samspade Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 This is a good read. It helps to explain the high divorce rates in the West, the reason behind cuckoldry and cheating, and why marriage is advantageous to women but not to men or their offspring. http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html
sally4sara Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I just love essays with no cited resources. Especially ones about human sexuality where the author has clearly forgotten that men and women are the same species and therefore what benefits one also benefits the other. This was written for no reason other than to continue to pit the two genders against each other. Whatever social construct was acted on to ensure the survival rate of offspring to a self sustaining age was to the benefit of both gender's desire to replicate itself. We are not lions. We are not descended of lions. Human men do not produce a daily sperm count that indicates the fantasy harem life other species, such as lions have, can even be practically attained. Lots of babies for the sake of babies gets you what? Just because a guy COULD have many women pregnant at once, why on Earth is that a good idea? The only thing harems and multiple pregnant wives accomplished over the years is today, 80 percent of human females can trace their DNA back through many, many generations while only 40 percent of human males can do the same. Dude, we are the same species. Argue it any way you want and you're still stuck with women and needing their approval to procreate.
IrishCarBomb Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I can't find any solid point in that article. He argues that male paternal investment is important, and a major problem is that men have their kids taken away from them. However, he says that the original natural order of things was for polygyny, which dilutes the male investment over having several wives and even more children. His argument that marriage was created by weak males that gained power is also hollow. The whole essay seems to be a verbal vomit of ideas that doesn't conclude with any suggestion. He basically says at the end that "society is bad"... great, after all that analysis you had nothing more than that to offer? Reading the article just felt like so many posts on this site: It was selectively viewing the "information" to support his argument.
loser101 Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I just love essays with no cited resources. Especially ones about human sexuality where the author has clearly forgotten that men and women are the same species and therefore what benefits one also benefits the other. This was written for no reason other than to continue to pit the two genders against each other. Whatever social construct was acted on to ensure the survival rate of offspring to a self sustaining age was to the benefit of both gender's desire to replicate itself. We are not lions. We are not descended of lions. Human men do not produce a daily sperm count that indicates the fantasy harem life other species, such as lions have, can even be practically attained. Lots of babies for the sake of babies gets you what? Just because a guy COULD have many women pregnant at once, why on Earth is that a good idea? The only thing harems and multiple pregnant wives accomplished over the years is today, 80 percent of human females can trace their DNA back through many, many generations while only 40 percent of human males can do the same. Dude, we are the same species. Argue it any way you want and you're still stuck with women and needing their approval to procreate. perfect response. By the way, I'm sick of the 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' money-spinning fad - your mention of pitting the two genders together is a perfect summary of that. When will people realise that men and women are exactly just that: people??!!
westernxer Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I don't want to know why people cheat. I just want to know when they're cheating on me.
loser101 Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I don't want to know why people cheat. I just want to know when they're cheating on me. maybe you pick unavailable types that are not looking for commitment?
westernxer Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 maybe you pick unavailable types that are not looking for commitment? I was just being rhetorical, unless you count cheating as time lost and money burned getting to know someone. LOL
loser101 Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I was just being rhetorical, unless you count cheating as time lost and money burned getting to know someone. LOL damn it, I respond with a nice post ONCE and it's to a rhetorical question
Author samspade Posted April 24, 2009 Author Posted April 24, 2009 It appears he just posted the article and is working on posting the references (so he says). He isn't pitting sexes against each other. He is attempting to explain human sexual behavior, including infidelity, and how it conflicts with modern social constructs. But judging from some of the angry and emotional responses, it sounds like some people would rather live in ignorance than attempt to understand the truth. I don't know if his theories are 100% correct, but they make a lot of sense. Marriage is an unnatural human invention. It used to favor the male, who literally owned his wife but could sleep with other women with very little consequence. Today it favors the female; with divorces much easier to attain, and no stigma attached, and child support payments almost always coming from the male, the modern man has almost nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) from entering into a marriage that he can't have outside of one. But if I'm wrong, tell me: Outside of raising children in a stable family environment, what does a man get from marriage that he can't get as a single man? I'm interested in hearing your opinions.
