the crocodile will submit to a female crocodile and lure and swoon her into having sex with him when he is in heat and as soon as he is done he is back to being a viscious beast with little to no empathy. The human male operates much like an animal from basic instincs, the male instictually is programmed to spread the seed and move on. A perfect example of why a man usually moves on after a one night stand or casual sex is because there is no emotional tie for him to consider sticking around for more. His basic instinct tells him the seed is spread now time to move on. Sex is just sex to him much like it is to an animal. In humans, logic and the emotional developemnt is cultivated and nurtured and therefore designed so that given the opportunity for emotions to develop the male will have a certain kind of "glue" with a woman holding him back from continuing to spread the seed with new partners. Without this, long term relationships would not exist. Left up to man's instinctual needs we would all be baaaastard children and having baaaastard children. A man who has a hold on his sexual needs vs his emotions is no less a dud than one who doesn't he is just a man who has the rationale more accutely developed than the average joe and therefore can make the distinction between sex with no ties, vs sex with emotion. It boils down to maturity and emotional intelligence, but if we look at how a man is formed instintinctually he really is no different than a male animal. Some male humans are further developed, some males are simply crocodiles that can speak.

 

 

Exactly! Some are just more evolved.

[shadowofman]

I'm sad that people are still using the term "bastard child"!

That's really messed up. And there is no such thing as "more evolved".

Evolution is not a ladder, it's a tree. Everything alive today is at the tips of the tree's branches. Each is as highly evolved as the other for their particular environment. If you want pick the greatest sexual adaptation, you might as well choose slugs.

[pollywag]

I'm sad that people are still using the term "bastard child"!

That's really messed up. And there is no such thing as "more evolved".

Evolution is not a ladder, it's a tree. Everything alive today is at the tips of the tree's branches. Each is as highly evolved as the other for their particular environment. If you want pick the greatest sexual adaptation, you might as well choose slugs.

 

I'm sad that you don't comprehend the term bastard child for if you did you would see there is no reason at all to feel sad.But what makes me even more sad is the fact that you think there is no such thing as being more evolved;. If you don't believe in evolution happening in varying degrees then please explain to me why a cave man and today's man are fundametally the same but glarinlgy different? One is clearly more evolved than the other and if you try to deny that then Sister Pollywag must sit you down and have a lesson in terminology with you my child.

[shadowofman]

Biologically, cavemen are not more highly evolved. You could say that our technologies are more advanced. Or that we are more intellegent then they ever could have been. Only because we have a history of recorded knowledge. You could claim that we are more ethical. Even more moral as far as your subjective morals are concerned.

And never mind extinct species. They obviously couldn't adapt to their environments. Neandertals for example where most likely out competed by humans. I suppose that you could suggest that neandertals were "less evolved". I still don't see a need for the phrase.

"Bastard children" aside, you make a good point about men being crocodiles with language. However, it's my opinion that we, men and women, are all apes that can speak. And our populations are to such a cosmic scale that people come in all flavors of the rainbow and more.

[uniqueone]

Everything alive today is at the tips of the tree's branches. .

 

 

I think some of the fruit fell off......

[uniqueone]

Biologically, cavemen are not more highly evolved. You could say that our technologies are more advanced. Or that we are more intellegent then they ever could have been. Only because we have a history of recorded knowledge. You could claim that we are more ethical. Even more moral as far as your subjective morals are concerned.

And never mind extinct species. They obviously couldn't adapt to their environments. Neandertals for example where most likely out competed by humans. I suppose that you could suggest that neandertals were "less evolved". I still don't see a need for the phrase.

"Bastard children" aside, you make a good point

 

What the heck does this paragraph even mean?

 

The first sentence doesn't make sense at all. I think that you meant "MAN is not more highly evolved."

 

Then you say that the only difference between us and caveman is that we have a history of recorded knowledge? What the heck is that all about? I guess they really weren't stabbing wild boars, beating women over the head and writing in hieroglyphics....that was all just in our imaginations. It must have been that they just didn't have computers to type things up to tell us about what they REALLY did.

 

Regardless, you never prove anything that says that we aren't more evolved today.

 

Ok....I'll prove it then.....

 

We can use logic and reason. We can use language--written and verbal. We can create complex works of art, science and architecture.

We can express complex emotions.

We have children because we want children...not just as the result of a byproduct of having sex.

 

And so on and so on....so.......

[shadowofman]

What the heck does this paragraph even mean?

The first sentence doesn't make sense at all. I think that you meant "MAN is not more highly evolved."

Yes, thank you, that was a mistake. I meant that modern man is not more "highly evolved" than archaic man.

Then you say that the only difference between us and caveman is that we have a history of recorded knowledge? What the heck is that all about? I guess they really weren't stabbing wild boars, beating women over the head and writing in hieroglyphics....that was all just in our imaginations. It must have been that they just didn't have computers to type things up to tell us about what they REALLY did.

Technological advancement is not the same as biological evolution.

Stabbing wild boars, beating women, and using hieroglyphics does not meant that they were "less evolved". These are cultural aspects of humanity. You can't say that Saudi Arabians are "less evolved" than other people because they beat women. Or that Native Americans were "less evolved" than invading Europeans for using hieroglyphs. This is cultural, technological "evolution". Not biological evolution.

Ok....I'll prove it then.....

We can use logic and reason. We can use language--written and verbal. We can create complex works of art, science and architecture.

We can express complex emotions.

We have children because we want children...not just as the result of a byproduct of having sex.

And so on and so on....so.......

Again, none of what you offer as evidence that we have evolved is biological evidence. Written language, science, architecture, all cutural and technological advancements.

Early man (100,000 yrs ago) had language, logic, reason, art, complex emotions, and children because they wanted children. These are biological in nature. And we are not much different from these early people biologically. You could raise a baby born 100,000 kya today, and it could be a jet pilot.

 

My point, was that we are not "more evolved" than anything

There is not such concept as "more evolved"!

Example,.....

Sickle cell.

Are people with sickle cell "more evolved" or "less evolved"?

People with sickle cell live on average 15 years longer than non-sickle cells in malaria country. Sickle cell is an adaptation to a particular environment. People with sickle cell live to reproducing age where as others get malaria and die during childhood. So even though sickle cell is a powerful adaptation, they are not "more evolved" than anyone. No such thing.

Chimpanzees are not "less evolved" than us. We are equally evolved to live in our environments (Human's environments happen to be everywhere we want them to be). This is because our technology grants us the ability to change our environments. This is not biological evolution, but cultural-technological "evolution".

You try living naked in the Gombe and then ask if chimps or humans are more evolved.

[shadowofman]

We have children because we want children...not just as the result of a byproduct of having sex.

This deserves special concideration because it's relative to the OP.

I acknowledge your statement as true.

But, the only reason that we know about the birds and the bees is because of our logic and reason. Before that, maybe before homo habilis, we needed sexual hormones to force us to breed. Our core sexual orientations are rooted in these "primative" biological mechanisms. Now increase the population of such a creature to the insane numbers that we have today, and you will have all sorts of specific sexual orientations. Murphy's Law.