Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Biologically geared as in predisposed to act in a certain way. As for one of your previous points about why so many societies pick monogamy........ Widespread monogamy is a product of Judeo-Christian values. See, Europeans adopted Christianity, then they went around the world shooting the locals in the name of colonization and then spread monogamy around the world. Throughout history polygamy was the norm in most societies. Polygamy was legal in China till the early 20th century. Polygamy is still legal in almost all Islamic countries. I find it amazing so many people cannot see or even studied beyond their own culture. Link to post Share on other sites
amerikajin Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I agree that there probably is a biological urge to have more than one sexual partner at a time. I also agree that the biological urge itself isn't a justification for cheating. I don't know if people have ever really said that it is necessarily a 'justification' for cheating, but rather that it helps to explain why infidelity takes place despite our stated promise to remain faithful to one and only one person for the rest of our lives. As I was driving out of town this weekend, I noticed a guy standing on the side of the road, leaning up against his SUV, and clearly pissing in the wind in plain sight. As the saying goes "nature calls" and it was apparently screaming at him that morning. It doesn't change the fact, though, that he was unnecessarily exposing himself in public and would have been better off finding some bushes in which to do his plant watering. Link to post Share on other sites
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I seldom do so, let me help your memory, our first interaction in this thread was when you responded to me here. Exactly. There is no evidence of me using the word 'natural' (see here). I just noted that your assertion that there is 'an overwhelming prevalence of monogamy' is wrong. You seem to mix up monogamy as an ideal and actually observable behavior. I doubt anyone here contests that monogamy as an ideal is deeply entrenched at least in western society. But so are things like peace, the sanctity of innocent life and personal freedom. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Biologically geared as in predisposed to act in a certain way. Most societies are monogamous, the rest are mostly a 'limited' form pf polygamy. A human society where free love is widely accepted is vanishingly rare which makes me wonder where all these rules appear from if they are not biological. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Exactly. There is no evidence of me using the word 'natural' .... Our first interaction is you responding to my post, where *I* used the word natural. If you don't want to discuss that why did you quote it? Maybe you should take a moment and collect your thought. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Most societies are monogamous, the rest are mostly a 'limited' form pf polygamy. A human society where free love is widely accepted is vanishingly rare which makes me wonder where all these rules appear from if they are not biological. Most societies throught HISTORY are not monogamous. It's only right now that they are mongamous. Are you going to pick a point in history (the present) and say that's then symbolic of human nature? Then I pick WW2, which shows humans usually murder, kill each other, and commit genocide. Come on, you got to look at all history, not just the current cultures, and which you happen to live in and agree with. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Most societies throught HISTORY are not monogamous. It's only right now that they are mongamous. Not at all, and as I pointed out and you did not address, wide open full on anything goes polygamy is VANISHINGLY rare and always has been, and even polygamy is more restrictive than simple promiscuity. Some would argue (given this is a thread about cheating) that polygamy is not even an example of cheating at all. So where, if not from our own biology, do all these restrictions on mating behavior come from? Link to post Share on other sites
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Our first interaction is you responding to my post, where *I* used the word natural. If you don't want to discuss that why did you quote it? Maybe you should take a moment and collect your thought. Thanks for yet another slight. You must realize how taxing it is for almost anyone to discuss with someone of your intelligence. But you can rest assured that just because I quoted some of your post, I do not automatically resent or contradict everything in it (as you seem to imply?). I only contested your false assertion. Which would have been obvious to anyone who read the whole post instead of just selectively picking out parts...oh, and we're back again at the selective reading comprehension. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 So where, if not from our own biology, do all these restrictions on mating behavior come from? No where in our biology........(although there are advantages to being monogamous for men that are not alpha males) Rules created by society....... You know what happened when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? There were hundreds of men on the streets murdering and raping people. Humans revert back to animal like group behavior without rules, laws, and law enforcement. Very few people study this, and very few people can accept that we're just animals with a big brain that can learn rules SOCIETY throw at us.... Btw, polygamy is disappearing, so is racism and discrimination against gays........ That has nothing to do with whether something is natural or not, it's shows a trend in accepted norms. See, you're just one of the people that follow what society tells you. You can't understand anything which differs from an accepted norm........ Link to post Share on other sites
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 So where, if not from our own biology, do all these restrictions on mating behavior come from? Culture, obviously. Nature vs. nurture....both nature and nurture have an huge influence on human behavior. You seem to imply that we should only focus on nature? Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Culture, obviously. You and I already have an unfinished discussion here. Let's wrap that up first. Link to post Share on other sites