SoulSearch_CO Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 But if I'm wrong, tell me: Outside of raising children in a stable family environment, what does a man get from marriage that he can't get as a single man? I'm interested in hearing your opinions. Men are healthier (250% lower mortality rate), better off financially, happier, and get better sex (???? I didn't see this one coming...but that's what it says!). http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/brwaitgalligher.html I've read several different places about the happier, healthier, better off financially - so if you don't believe it, google it. I'm not grabbing a handful of studies that are just as easily accessible to you.
Trialbyfire Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Theories aren't always truths. Truths are far more complicated and can diverge per individual, per circumstance. I read some of it and found it an interesting read, but that's about it. I can only speak for myself and from a practical perspective, marriage is less beneficial for me, than for my fiance. If I want to breed, I can breed with anyone and have no need for financial support. I can get emotional and practical support from friends and family, with practical domestic support available from hired help, if it comes down to it. I can live without regular sex or sex at all, at least with another person. As a woman, if I need sex with someone else, I can get it elsewhere. For my fiance, he gains a decent cook, someone who enjoys a clean house and regular sex. He can also be assured that any progeny will be his, therefore his line is safe. Since we're both signing prenups, there's no financial gain to lose or be had. Where we both gain from this alliance is our mutual desire/love to commit to each other, in our perceptions, in the highest way possible. We also gain a consistent co-parent, one who we each feel will make a great co-parent. In essence, he is mine and I'm his. If that type of romantic nonsense isn't your thing, plse, DON'T get married!!!!
MissConduct Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Didn't bother reading as soon as I saw it was a blog entry. As if I care what SOME dude thinks who just posts his random non-accredited facts? This is what it says for his profile: Novaseeker Gender: Male Location: United States About Me: A regular guy with politically incorrect ideas. I am going to start my own blog of politically incorrect ideas and post them here for discussion. Let's see how far that goes. Look out for it, my blog will be called "Life of MissConduct"
You'reasian Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Look out for it, my blog will be called "Life of MissConduct" Good lord....
Surfer Dude Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 I ran into an interesting article (actually a forum post) on why a long term monogamy doesn't work. The article is very long but the guy brings up many valid points. It's a good read, for entertainment value if nothing else. http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=93333&fid=105
Trialbyfire Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Here's my theory on male and female infidelity. The ones who enable or enact infidelity or cheat, are the ones who have difficulty keeping it in their pants. This must be fact because I theorized it!
Jersey Shortie Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Didn't bother reading as soon as I saw it was a blog entry. Oh, it's a blog..it must be true!
Sam Spade Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I need to change my avatar, to avoid the perpetual schisophrenic confusing similarity in profiles, but too lazy now. Anyway. Although this blog probably doesn't qualify as such, there is quite a bit of academic research - mostly from economists and psychologists on the dynamics of marriage and commitment. So just because it is convenient to view the world through haphazardly acquired concepts based on everyday experience, it doesn't mean that they are accurate or that you can't approach these things from scientific point of view. "I'm married, so I know what marriage is all about" is just as silly as saying as "I'm voting, so I know everything about the historical processes and circumstances that led to the establishment of the western democracies", or "I have a family, so I know everything there is to know about the factors that determine family structure and it's relationship to social context", etc.. Theories exist precisely because our everyday-life generated capacity to understand social life is very limited.
IrishCarBomb Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Although this blog probably doesn't qualify as such, there is quite a bit of academic research - mostly from economists and psychologists on the dynamics of marriage and commitment. Read Sperm Wars and The Moral Animal if you want to get a grasp of where a lot of these theories came from. The Moral Animal is a better book IMO, but it seems anybody who likes the theories evolutional infidelity likes Sperm Wars.
Sam Spade Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Read Sperm Wars and The Moral Animal if you want to get a grasp of where a lot of these theories came from. The Moral Animal is a better book IMO, but it seems anybody who likes the theories evolutional infidelity likes Sperm Wars. Interesting read, based on exerpts i saw, but the biology-based explanations and theories are actually the weakest. It is very hard to make a credible connection between purported evolutionary mechanism and social behavior. The problem is that evolutionary biology and psychology by definition deal with processes that *should be* constant across cultures and historical contexts, while there is huge variance in family structure and sexual behaviors across different environments. So, evolutionary psychology can't be the main explanation since if that was the case we would have to see a lot more similarities across cultures than actually exist. Not to mention that this kind of theories can't be falsified, so basically any averagely intelligent person can pick up a "biological" explanation and spin it any way they want. I'm not saying that hardwired behaviors don't matter, but they are certainly not the whole story. I'd put my money with the economists.
IrishCarBomb Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 The problem is that evolutionary biology and psychology by definition deal with processes that *should be* constant across cultures and historical contexts, while there is huge variance in family structure and sexual behaviors across different environments. So, evolutionary psychology can't be the main explanation since if that was the case we would have to see a lot more similarities across cultures than actually exist. I don't understand this criticism. You mean to tell me that there is little variance in separate human cultures due to evolution? I don't know about you, but I can notice physical traits that distinguish a Japanese person from a German one. There are noticable evolved traits across culture. So really there is no rationale for this criticism. Further, even if the process is the same, the outcome is always different in different contexts. You may not agree with these theories (I don't even really agree with them), but I don't see this as a decent critique. Not to mention that this kind of theories can't be falsified, so basically any averagely intelligent person can pick up a "biological" explanation and spin it any way they want. True, but it's also true with pretty much everything... especially on a topic that is naturally a "gray area". Look at modern politics, you can spin just about any piece of information about anything if you frame it right. I'd put my money with the economists. What sort of articles are you finding on this? I'd be curious to read up on it. However, I'd be skeptical of an economic analysis due to the problematic data involved with this sort of study. In addition, economic analyses usually work only when they assume people act rationally due to quantitative incentives, and I'd be skeptical if that is the reality in infidelity cases. Interesting read, based on exerpts i saw, but the biology-based explanations and theories are actually the weakest. It is very hard to make a credible connection between purported evolutionary mechanism and social behavior. Read the books. A subtantial part of The Moral Animal is about a theory of evolved social behavoir.
Trialbyfire Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 So Irish, are you suggesting that people do shyte because they it feels good at that very moment and not due to any long-range thought process or thought at all, for that matter?
IrishCarBomb Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 So Irish, are you suggesting that people do shyte because they it feels good at that very moment and not due to any long-range thought process or thought at all, for that matter? Not at all. I think these books are totally flawed in that they don't recognize that people overcome evolved, economic, or sexual temptation and find a deeper sort of happiness. The arguments ignore that evolution, sexual gratification, and money do not equate to happiness, and in the end we all seek our own personal happiness. They all fall to the "woe is me I am not accountable for how my life has turned out" sort of logic. It's pessimistic and flat out wrong. I laugh because people quote Sperm Wars to me all the time saying how monogomy is biologically impossible, when in fact the entire last chapter just says how a vast majority of people are biologically wired for monogomy. I think people are just looking to rationalize cheating, or rationalize their paranoia of the opposite sex.
Trialbyfire Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Not at all. I think these books are totally flawed in that they don't recognize that people overcome evolved, economic, or sexual temptation and find a deeper sort of happiness. The arguments ignore that evolution, sexual gratification, and money do not equate to happiness, and in the end we all seek our own personal happiness. They all fall to the "woe is me I am not accountable for how my life has turned out" sort of logic. It's pessimistic and flat out wrong. I laugh because people quote Sperm Wars to me all the time saying how monogomy is biologically impossible, when in fact the entire last chapter just says how a vast majority of people are biologically wired for monogomy. I think people are just looking to rationalize cheating, or rationalize their paranoia of the opposite sex.I was being my normal facetious self. In reality, I 100% agree with you!
IrishCarBomb Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 I was being my normal facetious self. In reality, I 100% agree with you! Funny that I miss it, because it is one of my favorite things to do on this site.
Trialbyfire Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Funny that I miss it, because it is one of my favorite things to do on this site. Rabble, rabble, rabble, FTW!
Recommended Posts