DCLugi Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I highly recommend Sex at Dawn. It provides a lot of great insight into the rise of agriculture, statism and marriage from our H-G origins. Read it alongside Origins of War in Child Abuse, and you will have a very clear picture of why our modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt. He doesn't actually come out and say property rights don't exist, and he is opposed to rape, which implies that property rights do exist. However, I think his conclusion that more monogamy equals more war implies a causation where there is only correlation. Looking at his perspective with an eye to the state, and its repeated violations of the non-aggression principle, creates a more logical and cohesive picture. A bigger state means more war, which kills more men than women skewing the demographics of a population and pressuring society toward greater hypergamy or non-monogamy to make more soldiers/taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 "Man can control what he does but not what he wants to do" This is sophistry, pure and simple. In the first minute of the video. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 "Man can control what he does but not what he wants to do" This is sophistry, pure and simple. In the first minute of the video. This is a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer It is more accurately translated from German as, "Man can do as he wants, but cannot want what he wants." I'm assuming Schopenhauer was speaking of an inability for humans to contain sexual desires, but I am not sure. This is the context Ryan gives to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've been monogamous. Biggest mistake of my life. Useless nonsense. And many times what happens is that people who are monogamous presume that people who are not are merely promiscuous; this also is nonsensical stupidity. "You can kill all the people you want on television; you just can't have sex with one." The truth hurts, don't it? 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This thread is probably going to be a great study in confirmation bias 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 This thread is probably going to be a great study in confirmation bias Perhaps there is a particular item you wish to discuss or an argument you want to put forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 There is so much to go into, I don't know if I have the patience to do it in a thread. I'll put out a few items here though. We'll start with this: you will have a very clear picture of why our modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt. false premise 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 There is so much to go into, I don't know if I have the patience to do it in a thread. For someone with so little patience, you've already replied three times and contributed little to the discussion. Did you watch the video or read the book, which is the subject of the video? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 "The purpose of human sexuality is social, it's not reproductive", said no biologist ever. The best description of sexuality I have ever read is The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It tentatively touches human interaction in its last chapter, but a large part of the book is explaining the sexual habits of peacocks with some pretty blatant subtext. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 It's definitely a social thing in many cultures. Many tribes and cultures are against the idea of a man and a woman falling in love and being together. Their happiness is a threat to the tribe. Their joy in being together would make them think not of the tribe first, but of themselves. Their relationship would be selfish, and selfishness is not to be tolerated. So, when these love connections are made, the tribe steps in to break it up. One of the ways they do this is to encourage the man and the woman to have as many sexual relations with as many different people as practical, in order to disabuse them of the idea that they belong to each other. They do not belong to each other, they belong to the tribe. The Japanese, for one example, once ruthlessly enforced this. They had become more westernized in the twentieth century, but a large element of this still exists today. Monogamy is good for some of those who choose it, perhaps. I certainly have my doubts, but it is always possible that monogamy is desirable for some people, and so they should have it their way. On the other hand, there are a great many people practicing monogamy out of simply not knowing they have an alternative. They are monogamous, but they don't want to be, and they repress themselves to please the world around them, to be accepted socially, to be a part of something "greater than themselves", etc. They make a mess of themselves and lead a life of lies for reasons they don't even understand to begin with. The same idea goes with believing in god or gods. Many people do it only because they do not realize there is an alternative, because they repress themselves, because they believe what they are told without question. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 It's definitely a social thing in many cultures. That's a false dichotomy. The purpose of life is passing on genes on a base level. Saying sexuality is social and not reproductive is a contradiction in of itself because the purpose of society is to further society-propensity genes. What he's basically saying is that "sex is not for reproduction, it's for making babies" which betrays a complete ignorance of biological facts and logic ultimately. Evolution offers us the best solution for survival and considering that humans are the most advanced species out there then their most common traits are indicative of what the best recipe for survival is. If they're mostly monogamous OR polygamous then that is the best path to take for gene survival. You can be as polygamous as you want but don't accuse people for choosing monogamy because of social norms when you suggest that polygamy should be the social norm. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 The purpose of a Japanese or another individual in another tribe being forced apart from someone they love and to have sex with as many different people as practical to facilitate the breakup is most definitely social, or, more accurately, is most definitely anti-social behavior, i.e., anti-social violence inflicted on individuals in order to perpetuate the norms and customs of the society. And I have stated clearly, if monogamy is your thing you should have it your way. As for me, monogamy is 100% pure laughable bullshit. So, you go on and have your monogamy and enjoy it. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 And I have stated clearly, if monogamy is your thing you should have it your way. As for me, monogamy is 100% pure laughable bullshit. So, you go on and have your monogamy and enjoy it. So because something does not apply to you it's "100% pure laughable bullshit". Good to know. We've all been wasting our time on science and whatnot and all we had to do is just check what you're doing and how you're feeling. And please don't repost the same post a third time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 So because something does not apply to you it's "100% pure laughable bullshit". Good to know. We've all been wasting our time on science and whatnot and all we had to do is just check what you're doing and how you're feeling. And please don't repost the same post a third time. All good, except you forgot the "as for me" part. Science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 All good, except you forgot the "as for me" part. Science? You say "for me" but then state it's bullshit, 100% bullshit. You say it's subjective then say it's objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 And I have stated clearly, if monogamy is your thing you should have it your way. As for me, monogamy is 100% pure laughable bullshit. So, you go on and have your monogamy and enjoy it. Blackfish, do you have much experience in logic and reasoning? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Talk about logic and reasoning... Lulzerskates... Logic and reasoning isn't everything... You can "logic" and "reason" you way into and/or out of anything you like... I've yet to see anyone on this thread, or anywhere for that matter, introduce even one slightly good argument for monogamy. The truth is, you haven't got one. And there's no need to bother looking for one. That would be like looking for the Fountain of Youth. You will never find it because it does not exist. But, again, if you feel it is in your best interest to practice monogamy, you go right ahead. Enjoy, 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Still waitin' to hear some of that "science", "logic", and "reasoning", kids. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Still waitin' to hear some of that "science", "logic", and "reasoning", kids. See quotes below: "Man can control what he does but not what he wants to do" This is sophistry, pure and simple. In the first minute of the video. That quote is a logical fallacy. And... our modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt. This is a false premise. Other than that, if you want to have multiple lovers, there is nothing wring with that. It's nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I'll add some information to this post when I have time. I'll say in advance, though, that the answers you get depend on how you ask the questions. And I'll stay true to that when I post next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 As for the first remark, sure, you could say that's a "logical fallacy", but then again, so many things could be read into that statement, it could have so many different meanings, one would have to ask the author exactly what he meant by that remark before drawing any conclusions. I haven't talked to him and would not venture to guess what he meant. It's sophistry to say that the comment is sophistry. A "false premise"? You don't have to look very far to see that our "modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt." Our ancient sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt, too. Has there ever been a time in human history when they were not? Sex has always been, and likely will always be, used purely for social and anti-social purposes, as well as for pure pleasure, so long as mankind walks the earth. So long as the parties involved are acting of their own free will, what's corrupt about it? It's like listening to music. We pick the kind of music we like and listen for pleasure. It's the same with sex. We pick the partners we like, and have sex purely for the joy of it. That's what I do. Of course, the kind of person who finds no joy in sex would not subscribe to that idea, and there are plenty of these kinds of people about. Obviously, I am not one of them. And if someone is forcing someone else to do it, it isn't sex, it's violence. Nor am I trying to procreate. In fact, that is not desirable for me. I don't want any more children. So, procreation, for me anyway, is not only undesirable, I actively seek to be sure it does not happen, that it is in fact never the result of a sexual experience I have with any of my partners. My partners and I are always protected against procreation. We are not having sex to procreate. We are having sex purely for the pleasure of it and nothing else. "Other than that, if you want to have multiple lovers, there is nothing wring with that. It's nothing new." This is "science", "logic", and "reasoning"? Your comment is backed by what science, logic, and reasoning? Your own? Where did you get an idea like that? And what "science", "logic", and "reasoning" brought you to this conclusion? "It's nothing new"? What does that have to do with anything? What if it was something new? What then? Would there still be nothing "wring" with that? Or would something now be "wring" with that? According to your "science", "logic", and "reasoning", there's nothing "wring" with anything so long as it isn't something new? If it's new, there's got to be something "wring" with it and therefore we should refrain from doing it? What the bloody hell are you talking about? What will you try to "science", "logic" and "reason" your way into or out of next? Are you going to try and tell me that whores, sluts, harlots, doxies are "evil" and that snakes talk? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 As for the first remark, sure, you could say that's a "logical fallacy", but then again, so many things could be read into that statement, it could have so many different meanings, one would have to ask the author exactly what he meant by that remark before drawing any conclusions. I haven't talked to him and would not venture to guess what he meant. It's sophistry to say that the comment is sophistry. A "false premise"? You don't have to look very far to see that our "modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt." Our ancient sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt, too. Has there ever been a time in human history when they were not? Sex has always been, and likely will always be, used purely for social and anti-social purposes, as well as for pure pleasure, so long as mankind walks the earth. So long as the parties involved are acting of their own free will, what's corrupt about it? It's like listening to music. We pick the kind of music we like and listen for pleasure. It's the same with sex. We pick the partners we like, and have sex purely for the joy of it. That's what I do. Of course, the kind of person who finds no joy in sex would not subscribe to that idea, and there are plenty of these kinds of people about. Obviously, I am not one of them. And if someone is forcing someone else to do it, it isn't sex, it's violence. Nor am I trying to procreate. In fact, that is not desirable for me. I don't want any more children. So, procreation, for me anyway, is not only undesirable, I actively seek to be sure it does not happen, that it is in fact never the result of a sexual experience I have with any of my partners. My partners and I are always protected against procreation. We are not having sex to procreate. We are having sex purely for the pleasure of it and nothing else. "Other than that, if you want to have multiple lovers, there is nothing wring with that. It's nothing new." This is "science", "logic", and "reasoning"? Your comment is backed by what science, logic, and reasoning? Your own? Where did you get an idea like that? And what "science", "logic", and "reasoning" brought you to this conclusion? "It's nothing new"? What does that have to do with anything? What if it was something new? What then? Would there still be nothing "wring" with that? Or would something now be "wring" with that? According to your "science", "logic", and "reasoning", there's nothing "wring" with anything so long as it isn't something new? If it's new, there's got to be something "wring" with it and therefore we should refrain from doing it? What the bloody hell are you talking about? What will you try to "science", "logic" and "reason" your way into or out of next? Are you going to try and tell me that whores, sluts, harlots, doxies are "evil" and that snakes talk? Sorry guy, I don't think we speak the same language. Best of luck to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 You can "logic" and "reason" you way into and/or out of anything you like. Translation: I don't understand something, so I'm going to marginalize it to manage the anxiety I experience over others understanding it. Monogamy is a preference. It's like you're asking somebody to make an argument for flying as opposed to driving. All they can do is tell you the features of both. Which you would prefer is going to be based on your subjective values applied to the features of the options you're considering. If you prefer flying, somebody that prefers walking will only be able to get you to change your preference if they bring up a feature that you hadn't yet considered. That can't happen here. Your very emphatic taunt was a form of boasting that you cannot be swayed. Which is fine. Your preference for your life. But don't pretend that you're seeking counterpoint. Or that logic and reason are meaningless in a community whose definitive common feature is their pursuit of the truth. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanT Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Ah, yes, this explains everything. The little Stefbots on parade. They have no mind of their own. Poor Stef. He has a lot of work to do. Sorry guy, I don't think we speak the same language. Best of luck to you Just what I thought. Zero. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanT Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Ah, yes, this explains everything. The little Stefbots on parade. They have no mind of their own. Poor Stef. He has a lot of work to do. Take it you didn't watch the video then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Other than that, if you want to have multiple lovers, there is nothing wring with that. It's nothing new. This is a false premise (about me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaki Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (...) Monogamy is good for some of those who choose it, perhaps. I certainly have my doubts, but it is always possible that monogamy is desirable for some people, and so they should have it their way. On the other hand, there are a great many people practicing monogamy out of simply not knowing they have an alternative. They are monogamous, but they don't want to be, and they repress themselves to please the world around them, to be accepted socially, to be a part of something "greater than themselves", etc. They make a mess of themselves and lead a life of lies for reasons they don't even understand to begin with. The same idea goes with believing in god or gods. Many people do it only because they do not realize there is an alternative, because they repress themselves, because they believe what they are told without question. (...)And I have stated clearly, if monogamy is your thing you should have it your way. As for me, monogamy is 100% pure laughable bullshit. (...) Don't r- and K- reproductive strategies have a whole lot to do with why one would chose to be monogamous vs. being polygamous? I found a paper about it which I thought was really interesting: From Quantity to Quality of Life: r-K selection and human development by Francis Heylighen and Jan L. Bernheim, Universiteit Brussel Since it is useful for an organism to be able to adapt its strategy, we aren't born with a (wholly) fixed one, rather influenced before birth and afterwards by epigenetics (nurture). "As proposed by Chisholm [1993, 1999], such epigenetic biological effects may be mediated by hormones, whose levels are dependent on experience. r-strategies are most appropriate in a dangerous, uncontrollable environment, where there is little guarantee of surviving into adulthood. Such an environment creates stress, which leads to the release of glucocorticoid hormones, such as cortisol [sapolsky, 1996]. Therefore, we could expect that children who are subjected to chronically high levels of such stress hormones will be driven to develop into r-strategists, aiming for quick reproduction rather than long-term maturation. Biologically, this can be achieved by increasing their levels of sex hormones: testosterone in men, estrogen in women. This leads to early sexual maturity, a strong sex drive, a tendency towards agressivity and risk-taking in men, and high fertility in women." (...) "According to the well-known theory of Bowlby [1969], a primary cause of childhood stress is insecure attachment to the mother. This occurs when the child cannot rely on the mother for support when it needs it and/or is not allowed by the mother to explore the world on its own and thus develop autonomy. While such motherly neglect or overconcern is stressful in itself, it moreover is likely to indicate a dangerous external environment, which is either too demanding on the mother to have energy left to care for her child, or so risky that she cannot allow her child autonomy. Lack of attention to the child may also mean that the mother has too many other children to care for, which is itself a sign of an r-type situation. Thus, insecure attachment, through its stimulation of stress hormones [Gunnar, 1998], is a very strong indication for the child that it is growing up in an environment where an r-strategy is evolutionarily most appropriate [belsky et al., 1991]. Less immediate causes of childhood stress may include sexual, physical or emotional abuse, malnutrition, diseases, living in true poverty, in a ghetto or war-zone. All of these can be seen as signals for the hormonal system to prepare the body and brain to invest their energy in short-term reproduction, neglecting long-term goals. In contrast, a safe, caring, nurturing environment signals that it is worth investing in long-term development, building up the reserves of energy and experience that may lead to a long and healthy life, and that can be invested in turn in a few, well-cared for children." (...) "Quantity of offspring is only desirable in r-type circumstances, where life is risky and unpredictable, so that the only sure way to increase oneís chances to leave offspring is to have as many of them as quickly as possible. What counts in natural selection is not the number of offspring born, but the number that will survive long enough to be able to produce offspring themselves. In a K-environment, where the supply of resources is limited but stable, this number can be increased only by maximally investing in individual offspringís chances for long-term development. K-selection thus seems to promote all the characteristics that we associate with high QOL (Quality of Life): high life-expectancy, health, education, safety, long term development, etc." (If you are interested in this subject, this paper is well worth reading!) Without self-knowledge I think it is easy to just follow ones biological impulses without substantially questioning them. That might be the reason why explanations of why monogamy or polygamy are better often sound like justifications after the fact. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Don't r- and K- reproductive strategies have a whole lot to do with why one would chose to be monogamous vs. being polygamous? Not at all, because r and K don't predict the values of specific individuals. They instead predict the relative distribution of those values within a large population. So statements like, "The overwhelming majority of the people in that country are K-focused, because there's a lot of poverty in that society." can either be true or false. But statements like, "John is r-focused because his culture has a lot of wealth." can never be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 This is a false premise (about me). no... this is a false premise: and you will have a very clear picture of why our modern sexual interactions are devastatingly corrupt. Corrupt according to who? There is certainly no consensus on this. I for one have not experienced corruption in my sexual interactions. I'm not sure what the above sentence actually means. So, before you move on in your argument, you have to address the validity of your premiss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfish64 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I like both Kaki and MMX2010 arguments. While any experiences, background, environment, genetics, physiology, etc., are highly influential in shaping the individual's sexuality, desires, activities, etc., it is also true that when we grow up and become big boys and girls we can choose what we want and what we don't want. We can raise our awareness and self-knowledge, adapt, expand, and work with what is given. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaki Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Not at all, because r and K don't predict the values of specific individuals. They instead predict the relative distribution of those values within a large population. So statements like, "The overwhelming majority of the people in that country are K-focused, because there's a lot of poverty in that society." can either be true or false. But statements like, "John is r-focused because his culture has a lot of wealth." can never be true. Maybe we misunderstand each other, I am not sure. Am I right that you are saying that r- and K-strategies have "not at all" to do with polygamy and monogamy? I did not actually make a statement like "John is r-focused because his culture has a lot of wealth" or even "The overwhelming majority of the people in that country are K-focused, because there's a lot of poverty in that society." What I am saying is that individuals have the impulse created (by the way they are genetically and epigenetically shaped) to be either polygamous or monogamous. An individual can produce stress hormones for a wide variety of reasons (poverty being only one of them) and society is only one of the factors in creating stress. I think that self-knowledge as well as external factors (for example cultural norms) play a role in not following ones own biological impulse for being either monogamous or polygamous. I don't think it is carved in stone at all. But I do think that how we are shaped already in the womb and within our first years has a lot to do with which strategy we chose. Does that clear it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Sorry, I'm a bit late to the conversation and I really don't want to disturb the flow you've got here. I just found out by watching the video and reading some comments taht there is a book called Sex at Dusk, which is heavily criticizing the Sex at Dawn. (here for a review on that book http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10611616.pdf).I haven't read either book though. But simply from the reviews, it would appear that the critique takes apart most of what Dawn is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts