Maybe she’s not a man, either, maybe she’s an Ickean shape-shifting reptilian!
Clayton -
All I’m saying is that based off of what she’s said and her politics is that she seems like a masochist (if not a sadist).
Plus she looks rather manish.
Personally, I think monogamy has screwed up both the male and the female psyches - but moreso the latter. Have you read any about bonobos?
@Auto: Perhaps, I read so many things I can’t keep track of it all. One thing is for sure, though, human beings have never really been monogamous. There’s a huge difference between monogamy and “monogamy”… we have the latter, not the former.
Clayton -
That was actually my point. Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I was talking about the adoption of monogamy as a social institution. This appears to have coincided with the adoption of agriculture, so the theory I’ve come up with is that agriculture allowed large increases in population which led to (far) greater incidence of STDs given our inherent promiscuity. Only rigorous pair-bonding would be able to stem this onslaught. Note that this was much more restrictive than what’s commonly called “monogamy” today.
Some more thoughts on the subject:
The social implications of monogamy were farther-reaching than people expected. In both of our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, females typically leave the groups they were born into and seek out other (usually neighboring) groups to join. Given this evidence, I see no reason why the situation would’ve been different with our own ancestors. Indeed, it seems that most marriage customs involve the bride leaving her own family and becoming part of the groom’s family - at least formally speaking.
Add to this the fact that both chimpanzees and bonobos are territorial. Groups in both species occupy “home ranges” - relatively large areas of land that they move around in. Male chimpanzees will actively patrol the outskirts of their home ranges and attack - often to the point of death - any intruders. Bonobos don’t seem to do this, but the jury may still be out on them. Again, I see no reason why our ancestors lived much differently.
What this means is that the males typically never left the groups they were born into. So, absent any other social factors, it seems natural for them to consider themselves more of the owners of their groups’ home ranges than the females. However, rampant promiscuity - perhaps coupled with widespread bisexuality - could provide a check on that type of male domination. Males would be too busy either courting females or competing with one another over them.
Take that away, however, and the males are in a much stronger social position. Monogamy does exactly that. Now the males are the undisputed “masters of their domains”, as the females normally come from outside. This situation can develop so far that the males even consider the females themselves to be part of their property - which has happened on more than on occasion in actual history.
agriculture came way before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Monogamy_in_ancient_societies
Smiling Dave, note that polygamy is not the same as promiscuity. Polygamy simply means one man having multiple wives. It’s still rigorous pair-bonding in the sense that, before taking a second wife, the man and his wife presumably had only been with each other, and the second wife presumably had not been with anyone before marrying.
so anything that isnt promiscuity you’re calling mongamy?
lol
I love how far this thread has gone.
lol… better than talking about Ann “Kill 'Em All” Coulter.
Clayton -
I guess “monogamy” isn’t the best term for what I’m talking about, since it traditionally refers to a marriage arrangement where there’s only one man and only one woman. Likewise, “polygamy” also traditionally refers to a marriage arrangement, this time with only one man but multiple women. Another way of looking at it, however, is in terms of one man with multiple monogamous bonds. This shifts the focus from the number of marriage bonds to the nature of the bonds. Both monogamy and polygamy, traditionally speaking, required both/all partners to be chaste before entering into any marriage.
Also note that polyandry is rare, at best, among human cultures. I think this is evidence in favor of the view that men gained the upper hand in inter-gender social relations after the adoption of agriculture. Many cultures allowed a man to take more than one woman as a wife, but not the other way around. As a rule, men with multiple wives were also wealthier.
Anyway, maybe a better distinction to use would be between permissive and restrictive mating arrangements. How does that sound?
We dont have any records of social relations, or anything else but a few bones and Geico commercials, which can tell us anything about pre agricultural times.
So how can you say that restrictive marriage arrangements came after agriculture? How do you know?
Using the ole introspection method, I find that I prefer my girls to be with me only, and I find they prefer I be only with them. Do you think these feelings exist because we don’t have caveman diets or something?
Some like monogamy, some don’t. Perhaps monogamy being forced down your throat has influenced your view on it Autolykos? Just my curiousity.
As to the female psyche being “messed up”. The human psyche as a whole is pretty messed up when you look for them- it was the males doing the raping and pillaging afterall. But culture is everything- a lot of people don’t have certain baggage. I’ll meet lots of girls in new york that have all sorts of trust issues- and then some foreigners don’t have any at all.
I don’t. I didn’t say otherwise - I said I have a theory. A theory isn’t the same as knowledge.
You don’t seem to be taking this entirely seriously. Why is that?
Regardless, I’ll continue to take you seriously. So tell me: using introspection, do you find that you’re sexually attracted to more than one woman at the same time? I know I am, and I’m willing to bet you are too. On another note, do you think that bonobo males would also prefer “their” females to be with them only?
Finally, even if my theory is accurate, that means restrictive mating practices have been with us for thousands of years. That’s plenty of time for people to become so inured to them as to consider them not only normal, but natural and inherent to mankind. Again using introspection, where do you think your preferences come from? Do you think they’re instinctual or just deep-seated at the conscious level? The latter would be akin to being raised from birth with certain religious beliefs.
Well Autolykos, I’ll begin by saying I take you seriously. I find your posts always well thought out and fair.
But yes, the topic amuses me. And once you agree that it’s a theory [though I’m used to theory meaning more than fancy], I’m fine.
As for bonobo apes, who cares about them?
And yes, I agree that the ideal situation is I have as many girls as I want, and they are all loyal to only me. But you see where I’m going. It takes two to tango.
I have to agree with Smiling Dave. I think thaat she is smoking hot. And for some reason I find her rhetoric turs me on to her even more.
Ann, stop flattering yourself under pseudonyms.
Clayton -
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Honestly, I don’t think my theory is just “fancy”. I think I’ve done some research into it. Of course, it’s still speculative.
Well, they could be our closest animal relatives. Their sexual habits are extremely - shall we say - human, even moreso than chimpanzees.
One piece of evidence I forgot to mention is the so-called “hidden estrus”. Human females are sexually receptive basically all the time. There are no outward fertility signs that appear during ovulation. Bonobo females are also sexually receptive all or most of the time, but instead of a “hidden estrus”, they display prolonged or permanent signs of estrus. Either way, both human and bonobo females hide their actual fertility from males. I think this may be an even more important check on male sexual domination than promiscuity or bisexuality.
My point is that, when males and females feel the same way, promiscuity seems to be the likely result ceteris paribus.
There’s a difference between appreciation and desire. I can look at all sorts of women and appreciate them all for their beauty- but not actually physically lust after any of them except one. You can have gratitude for things without having a need for them. Just how you view the opposite sex has everything to do with it. Do you look at them as objects that must be taken- or do you just appreciate them for the feelings they give you and leave it at that? Where have your preferences really come from? There’s plenty of ideas from “society” about what is supposed to be attractive and what’s not- and eventually you could’ve developed a physiological relationship with those ideas.