reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) (10/25/90)
Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? With the diversity of relationship styles in modern America, I have begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against monogamy, however many people choose serial marriages, many one lifetime mate, many choose to remain single, some choose homosexual relationships, some polygamous, etc. I would naturally expect answers as liberal as "Do Your own Thing", and as conservative as "Monogamy is the way God intended it to be". I'm not interested in either of those, but real evaluation of what kinds of relationships really make people the happiest when left on their own. When you look at nature in the wild, it does vary - many bird species are mongamous, the deer family is such that the strongest males have harems, chimpanzees are intereestingly as variant as humans at times with the same kinds of relationship problems of jealousy. Steve -- Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser)
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/25/90)
----- In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? It is hard to imagine an environment that allows a human to survive to adolescence that does not provide cultural training of some sort. To the extent that one can imagine such an environment, like the fabled children who survived in the wild, it is unlikely that any human so raised would be capable of much sexual activity beyond masturbation, at least, not without being shown how. Humans by their *nature* develop in a culture. To talk about what humans would *naturally* do without culture is nonsense. It is NOT natural for humans to develop without culture. To understand what is natural to humans, one can only look at the range of cultures that have developed. Are humans naturally monogamous or not? In some cultures they are and other cultures they aren't, and in yet other cultures, such as our own, they can be either. That is the only realistic answer to your question. Russell
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (10/25/90)
This is an Orange Highlighter alert. In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against ^^^ >Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser) When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you used "person" in place of "man". Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? Looks to me like humans aren't monogamous innately. Even in cultures like ours, which sanctify monogamy, the studies all say that most people aren't. Instincts don't seem to be the main factor in human behavior, generally. Cultural and individual variation seem much more dominant influences. Kayembee
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > With the diversity of relationship styles in modern America, I have > begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. What makes you think "man" *has* a single "true nature"? Clearly, given the range of human sexual and social behaviour, there are a lot of ways people can live and still maintain some kind of society (not necessarily a pleasant one). Human nature is to be capable of living in _any_ of these ways. Now it is certainly possible to ask optimality questions: "given the following material conditions and cultural traditions, which way(s) of living minimize pain/maximize reproductive success/are evolutionarily stable strategies/are local game-theoretic optima/ minimize the spread of disease/best encourage artistic creativity/ are most in accord with Reason/...". Does any of those questions fit your notion of "true nature"? Remember, the Holocaust was in full accordance with man's true nature. So is the music of Bach. -- Fear most of all to be in error. -- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.
bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: >In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against > ^^^ > > When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you >meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you >used "person" in place of "man". "Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. "Homo sapiens" would have been correct and not at all ambiguous, but I suppose you would argue that because it translates to "wise man" it too would have been confusing. Sheesh - Brett bjohnson@athena.mit.edu bjohnson@micro.ll.mit.edu
teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > An excellent discussion of this topic is given in Elaine Morgan's book 'Descent of Woman'. Her conclusion is 'no', based on comparison with the truly monogamous species.
coshima@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Craig Oshima) (10/25/90)
>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against >> ^^^ >> When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you >>meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you >>used "person" in place of "man". > >"Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. I don't think the point was intended to be grammatical, but you're right. >God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. Get used to it. Besides, it's not so much de-sexing as it is removing the overwhelming "male" influence. What's so difficult about saying "human nature" or something? I admit I read right over the original sentence without alarms yelling "sexist!", and I doubt the original post even intended to be sexist. But women are people too, and there's no reason to flame someone for pointing it out. Just my humble opinion, Craig
frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > >With the diversity of relationship styles in modern America, I have >begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against >monogamy, however many people choose serial marriages, many one lifetime >mate, many choose to remain single, some choose homosexual >relationships, some polygamous, etc. > { deleted stuff about dogma, extreme opinions } >When you look at nature in the wild, it does vary - many bird species >are mongamous, the deer family is such that the strongest males have >harems, chimpanzees are intereestingly as variant as humans at times >with the same kinds of relationship problems of jealousy. > >Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser) I think it's important not to try to assign any behavioral characteristic (or even physical characteristic) as the 'true nature' of that species. Your citation of different mating patterns in other animals is a good indication of the fact that population characteristics do change over time. This is called evolution. Without variation within (and between) populations, evolution can not occur. So perhaps society shouldn't worry about trying to figure out man's 'true nature', and let people experiment. Evolution will occur, as it always has. =============================================================================== Brian Fristensky | "What IS the secret of life?" I asked. Dept. of Plant Science | "I forgot," said Sandra. University of Manitoba | "Protein," the bartender declared. "They Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 CANADA | found out something about protein." frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca | Office phone: 204-474-6085 | FAX: 204-275-5128 | from CAT'S CRADLE by Kurt Vonnegut ===============================================================================
mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) (10/25/90)
In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? (... some stuff delete...) To understand what is natural to humans, one can only look at the range of cultures that have developed. Are humans naturally monogamous or not? In some cultures they are and other cultures they aren't, and in yet other cultures, such as our own, they can be either. That is the only realistic answer to your question. Russell I think that your answer is a little too pat and simplistic. Yes, it is true that you can't have humans without culture. However, it is also true that you can't have humans without biological drives and genes, and they do give us some direction (Actually, they usually give us a number of different, conflicting, directions!). In a follow-up book to Sociobiology the author (Wilson?) noted that the current research indicates that human beings have a definite polygamous tendency, although societies tend to prohibit against polyandry (i.e., the female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of monogamy. Mike Bender
danielg@earl.med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) (10/26/90)
In article <15490@netcom.UUCP> barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > > Looks to me like humans aren't monogamous innately. Even in >cultures like ours, which sanctify monogamy, the studies all say >that most people aren't. > I agree that humans are not innately monogamous, but this is because they are spritiually fallen (oh no, one of those !). So I think that 'naturally', we gravitate to what is *not* natural (i.e. intended by God to give us satisfacion). So I think that examination of what exists in culture will not necessarily give us what *should* be. No matter how far we look, I think that we will find that Scriptural methods will always lead to life and health and satisfaction, body and soul. Of course, there will be those who say 'Solomon had man wives' etc., etc. So who wants to argue all day? I submit that monogamy is at least encouraged as best in Scripture, esp. in the New Testament. For example, Christ and his *one* bride, the church. Also, as a qualification for a church leader, Paul writes that he must be husband to one wife. Ok, ok, so you have lots of examples of polygamy in the bible. Decide for yourself. As for me, one is plenty, and I think plenty satisfying. Spouting off again without thinking, dan __________________________________________________________________________ **** The shallow man has *** | Do not be overly righteous, nor overly **** has opinions; *** | wise: why should you destroy yourself ? **** the deep, *** | - King Solomon, wisest man of his **** convictions. *** | day, Ecclesiastes 7:16.
hartman@ide.com (Robert Hartman) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? All this is IMO, of course. Human beings rarely, if ever, occur as individuals in "the wild." (That is, outside of organized, large-scale civilizations.) Indigenous peoples all seem to occur in clans. These may be bands of gatherers/hunters, agrarian villages, or nomadic tribes. The mating customs in each of these types of clans are probably adapted to suit their practical needs. However, in each of these cases, the lifestyles don't change much over the years. Thus, individuals aren't pushed to grow and change beyond their expected, familiar roles. A good husband stays good as long as he continues to behave in the ways expected of a good husband. It may be much easier to remain mated in a clannnish culture, whatever arrangements are used. Since individual humans don't have much in the way of instinct to go by, we have to learn for ourselves what tends to work and what doesn't. In a clannish culture, what works is probably different than what works in a modern urban culture. Arriving at what works in this relatively new cultural setting is being done through trial and error. I suspect that in a climate of constant change, it would be much harder for persons to stay mated for life. The way my life seems to be going, it looks like serial monogamy might be the best bet. -r
garlow@lpl.arizona.edu (Kevin Garlow x2272) (10/26/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: [deletions] > >female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology >have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. ^^^^^^^^^^ >E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown >to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. > [deletions] >Mike Bender I *think* Mike meant to say that "Studies have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be MONOGAMOUS, are not." This would jibe with the following sentence. Kevin Garlow
milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a man not to be monogamous. In fact, I'll go as far to say that it's even better if you can impregnate someone else's woman, because then another man is helping your DNA to survive. Now before anybody starts flaming me, rest assured that I believe in monogamy and I don't think women are property. I guess I'm really applying the above paragraph to the times way back when it was not easy to survive (Neanderthal period, etc.). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Milt Tinkoff | "The average man is a Silicon Graphics Inc. | stupid man." milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com | -Ed Mao
chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes: >In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> >wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: >>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve >>Reiser) writes: >>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against >> ^^^ >> >> When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you >>meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you >>used "person" in place of "man". > >"Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. >God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of "peoples'" or "humanity's." What you call "feminist quibbling" is in fact a perfectly legitimate attempt to remove discrimination. After all, the original sentence really does (even if that was not the intent of the poster) give first place to men and leave women out. The use of the masculine where neuter should go has evolved for centuries to give supreme linguistic representation to men, and would do so even had that not been the original intent, simply due to the definitions of the words involved. By the way, of the newsgroups in the header, I only get sci.bio. I realize that sci.bio is not the most appropriate newsgroup for this subject, but the issue of sexism in language is important enough that I had to respond. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | Internet: chi9@midway.uchicago.edu
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > I have not ever checked this out...but I have been told that human beings are probably not naturally monogamous, and that one of the indicators of this is the size discrepancy between the male and the female of the species, which is supposedly common in non-monogamous species. Gerald
biagioni@capella.cs.unc.edu (Edoardo Biagioni) (10/26/90)
The question: >>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: >I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >around' as much as they can. There is an unspecified assumption here that if a man impregnates two women he is more reproductively successful than a man who only impregnates one. This is a false assumption for two reasons: (1) a woman can bear many children, so a man with two children by two women has fewer than a man with three children by one woman. (2) The ultimate reproductive success depends on the reproductive success of the offspring; in many cases this is at least partly dependent on the physical the offspring gets from BOTH parents during development. This was probably even more true in prehistorical times than it is now. So depending on the environment, it may or may not be evolutionarily advantageous for a man to 'spread [his] DNA around', especially if that means men are no longer sure of the paternity of their offspring and offspring, neglected by one parent, has fewer chances to reproduce. To the best of my knowledge women and men both have some monogamous and some polygamous tendencies, with cultural influences usually tipping the balance. Ed Biagioni biagioni@cs.unc.edu Department of Computer Science (919)962-1954 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514, USA
cel@duke.cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/26/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com> mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: >In a follow-up book to Sociobiology the author (Wilson?) noted that the >current research indicates that human beings have a definite polygamous >tendency, although societies tend to prohibit against polyandry (i.e., the >female version.) I would point out further that recent studies in biology >have shown that numerous animals, once thought to be polygamous, are NOT. >E.g., various species of birds that mate for life have recently been shown >to have numerous "extra-marrital" relationships. I think you have a typo. Is it that numerous monogamous animals are not or that numerous polygamous animals are not? >So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are >completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the >original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that >they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of >monogamy. Well, now, this is a sneaky rhetorical trick ';-) It is not at all the same thing to deny evolution and to assume that human behavioral tendencies are fundamentally cut off from bird behavior. The extra complexity and size of the human brain makes it a much more plastic or programmable structure than a bird's brain. (For that matter, birds behavior is probably more varied than is realised (as I guess your typoed revisionist biology indicates.)) The content and meaning of categories that "biological drives" act on are probably cultural variables. If people have a "drive" to "mate" with the "same person", then what constitutes the same person may simply be a person who looks similar, or who talks similar, or who wears the same kind of red shoes. Or it may be the same person, but only while that person acts a certain way or while that person is a certain age. Likewise "mating" may very from masturbating while being held by that same person to PV intercourse to anal sex or heavy SM stuff; all of these activities involve the mating area of the brain, and often release "sexual tension", leaving one feeling that one's drives have been fulfilled. The mental categories within which "drives" have to operate are determined in very broad and multi-causal ways. Basically, you can't have a drive to be with the same person any firmer than your understanding of what makes a person the same. People change, and they often find that their lovers no longer wish to be with them when they have changed. Likewise, one may find that basically what distinguishes people from one another is only isomorphic with gender, and then desire to be with every person of a given gender; this "promiscuous and evil" behavior might result from a neurological drive for monogamy that augmented by a neurology that identifies similarly gendered people as the "same person" for the purposes of fucking. >Mike Bender Chris Lane -- cel@cs.duke.edu Confusion can be both pleasant and helpful.
spg@portia.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Guthrie) (10/26/90)
>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > >I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one >child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a >man not to be monogamous. In fact, I'll go as far to say that it's even >better if you can impregnate someone else's woman, because then another >man is helping your DNA to survive. > This was the explanation I've been given that men, on the whole tend to be promiscous and woman selective in their choice of a mate. Men have zillions of sperm and it's to their advantage to spread them around as much as possible. Women have a single egg and have to put a lot of work into creating the baby, rearing it, etc that they want to be darn sure that they get the best available specimen to fertilize their egg (thus animals where a dominant male has privileges with a harem of females). For interesting implications on this stuff read Dawkins _The Selfish Gene_.
bloom-debbie@cs.yale.edu (Debbie Bloom) (10/27/90)
In article <17086@thorin.cs.unc.edu> biagioni@capella.cs.unc.edu (Edoardo Biagioni) writes: >The question: >>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > >milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: >>I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >>women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >>around' as much as they can. > >There is an unspecified assumption here that if a man impregnates two >women he is more reproductively successful than a man who only >impregnates one. > >This is a false assumption for two reasons: > >(1) a woman can bear many children, so a man with two children by >two women has fewer than a man with three children by one woman. Ah, but he can impregnate many many other women while the first is pregnant. So, the potential number of offspring goes up tremendously. I learned in a psych class once that biologically men want to mate with many women to maximize the # offspring they can pass their genes to. But women want to mate with one man because they want support *after* they have the baby (so they want him to stick around). At least, I think it was that. >(2) The ultimate reproductive success depends on the reproductive success >of the offspring; in many cases this is at least partly dependent on the >physical the offspring gets from BOTH parents during development. This was >probably even more true in prehistorical times than it is now. >So depending on the environment, it may or may not be evolutionarily >advantageous for a man to 'spread [his] DNA around', especially if that >means men are no longer sure of the paternity of their offspring and >offspring, neglected by one parent, has fewer chances to reproduce. Well, this may not be a problem in some cultures. For example, the Mundurucu people in Brazil have a Men's house and many Women's houses. At the women's house live the women from a few families, and they take care of all the children which they have produced. There are marriages, but they have little bearing on how many people take care of the children. -Debbie
cedar@athena.mit.edu (Walid F Nasrallah) (10/27/90)
In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: |> Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature |> be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? Both! I think that there are several distinct biological drives that direct hyman beings into associations with others for the purpose of procreating. The classic "sex drive" is probably the most overrated of those, and it is not per se monogamous. However, there is a totally different drive which only operates on a singly member of the opposite sex, and which might bear the apellation "romantic love" (eg. see posting 5337). The trouble is that cultural institutions, legends and expectations regarding this feeling are so pervasive in the western world that many who have not really experienced the monogamous drive will feel peer pressure to pretend that they do and misinterpret some other drive ( I an not sure how many there are) as the "real thing". Does this seem to correlate with other peoples' feelings about the issue?
mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) (10/27/90)
In article <1990Oct26.182603.342@athena.mit.edu> cedar@athena.mit.edu (Walid F Nasrallah) writes: > >I think that there are several distinct biological drives that direct hyman beings into And non-hymen beings. --
arkeo@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (10/27/90)
In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>, mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes: > In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) > writes: > > In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP > (Steve Reiser) writes: > > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature > > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > > (... some stuff delete...) > > I think that your answer is a little too pat and simplistic. Yes, it is > true that you can't have humans without culture. However, it is also true > that you can't have humans without biological drives and genes, and they do > give us some direction (Actually, they usually give us a number of > different, conflicting, directions!). > > (some normative Sociobiology deleted) > > So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are > completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the > original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that > they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of > monogamy. Again, too pat and simplistic. In fact, the CAPACITY to be cultural is a GENETIC CAPACITY. This is the logic: Cultural is defined as those aspects of the phenotype acquired by means of teaching/learning/imitation from other humans. The capacity for culture is the ability (frequency, if you will) of the above in a member of a population. Our distant ancestors were less cultural than us (data from palaeoanthropological record supports this). The evolution of Homo sap sap, amoung other things, may be characterized by increases in the ability to be cultural. This evolution HAD to proceed by means of natural selection. The GENETIC changes in the evolving popualtion would be (must be, according to Nat Sel theory) driven by maximization of fitness. Fitness in the hominid lineage was highest in those members of the lineage who left offspring who exhibited a higher cultural capacity than other members of the lineage. (which is how the capacity increased over time in the lineage). Yet, as we note, the PERFORMANCE of culture involves determining aspects of the phenotype WITHOUT *Direct* instruction from the genes (save in the capacity). Overall, we could say that, in our lineage, genetic fitness was greatest in those ancestors or ours who had the LEAST direct genetic influence on the specifics exhibited in their behaviour. Hence we need not reject evolution in order to accept an autonomously functioning CULTURAL determination of behaviour. [Note this is NOT to claim that the *specific behaviors* coded in a cultural system are necessarily IMMUNE from any sort of selection (analagous to natural selecttion). This however is a separate issue.] What is important here is to realize that CULTURE (as a capacity of individual humans) is ITSELF a product of natural selection. When we polarize GENES/CULTURE we miss the most important thing about the genetic evolution of culture itself -- that culture as a genetic capacity evolved by means of natural selection and that this capacity was more fit than "genetic" (less cultural) means of determination of behaviour. Wilson et al always seem to miss this simple genetic point. Tis a shame, since in the process they end up, therefore, making fundamental errors such as confusing evolutionary-biological traits with cultural traits. If a kind of behaviour (ie mating behaviour) is "learned" (coded in the cultural transmission system) it is INCOHERENT to speak of its "genetic" aspects since the only "genetic aspect" it could posess is in the, much larger, capacity for cultural behaviour itself. Dave
bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) (10/28/90)
In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes: )In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: )>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: )>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against )> ^^^ )> )> When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you )>meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you )>used "person" in place of "man". ) )"Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. "begun to wonder what person's true nature really is" - is defintiely not correct. "begun to wonder what people's nature really is" seems a little off - "begun to wonder what people's nature really are" seems worse "begun to wonder what human nature really is" is a little better, IMO. The difference between people's nature and human nature isn't very great - I think it boils down to a matter of personal preference here.
mirror@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert W. Alatalo) (10/28/90)
chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu >(Brett W Johnson) writes: >>In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> >>wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes: >>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve >>>Reiser) writes: >>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against >>> ^^^ >>> >>> When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you >>>meant "male" or "person". All possible ambiguity would be removed if you >>>used "person" in place of "man". >> >>"Man" is used correctly here. "Person" would NOT have been correct. >>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. > Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of >"peoples'" or "humanity's." > What you call "feminist quibbling" is in fact a perfectly legitimate >attempt to remove discrimination. After all, the original sentence really >does (even if that was not the intent of the poster) give first place to men >and leave women out. The use of the masculine where neuter should go has >evolved for centuries to give supreme linguistic representation to men, and >would do so even had that not been the original intent, simply due to the >definitions of the words involved. > By the way, of the newsgroups in the header, I only get sci.bio. I >realize that sci.bio is not the most appropriate newsgroup for this subject, >but the issue of sexism in language is important enough that I had to >respond. >-- >| Lucius Chiaraviglio | Internet: chi9@midway.uchicago.edu I agree, women have just as much right to be non-monogamous as men. And they DO. -Rob
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, coshima@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Craig Oshima) writes: > >>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against > > >God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language. > > Get used to it. Besides, it's not so much de-sexing as it is removing > the overwhelming "male" influence. What's so difficult about saying > "human nature" or something? I admit I read right over the original > sentence without alarms yelling "sexist!", and I doubt the original > post even intended to be sexist. But women are people too, and there's > no reason to flame someone for pointing it out. > > Just my humble opinion, > > Craig There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture. Not only is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority. The influence of women in our culture has been felt to a far greater extent than just about anyone is willing to admit. Insofar as gender in language is concerned, when I want to "de-sex" it, I usually refer to both genders: women and men. Otherwise, I speak from my own gender (as I have heard female commentators speaking from theirs). If someone gets upset over a woman or man speaking from their own gender, then let them whine. Rational people have better things to do. O- \/ Rod
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/01/90)
The nature of "man" is that we survive by virtue of our rational faculty. In a given set of circumstances, monogamy would clearly be the most rational (i.e., pro-survival) choice. Under other circumstances, other options would be most rational. Monogamy is neither an element of man's nature, nor is it relevant to man's nature. It is a behavior and, as such, is subject to choice. oo \/ Rod
eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer) (11/02/90)
hicago.edu> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Keywords: linguistic quibble legitimate In article <1990Oct26.010447.24735@midway.uchicago.edu> chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of >"peoples'" or "humanity's." > unless the original poster was asking about the behaviour of human males. |
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (11/02/90)
In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture. Not only >is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ... ... You've got great deadpan delivery, but shouldn't this have been at least crossposted to rec.humor, if not posted there in the first place? -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (11/02/90)
In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: [...] > >Insofar as gender in language is concerned, when I want to "de-sex" it, >I usually refer to both genders: women and men. Otherwise, I speak from >my own gender (as I have heard female commentators speaking from theirs). >If someone gets upset over a woman or man speaking from their own gender, >then let them whine. Rational people have better things to do. The original article said something like "is man naturally polygamous?" After reading that sentence, I wasn't sure whether or not the author was referring to men, or to all people. I mean, it's possible that men may be naturally polygamous and women aren't, or vice versa. So the usage was in fact ambiguous. Oh, if only I could reach the level of rationality that you have already acheived. Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) (11/02/90)
In article <tta3o4mr4a@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP >(Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >>There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture. Not only >>is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority. > >Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ... ... > >You've got great deadpan delivery, but shouldn't this have been at least >crossposted to rec.humor, if not posted there in the first place? Much as it pains me to agree, he's right. In this society (American, derived from English law and general European custom) men have traditionally taken the leadership role, or have traditionally been suckered into it, depending on one's point of view. Nearly everybody agrees this should be changed, and it is in fact being changed. But the leadership role does not imply dominance, and like the dowagers of Asia, in their own characteristically feminine way, women have shaped this culture roughly as much as men have and deserve roughly the same amount of credit and blame as men for the state of things today. There are advantages and disadvantages to having the leadership role. The main advantage is you get to pretend you control things, but this all stops when you die, and most leaders have already died. You also get to take credit for the good things that have been done. The main disadvantage is that you have to take the blame for all the bad things that have been done. In the current political climate, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. When was the last time you heard men recieve the credit for public sanitation, anesthesia, vaccinations, contraception, civil liberties? Probably never-- even now I can almost hear the "ping" as the very idea bounces off thousands of skulls. When was the last time you heard men get the blame for war, pollution, poverty? Better ask, when was the last time you didn't have to listen to that? An awful lot of feminist rhetoric amounts to a tunnel-vision of history, empasizing all the awful things that men have done and strutting forth all the great, wonderful things that women have done as examples of superior feminine culture cruelly suppressed by the dominant males. It's easy. Just hold up Hitler and Florence Nightingale as archetypes. What a different sort of equally biased history could be made of Queen Victory and Martin Luther King. -EMP
axm8676@isc.rit.edu (A.X. Majumdar ) (11/03/90)
In article <tta3o4mr4a@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP >(Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >>There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture. Not only >>is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority. > >Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ... ... > >You've got great deadpan delivery, but shouldn't this have been at least >crossposted to rec.humor, if not posted there in the first place? >-- >Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com >Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda >-- >Speak softly and wear a loud shirt. it is true that men dominate in the society, you can't disagree to that... even though I do consider women equal to men in certain respects but..... Consider asian countries where women, are just considered to be the house- hold manager, and a source of a mans sexual desires.... Consider the US itself .. a guy can have more than one girlfriend and still remain cool, whereas the girl is devoted to the guy and tries to avoid other guys to a certain extent... How come all the pimps are males???? how come most of the prostitutes are all females?????? It is just a fact that our society is build in such a manner that it simply can't accept the fact that women are equal............Have you ever thought that, how come the secretaries are all females, and even female managers appoint female secretaries???........It is not humor....It is a fact...... A fact centuries old.......Maybe god designed the society that way........ It is us who can change it and make it better.......... Roger -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ : $ $ Ashesh Majumdar ( Roger The Great ) : I ain't got much baby but $ $ 716-272-7748 : I'm all I have got $
mfriedma@oracle.com (Michael Friedman) (11/09/90)
In article <58697@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >The nature of "man" is that we survive by virtue of our rational >faculty. Give me a break. The human race has amply demonstrated its capacity for irrationality. In fact, it's one of our most glorious traits. People who die for a cause sure as heck aren't being rational. -- The passing of Marxism-Leninism first from China and then from the Soviet Union will mean its death as a living ideology ... . For while there may be some isolated true believers left in places like Managua, Pyongyang, or Cambridge, MA ... - Francis Fukuyama
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/11/90)
In article <1990Nov2.204258.9087@isc.rit.edu>, axm8676@isc.rit.edu (A.X. Majumdar ) writes: > In article <tta3o4mr4a@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > >In article <58695@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP > >(Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >>There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture. Not only > >>is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority. > > > >Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... ... ... > > > >You've got great deadpan delivery, but shouldn't this have been at least > >crossposted to rec.humor, if not posted there in the first place? > >-- > >Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Another articulate radfem response? <-: > > > it is true that men dominate in the society, you can't disagree to that... Nonsense. Read Warren Farrell's WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE. Or THE HAZARDS OF BEING MALE. Or, THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE. > even though I do consider women equal to men in certain respects but..... How VERY big of you. <-: > Consider asian countries where women, are just considered to be the house- I don't live in an asian country. I live with occidentals. Weird lot. :-) > hold manager, and a source of a mans sexual desires.... Consider the US itself > .. a guy can have more than one girlfriend and still remain cool, whereas the > girl is devoted to the guy and tries to avoid other guys to a certain extent... You REALLY don't want me to post the answer to that one, do you? Okay, well, I refer you to THE MEN WHO HATE WOMEN AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE THEM, by Susn (oops) Susan Forward; WHAT DO WOMEN WANT by Susie Orbach. > How come all the pimps are males???? how come most of the prostitutes are all > females?????? It is just a fact that our society is build in such a manner that You know, I've always wondered why they called those guys MADAM. <-; And those darn gigolos sure do have small breasts! > it simply can't accept the fact that women are equal............Have you ever Uh-huh. Sure. Right. > thought that, how come the secretaries are all females, and even female managers appoint female secretaries???........It is not humor....It is a fact...... > A fact centuries old.......Maybe god designed the society that way........ Uh, better check your hysterical, ... er, ... HISTORICAL facts there fella. Female secretaries is a relatively recent innovation. Look my friend, you're not doing men any good by posting -- yours is about the most sexist stuff I've read since the 18th century! <-; > > Roger OO \/ Rod
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/14/90)
One way to suggest an answer to the question, is to describe the characteristics of monogamy in mammals. There are two types of monogamy 1--Faculative monogamy may result when a species exists at very low densities, with males and females being so spaced that only a single member the opposite sex is available for mating. 2--Obligate monogamy appears to occur when a solitary female cannot rear a littter without aid from conspecifics, but the carrying capacity of the habitat is insufficiant to allow more than one female to breed simultaneously within the same home range. Within BOTH types of monogamy, the following traits are typically seen: 1--adults show little sexual dimorphism either physically or behaviourally; 2--the adult male and female exhibit infrequent sexual interactions except during the early stage of pair bonding. Additional trends specific to mammals showing obligate monogamy are: 1--the young show delayed sexual maturing in the presence of parents, and thus only the adult pair breed; 2--the older juveniles aid in the care of young sibs; 3--the adult male aids in the rearing of the young by any or all of the following: carrying, feeding, defending, and socializing offspring. arnold new zealand -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov8.205905.1627@oracle.com>, mfriedma@oracle.com (Michael Friedman) writes: > In article <58697@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > > >The nature of "man" is that we survive by virtue of our rational > >faculty. > > Give me a break. The human race has amply demonstrated its capacity > for irrationality. Yes. The Crusades, world wars, idiot technologies promoted over rational alternatives, I am aware of them all. But it is not the capacity for irrationality which has promoted our survival. Perhaps you do not understand a word in my statement, since you seem to have concluded I meant all humans behave rationally at all times, when what I said was that (to say it again) "we survive by virtue of our rational faculty." > > In fact, it's one of our most glorious traits. People who die for a > cause sure as heck aren't being rational. It is most certainly irrational to die in the name of Mohhamed, or Christ, or the Emporer, or the Flag, and there is no glory in it but only stupid death and wasted lives. People who live for a cause, who promote the values of survival and sanity, who innovate and invent new solutions to the problems of life, these are the rational ones, the ones to whom humanity owes its continued existence, not the lost souls who die in pursuit of identity. > > -- > The passing of Marxism-Leninism first from China and then from the > Soviet Union will mean its death as a living ideology ... . For while > there may be some isolated true believers left in places like Managua, > Pyongyang, or Cambridge, MA ... - Francis Fukuyama Good! OO \/ Rod (cambridge, MA! That's a good joke, especially because it's so true!!!)
barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (11/14/90)
In article <59079@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >we survive by virtue of our rational faculty. Surely not only that? Mating is an important part of racial survival, but mating seems to have a very necessary bit of irrationality about it :-). Kayembee
rqdms@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov (DENNIS STOCKERT) (11/15/90)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Volumes of articles re: above
I for one do not quite understand all the hubbub... for me , centuries of
spontaneous non-monagamous behavior is enough to convince me that we are
** NOT ** naturally monogamous, and that monogamy where it exists is
largely a culturally-imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems too
simplistic to Netters at large... :-)
Dennis Stockert * The meek shall inherit the earth;
rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * the rest of us will go to the stars
****************************************** Aviation Week **********
No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of
any respectable organizationeellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) (11/16/90)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Volumes of articles re: above > >I for one do not quite understand all the hubbub... for me , centuries of >spontaneous non-monagamous behavior is enough to convince me that we are >** NOT ** naturally monogamous, and that monogamy where it exists is >largely a culturally-imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems too >simplistic to Netters at large... :-) I agree with this person totally.
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov15.194025.27299@ariel.unm.edu> eellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Volumes of articles re: above >>I for one do not quite understand all the hubbub... for me , centuries of >>spontaneous non-monagamous behavior is enough to convince me that we are >>** NOT ** naturally monogamous, and that monogamy where it exists is >>largely a culturally-imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems too >>simplistic to Netters at large... :-) > I agree with this person totally. Well, I disagree. For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large. -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
eellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) (11/17/90)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Volumes of articles re: above >>>I for one do not quite understand all the hubbub... for me , centuries of >>>spontaneous non-monagamous behavior is enough to convince me that we are >>>** NOT ** naturally monogamous, and that monogamy where it exists is >>>largely a culturally-imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems too >>>simplistic to Netters at large... :-) > >> I agree with this person totally. > >Well, I disagree. > >For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >imposed phenomenon. > >Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large. > Then explain the high rate of divorce.
barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (11/17/90)
In article <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu> bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: >For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >imposed phenomenon. This doesn't make sense. In cultures where polygamy has been sanctioned, it has also been practised by those who could afford it. In cultures like our own, where monogamy is considered the ideal, it is given only lip service by over half the population. A zoologist studying some other species with mating habits identical to our own would not describe them as "monogamous", I'm sure. We tend to both change partners, and "cheat" on those we have. There's really no point I can see in worrying about this sociobiology crap, anyway. If you're sure what's natural for *you*, why worry about species and instinct? If you feel monogamous, be monogamous; if not, don't. Kayembee
rqdms@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (DENNIS STOCKERT) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu>, bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes... Quoting my prior followup to this thread: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Volumes of articles re: above >>>I for one do not quite understand all the hubbub... for me , centuries of >>>spontaneous non-monagamous behavior is enough to convince me that we are >>>** NOT ** naturally monogamous, and that monogamy where it exists is >>>largely a culturally-imposed phenomenon. Apologies if this seems too >>>simplistic to Netters at large... :-) > >Well, I disagree. > >For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >imposed phenomenon. > >Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large. > >-- An extremely clever way to make an invalid point, Brian ... Point one: Both polygamy and adultery have, at times, been outlawed in monogamous cultures... if illegality isn't cultural imposition, I don't know what is..... animal species that mate for life do so spontaneously without legislation. Polygamous cultures, on the other hand, have not felt a comparable need to outlaw monogamy. Point two: The percentage of married (American) men that have had affairs has been shown, I believe, to be something like 75-80% ... somewhat lower for women. Of the remaining 20-25%, some number probably refrain from affairs due to guilt, fear of others' opinions of them, divorce, financial upheaval, etc. These are extremely high numbers to discount if one attempts to argue that we are naturally monomagous creatures. Finally, your own choice of phrases -- "SOME of us are naturally monomagous" -- implies a minority. Nice chatting with you... *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * The meek shall inherit the earth; * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * the rest of us will go to the stars * ****************************************** Aviation Week ************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/19/90)
------ In article <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu>, bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes... > For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to > convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that > promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally > imposed phenomenon. > > Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large. Not simplistic; rather, cleverly wrong. First, if the author is monogamous, it undoubtedly stems in part from cultural influences. It is foolish in the extreme for him to claim that he knows what his sexual behavior would be had he (miraculously) survived to adulthood on a desert island absent culture -- which means: absent language, absent religion, absent social mores, absent any stories of romance or sex, absent any examples of romance or sex. It is natural for humans to develop their individual behavior within a cultural context. Both monogamous behavior and polygamous behavior as we know them are reached in this fashion. To the extent that it makes sense to ask which of these is natural, one can only look at the variety of cultures that have existed. The answer is then: humans are biologically capable of cultures that are polygamous, cultures that are monogamous, and cultures that are both. (Actually, the question of what sexual behavior a culture sanctions is too complex to be summarized so simply.) Russell
murphyc@bionette.CGRB.ORST.EDU (Chris Murphy -- ) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov16.211050.8786@ariel.unm.edu> eellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) writes: >For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >imposed phenomenon. We are all naturally monogamous and we are all naturally polygamous. The human animal has the genetic capability to express a wide range of behaviors including the extremes at both ends of a continuum. Whether a culture evolved monogomy or polygamy is probably due to what worked under the conditions existing at the time the culture began evolving. This does not mean, however, that the alternate system would not have worked--it just means that one did. Humans have the potential to behave in manners from the ridiculous to the sublime. The definition of what is ridiculous or sublime depends on you. Chris Murphy murphyc@bionette.cgrb.orst.edu Dept. of Entomology Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon USA
swihart@aclcb.purdue.edu (Dr. B) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov18.214939.268@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, rqdms@lims02.lerc.nasa.g > ov (DENNIS STOCKERT) writes: >....... >Point two: The percentage of married (American) men that have had affairs >has been shown, I believe, to be something like 75-80% ... somewhat lower >for women. Of the remaining 20-25%, some number probably refrain from >affairs due to guilt, fear of others' opinions of them, divorce, financial >upheaval, etc. These are extremely high numbers to discount if one >attempts to argue that we are naturally monomagous creatures. > >Finally, your own choice of phrases -- "SOME of us are naturally >monomagous" -- implies a minority. Nice chatting with you... I just began reading this recently. Have you defined monogamous? How? It doesn't seem to me that having had an affair or one-night fling during a marriage doesn't disqualify a person as monogamous for the rest of his/her life. L.A.S. /XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\ <XX swihart@aclcb.purdue.edu XX> \XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/
danielg@earl.med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) (11/21/90)
>>For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >>convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >>promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >>imposed phenomenon. >> >>Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large. >> >Then explain the high rate of divorce. I suggest that this is for at least two reasons. Firstly, men and women were created to firstly have a relationship with God. Because we choose to leave God out of marriage these days (as well as on the periphery of our lives), we do not enjoy the help and blessing of God. Secondly, because we have not personally received Christ and surrendered to Him, we instead surrender to our own inherent selfishness. When times get hard, it is easy to blame your partner, who is just as imperfect as you. The only way to conquer this is to know Him. Period. No Jesus, No Peace. Know Jesus, Know Peace. Of course people call me a fundamentalist! But if you knew Jesus, you'd be bananas for Him too! ============================================================================== S A V E T H E W H A L E S , K I L L O U R U N B O R N ?? ============================================================================== Daniel G. Sinclair - UNC Chapel Hill,
dhanke@jomby.cs.wisc.edu (David Hanke) (11/21/90)
Here's my $0.02: I would say that people have a Natural tendency to twist that which is good. It seems to me that there's a lot of good left in this world- but it also seems that there are a lot of things that are somehow... well... amiss. So I would say that many people _aren't_ naturally monogamous. It seems to me that monogamy is the ultimate environment for developing the relationship between a woman and a man. It provides an island of security, trust, committment- things that seem to be in pretty short supply these days. -d
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov16.211050.8786@ariel.unm.edu> eellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) writes: > I write: >>Well, I disagree. >>For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to >>convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that >>promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally >>imposed phenomenon. >Then explain the high rate of divorce. Lots of reasons: You can't stand the person to whom you are married. You got married out of the "intensity of the moment" without knowing about all those little things that drive you up the wall. Something happens (like a death in the family) that causes irreconcilable differences. And, yes, sexual problems. However, they are not necessarily related to promiscuity. I am defining "promiscuity" to be having more than one sexual partner at one time. Therefore, I can have more than one lover and still be monogamous if I keep a sexual commitment to only one person. For example, if I am married to one person and only have sex with that one person then divorce and marry a second person and only have sex with THAT one person, then I have been monogamous. My posting was mostly in humour. Granted, there were no smilies, but I don't think I was being THAT vague. People are people and what is natural to you may not be natural to me. That some people are promiscuous should in no way reflect what is "natural" to humans at large (and similarly for people who are monogamous). -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Nov18.214939.268@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> rqdms@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >An extremely clever way to make an invalid point, Brian ... >Point one: Both polygamy and adultery have, at times, been outlawed in >monogamous cultures... if illegality isn't cultural imposition, I don't >know what is..... animal species that mate for life do so spontaneously >without legislation. Polygamous cultures, on the other hand, have not >felt a comparable need to outlaw monogamy. Specious point. Culture has a lot to do with how a person feels about sexual attitudes. For example, religions often have a component of what/when/how/where/why/with whom to have sex. Many people follow these tenets without question. Why? Because they are what "humans are naturally supposed to do. Anything else is an aberration." For example, homosexuality. This culture has, as its biggest excuse for outlawing homosexuality, is that it is "a crime against nature" as if it were actually true. That polygamous cultures do not have to outlaw monogamy is more indicative of their attitude towards sexuality, not because polygamy is any "natural" state of the human. >Point two: The percentage of married (American) men that have had affairs >has been shown, I believe, to be something like 75-80% ... somewhat lower >for women. Of the remaining 20-25%, some number probably refrain from >affairs due to guilt, fear of others' opinions of them, divorce, financial >upheaval, etc. These are extremely high numbers to discount if one >attempts to argue that we are naturally monomagous creatures. You said it yourself, "probably." You don't know, do you. Who's to say that the 20-25% of those who don't have affairs are actually HAPPY with their current situation and don't see the need of looking elsewhere? And before you claim that the 75-80% of men who do have affairs are "naturally" polygamous, you had better find out why. Are they unsatisfied with their present sexual partner? For some, I'd say yes. For some, I'd say no. >Finally, your own choice of phrases -- "SOME of us are naturally >monomagous" -- implies a minority. Nice chatting with you... I implied no such thing as I also used the word "some" when referring to those who are polygamous. The fact that a human does it means that it is "natural" for a human to do it. Humans are a part of nature, after all. -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (11/22/90)
In article <21856@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> murphyc@bionette.CGRB.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Chris Murphy -- ) writes:
[that humans exhibit every type of sexuality thinkable and that it
is all "natural"]
Yes, Chris, that is what I was saying.
If you had noticed the original post, you would have seen that it
was a paraphrase or the original poster's words with "monogamous"
and "polygamous" interchanged. Did I do that because I actually
believe it? No! I did it to show how silly the argument of
the "naturalness" of human sexuality is.
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) (11/22/90)
In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: > In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? > > I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile > women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA > around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one > child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a > man not to be monogamous. In fact, I'll go as far to say that it's even > better if you can impregnate someone else's woman, because then another > man is helping your DNA to survive. > > Now before anybody starts flaming me, rest assured that I believe in > monogamy and I don't think women are property. I guess I'm really > applying the above paragraph to the times way back when it was not easy > to survive (Neanderthal period, etc.). > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Milt Tinkoff | "The average man is a > Silicon Graphics Inc. | stupid man." > milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com | -Ed Mao
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) (11/23/90)
In article <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au> ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) writes: >In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: >> In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? >> >> I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >> women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >> around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one >> child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a >> man not to be monogamous. Yes but... if a man 'spreads his DNA around' and all his chidren die, that is a losing strategy. In nature, if a man stays with a woman at least as long as she needs his help, that will greatly increase the chances that his will child will live and live to reproduce. ann h.
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/23/90)
In SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE SEVENTIES, Morton Hunt observes that monogamy has not until recently been very common among humans. In fact, even today it is not *really* that common. Although sociologists like to quibble the point, there is this term which describes the common practice of divorce and remarriage: Serial Monogamy. In the strictest sense of the word, we speak of monogamy as "mating for life." But these days a woman and man may marry, divorce, and remarry (others) several times. (I know one woman who has been married 7 times ... to 7 different men.) Where there is divorce and remarriage, and where fidelity is assumed within each marriage relationship, there is not true monogamy but a serial monogamy. And isn't this what best describes the typical relationship these days? Now, my Japanese friends inform me there is a different kind of a situation in Japan, where divorce is not so common but extramarital affairs for both genders are very common. Here again is a variation which cannot be described as true monogamy. From an intellectual perspective, Heinlein's descriptions of multiple partner "marriages" appeals to me most because it solves many problems at once. But this is a very sane kind of a relationship. I'm not sure I'm ready for anything *that* sane. <-; OO \/ Rod
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (11/23/90)
In article <16791@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > In article <59079@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >we survive by virtue of our rational faculty. > > Surely not only that? Mating is an important part of > racial survival, but mating seems to have a very necessary > bit of irrationality about it :-). > > Kayembee Which is? And why? I am aware this seems to hold true for almost all people, but it can also be demonstrated that a huge chunck of humanity drinks alcohol, there's no sane reason for it, it does nothing to promote survival, and ideally no one would do it. Yet billions do. Shall we then recommend it simply because so many others do? And if so, then what would be the difference between this and the very common assertion children make to their parents: "But (fill-in-a-name)'s parents let him/her do it!" or "But everybody's doing it!" Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic or necessary to our survival. OO \/ Rod I may be an idiot like you, but *sniff* my idiocy is of a superior sort. <-:
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/23/90)
If instinctive behaviour is only vestigial in humans then why do we still breathe when we are asleep, why do children commonly bond with their parents, why is sex so important, et cetera. The whole science of Sociobiology suggests that instinctive behaviour is very important (but not exclusive of cultural effects). Humans are not naturally computer users but the format used by computers is controlled by "human nature". If computers communicated to us in binary, we would find this difficult to learn and understand. Chimps are not naturally American Sign Language users, but they can learn and can teach it to their children. Dogs are not naturally Seeing Eye Dog "users" but they can be taught. Horses do not naturally jump 7-foot fences, but.... If natural becomes equated with good, than that is the fault of a poor educational system. It is not natural to eat foods that your parent did not eat; it is not natural to avoid mating with first cousins (indeed it is natural to find them the MOST attractive of sexual partners); it is not natural to not steal or lie; etc. Monkeys such as marmosets, tamarins, gibbons (apes of course), and many birds are naturally monogamous. Non-monogamous behaviour is Very Rarely observed. The males of these species can impregnate as many fertile females as they can have sex with, but there is no evolutionary advantage for them to do so (and they do not!) probably because the female needs the help of the male/father to rear the offspring. Normally in large animals, the female does not need the help of the male to rear the offspring and they are rarely monogamous (see for example chimpanzees, gorillas, all large monkeys (larger than a cat). THis does not seem to be true of large birds (largest is the monogamous swan). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/23/90)
----- In article <1990Nov23 .015509.14871@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > If instinctive behaviour is only vestigial in humans then why > do we still breathe when we are asleep ... Breathing is not an instinct, but rather, a reflex. Behavior that is but one instance of a broad range that is possible to human nature, but whose instances are supported or suppressed by human culture, falls on the other side of what is instinctive. A pregnant cat's search for an out of the way place to bear kittens is an instinct. It is not reflexive: if all of the out of the way places available to her are unusable, she will give birth in the open. The cat's behavior is not cultural: she does not have to learn it from other cats. There are few human behaviors that fall between these parameters. A child's bonding to the adults who care for the child may be one such. Russell
newman@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Bill Newman) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov23.015509.14871@massey.ac.nz> A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: >birds are naturally monogamous. Non-monogamous behaviour is Very Rarely >observed. The males of these species can impregnate as many fertile >females as they can have sex with, but there is no evolutionary advantage >for them to do so (and they do not!) probably because the female needs >the help of the male/father to rear the offspring. > >Normally in large animals, the female does not need the help of the male >to rear the offspring and they are rarely monogamous (see for example >chimpanzees, gorillas, all large monkeys (larger than a cat). THis does >not seem to be true of large birds (largest is the monogamous swan). > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Arnold Chamove >Massey University Psychology >Palmerston North, New Zealand It is true that non-monogamous behavior is seldom observed in birds. However, with the advent of fast and cheap DNA "fingerprinting" techniques for paternity testing, it has become possible for us to find out what the birds are doing when they think no one is watching, and it appears that in many monogamous species, extra-monogamous sex is not Very Rare after all. Despite Chamove's contention, there _is_ an evolutionary advantage for male birds in fertilizing many females: sperm is cheap, and even if the male can only help one female raise his offspring, a reasonable number of the other offspring may survive. (Especially if some other male, unequipped to do DNA fingerprinting, helps raise them.) There was even some speculation about evolutionary advantages for females, but I found the logic somewhat murkier and I don't remember how it was supposed to go. I can't cite the reference, but I think this result made it into several non-technical periodicals in the last two years; I believe I saw it first in the science section of _The Economist_. Bill Newman newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu
falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov22.191009.20772@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: >In article <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au> ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) writes: >>In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: >>> In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? >>> >>> I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >>> women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >>> around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one >>> child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a >>> man not to be monogamous. I think it's more of a power thing among humans than anything genetic. In most of society; men hold the cards and use that power to keep women from sleeping with other men ("sleep around and I'll divorce you and you'll starve.") Sometimes the situation is reversed. Where I went to school, there were very few women and they held the cards. It was not at all unusual for a woman to be sleeping with several men and insist that some or all of those men to be monogamous. -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags -- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (11/24/90)
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > If instinctive behaviour is only vestigial in humans then why do we still > breathe when we are asleep, why do children commonly bond with their > parents, why is sex so important, et cetera. The whole science of > Sociobiology suggests that instinctive behaviour is very important (but > not exclusive of cultural effects). > > Humans are not naturally computer users but the format used by computers > is controlled by "human nature". If computers communicated to us in > binary, we would find this difficult to learn and understand. Chimps are > not naturally American Sign Language users, but they can learn and can > teach it to their children. Dogs are not naturally Seeing Eye Dog > "users" but they can be taught. Horses do not naturally jump 7-foot > fences, but.... 1/ Most animal behaviourists do not consider mechanistic physiological functions to be insticts ( peristalis isn't an instinct either is it?) 2/ The bonding of a child to it's mother is a vestigial instinctive mechanism compared with such complex insticts such as a spider's web building or or complex mating behaviours such a a bowerbird's nest construction. 3/ All of the above examples are of learned behaviours that do not naturally occur. Humans seem to learn a wide range of mating patterns monogamous polygamous polyandrous. Has anyone ever taught a new mating behaviours to (say) a fish? ( A creature with very hard wired mating patterns)
peter@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Peter Sellmer) (11/25/90)
I'm really surprised that this discussion hasn't migrated back to sci.psychology. The nature/nurture question has been debated over many a beer for decades now by psych people of every stripe. My $0.02 is that it's pretty clear that humans are somewhere in the middle of the monogamy/polygamy continuum. We pair-bond, but not for life necessarily, though sometimes. Can it get any mushier than that? As well, what's the point? If one wanted to make the statement that we ARE monogamous "naturally" (whatever that means), well, so what? Does this chicken-and-egg philosophizing have real implications for the way we do things? The way we should do things? The way we could do things? Peter -- Peter Sellmer (peter@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca or psellmer@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) "Dip in...to the sea... of possibilities!" Patti Smith
milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) (11/25/90)
In article <1990Nov22.191009.20772@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: >In article <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au> ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) writes: >>In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes: >>> In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes: >>>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature >>>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood? >>> >>> I think it is culturally ingrained. Men can impregnate as many fertile >>> women as they can have sex with. This allows men to 'spread their DNA >>> around' as much as they can. Women, on the other hand can only bear one >>> child at a time. Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a >>> man not to be monogamous. > >Yes but... >if a man 'spreads his DNA around' and all his chidren die, that is a >losing strategy. In nature, if a man stays with a woman at least as long >as she needs his help, that will greatly increase the chances that his >will child will live and live to reproduce. I think I was a bit unclear. If a man stays with one woman then his children by her will be protected, fed, etc. This happens whether he's impregnated any other women or not. Therefore the more women he impregnates, the more possible children will survive. It's even better if the women are already with other men. So now the first man's children are being cared for by other men who believe that the children are their own. So it is advantageous for men to be polygamous as long as their own live-in partner is not. Again, let me stress that all this is in theory. I personally wouldn't want to live in such a society given the choice. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Milt Tinkoff | "The average man is a Silicon Graphics Inc. | stupid man." milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com | -Ed Mao
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (11/25/90)
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >In SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE SEVENTIES, Morton Hunt observes that monogamy >has not until recently been very common among humans. > >In fact, even today it is not *really* that common. Although sociologists >like to quibble the point, there is this term which describes the common >practice of divorce and remarriage: Serial Monogamy. > >In the strictest sense of the word, we speak of monogamy as "mating for >life." But these days a woman and man may marry, divorce, and remarry >(others) several times. (I know one woman who has been married 7 times ... >to 7 different men.) Where there is divorce and remarriage, and where >fidelity is assumed within each marriage relationship, there is not true >monogamy but a serial monogamy. > Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. I could just as easily offer any number of couples who've been happily married for 25 or 30 years. What's it prove? >And isn't this what best describes the typical relationship these days? > No, as a matter of fact, it doesn't. 50% of the marriages in this country end in divorce. That leaves 50% which don't (not taking into account those who engage in serial monogamy, which may boost the stats). You're manufacturing evidence to fit your argument. >Now, my Japanese friends inform me there is a different kind of a >situation in Japan, where divorce is not so common but extramarital >affairs for both genders are very common. Here again is a variation >which cannot be described as true monogamy. > Well, what exactly would you classify as "very common". I'd suspect they're more common amongst Japanese men than women. >From an intellectual perspective, Heinlein's descriptions of multiple >partner "marriages" appeals to me most because it solves many problems >at once. But this is a very sane kind of a relationship. I'm not >sure I'm ready for anything *that* sane. <-; > No relational arrangement is more "sane" than any other. It all depends on what best suits your particular belief system. Also, keep in mind that RAH was rather careful to set up the situation in which group marriages would work, and based them upon a society in which women were seriously under-represented (at least in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Group marriages have been tried before. Every other commune in the 60's had a copy of "Stranger in a Strange Land" that they took their living arrangements from. Most were unable to survive the cultural conditioning that most of the members shared. "Sanity", even taken within the narrow context of your argument, does not always militate towards the most comfortable solution. You just can't put people into such shallow boxes. >OO >\/ >Rod Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (11/25/90)
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >I am aware this seems to hold true for almost all people, but >it can also be demonstrated that a huge chunck of humanity >drinks alcohol, there's no sane reason for it, it does nothing >to promote survival, and ideally no one would do it. Yet >billions do. > So what's the difference between the "moral stance" that you're attempting to promote and that of the fundamentalist Christians? Each has the recommendation of a personal belief system without anything to back it up other than the assertion that "this is the way it's supposed to be". > >Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an >idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic >or necessary to our survival. > We have only your word that engaging in monogamous relationships is a type of "idiocy". At least 50% of the population seems to manage to do it with little or no problem. If you don't care to, that's fine; I really don't give a rat's ass how you live your life. When it reaches the point where you think everyone should live as you do in order to validate your belief system, however, I have a problem. At that point it becomes an ego-driven assertion, quite akin to what the bible-thumpers would argue. >OO >\/ >Rod > >I may be an idiot like you, but *sniff* my idiocy is of a superior >sort. <-: Idiocy is idiocy, whether it comes from a self-proclaimed moral "liberal" or a religious fundamentalist. Ascending the moral highground is, to say the least, dangerous, because generally that hill is about as stable as a mound of jello. It's bound to quiver you off sooner or later. Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
bmb@bluemoon.uucp (Bryan Bankhead) (11/26/90)
> I am aware this seems to hold true for almost all people, but > it can also be demonstrated that a huge chunck of humanity > drinks alcohol, there's no sane reason for it, it does nothing > to promote survival, and ideally no one would do it. Yet > billions do. Alchohol consumption continuew because in most individuals the reduction in survival capabilities is relatively small and valued much less than the benefits derived from the pleasant sensations. If cyanide gave a great high it would still be REAL unpopular.
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/26/90)
Rod You say (about drinking alcohol) that 1--there is no sane reason for it 2--that it does nothing to promote survival 3--ideally no one would do it The interesting thing about alcohol drinking is 1-that it is so universally performed 2-that so many sane people do it. It has a lot of calories which are desirable in less-affluent countries. It makes people feel good. It is relaxing. It seems to have unspecified "beneficial" social properties. It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational behaviour is quite rare. OF course there is a lot of behaviour that OTHERS do that does not act in our interest (someone drinking and then driving; someone making millions for themselves by cutting down the rainforest; someone trying to improve their scientific career by introducing African bees to South America). I wonder if we understood behaviour rather more, if we could understand the reason/rationalle for even people who appear to go berzerk and kill several others apparently without cause. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (11/28/90)
In article <59261@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >In article <16791@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> In article <59079@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >> >we survive by virtue of our rational faculty. >> >> Surely not only that? Mating is an important part of >> racial survival, but mating seems to have a very necessary >> bit of irrationality about it :-). > >Which is? Love. And sex. >And why? Beats the shit out of me :-). >Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an >idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic >or necessary to our survival. There's more to life than survival. I don't think love would be as rewarding as it is, were it reducible to purely logical components. Rationality is overrated. Logic is only one minor function of the human brain, and in some ways a trivial one. We can program machines to be logical, but we can't (yet, at least) program them to appreciate beauty, to feel love, or to understand self-sacrifice. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: apple!netcom!barry
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov24.233954.8869@watcsc.waterloo.edu> peter@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Peter Sellmer) writes: >If one wanted to make the statement that we ARE >monogamous "naturally" (whatever that means), well, so what? >Does this chicken-and-egg philosophizing have real implications for the >way we do things? The way we should do things? The way we could do things? > I think there is a point to knowing what are instinctive, inherited predispositions are - personal unity and integration. If we know ourselves and are honest with ourselves we have a better chance of enjoying life. Doing what comes naturally feels good and acting in sync with our natures is fulfilling. The opposite of this - trying to do what does not come naturally, leads to self-deception, internal conflict and a joyless life cut off from the roots of pleasure deep in our instinctive selves. ann hodgins
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) (11/30/90)
Milt Tinkoff writes: >I think I was a bit unclear. If a man stays with one woman then his >children by her will be protected, fed, etc. This happens whether he's >impregnated any other women or not. Therefore the more women he impregnates, >the more possible children will survive. It's even better if the women >are already with other men. So now the first man's children are being >cared for by other men who believe that the children are their own. So it >is advantageous for men to be polygamous as long as their own live-in partner >is not. Again, let me stress that all this is in theory. I personally >wouldn't want to live in such a society given the choice. You are assuming things that I don't think should be assumed. You are assuming that throughout pre-history (when our instincts were being developed) all women were able to raise children alone or else all women had a male protector who did not care whose children she was raising. I would assume that a woman who did not have a strong pair bond with a man would often find it hard to survive, both mother and child might die. One other possible strategy for women with children is to bond with other women. I would expect that did happen. It happens today. There is evidence that animal males (and maybe human males too) will automatically kill a female's offspring before mating with her. Even if our ancestors were not so brutal, previous offsprings might well get less protection, less food ect. from the new male and tend to die. a.h.
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) (11/30/90)
In article <5869@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: >rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >>partner "marriages" appeals to me most because it solves many problems >>at once. But this is a very sane kind of a relationship. I'm not >>sure I'm ready for anything *that* sane. <-; > > No relational arrangement is more "sane" than any other. It all depends >on what best suits your particular belief system. ... Every other commune in the 60's had a copy of >"Stranger in a Strange Land" that they took their living arrangements from. ******** My own beliefs about humans and monogamy are the result of coming of age in the 60s. Many people then truly believed that they could simply shed their 'hangups' and by following their hearts could have many happy and free sexual relationships with a variety of men and women. The consequences of this were tragicommic. People tried not to feel emotions like jealousy but did anyway. Eventually, the 'laid back' hippies would lose their self-control and erupt into screaming and fisticuffs. After watching these scenarios unfold for a while and after much soul searching I decided that the so called 'hang ups' were a basic part of human nature and something we have to face and accomodate. ann hodgins
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.180827.10813@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: >My own beliefs about humans and monogamy are the result of coming of age in >the 60s. Many people then truly believed that they could simply shed their >'hangups' and by following their hearts could have many happy and free sexual >relationships with a variety of men and women. >The consequences of this were tragicomic. People tried not to feel emotions >like jealousy but did anyway. Eventually, the 'laid back' hippies >would lose their self-control and erupt into screaming and fisticuffs. And what does it prove? That some hippies followed the Politically Correct standards of their time without really accepting them. When they realized that they didn't like what happened they "solved" the problem with violence, and not by some kind of soul searching and/or agreement. Not very surprising if we remember the hippies' refusal to think one step ahead... >After watching these scenarios unfold for a while and after much soul >searching I decided that the so called 'hang ups' were a basic part of >human nature and something we have to face and accommodate. It maybe a basic part of your nature, or even most people's nature, and yet not be basic part of human nature. E.g. Most people are straights; does that prove that being straight is a basic part of human nature? (Don't bother to answer, it is a rhetoric question...) >ann hodgins Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "When I was young and just coming out it was also the height of the second wave of the feminist movement (early '70's). It was true that there was some feeling that the only true feminist was a lesbian, because how could you sleep with the enemy? I must say, that for a lot of lesbians, it was an interesting time. Suddenly, a lot of women were interested in "trying out lesbians." Many of us made the mistake of falling in love and it was quite painful when these women decided to go back to their men. Now, you could argue that these women were not really bisexuals, just curious. I don't know. But I know that I learned to become cautious about falling in love with someone who wasn't committed to the lifestyle." -- Nancy Fox
bch@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) (11/30/90)
In <1990Nov29.180827.10813@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: >My own beliefs about humans and monogamy are the result of coming of age in >the 60s. Many people then truly believed that they could simply shed their >'hangups' and by following their hearts could have many happy and free sexual >relationships with a variety of men and women. >The consequences of this were tragicommic. People tried not to feel emotions >like jealousy but did anyway. Eventually, the 'laid back' hippies >would lose their self-control and erupt into screaming and fisticuffs. Having come of age in the '60s myself, I never actually witnessed this phenomenon. I did, however, see an emphasis on the more, um, spectacular features of relationships (like sex, living together) and the expense of the more delicate and important emotional components. Somewhere in there we got sex all mixed up with love, and I'm not sure they've been unscrambled since. Some folks made it just fine. I know many people who are quite happy in non-monogamous relationships that have continued for many years. As with other nontraditional lifestyles they aren't particularly open about them in an inherently conservative society, but they exist and are alive and well. Others of us are not. While not inherently a jealous sort, I'm emotionally confused by polygamy and prefer monogamous relationships. That's just who I am and what I prefer. Don't ask me why. >After watching these scenarios unfold for a while and after much soul >searching I decided that the so called 'hang ups' were a basic part of >human nature and something we have to face and accomodate. I think they're a basic part of some of our natures and if so, we ought to observe them. If not, there's no need. The only rub comes when someone who ought to be minding his or her own business tries to tell us that we should take our intimacy "with" or "without." Each of us can decide to handle what we want on our own. --Byron -- Byron Howes UNC Educational Computing Service bch@uncecs.edu W: 919/549-0671 H: 919/933-2859 P.O. Box 663, Carrboro, NC 27510-0663 "Ya talk the talk, but do ya walk the walk?" -- Animal Mother
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.201215.14890@uncecs.edu> bch@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) writes: >Others of us are not. While not inherently a jealous sort, I'm emotionally >confused by polygamy and prefer monogamous relationships. That's just who >I am and what I prefer. Don't ask me why. For some reason the above paragraph reminds me a bumper sticker that I saw a couple of days ago: "I'm from North Carolina, but I don't want to talk about that."
dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) (11/30/90)
In <1990Nov21.231047.5745@ariel.unm.edu> bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: >I am defining "promiscuity" to be having more than one sexual >partner at one time. Therefore, I can have more than one lover >and still be monogamous if I keep a sexual commitment to only >one person. For example, if I am married to one person and >only have sex with that one person then divorce and marry a >second person and only have sex with THAT one person, then I >have been monogamous. I think you're redefining terms to pervert (!) the question. Sure, some humans are monogamous. Many more believe they should be monogamous, but would have to admit that their own lives fall a bit short of this goal. The question is not "Are humans mmonogamous?", because we all know that they're not. The question is "Are humans NATURALLY monogamous?", because it involves an attempt to recruit support for the MORAL position that humans OUGHT to be monogamous, that to be otherwise is UNNATURAL and thus IMMORAL. If humans were NATURALLY monogamous, they would mate for life. Period. No dating around before marriage; no running around after marriage; no divorce. "Serial monogamy", such as you describe, is a rationalization, an attempt to make a behaviour which is NOT "natural monogamy" acceptible as a moral alternative while continuing to believe that something "other people" do, which is also not "natural monogamy", is still immoral and unnatural. "Natural" implies an inborn imperative. Your model of "serial monogamy" allows a person to choose different partners at different times in their lives; you CANNOT use this as an argument for an inborn rejection of different partners! If people "naturally" have the ability to choose different partners in their lives, then they, equally naturally, have the ability to choose different partners. We invest huge amounts of energy in this culture to encourage (and even enforce!) monogamy. If there were any sort of biological imperative for it, the combination would be unstoppable. The success rate of our culture in this area is so low that we must suspect that any biological imperative, if present, MUST be working in the other direction. Dave
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/30/90)
----- In article <1990Nov29.201215.14890@uncecs.edu> bch@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) writes: > Having come of age in the '60s myself, I never actually witnessed this > phenomenon. I did, however, see an emphasis on the more, um, spectacular > features of relationships (like sex, living together) and the expense of > the more delicate and important emotional components. Somewhere in there > we got sex all mixed up with love, and I'm not sure they've been unscrambled > since. Do you think there was ever a time when they were unscrambled?! If you think that sex and love have been scrambled together only since the 1960s, then you need to start reading more books that were written more than a century ago. Russell
A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) (11/30/90)
Just a note to remind people that this is sci.bio and not sci.bio.USA It is an International Network. Growing up in the 60s means different things in the USA in the UK and in Africa. In many parts of the world, it is still required for women to be circumsized and clitorectomized. To say that the feminist movement led to dissatisfaction between men and women is more true of the USA than other English-speaking countries I've experienced. Just a plea to remember that putting initials US $ would make things clearer for readers, rather than our having to guess where Waterloo or UNC might be, what State, what country, what hemisphere. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Chamove Massey University Psychology Palmerston North, New Zealand
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (11/30/90)
alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: >In article <5869@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: >> >> No relational arrangement is more "sane" than any other. It all depends >>on what best suits your particular belief system. ... >Every other commune in the 60's had a copy of >>"Stranger in a Strange Land" that they took their living arrangements from. > ******** >My own beliefs about humans and monogamy are the result of coming of age in >the 60s. Many people then truly believed that they could simply shed their >'hangups' and by following their hearts could have many happy and free sexual >relationships with a variety of men and women. >The consequences of this were tragicommic. People tried not to feel emotions >like jealousy but did anyway. Eventually, the 'laid back' hippies >would lose their self-control and erupt into screaming and fisticuffs. > >After watching these scenarios unfold for a while and after much soul >searching I decided that the so called 'hang ups' were a basic part of >human nature and something we have to face and accomodate. > Indeed. I saw it happen more than a few times myself. I think what it comes down to in the end is that we have to recogize what parts of us we're willing to change, and which we aren't and go from there. By the same token, we have to accept that in others as well. There are people who can live with multiple relationships and there are those that can't. Allowing our ego to assume that one way is better than the other only gets us into trouble, because we try to "rescue" them from their "hangups". I think it's better to accept who we are, and what we can live with, and make choices based upon that. >ann hodgins Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (11/30/90)
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1990Nov29.180827.10813@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes: > >>My own beliefs about humans and monogamy are the result of coming of age in >>the 60s. Many people then truly believed that they could simply shed their >>'hangups' and by following their hearts could have many happy and free sexual >>relationships with a variety of men and women. >>The consequences of this were tragicomic. People tried not to feel emotions >>like jealousy but did anyway. Eventually, the 'laid back' hippies >>would lose their self-control and erupt into screaming and fisticuffs. > >And what does it prove? > >That some hippies followed the Politically Correct standards of their >time without really accepting them. When they realized that they didn't >like what happened they "solved" the problem with violence, and not >by some kind of soul searching and/or agreement. > >Not very surprising if we remember the hippies' >refusal to think one step ahead... > Well, that's one way to deal with the argument, Hillel; just indict an entire group of people. God forbid you should have to deal with the question at hand. >>After watching these scenarios unfold for a while and after much soul >>searching I decided that the so called 'hang ups' were a basic part of >>human nature and something we have to face and accommodate. > >It maybe a basic part of your nature, or even most people's nature, >and yet not be basic part of human nature. > You're picking nits, here, Hillel. People deal with things in different ways. We don't *always* have to be open to *all* ideas. We don't always have to be willing to try every new idea that comes down the pike. It's quite all right to decide something based upon a generalization and act on it in order to feel comfortable with ourselves. I realize that's not politically correct by *your* standards, but, gee, we can't all be as perfect as you. >E.g. Most people are straights; does that prove that being straight >is a basic part of human nature? >(Don't bother to answer, it is a rhetoric question...) > Rhetorical questions *do* seem to be what you're best at. >>ann hodgins > >Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu > Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (11/30/90)
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >----- >In article <1990Nov29.201215.14890@uncecs.edu> bch@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) writes: >> Having come of age in the '60s myself, I never actually witnessed this >> phenomenon. I did, however, see an emphasis on the more, um, spectacular >> features of relationships (like sex, living together) and the expense of >> the more delicate and important emotional components. Somewhere in there >> we got sex all mixed up with love, and I'm not sure they've been unscrambled >> since. > >Do you think there was ever a time when they were unscrambled?! > Probably not. >If you think that sex and love have been scrambled together only >since the 1960s, then you need to start reading more books that >were written more than a century ago. > It's been going on forever, Russell. I don't think anyone would dispute that point. Each generation has to learn on its own, however. We thought we had something new and bold. In some cases we were correct. In many more we were wrong. Somewhere in there we *did* get confused. Pointing out that others before us were just as confused doesn't really mean anything. >Russell Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov23.015509.14871@massey.ac.nz>, A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > If instinctive behaviour is only vestigial in humans then why do we still > breathe when we are asleep, why do children commonly bond with their > parents, why is sex so important, et cetera. The whole science of This is bogus -- breathing is not instinctual, but is controlled in the autonomic nervous system via utterly explicable biochemical homeostatic feedback loops. There's nothing "instinctual" about it, and you can test this out for yourself while awake: hyperventilate. Do it until you can't stop. At this point you've simply taken one element out of the primary biochemical feedback loop for respiration -- CO2. Now, you can restart the loop via one of two ways: (1) the biological failsafe -- you hyperventilate until you're exausted, at which point you lose consciousness and stop breathing long enough for the CO2 concentration to build back up to homeostatic levels; (2) put a paper bag over your face -- the CO2 you exhale is re-inhaled from the bag, concentrations build back up to homeostatic levels, and you're cool again. (This is what happens when you get a OpSysAnalyst on the net <-;) As for the "bonding" of children to their parents, it's very different from the "bonding" of a duckling to the first critter it sees. The duckling bonds spontaneously -- there's no discrimination. But children can "un-bond" should they determine the bond is not in their best interests (okay, that's not what's going through their minds, but only because they lack the vocabulary to articulate it that way). And a baby's "bonding" is, at least according to my old developmental psych books, very diffuse at first, and then increases both as the organism is able to focus with greater acuity and as the being obtains recognition through repetition, something which has to do with evaluations of security and satisfaction rather than with *who* it is. > Sociobiology suggests that instinctive behaviour is very important (but > not exclusive of cultural effects). Quite true, but sociobiology is pretty bogus anyway. > Arnold Chamove OO \/ Rod
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (12/01/90)
In article <9382@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Ann Hodgins writes: > The opposite of this - trying to do what does not come naturally, leads to > self-deception, internal conflict and a joyless life cut off from the roots > of pleasure deep in our instinctive selves. Nice theory, like many others, but still only a theory. For openers, try 'clothing isn't natural.' How about a shot at self-deception and internal conflict being quite natural. Look around you, so many folks practice these more faithfully than any religion. And finally, it seems to be society's duty to tame the beast which the human being is, to prevent some of the instinctive selves from running wild and harming others. Bill.etc | All learning has an emotional base. - Plato
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) (12/01/90)
In article <9812@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Ann Hodgins writes: > You are assuming things that I don't think should be assumed. I believe reading your following leads one to the same conclusion. > You are assuming that throughout pre-history (when our instincts were being > developed) all women were able to raise children alone or else all women had > a male protector who did not care whose children she was raising. This seems to presuppose that the human being was a spontaneous creation. On the other hand, it seems that since the human emerged from hominids, that many if not most of our human "instincts" existed before we did. Given this tidbit, and the realization that hominids are, by definition, not human, we cannot make many assumptions about their morality, nor should we, as they were a different species. > I would assume that a woman who did not have a strong pair bond with a man > would often find it hard to survive, both mother and child might die. > One other possible strategy for women with children is to bond with other > women. I would expect that did happen. It happens today. There is a grand variety of successful gambits. I'm not at all sure I'd want to do live experiments to determine success rates, nor do I accept the validity of numerical analysis based on (mis)assumptions. > There is evidence that animal males (and maybe human males too) will > automatically kill a female's offspring before mating with her. Seems to me to be limited to a very few species. Also, the female of those species seems to accept the manuever without protest, and she subsequently mates with the male willingly. As far as I know, it is only human beings who have a relatively universal respect for the life of others of the species. Suggesting that human males are apt to kill previously conceived offspring prior to mating seems a pretty demented outlook to me. Bill.etc
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (12/02/90)
In article <593@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes: >In <1990Nov21.231047.5745@ariel.unm.edu> bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes: [one definition of serial monogamy] > I think you're redefining terms to pervert (!) the question. Sure, some >humans are monogamous. Many more believe they should be monogamous, but would >have to admit that their own lives fall a bit short of this goal. I don't think so. Before we can debate whether or not humans are naturally monogamous, we need to know what is meant by "monogamous." Do we allow serial monogamy? If not, why not? That is, what happens when a partner dies? Does that mean the surviving partner can never have another partner? Why not? Just because a person goes from one monogamous relationship to another doesn't mean the person is "deep inside" a polygamous person. There are many reasons why couples split up. > The question is not "Are humans mmonogamous?", because we all know that >they're not. The question is "Are humans NATURALLY monogamous?", because it >involves an attempt to recruit support for the MORAL position that humans >OUGHT to be monogamous, that to be otherwise is UNNATURAL and thus IMMORAL. The problem is that many people seem to think that humans are, somehow, "above" nature. They forget that humans are a part of nature and anything they do IS natural (given that there is no coercion). Some humans are polygamous. Some humans are monogamous. For example, my mother was monogamous. My father was not. The fact that each one existed/exists (respectively) shows that it is natural for humans to be polygamous and natural for humans to be monogamous. > If humans were NATURALLY monogamous, they would mate for life. Period. >No dating around before marriage; no running around after marriage; no divorce. >"Serial monogamy", such as you describe, is a rationalization, an attempt to >make a behaviour which is NOT "natural monogamy" acceptible as a moral >alternative while continuing to believe that something "other people" do, >which is also not "natural monogamy", is still immoral and unnatural. Again, what about situations where one partner dies? Where it becomes impossible for the two to stay together (due to an abusive spouse, inability to afford caring for the other spouse, or even (heaven forbid) sexual incompatibility (i.e., one partner discovers he is homosexual or they're heterosexual but are sexually incompatible and they both desire a sexual relationship etc.))? What is the definition of "monogamy"? > "Natural" implies an inborn imperative. Your model of "serial monogamy" >allows a person to choose different partners at different times in their lives; >you CANNOT use this as an argument for an inborn rejection of different >partners! If people "naturally" have the ability to choose different partners >in their lives, then they, equally naturally, have the ability to choose >different partners. No, they don't. If a person has only one partner, and that partner goes away, that person may or may not acquire another one. If he acquires another one, that does not imply that he could have done so at the time he was involved with the first person. After all, he's a monogamous person. Are you defining "monogamous" to mean that a person can have one partner and one partner only for the entire life even if the partner goes away? > We invest huge amounts of energy in this culture to encourage (and even >enforce!) monogamy. If there were any sort of biological imperative for it, >the combination would be unstoppable. The success rate of our culture in this >area is so low that we must suspect that any biological imperative, if present, >MUST be working in the other direction. I don't think so. People have desires and the fact that people have them implies that the desires are natural. People are confusing "natural" with "the norm" as if all characteristics have a majority expression. That is, it is "natural" to have brown eyes. Does that make it "unnatural" to have blue eyes? No. It is "the norm" to have brown eyes. In this case, it MIGHT be (I don't know so I'm not going on record as saying it is the case) that polygamy is "the norm." That doesn't make anything "unnatural." -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
rqdms@lims03.lerc.nasa.gov (Dennis Stockert) (12/04/90)
In article <593@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>, dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes... > > I think you're redefining terms to pervert (!) the question. Sure, some >humans are monogamous. Many more believe they should be monogamous, but would >have to admit that their own lives fall a bit short of this goal. > The question is not "Are humans mmonogamous?", because we all know that >they're not. The question is "Are humans NATURALLY monogamous?", because it >involves an attempt to recruit support for the MORAL position that humans >OUGHT to be monogamous, that to be otherwise is UNNATURAL and thus IMMORAL. > > If humans were NATURALLY monogamous, they would mate for life. Period. >No dating around before marriage; no running around after marriage; no divorce. >"Serial monogamy", such as you describe, is a rationalization, an attempt to >make a behaviour which is NOT "natural monogamy" acceptible as a moral >alternative while continuing to believe that something "other people" do, >which is also not "natural monogamy", is still immoral and unnatural. > > "Natural" implies an inborn imperative. Your model of "serial monogamy" >allows a person to choose different partners at different times in their lives; >you CANNOT use this as an argument for an inborn rejection of different >partners! If people "naturally" have the ability to choose different partners >in their lives, then they, equally naturally, have the ability to choose >different partners. > We invest huge amounts of energy in this culture to encourage (and even >enforce!) monogamy. If there were any sort of biological imperative for it, >the combination would be unstoppable. The success rate of our culture in this >area is so low that we must suspect that any biological imperative, if present, >MUST be working in the other direction. I tried to make this same point earlier in this thread in much simpler fashion (perhaps to the detriment of the point ;-) ... hope you have better luck than I did... *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * The meek shall inherit the earth; * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * the rest of us will go to the stars * ****************************************** Aviation Week ************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************
jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) (12/04/90)
Hmmmm. I don't think I agree with the turn this discussion has
taken. I recall spending some time visiting in a sexual dependency
clinic and the people there sure weren't happy. . . it made me wonder
about sexuality and whether or not monogamy made one healthier.
Well, I didn't get an answer, but it does seem that IF humans are
'naturally' monogamous, it would seem that these people had paid the
price for going against their nature. . . but, well, all of them had other
problems.
The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that it ALWAYS
happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can change to being left
handed with a great deal of work and trouble. (I admit, though, that I
have never remained left handed for long so I don't know if it gets easy)
Why could it not hold the same for other possibly inborn behaviors?
(ie I don't think that humans are not naturally monogamous because
they aren't monogamous. . . I think that one would have to find a large
incidence of happy polygamy to prove that they aren't)
Crazymanmilamber@caen.engin.umich.edu (Daryl Scott Cantrell) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov23.174050.10587@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> newman@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Bill Newman) writes: [...] >It is true that non-monogamous behavior is seldom observed in birds. >However, with the advent of fast and cheap DNA "fingerprinting" techniques >for paternity testing, it has become possible for us to >find out what the birds are doing when they think no one is watching, [...] There is someone "out there", right now, whose job it is to apply the latest biological technology to find out whether birds are secretly fooling around when we're not looking. Scary world. Sure am glad my species won evolution.. > Bill Newman > newman@theory.tn.cornell.edu -- +---------------------------------------+----------------------------+ | // Daryl S. Cantrell | These opinions are | | |\\\ milamber@caen.engin.umich.edu | shared by all of // | | |// Welcome to the Machine. | Humanity. \X/ | +---------------------------------------+----------------------------+
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (12/05/90)
----- This discussion of what is natural to humans is cross-posted to sci.bio, implying that it concerns what is natural in a scientific sense, not just in someone's particular religious or ethical ontology. Because religions and various ethical systems phrase their normative stances in terms of human nature, the natural is often confused with the desirable, from some viewpoint. In article <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) writes: > The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that > it ALWAYS happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can > change to being left handed with a great deal of work and trouble. The question of what is natural to *humans* is one about all of us as a group, rather than any one of us as as an individual. Almost all humans develop a prefered handedness. Most prefer the right hand. Some prefer the left hand. Despite such preference, humans can learn motor skills on either side; permitting individual desire, parental training, or cultural imperative to influence one's handedness. Some claim that innate handedness shows through any such training, though the evidence for this is more subtle. > ... I recall spending some time visiting in a sexual dependency > clinic and the people there sure weren't happy. . . it made me > wonder about sexuality and whether or not monogamy made one > healthier. > Well, I didn't get an answer, but it does seem that IF humans are > 'naturally' monogamous, it would seem that these people had paid the > price for going against their nature. . . Those are very appropriate scare quotes. Whether a behavior is the healthiest way to live, or whether it carries a psychological price, has very little to do with whether it is natural. Such assumptions reflect the naturalistic fallacy (good=natural) that is so common in these discussions. To name an easy counterexample, war is consistent with human nature. There are grave doubts that this is the least costly, 'healthiest', or best way to resolve the conflicts that have caused it. > ie I don't think that humans are not naturally monogamous because > they aren't monogamous. . . The presence of polygamous cultures is proof that polygamy is consistent with human nature. The presence of monogamous cultures is proof that monogamy is consistent with human nature. Attempts to show that one of these is "more natural" than the other in some deeper and universal sense reflects the desire to read one's ethics into nature, or conversely, to usurp the word "natural" to give weight to one's ethical arguments. (Are they so weak they cannot stand without such trickery?) > ... I think that one would have to find a large incidence of > happy polygamy to prove that they aren't I know of no evidence that those in polygamous cultures are in general less happy than those in monogamous cultures. Even if there is such evidence, it would NOT show that monogamy is natural. "Natural" does NOT mean "that which promotes the happiest or best culture". (Indeed, there is no reason to think that nature works toward optimal happiness for individuals or cultures. In both cases, the qualities that are naturally propagated are those that are encoded in memes or genes that are successful at reproducing themselves in a given environment. Individuals who are suicidal depressives may be less likely than others to successfully reproduce, but those who are chronically dissatisfied or who behave in ways that lead to conflict may well do better at propagating their genes than those who are placidly happy.) Russell
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (12/05/90)
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > >In article <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer) writes: >> The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that >> it ALWAYS happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can >> change to being left handed with a great deal of work and trouble. > >The question of what is natural to *humans* is one about all of >us as a group, rather than any one of us as as an individual. >Almost all humans develop a prefered handedness. Most prefer the >right hand. Some prefer the left hand. Despite such preference, >humans can learn motor skills on either side; permitting >individual desire, parental training, or cultural imperative to >influence one's handedness. Some claim that innate handedness >shows through any such training, though the evidence for this is >more subtle. > Nope. Handedness is determined by several things, but cultural or individual imperitatives are not among them. Currently, there are 3 identified determinors; heredity, a trauma to the head while still in the womb, and a massive release of testosterone into the womb just prior to birth. Personally I'd find suggestions that my left-handedness was learned to be on par with suggestions that gays are made, not born. I have been left-handed as long as I can remember, and it would feel extremely uncomfortable to attempt to learn certain motor skills with my right-hand. Of course, we are forced to do that to a certain extent, since we live in a right-handed world, so that may be where the fallacy comes from. The fact that southpaws have learned to adapt doesn't mean much in terms of evidence; put a righty in front of a pencil sharpener with the handle on the left side and you'll see what I mean. You can hear the screams of rage halfway down the block. Quite frankly, if you're right-handed, you can have no conception of what you're asserting. If you're left-handed, I'd suggest a subscription to Lefthander Magazine. It might be enlightening. > >Russell Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (12/05/90)
In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: >Personally I'd find suggestions that my left-handedness was learned to be on >par with suggestions that gays are made, not born. What difference does it make if gay are born this way, or they are made this way, or they choose to be this way? Why does it have any importance?
geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (12/05/90)
In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: > > Nope. Handedness is determined by several things, but cultural or >individual imperitatives are not among them. Currently, there are 3 While most people have a "natural" handedness, it can be changed if done forcefully at an early age. Yes, we can usually tell if someone has been changed (even if they don't remember). Those who were changed are always left handers changed to right, usually older people who went to catholic schools. For some reason about 40 years ago, nuns who taught grade school forced leftys to write with the right hands. Parents also forced young children to change. Some tricks you can use is to see if the person is left-eyed and left footed. If so, you might suspect they were changed. The practice seems to be dying out, and parents and nuns no longer do this. Another reason people may be forced to change is a stroke of the dominent hemisphere. If this happens in a young child, they will become normally dextrous in the non-dominant hand. Older people will probably never become as dextrous as they were if this happens later.
rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (StarChaser) (12/06/90)
In article <6091@crash.cts.com>, rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes... >............................... The fact that southpaws have learned to >adapt doesn't mean much in terms of evidence; put a righty in front of a >pencil sharpener with the handle on the left side and you'll see what I mean. One of the best "lefty inconveniences" I've come across is the fact the all the openings on pants and underwear point right.... not that that has anything to do with romance... ;-) *********************************************************************** * Dennis Stockert * The meek shall inherit the earth; * * rqdms@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * the rest of us will go to the stars * ****************************************** Aviation Week ************** * No one that knows me would mistake my opinions for those of * * any respectable organization * ***********************************************************************
clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (12/06/90)
This is straying rather far from the topic, but what the hell... In article <3067@igloo.scum.com> learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill HMRP Vajk) writes: > >As far as I know, it is only human beings who have a relatively universal >respect for the life of others of the species. Suggesting that human males >are apt to kill previously conceived offspring prior to mating seems a pretty >demented outlook to me. > I dunno about "regular folks," but if you read much history you'll find that a behavior much like that happened quite often in the courts of rulers, pretty much everywhere in the world -- my qualification would be that it usually happens AFTER mating with the new partner, not before, and that the instigator is as likely, or more likely, to be the female. Think, just for example, of the Roman Empire, where Emperor's wife #2 regularly poisons the sons of wife #1. And why is it that in fairy tales, the stepmother is always wicked, hmm? Sending Hansel and Gretel off to die of starvation in the woods... --K -- ........................................................................... : Kathy Strong : "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot, : : (Clouds moving slowly) : and everything's blurry" : : clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : --El Arroyo : :..........................................................................:
eellis@leo.unm.edu (Eli) (12/06/90)
Man I am getting tired of seeing this damn article. Just face reality. Some people are the type to stay monogamous to whomever they choose or are chosen by. While others are compelled to make love/fuck all the different people they are attracted to. So some are monogamous by choice and others are not. Some are honest about it and others are not. Ok? Ok....
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (12/06/90)
In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>, A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: > Rod > > You say (about drinking alcohol) that > 1--there is no sane reason for it > 2--that it does nothing to promote survival > 3--ideally no one would do it That's right. > > The interesting thing about alcohol drinking is > 1-that it is so universally performed > 2-that so many sane people do it. I agree with point #1; but what makes you think point #2 is true? > > It has a lot of calories which are desirable in less-affluent countries. Nutritionists used to call these "empty calories." Dunno what they call 'em these days, but what's so good about them. The metabolite of alcohol (acetylaldehyde) is a potent free radical that does no one good. In fact, one of the interesting things you may observe about strict Mormons is that they tend to look quite a bit younger than members of other religions their own age. Now, not all of this is due to the fact they (the strict ones) don't drink alcohol, but that has a lot to do with it. > It makes people feel good. Short-term feelings of drug-induced well-being followed by the "hangover." > It is relaxing. In small amounts it acts as a stimulant, in larger doses it acts as a depressant, and in big, big doses it kills. > It seems to have unspecified "beneficial" social properties. Only in a "drug society" would anyone suggest such a sill thing. > > It seems to me that people behave very sanely, and insane or irrational > behaviour is quite rare. OF course there is a lot of behaviour that Obviously, you don't have freeways in New Zealand! <-; > OTHERS do that does not act in our interest (someone drinking and then > driving; someone making millions for themselves by cutting down the > rainforest; someone trying to improve their scientific career by > introducing African bees to South America). I wonder if we understood > behaviour rather more, if we could understand the reason/rationalle for > even people who appear to go berzerk and kill several others apparently > without cause. > So, since when does an irrational act by one make an irrational act by another "rational"? > Arnold Chamove OO \/ Rod
rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) (12/06/90)
In article <17570@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > In article <59261@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >In article <16791@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > >> In article <59079@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: > >> >we survive by virtue of our rational faculty. > >> > >> Surely not only that? Mating is an important part of > >> racial survival, but mating seems to have a very necessary > >> bit of irrationality about it :-). > > > >Which is? > > Love. And sex. Both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden present definitions of "love" which are based on the idea of a rational love. Not bad definitions, as such things go, either. You can find these in Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED, and in Branden's THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ROMANTIC LOVE. Or, for a real humdinger, <-: you can wait for me to finish my book. As far as I can tell, I've formulated the most comprehensive definition which takes in not only rational love, but also irrational love. As for sex, I can think of all kinds of examples of both rational and irrational sex. Can't you? > > >And why? > > Beats the shit out of me :-). In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. > > >Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an > >idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic > >or necessary to our survival. > > There's more to life than survival. I don't think love > would be as rewarding as it is, were it reducible to purely > logical components. Rationality is overrated. Logic is only > one minor function of the human brain, and in some ways a > trivial one. We can program machines to be logical, but we > can't (yet, at least) program them to appreciate beauty, to > feel love, or to understand self-sacrifice. And from the crow's nest, you illustrate that you do not understand the difference between "rationality" and logic. Hint: Logic is a tool of cognition; rationality is a faculty. > > - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > ---------------------------------------------------------------- OO \/ Rod
barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/06/90)
In article <59598@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: >As far as I can tell, I've formulated the most comprehensive definition >which takes in not only rational love, but also irrational love. I'm sure your book will be of great interest to people who think life and love can be reduced to a system. >As for sex, I can think of all kinds of examples of both rational and >irrational sex. Can't you? No, I can't. I've never known a person with a rational sex drive, though I've known some who insisted on rationalizing theirs. Most who like sex with men don't like it with women; those who like it with women don't like it with men. This is rational? Person A gets hot for asses; B for breasts; C for cocks; D for domination; E for enemas; F for frottage. I could go all the way through the alphabet, and I would have only begun to cover the variations. Why does ear-nibbling drive one person to distraction, and leave another unmoved? Where is the rationality in all these diverse preferences? >In article <17570@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> Beats the shit out of me :-). > >In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. You must be right. I mean, I've never even come up with the "most comprehensive definition of love" ever invented :-). - El Amor Brujo - Kenn Barry ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: apple!netcom!barry
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (12/06/90)
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: >>Personally I'd find suggestions that my left-handedness was learned to be on >>par with suggestions that gays are made, not born. > >What difference does it make if gay are born this way, >or they are made this way, or they choose to be this way? > >Why does it have any importance? The difference, Hillel, is that once someone decides they are made and not born, it's a much shorter step to deciding that they can change if they "really want to", and the person deciding begins coming up with tactics to *make* them want to. In the case of handedness, this belief led teachers to beat my grandmother and mother's hands, tie their left-hands behind them, and generally make them ashamed of what they were. In my case it was more subtle. Just a teacher proudly announcing she'd never give an "A" in handwriting to a left-handed person because we slanted our letters the "wrong" way, and determinedly holding my wrist down so I couldn't hook my hand when writing, then belittling me when I smeared ink across the page. And all because of a belief that we could be right-handed "if we really wanted to". Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) (12/07/90)
In article <6128@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: In an article for which I've lost the reference, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) asked: >What difference does it make if gay are born this way, >or they are made this way, or they choose to be this way? And, in article <6128@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) responds: > The difference, Hillel, is that once someone decides they are >made and not born, it's a much shorter step to deciding that they >can change if they "really want to", and the person deciding begins >coming up with tactics to *make* them want to. In the case of >handedness, this belief led teachers to beat my grandmother and >mother's hands, tie their left-hands behind them, and generally >make them ashamed of what they were. In my case it was more >subtle. Just a teacher proudly announcing she'd never give an >"A" in handwriting to a left-handed person because we slanted >our letters the "wrong" way, and determinedly holding my wrist >down so I couldn't hook my hand when writing, then belittling >me when I smeared ink across the page. And all because of a >belief that we could be right-handed "if we really wanted to". Well, I think you're both right. The real problem that Bob brings up is *not* the belief that handedness is a matter of choice and subject to change; the problem-- the _evil_ if you will, is the belief that handedness ought to be made to conform to a standard and that no liberty is to be permitted a person to write as befits that person's style. It's easier to argue against submitting to that kind of control if you permit yourself to argue that it wasn't a matter of choice, but I believe that a person who has equal facility to write with either hand ought to be permitted the choice of which one to use-- or of which to use when. No? -- mara@dorsai.com cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik Life is too important to be taken seriously.
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (12/08/90)
In article <1990Dec7.133845.9204@panix.uucp> mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) writes: >It's easier to argue against submitting to that kind of control if you >permit yourself to argue that it wasn't a matter of choice, but I >believe that a person who has equal facility to write with either hand >ought to be permitted the choice of which one to use-- or of which to >use when. > >No? Yes. Well put. Homosexual people frequently defend themselves by saying that it is not a matter of choice and that at least 10% of the population is gay. I don't care if there was only *1* homosexual and if he consiously chose to be homosexual - it's simply nobody's business. -- Scott Amspoker | Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | "I'm going out for a sandwich" (505) 345-5232 | - Ben unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (12/09/90)
In article <1473@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes: >Yes. Well put. Homosexual people frequently defend themselves by >saying that it is not a matter of choice and that at least 10% of the >population is gay. I don't care if there was only *1* homosexual and >if he consiously chose to be homosexual - it's simply nobody's business. It's nobody's business as long as it's nobody's business. But what if somebody else thinks it's their business, too? They might do this, for example, if they become aware of another person's behavior and they don't like it. We may say we believe in personal freedom, and even freedom of expression. But I don't know anybody who really acts like they do all the time. For example, Scott, if I consciously choose to start writing all kinds of things that you find insulting and offensive, will you be willing to give your life to defend my freedom of expression? Voltaire said he he would die to preserve your right to say anything you want to say. How many people would be willing to do that? Nobody I know, that's for sure. I know a lot of people who are willing to make big sacrifices to guarantee their OWN freedom of expression (including me), but who really, truly cares whether someone else has all the same freedoms? For example, Fundamentalist Christians are one group who seem to play the role of "niggers" on the NET. Whenever the rednecks of the world need someone to run down and revile, they talk about the "fairies", "faggots", and "homosex-shuls". But on the NET, when we need someone to run down and revile, we recruit the Fundamentalist Christians. I have a hard time figuring out the basis for considering either homosexuals or Christians being more or less deserving to have their practices interfered with or insulted. Of course, a devotee of either camp would see obvious differences. How many of us with all our wonderful respect for freedom of choice and expression would really care to give our lives to guaranteeing that Fundamentalist Christians will have the right to practice their faith? Many people here will say what a terrible thing it is for a homosexual to be insulted in the media, and stand by silently when a Fundamentalist Christian gets the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Organized Religion. But if a person gets on the NET and wants to bash homosexuals, everyone will try to stop them. If a person wants to bash Fundamentalists, it's open season. Why? -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (12/09/90)
mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) writes: >In article <6128@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: > > > The difference, Hillel, is that once someone decides they are > >made and not born, it's a much shorter step to deciding that they > >can change if they "really want to", and the person deciding begins > >coming up with tactics to *make* them want to. In the case of > >handedness, this belief led teachers to beat my grandmother and > >mother's hands, tie their left-hands behind them, and generally > >make them ashamed of what they were. In my case it was more > >subtle. Just a teacher proudly announcing she'd never give an > >"A" in handwriting to a left-handed person because we slanted > >our letters the "wrong" way, and determinedly holding my wrist > >down so I couldn't hook my hand when writing, then belittling > >me when I smeared ink across the page. And all because of a > >belief that we could be right-handed "if we really wanted to". > >Well, I think you're both right. > >The real problem that Bob brings up is *not* the belief that handedness >is a matter of choice and subject to change; the problem-- the _evil_ >if you will, is the belief that handedness ought to be made to conform >to a standard and that no liberty is to be permitted a person to write >as befits that person's style. > Okay. >It's easier to argue against submitting to that kind of control if you >permit yourself to argue that it wasn't a matter of choice, but I >believe that a person who has equal facility to write with either hand >ought to be permitted the choice of which one to use-- or of which to >use when. > >No? > I suppose; as long as you keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of ambidexterous people are "naturally" left-handed. >-- >mara@dorsai.com cmcl2!panix!mara > Mara Chibnik > Life is too important to be taken seriously. Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) (12/09/90)
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > >For example, Fundamentalist Christians are one group who seem to play >the role of "niggers" on the NET. Whenever the rednecks of the world >need someone to run down and revile, they talk about the "fairies", >"faggots", and "homosex-shuls". But on the NET, when we need someone >to run down and revile, we recruit the Fundamentalist Christians. >I have a hard time figuring out the basis for considering either >homosexuals or Christians being more or less deserving to have their >practices interfered with or insulted. Of course, a devotee of either >camp would see obvious differences. > Well, for one thing, Dan, I've never known a gay who felt it was their responsibility to make the rest of the world act the same way they do. And, BTW, if you could offer me an example of how fundamentalists are "interfered with", I'd like to hear it. Personally I could care less what someone's religious beliefs are, as long as they offer me the same respect. Unfortunately, try telling a bible-thumper you're a Methodist Zen-Taoist who still believes himself to be a Christian, and see what sort of reaction you get. >How many of us with all our wonderful respect for freedom of choice >and expression would really care to give our lives to guaranteeing >that Fundamentalist Christians will have the right to practice their >faith? Many people here will say what a terrible thing it is for a >homosexual to be insulted in the media, and stand by silently when >a Fundamentalist Christian gets the same thing. > I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the press. What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to "protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies. >Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Organized Religion. But if a >person gets on the NET and wants to bash homosexuals, everyone will >try to stop them. If a person wants to bash Fundamentalists, it's >open season. Why? > Maybe because they come looking for arguments. I'll agree that it's an unfortunate stereotype. I'm sure there's lots of Christians reading this conference who have no desire to convert anyone. Unfortunately, all we see are those who do want to make everyone believe the same way they do. Another example of being damned by association. > >-- >Dan Mocsny Snail: Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com
milleraj@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Andy) (12/10/90)
In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: |Personally I'd find suggestions that my left-handedness was learned to be on |par with suggestions that gays are made, not born. I have been left-handed as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually there is considerable evidence that both genetics and environment affect this, but most of that has been heavily suppressed by activist organizations. Surprise, surprise. |Bob c/o The OTH Gang |rcf@pnet01.cts.com
vvrcd@csduts1.lerc.nasa.gov (Robert Dibacco) (12/10/90)
Hello I am a Christian and I Do NOT run around trying to convert people. If somebody asks me I will testify of my beliefs. I personally hate period when people of any persusaion "bash" each other. I very rarely post to boards out on the net for just this reason however I felt I should speak on this on. My experiences with "many" Christians is that they think they have arrived when in reality they are covering up alot of inner struggles through their actions. I am not perfect and do not claim to be and my faith in God keeps me strong so Please lets not turn this into a "christian" bashing thing on this board. Sincerely, Bob DiBacco
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (12/10/90)
In article <6195@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: > Well, for one thing, Dan, I've never known a gay who felt it was their >responsibility to make the rest of the world act the same way they do. And, Gay organizations are involved in politics. What is politics, Bob? Politics is a bunch of people competing to see who will change the others' behavior in *some* way. I understand that gays generally do not try to change other people's sexual orientation (let's restrict the discussion to life outside of prisons), but is this because of noble motives, or the realization that such is futile? I am not saying that gays should avoid politics. Obviously, gays are oppressed now, and the political process may allow them to reduce that oppression. But it seems clear to me that gays want to change the way the mainstream treats them and *thinks about them*. This to me seems like another form of proselyting, albeit a less blatant one. Call me cynical if you like, but I wonder what things would be like if 90% of the world was gay and 10% was straight. Would gays cheerfully tolerate straights and treat them with respect equal to that which they treated each other? We will never know, but consider the example set by the Christians. In their early history, they were a violently oppressed minority. The Romans fed them to the lions for public entertainment. Then, after Christians became the majority, they established huge, corrupt bureaucracies, instituted progroms and crusades and inquisitions, etc. I suspect that anytime one particular group gets too much power relative to other groups, it will be controlled by bastards, regardless of its putative charter, lofty aims and claims, etc. >BTW, if you could offer me an example of how fundamentalists are "interfered >with", I'd like to hear it. One has to strain to locate examples of such in the USA, but in some other countries examples are a little more obvious. Religious oppression is alive and well in many parts of the world today. Being a fundamentalist christian is a rather dangerous occupation in many parts of the world. Of course, so is being a member of any locally unpopular religion. The quickest cure for religious oppression is to convert your oppressors to your particular belief system. Fundamentalist christians try to do this, and so do gay rights advocates. I don't see anything wrong with this, it's exactly why we have constitutional protection for free speech. We don't protect free speech so people can enjoy listening to themselves, but to give them a chance to CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE'S MINDS. > Personally I could care less what someone's >religious beliefs are, as long as they offer me the same respect. Then you do care what their religious beliefs are. Period. >Unfortunately, try telling a bible-thumper you're a Methodist Zen-Taoist who >still believes himself to be a Christian, and see what sort of reaction you >get. You could get a more violent reaction in many areas of the world torn by sectarian strife (need some examples?). Religious intolerance is not unique to bible-thumpers by any means. Religious intolerance seems to be a natural consequence of organized religion. We might be able to generalize this to: Intolerance is a natural consequence of organization, or maybe of human nature. > I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the >press. What press are you reading? In intellectual circles, fundamentalists are a laughingstock. > What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to >"protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who >thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies. I was not aware that the constitution had anything to say about a person's right to drive while intoxicated. I was not aware, even, that the constitution granted any right to drive. > Maybe because they come looking for arguments. I'll agree that it's an >unfortunate stereotype. Any time you want to change a person's mind about something, you "come looking for arguments". Who does not do this? You are doing it even now. > I'm sure there's lots of Christians reading this >conference who have no desire to convert anyone. Unfortunately, all we see >are those who do want to make everyone believe the same way they do. Another >example of being damned by association. Consider how the above passage would read if reworded to condescend to gays instead of christians: "I'm sure there's lots of gays reading this conference who have no desire to infect anyone with AIDS. Unfortunately, all we see are those well-publicized cases of gays who knowingly infected thousands of others with the disease. Another example of being damned by association." Bob, if anyone is being "damned by association", it is because "all we see" is whatever we want to see. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) (12/12/90)
In article <6917@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: >In article <6195@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: >> Well, for one thing, Dan, I've never known a gay who felt it was their >>responsibility to make the rest of the world act the same way they do. And, > >We will never know, but consider the example set by the Christians. >In their early history, they were a violently oppressed minority. >The Romans fed them to the lions for public entertainment. Then, after >Christians became the majority, they established huge, corrupt >bureaucracies, instituted progroms and crusades and inquisitions, >etc. I suspect that anytime one particular group gets too much >power relative to other groups, it will be controlled by bastards, >regardless of its putative charter, lofty aims and claims, etc. > When a religious organization is small and powerless, its members are forced to develop their faith. Since there are usually political, economic, and frequently criminal prices to pay for the affiliation, those who retain that affiliation usually take it seriously. Paradoxically, this often leads to great belssings for the adherents; though skeptics scoff, faith is powerful. Anyway, time passes, non-believers are attracted to the faith by virtue of its rewards, and the belief grows in numbers. Unfortunately, it usually also grows in economic and political clout. Humility shrivels and is replaced by pride and even arrogance. People rely increasingly on political power instead of spiritual power. What remains is only the shell of what once was a life-giving faith. Note that while I said "religious organization," in fact most political groups share the same pathology. In Sunday's Red Star (the local leftist daily :-( ), an econazi was telling one and all how Christmas tree farmers must "be put out of business" by regulation or law for environmental reasons. >>BTW, if you could offer me an example of how fundamentalists are "interfered ^^^^^^^^^^ >>with", I'd like to hear it. ^^^^ "Your orders are therefore to hasten your operations with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state. . ." Missouri Governor Boggs to General Clark of the Missouri state militia in the fall of 1838 (sorry, I don't have the exact date handy) The next day, the heroic militia killed 17 Mormons, nobly making sure that the women among the murdered at least had the pleasure of sexual intercourse before their deaths. (No doubt the women were beside themselves with joy and gratitude.) To be sure, the order was later rescinded--about 140 years later. Nor was extermination the only "interference" Mormons faced. Both Utah and Idaho were forced to add bans on polygamy to their state constitutions before they were admitted to the Union. After admission, the duly elected representative from Utah was refused a seat in the House of Representatives because he had practiced polygamy. But the writer wanted current grievances, no doubt, and probably wants to exclude Mormons from the discussion anyway. So how about: 1.) Forced blood transfusions on the children of Seventh Day Adventists 2.) Forced medical treatment on the children of Christian Scientists. Locally (Minneapolis, MN), the Hennepin County attorney is trying to get manslaughter charges reinstated against the mother and step-father of a boy who died of (I think) diabetic coma. The charges were dismissed once by a judge who can actually read the 1st Amendment, but the prosecutor (who evidently cannot) is still trying to send the grieving parent and step-parent to jail. This same attorney investigated two cases of euthanasia where the physicians who administered the fatal medications are known, and decided not to prosecute. 3.) Christians of many persuasions are daily forced to pay taxes to support any number of abhorrent and repugnant practices and programs. A trivial but visible example: Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and many others) paid to have Robert Mapelthorpe's "work" produced and propagated. Less trivial examples include support for numerous thugs and dictators whose only charm was that they were anti- communist--which you could fairly say of Hitler, too. 4.) Amish people finally won a MN state supreme court victory that exempts them from having to display a slow-moving vehicle symbol on their buggies. They object on religious grounds, and several fined and jailed. It is settled in MN (for now), but I do not know about other states. It is Politically Correct (i.e., wrong) to claim that the children are too young to make informed choices and that Big Brother has an obligation to protect them until they are old enough to choose to be as stupid as their parents. This conveniently ignores reality: First, there is a price paid for liberty. That price is error. The price some children pay for what I consider to be a misinterpretation of Scripture is sad. The price children pay in Belfast and Beirut is sadder. Second, it is nearly always true that parents care for their children more than anyone else. Parents may make errors. So, too, can social workers. Third, doctors screw up, too. Being treated medically != guaranteed health. BTW: humans are not naturally monogamous. -- : gray@rsvl.unisys.com : "There are four kinds of : : : homicide: felonious, excusable, : : Unisys has enough problems without being : justifiable, and praiseworthy." : : blamed for my personal opinions. : --Ambrose Bierce :
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec5.154838.22805@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: )In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: )> Nope. Handedness is determined by several things, but cultural or )>individual imperitatives are not among them. Currently, there are 3 )Yes, we can usually tell if someone has been changed (even if they don't )remember). Some tricks you can use is to see if the person is left-eyed )and left footed. If so, you might suspect they were changed. "Suspect" is right. I'm right-eyed, mostly but not strongly right handed, ambipeditous, with the left foot slightly dominant. Figure that one out... -- Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure. Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu "(Envision Nietzsche whirling in his grave: "Verdammnt! And there were *four movies*!!!")" --CJE
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (12/12/90)
In article <59596@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes: )In article <1990Nov26.005512.16483@massey.ac.nz>, A.S.Chamove@massey.ac.nz (A.S. Chamove) writes: )> You say (about drinking alcohol) that )> 1--there is no sane reason for it )> 2--that it does nothing to promote survival )> 3--ideally no one would do it )That's right. I'll ignore 1 and 3, since if 2 is true then they are both false. #2 is false for several reasons, some historial, others not. First, most telling and most current, moderate alcohol consumption has been shown to significantly reduce the likelyhood and effects of heart disease and high blood pressure. Moderate is translated by the medical community as a couple of glasses of beer or wine a day. No, drinking twice as much isn't twice as good for you. Historically alcoholic beverages were used to store grain for long periods of time (beer has nutritional value aside from its alcoholic content) and as means of providing disinfected fluids (which it is only somewhat good at, since it is also a diuretic.) Now then, if you'll amend that claim to 'drinking alcohol to excess', then we are closer to agreement, and you are arguing on solider ground. )> The interesting thing about alcohol drinking is )> 1-that it is so universally performed )> 2-that so many sane people do it. )I agree with point #1; but what makes you think point #2 is true? The majority is, by definition, sane. Therefore 2 comes from 1. )> It is relaxing. )In small amounts it acts as a stimulant, in larger doses it acts as a )depressant, and in big, big doses it kills. Thus betraying your ignorance of the subject. Or, rather, mearly that you are several decades behind the times. Alcohol is *never* a stimulant, unless you want to burn something. It is a depressant drug. -- Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure. Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu "(Envision Nietzsche whirling in his grave: "Verdammnt! And there were *four movies*!!!")" --CJE
cadp15@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec5.154838.22805@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: > >> >> Nope. Handedness is determined by several things, but cultural or >>individual imperitatives are not among them. Currently, there are 3 > > While most people have a "natural" handedness, it can be changed if > done forcefully at an early age. Yes, we can usually tell if someone > has been changed (even if they don't remember). Those who were changed [deleted stuff] > Parents also forced young children to change. Some tricks you can use > is to see if the person is left-eyed and left footed. If so, you might > suspect they were changed. The practice seems to be dying out, and [and more...] I'm neither left 'handed' nor right 'handed' - I'm totally abidexterous, with my right side slightly dominant for some things and my left side slightly dominant for others... My right eye is slightly dominant over short distances, with my left eye being dominant over long distance. Writing is the only thing which I cannot do well with my left hand (though I have done it a few times). Handedness can vary, as far as I go what side becomes dominant depends upon which side gets the most practice - and even then it needs to do it a heck of a lot to become dominant. (eg, I do archery and for the first 9 years only shot right-handed. I then had to teach and demonstrate to a group of left-handers and did so, left handed, with no trouble...). Just goes to show you cannot believe everything you hear :-) -- #include xmas.sig /******************************************************************************* * The Sorcerer man be 'Only visiting this planet' but wishes you a merry * * Christmas and a happy New Year. He can still be found at: * * * * JANET: cadx862@uk.ac.strathclyde.computer-centre-sun * * cadp15 @uk.ac.strathclyde.vaxb * * INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via ukacrl UUCP: via ukc.uucp * * * * or second star to the right and straight on 'till morning. * *******************************************************************************/
curtis@duck2.ingr.com (12/18/90)
In article <6899@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: |> We may say we believe in personal freedom, and even freedom of |> expression. But I don't know anybody who really acts like they do |> all the time. For example, Scott, if I consciously choose to start |> writing all kinds of things that you find insulting and offensive, |> will you be willing to give your life to defend my freedom of |> expression? Does the fact that you are writing these things mean that you would *still* give *your* life to let Scott do the same thing??? |> Voltaire said he he would die to preserve your right to say anything |> you want to say. How many people would be willing to do that? I'd do it for anyone who does it for me. That's the contract. Take it or leave it. If you're not willing to play by those rules, then I refuse to die for what you have to say. Voltaire may have been cheaper, but that's *my* price. If you don't respect me, don't expect me to respect you. |> I have a hard time figuring out the basis for considering either |> homosexuals or Christians being more or less deserving to have their |> practices interfered with or insulted. Of course, a devotee of either |> camp would see obvious differences. Only in *some* cases. Both groups are vast and quite diverse. The only way to deal with such a large entity is through stereotyping. Depending on which "camp" you are in, you have *very* different stereotypes of each other... At least that's a good way to get those arguments started... |> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Organized Religion. But if a |> person gets on the NET and wants to bash homosexuals, everyone will |> try to stop them. If a person wants to bash Fundamentalists, it's |> open season. Why? Perhaps there are a *majority* of people on the NET that act like that. Not *everyone* acts in that manner. Right now I believe you're trying to create a NET-stereotype as well... O O O IB: Curtis Sieber O O O OlOlOl EMAIL: uunet!ingr!b11!duck2!curtis lOlOlO OlOlOl USMAIL: Rt 2 Box 551, Somerville, AL 35670 lOlOlO l l l VOICE: (205) 498-3206 (unlikely to reach me) l l l ALT: curtis@duck2.b11.ingr.com
stevet@brahms.udel.edu (Steven J Turnauer) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec17.144644.9498@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cadp15@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes: >Just goes to show you cannot believe everything you hear :-) > >-- Hmmmm, I don't know if I can believe this... Steve
sethb@Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) (12/28/90)
from an interview in the Feb. 26, 1990 issue of the New Yorker, with Roger Payne (an expert on whales), talking about mating behavior: "Thirty-three species of primates have been studied in which something is known about both the weight of the testes in the males and their techniques of mating--whether a given female mates with one male or with several males. If you plot a graph of testes weight versus body size, you discover that those primate species in which several males mate with the same female have testes that are much larger than those in which only one male mates with a female..." "And how about human beings?" I ask. "Where do we fall on this chart?" Roger laughs. "Yes, that's the tantalizing question. If you look at the chart, everything with outsized tested is several males mating with a female, and everything with small testes is a monogamous species, in which females and males are faithful to each other. Human beings lie right on the border- line, and it's hard to predict which side they're going to fall toward." So I guess that settles the issue... Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com