utterer of lies Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 You and I already have an unfinished discussion here. Let's wrap that up first. Oh, you must have missed this post. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Thanks for yet another slight. You must realize how taxing it is for almost anyone to discuss with someone of your intelligence. The vast majority that score lower on the IQ scale find it quite taxing, indeed. But you can rest assured that just because I quoted some of your post, I do not automatically resent or contradict everything in it (as you seem to imply?). I only contested your false assertion. This: It's a strategy to minimize intra-societal aggression. Looked to me like a response to this: If a predilection for monogamy was not natural, where did it come from? Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 No where in our biology..... So similar solutions are reached over and over across a globe that used to be quite large, and that is not because of biology? Where does 'society' come from? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 So similar solutions are reached over and over across a globe that used to be quite large, and that is not because of biology? Where does 'society' come from? Which part of not so THROUGHOUT HISTORY and CURRENTLY ACCEPTED NORM don't you get? Utterer of lies is right, and I don't think you should mention your IQ in a discussion, especially when it's evident that it's not to your advantage. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Where does 'society' come from? Rules in society don't have to come from our biology. It can come from our higher reasoning. Just look at the number of laws we have. We refine and change them all the time, and almost all have nothing to do with our biology. That's exactly what why we're debating this topic. Is cheating (Not being sexually exclusive) biological.............. It's amazing you even need to ask this. Not very smart...... Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Which part of not so THROUGHOUT HISTORY and CURRENTLY ACCEPTED NORM don't you get? Utterer of lies is right, and I don't think you should mention your IQ in a discussion, especially when it's evident that it's not to your advantage. What part of polygamy is not promiscuity is hard to master? Hell, most so called 'polygamist' societies are/were practicing limited polygyny, true full on polygamous societies are and always have been exceptional, and I'm unaware of any case where there was no concept of marriage at all. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Rules in society don't have to come from our biology. It can come from our higher reasoning. So all these separate and disparate peoples across the globe had the same ideas with regard to restricting promiscuity, and it wasn't biology? What was it then? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 What part of polygamy is not promiscuity is hard to master? Hell, most so called 'polygamist' societies are/were practicing limited polygyny, true full on polygamous societies are and always have been exceptional, and I'm unaware of any case where there was no concept of marriage at all. MARRIAGE IS A FRIGGIN SOCIAL CONCEPT ! Do apes get married? wow, just wow......... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 So all these separate and disparate peoples across the globe had the same ideas with regard to restricting promiscuity, and it wasn't biology? What was it then? People across the globe has the same idea with regard to restricting bank robberies.......... According to your theory, our need to restrict bank robberies is biological. You're plain dumb, it's amazing you can't even understand a simple problem and concept........ Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Really, if you can't understand that humans are smart enough to create rules to maintain social stability, and these rules don't have to be a product of our biology. Please go and live with the apes, and explain to them how rules are biologically driven....... Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 MARRIAGE IS A FRIGGIN SOCIAL CONCEPT ! Do apes get married? wow, just wow......... I'm trying to patiently let you figure this out on your own. Here's a hint. If a reproductive strategy works it will tend to survive whereas those that fail will not. As a reproductive strategy, the evidence seems to indicate unchecked promiscuity in humans is an inferior strategy. This is likely due to the way our reproduction works and thus is caused by our biology. If this were not true, we would not have marriage. As for apes, I have little idea but I'm quite sure whatever reproductive strategy they use is also caused by their biology. Some animals are reported to bond for purposes of reproduction, but that's not relevant. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Hkizzle Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 Monogamy is not the optimal reproductive strategy, it is for a woman, and it is for a man only in the sense that it is the most efficient in getting 1-10 kids to survive. The optimal reproductive strategy for a human male is still to have as many kids with as many women as possible. So even if most of the kids die then the man will still pass on more genes. Especially if that man is the leader of a tribe or a king and can afford it, and indeed Kings through history had Harems. If harems didn't exist we wouldn't have a name for them........ We don't allow that now because 1) Very few men can afford to have 50 wives/concubines and 500 kids. It's unethical to let babies and single mothers die. 2) If alpha males got all the women and your average guy got no women then that leads to social instability. That's why monogamy was the best solution for a moral society. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 According to your theory, our need to restrict bank robberies is biological. No, but the urge to enforce ownership of property is pretty universal in humanity and is likely rooted in our biological makeup. we always seem to have restrictions on sharing, depending on who the individuals are in question. Why is that? If you really want to explore it, start a thread. Link to post Share on other sites
amerikajin Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 People across the globe has the same idea with regard to restricting bank robberies.......... According to your theory, our need to restrict bank robberies is biological. I think what he is saying is that there is a human monogamy is related to human evolution, that somewhere in our evolutionary history, it made more sense for us to become predominately monogamous. I am not sure that predominately monogamous necessarily precluded humans from having sex with other partners, but it most likely did involve long-term bonding and a long-term sexual relationship with primarily one partner. I honestly don't pretend to know everything about human evolution but based on what I do know, this seems like a fairly supportable position. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts