Sexual freedom

[ravengod]

In a communist society is sex goingto be restricted?
Or should I ask: the freedom of sexual manifestation and orientation should be prohibited or not?
I think not! Freedom in any sort should be protected especially in a commy society!

[Domitian]

Seconded. (Agreed)

[eleventeen crayon]

sexual libertion! i agree completely.

[redstar2000]

Of course!

It is unfortunate that there has been, from time to time, a puritanical current in communist thought.

But I hope by now we are FAR beyond it.

:cool:

[mentalbunny]

No restrictions but I think that morally you should keep to one partner at a time in most circumstances. Obviously it is up to the individual and I'm not banning group sex or wife-swapping but I think that there should be no pressure to have loads of sexual partners during your life, which sexual freedom usually implies.

[chamo]

No restrictions apply and no nosiness by the state or media should be allowed for. Normal morals apply though as described by Mentalbunny

[Umoja]

I'd say it should be heavily pushed to stay monogamous, for the sake of if a woman becomes pregnant she will know who is the father of the child, and males should naturally care for females while they are pregnant, and therefore vulnerable.

[mentalbunny]

Umoja, as great as it sounds, do you think that your ideas are feasible? obviously it should be encouraged but be preapred for the "youth" toi object and go around fucking anyone.

How about the age of consent? I recommend 16 but not having it enforced too much, that's just my opinion though, I find the UK's system works very well as it is possible to have sex younger but not too young, usually.

[Weatherman]

I think that if protection is readily available, then the who is the father problem will go away; and because in a communist state all basic neccessities (mispelled) of life our taken care of by the state, being a single mothere wont be as hard. I'm not saying these problems wont exist. Anyways I think if two people want to have sex with each other thats enough for me, even if they have another partner or whatever.

[red warlock]

I agree with sexual freedom...I haven't thoght of this problem in concerning a future communist state, but I agree, ravengod....
bah, fara poponari....absofuckinlutely fara poponari!!!!

_______________-
HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!!!!

[Larissa]

Sexual freedom is a natural human state. You can't rule it, restrict it or whatever. People have always been free to decide what they wanted to do with their sexuality, even if it was "controlled" by a government or a religion upon a moral basis. In the past (and today) wherever it is "regulated" people still do what they choose to do, or dare to do, sometimes openly, sometimes hiding.

[Man of the Cause]

Homosexuality will be allowed( Of course) , but no prostitution, pornography or pedophilia.

[Umoja]

I disagree with that, anyone over 18 can do whatever they want, but since money will have little value, prostitution wouldn't be worth it and some people would consider pornography an art, is art to be censored?

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I think sexual freedom is great.We don't even need to discuss It ,It's Totaly natural.But the state and ouselves will have to be carefull and know the risks envolved.Safe sex will still have to be promoted.

Just because we're socialists doesn't mean we are safe from nasty shit such as AIDS.

[mentalbunny]

I would definitly promote monogamy as most of us get hurt if our partner goes off and fucks someone else just cos "they both want to" (take note Weatherman!). I knwo I'd fucking fall apart if someone did that to me. Obviously infidelity wouldn't be illegal but I think it should be discouraged as it causes pain.

[I Bow 4 Che]

mentalbunny I agree with you wholeheartedly...

Sexual freedom should be allowed however, it would be GREAT if the media would decrease sexual content. I think it is wrong how kids of such young ages are being exposed to sex and acting out what they see on tv as normal behavior for kids of their age ect. because they are given the idea that it makes them mature or more important. As a 12 year old I have had many freinds of equal age lose their virginity and it is something I feel should be discouraged.

[TheFriendlyBolshevik]

i've been thinking about this for the past few days. In today's circumstances iwould say no laws on sex except rape, pedophilia and those retarded porns where people are disemboweled.

But theproblem comes when we get to communistic living: We all know that communes only work (or at least work best) when the number of people in a commune is small. So if a bunch of people went and had a bunch of babies, it would mess up the commune for the rest.

sure alot of people only have one or two kids nowadays(at leastin north america) but it would only take onebaby boom to mess alot of stuff up.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I just thing you should have sexual freedom with the one you love not with everyone that's just being a player.

[Eastside Revolt]

Sexual manifestation should not be prohibited. The only problem I have with sexual manifestation right now is that it has become a vehicle for exploitation. I believe though that once capitalism is gone, all will be left is the beauty and the pleasure of it.

[Smoking Frog II]

I agree, man.
FREEDOM.
men and women should be equal!

[redstar2000]

IB4C, the reason that there is so much "sexual content" in the media is because that's where the money is. When there's no money to be made from it, I would expect it to drop off pretty sharply...though not disappear, of course.

I don't think that will have much effect on the "virginity" rate, though. Short of reviving the institution of chaperonage, constant close supervision of the young, etc., when the hormones start pumping, kids will have sex at every possible opportunity. So what?

I recall a science fiction story set in a semi-communist society. It was expected that the young would have many sex partners...only when one reached the age of 20 to 30 was it expected that one would "settle down" to a single partner. Monogomy was considered a sign of maturity.

The custom of multiple sex partners of the young even had a name; it was called "butterflying".

:cool:

[I Bow 4 Che]

I beleive you're talking about Brave New World?


I can't believe you are saying "so what?"...kids shouldn't have sex...period.

[Anonymous]

i am considerewd a kid... yet i can and should have sex....

now you must separate regular kids, from teenagers...

teenage sex is not a crime, some of my friends arent older than 16 and have sex....



and please cut out that right winger crap about protecting our children from porn....

god dont you realisetaht the guys that make such bulshit coments are thevery same taht make anti-abortion protests?
porn os not evil, it is a business yes, but every same other thing nowdays is a business as well...


so before bashing on porno and other things because it is too "capitalist" remember that all those kick ass movies you like to watch at the cinema are most of the times More comercial and capitalist than porno movies...

[I Bow 4 Che]

I am not against porno, seriously if the women are confortable with it than why not? I'm just sick of flipping to LITTLE KID channels with my best freinds little sister (who is 7) and seeing half naked women dancing around...I'm serious...this is wrong...please don't tell me it's not


As for teenage sex...whatever...I have no problem with it at all...just...be above the age of 15 :)

[ComradeJunichi]

Both partners?

[Umoja]

That's a bad idea, since formal schooling should continue past 15, having a child would only futher complicate matters for women, and since sex has far worse consequences for women, that must be taken into account.

[I Bow 4 Che]

Well if they choose to fuck up their lives...then...wow...good for them, they're retards and should be frowned upon...lol (playing mazdaks roll)

[redstar2000]

No, IB4C, it definitely wasn't Brave New World--as I recall, Huxley was more into drugs ("soma") than sex.

Aside from that, yes, IB4C, it is not of major importance whether and how much kids have sex. On the "cosmic" scale of things, it is...trivial.

It matters a lot to the individual young person, of course. The events in our personal lives always matter a lot. But from the standpoint of a communist society, it is not terribly significant one way or another.

Those who want to, do; those who don't want to, don't; nobody else is interested. They have their own lives to be concerned with...not yours or mine.

And setting arbitrary age restrictions on anything nearly always causes more problems than it solves. For example, suppose we were to say that anyone who has reached the age of X can legally have sex with anyone they choose. Then we catch two people who are X-1 day having sex with each other. Shall we "mazdak" them into the nearest gulag? And if not that, then what?

Kids under the age of puberty (and it's different, of course, for each person) may not be able to "do it" but they can try and, no surprise, many do.

Shall we draw ourselves up into righteous indignation, saying "Bad little boy! Bad little girl!"? Shall we threaten them with "hellfire"? Shall we make them feel like shit for being curious?

I suggest two rules and only two rules for consensual sex in a communist society: (1) No one who has reached puberty may have sex with anyone who has not yet reached puberty; and (2) You may not have sex with anyone that you have any kind of authority over.

I think that should cover it.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:28 pm on Jan. 23, 2003)

[firstpunklasthippie]

Sexual freedom is not something that comes about from revolution, allthough in a comunist society it would be alot easier, it is something that comes from changes in society. I feel the world has a long way to go yet.

[mentalbunny]

I read a really disturbing article written by a married woman on abortion. She'd got pregnant and she already had three other kids, the youngest being 8 years old, so she decided to have an abortion and apparently it was horrible, no counselling to cope with the trauma, nothing. It made me sick, I am avoiding abortion at all costs.

Sex education can never be good enough, people don't listen. Girls mags are great because often they rin special issues full of sex info and that's where I got most of mine from at the age of about 12. Schools are crap for info, the teachers are usually too scared to really talk about it.

I don't like the idea of kids being exposed to a lot of sex when they are under the age of 11/12. When you hit puberty, properly, then it's time to really start learning and experiencing but I don't think it is a wise move it introduce it before then. Puberty is the natural time because it is when your body is maturing sexually, so your personality should wait until then. I think that makes sense.

[RedFW]

I read a really disturbing article written by a married woman on abortion. She'd got pregnant and she already had three other kids, the youngest being 8 years old, so she decided to have an abortion and apparently it was horrible, no counselling to cope with the trauma, nothing. It made me sick, I am avoiding abortion at all costs.

I have read much more on women who have died in child birth...and I would also like to point out that some women are sad or upset after an abortion, some feel relieved and some feel nothing. Women should be able to feel whatever they feel without the scare-mongering that is widely circulated. Women are dictated what their feelings should be well before any decision has been made. Some may feel traumatised, but there are many women who have abortions everyday and who have had no "horrible" experiences. Some would even describe it as a positive experience.

Regarding sex education: I think if it is didactic, it is useless and most young people will not listen. And I do think "girls mags" are sometimes a good source of information minus teachers and parents. But there doesn't seem to be the same for males.

I think there is too much value attached to virginity.

"Safe" sexual experiences between two "consenting" partners, and as Redstar suggested "not having sex with anyone that you have any kind of authority over" will lead to something much more valuable, which is discovering which choices are right for you and not being ashamed of having and acting out sexual desires and choosing one's partner without feeling as though he/she "should" be your only partner simply because that is what you have been told.

Oh, and I thought I should add, I am quite anti-porn, but that is another thread.

[mentalbunny]

I was not saying we should be anti-abortion if it is traumatic for a few, even several women, I jsut think there should be more help for women who have to make this coice even though it might have a negative effect on their emotions, etc.

[RedFW]

I was not saying we should be anti-abortion if it is traumatic for a few, even several women,

Sorry if it seemed I was implying you were saying this. I was reacting more to the article you described and the assumption that abortion is, definitively, a traumatic experience.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What point has it to be born, when you're doomed to have a miserable life.

[CruelVerdad]

To have sex is alright... To have sex with more than one girl is ok, but the problem is that we stop caring about everyone that is around us, and become in a selfish guy. We let that tv and other media control our life, we stop beleaving in our own ideals... and become in a materialist.
For you will be great sure, because you have a lot of sex, but let`s think in all the children that you are leaving behind! What will your kid think about you in 14 - 15 years?
Or how about all the diseases, we will never stop AIDS, for example.
--> ---> -----> -------> -------->
The world would go to the trash can! If you don`t respect life!

[RedFW]

I am sorry, but I understood very little of what you posted.


For you will be great sure, because you have a lot of sex, but let`s think in all the children that you are leaving behind! What will your kid think about you in 14 - 15 years?
Or how about all the diseases, we will never stop AIDS, for example.
--> ---> -----> -------> -------->
The world would go to the trash can! If you don`t respect life!

What children being left behind? Whose life is not being respected?

[Larissa]

IMO, abortion could be a traumatic experience within a certain context, e.g.: cultural background, personal feelings and psychological matureness, etc.

And, a lot of factors are involved, such as if abortion is legal or illegal (in my country is illegal, so you have to 1) pay a fortune for it, and 2) have it done in "underground clinics", qhere you don't even know if the doctors or nurses are qualified to do so - and this is scary enough)

I believe in (both women and men) making their own decisions about bringing more human beings into this world. And I believe in family planning as part of planning your whole life as well.

I have two children, but decided not to have more, and I chose boyfriends/husbands or sexual partners who did care and were conscious ppl, even when I was 15.

I have aborted twice because I didn't want to have more kids - when I was 25 and 34 years old-, and I DIDN'T got pregnant because I wasn't taking care (pills, condoms, etc) I was preventing from getting pregnant but still did, so, sometimes contraceptive methods may fail, particularly in developing countries.

Abortion itslef is a "delicate" subjetc and may mean different things to different people.

One thing I can tell anyone is that if you are thinking of having your child, think of it as a very impotant treasure that you will always have to LOVE and CARE about. IT'S A HUMAN BEING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, NOT A "MISTAKE" YOU DID.

Many ignorant people just make love or have sex, and have kids and then disgregard them. There are many ways of being neglect towards children and thus, you can make their whole life a shit, or you can be conscious and make a big difference about it.

Sex and love are ok, and beautiful, enjoy it and TAKE CARE, about yourself and others.

Be happy :smile:

[RedFW]

Great post, Larissa.


IMO, abortion could be a traumatic experience within a certain context, e.g.: cultural background, personal feelings and psychological matureness, etc.

I completely agree that these factors can and do make abortion traumatic for women. I do see feelings often being projected on to women. Women are told what they should feel or that they will "naturally" be traumatised by it. Women should be allowed to feel whatever it is they feel about abortion.


Sex and love are ok, and beautiful, enjoy it and TAKE CARE, about yourself and others.

Be happy

I agree :)

[RedComrade]

I beleive there should be population control in a communist society and therefore consequently some sexual control. Research shall be conducted into advanced contraceptives which will work as guranteed birth control so that hopefully the population will stay reasonable without having to control sex or resort to frequent abortions...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"I'd say it should be heavily pushed to stay monogamous, for the sake of if a woman becomes pregnant she will know who is the father of the child, and males should naturally care for females while they are pregnant, and therefore vulnerable."

I disagree, Umoja, a woman should only be off her pill once both partners have agreed to have children.

On another note: Will there be marriage in a Communist society?

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 9:29 pm on Jan. 21, 2003
I would definitly promote monogamy as most of us get hurt if our partner goes off and fucks someone else just cos "they both want to" (take note Weatherman!). I knwo I'd fucking fall apart if someone did that to me. Obviously infidelity wouldn't be illegal but I think it should be discouraged as it causes pain.
So-called infidelity is only hurtful if you expect monogamy. In a climate of free love, it is not a problem.

[schumi]

I don't think there should be a sexual restricment but i do think that if you're already with someone i should not be acceptable to go and have sex with an other person. That's adultery and it should be punished!!

But if they both want to joing an Orgie, gang-bang or whatever you wish to call it, it should not be punished.

that's my opinion... :cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

I don't see why people should be punished for adultery, but then again I don't see why they should be punished for drug use or prostitution and etc.

I guess I'm just a big liberal fruitcake ;)

--- G.

p.s. surely there would have to be some kind of age limit for sexual partners, i.e. adults couldn't shack up with 10 year olds

[MiNdGaMe]

Sex shouldn't be restricted, liberation. Most young pregnancy's occur through peer pressure and conformity, usually not through which the content we watch. Pornography can be regarded as art, as long as the individuals consent. Pornography depictes women as objects, demoralising them and regarded as sexism, some may have mixed reactions.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Pornography doesn't always "depict women as objects" imho, at least it depicts the men as just as much objects. The size of their cocks and how hard they keep it is what we (perhaps unconsciously) use to judge them, no? How is that not objectification?

In any case, FREE THE PUNANI! ;)

[schumi]

Duhl i totaly agree with u on ur last statement but i dont agree with u on that adultery shouldn't be punished. Its a crime. If you settle with your partner you should be able to keep ur hands of other men/women. Adultery is a weakness!! Just like crime, and if crime should be punished so should adultery!

people who cheat on their partner cause dammage to their loved ones and specially the one they have a sexual relationship with. That's even worse than stealing something...and they punish that so i don't see why adultery should not be punished....

I agree that there should be a age limmit because it can realy damage kids if they are forced to sex...

Women aren't always shown as lust object...Man have that same problem but you don't hear them complaining...
How many time do you hear women talk about the size of a man's penis like it's something u can buy at a local store.

I dont see why women always nagg about their role in society... if they are as smart as they say men should now be subissive to women and not the other way around!

[RedFW]

I think pornography in its present form is degrading to women, and I don't think the business is as liberating to women as some might claim i.e. being a type of work that pays women well; however, I disagree with censorship, and I do not buy the argument that pornography causes sexual violence against women or anyone else. I view it as being symptomatic of what is already there, views already held about women. I also think that assuming women are sexually passive is more dangerous to women than I can see pornography being, and this seems to be the main argument of the people who are against the censorship of porn, as well as that heterosexual sex in itself is a violent act against women.

[Umoja]

Adultery is a breaking of a common agreement with two people to stay monogamous and commonly leads to other crimes as a result. So, perhaps it shouldn't be made illegal, but crimes that happen as a result should be viewed differently.

[Arkham]

Monogamy is a moral idea who's time is over. Its not a natural proclivity, and it doesn't make sense from an intellectual standpoint. As animals we want to have sex as much and prolificly as possible, but social(victorian) values interpose on our desires to make us feel bad about our activities. Then the intellectual sphere should counter-act that saying that if we do what we do responsibily then there's no problem. For the most part, monogamy is a side-effect of the idea of women as property. Being able to reinforce the male dominance is important to the Victorian society, which the US very much is. If you look at fidelity rates amongst married people, you would see it doesnt work very well anyway. People put too much power into sex. Its just a physical act, like eating or sleeping. Don't heap dogmatic moralist bullshit on it, and it remains that. Make it law that people cannot have sex with whoever they want it a stupid, puritanical idea that is sure to backfire horrifically.

On porn, most of the women who I know who either are in print, video, or live stripping don't feel victimized, they feel empowered. Certainly, if we had healthier views of sex, then most of these outlets would go away. Until such time, bizarre redirection of sexual desires will continue unabated.

On my sexual philosophy, there are 5 groups I would never interact with.

1. Children
2. Animals
3. Relatives
4. Dead people
5. Mentally handicapped

All of these have the common thread of consent, with the exception of relatives, who's problems are obvious.

Any thing else is either fine, or just not appealing.

People need to let go of their childish victorian fixations with sex, and just grow up.

[RedFW]

I completely agree with your post Arkham, but I would like to give my opinion on one point.


On porn, most of the women who I know who either are in print, video, or live stripping don't feel victimized, they feel empowered.

I think that is a moot point, really. There are many women who have felt and indeed have been victimised by the sex industry. I think the problem that needs to be overcome is that women are not victimised by sex unless it is forced upon them, they are coerced or they are forced to do it because they need money (not to be confused with those who like doing it and happen to be paid well for it). This is what I was getting at regarding women being constructed as sexually passive. I think I would disagree that the profession of sex worker is liberating and empowering to women, but instead that the sexual freedom porn and sex work allow (sorry cannot think of the word I want to use here) is what is empowering and liberating.

(Edited by RedFW at 5:28 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)


(Edited by RedFW at 5:30 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)

[Arkham]

Well, the same could be said of any job, though. Everyone sells something of themselves, even if its just time, for money at jobs, and people don't often have much choice in the jobs they have, but have to do for survival reasons. The end result is that pornography or the sex industry isn't inherently any more exploitive than any other job. If there are exploitive factors, those should be fixed, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. On a side note, there are plenty of sex workers who are intensely feminists, who get more than a little irate at the college feminists trying to rescue them from the bonds of their (often-times) chosen profession.

Again, the hope would be that all forms of human exploitation go away with a restructuring of wealth and power.

[Moskitto]

yeah, free for all sex is a very good idea, you could want to stay monogamous, but if you're having sex with someone who's having sex with 4 other people, who are having sex with 4 other people, who are having sex with 4 other people, how often do you think you'll catch STDs? so what do you think the chances of getting STDs if you only have sex with one person and they only have sex with you? Do you want STDs because your partner has had sex with someone else?

Adultary is a disaster genetically because it leads to fathers using resources to foster genetic material which is not their own, in other species where fathers foster children they either have lots of females which are theirs only (such as apes,) live as life partners (like many prehistoric animals,) or live as a commune (like lions and other pack animals.) If your wife becomes pregnant by annother man it is a disaster genetically and emotionally.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Guardia Bolivariano on 9:17 pm on Jan. 21, 2003
I just thing you should have sexual freedom with the one you love not with everyone that's just being a player.

Awww, so sweet :)

[redstar2000]

Ah, I know I shouldn't yield to the temptation, but Moskitto leads with his chin in every post. :cheesy:

The secular argument for neo-puritanism is that if we have many sex partners, we will contract all sorts of horrible diseases and die. Yes, that's possible. There are, of course, cures for many STDs and more cures will be found in the future. Even AIDS will eventually be a thing of the past. But there will also be new diseases...evolution is relentless.

So maybe it really boils down to people who are "risk-takers" and people who are "risk-avoiders". Some of us are willing to enjoy this life as it's the only one we get; others live in fear of almost every human experience but can always look forward to "Heaven".

I have a personal bias on this, but I'm not sure it's possible to generalize about the inherent worth of either alternative. What do you feel comfortable with?

But I "blow the whistle" when the "risk-avoiders" try to "protect" the rest of us from ourselves, particularly when they use scare tactics to frighten us into conforming to their narrow life-choices. Smoking, drinking, drug-using, and sex are all risky behaviors; none of them are 100% fatal or anything even close to that.

"Do what you enjoy" is a view that the "risk-avoiders" can never comprehend...since "safety" is their priority. Indeed, what they appear to relish are activities that are really kind of unpleasant...because they're "good for you."

I'm perfectly willing to let them "mortify their flesh" to their heart's content; I look forward to the time when we can enjoy our chosen pleasures absent their relentless nagging and their police repression.

======================

"If your wife becomes pregnant by another man, it is a disaster genetically and emotionally."

Oh, my! I guess you should just shoot them both & call it a "crime of passion". :o

The emotional consequences of "infidelity" are often quite unpleasant...but hardly disasterous. There are many potential partners in this world for nearly all of us, and if we feel that "infidelity" is unacceptable, we need merely to abandon the unfaithful partner and seek a new one. It ain't the end of the fucking world!

The "genetic" argument is drawn, of course, from Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. The line of argument is, roughly, that we only wish to "invest resources" in raising children that are "ours"...that contain our genes and who will perpetuate those genes into the future.

Every person who has ever adopted and raised a child is a standing refutation of that stupid argument...and there are millions of such people. According to Dawkins, they shouldn't exist.
But they do.

:cool:

[Umoja]

I recently read the Gospel of Mark with a Gnostic putting notes into it, and it even seems to imply that marriage is bondage, and to be with whoever you love, and since most people love lots of people, oh joy.

I guess this would make marriage useless, the more I look at it the less important it seems. Mosaic laws are just as bad as the physics.

Because without physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!

[RedFW]

If there are exploitive factors, those should be fixed, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I completely agree with this, but I do think that when one doesn't want to have sex for money and is forced to do so, it isn't like any other job. (I am thinking more of street prostitution here) Maybe this is tied up with views about sex, what people think it should be, what it is and what it means for the person who has to do it...I don't know if that makes any sense.

I would like to see those exploitive factors fixed and the women who enjoy sex work be paid well and protected from exploitation, able to control every part of their work and women who do not enjoy it able to leave it.

On a side note, there are plenty of sex workers who are intensely feminists, who get more than a little irate at the college feminists trying to rescue them from the bonds of their (often-times) chosen profession.

I agree; however, I would take it a step further and say most feminists, at least most all that I know and have met both in person and over the internet. There are many prominent feminists well out of college who are leading the Feminist Majority Foundation and NOW as well as other feminist/women's organisations who hold the same views. This particular vein of feminism is a nasty one, IMO, and I see a lot of it tied up with the view that all heterosexual sex is rape and women are passive sexually. These feminists refuse to address the point that it is possible some women enjoy having sex, being filmed, photographed, watched and paid for it. And I think you are correct about many of the sex workers being feminists and considering themselves feminist. Unfortunately, they are disregarded as such by the others, which is really frustrating because it sort of makes feminism into a group that excludes women, and the exclusion of women and their interests, giving them choice and control over their own bodies sexually is exactly what feminism was supposed to fight against. And I have recently been reading about how the puritancial feminist movement has worked with the Religious Right and Republican party in the US to try and outlaw pornography, which I am angered by considering that these are the people most intent on banning abortion and cutting programs and services that would benefit women.

Again, the hope would be that all forms of human exploitation go away with a restructuring of wealth and power.

I agree.





(Edited by RedFW at 8:00 am on Mar. 13, 2003)

[Moskitto]

"If your wife becomes pregnant by another man, it is a disaster genetically and emotionally."

yes Redstar, your trying to deny even more science.

LORD WINSTON PhD (CHIEF OF THE HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY) SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you're trying to be stupid and radical fuck off.

[Moskitto]

Every person who has ever adopted and raised a child is a standing refutation of that stupid argument...and there are millions of such people. According to Dawkins, they shouldn't exist.
But they do.

They generally have no genetic material of their own to foster, so it isn't a waste.

Human testicles are smaller than those of promiscuous animals such as chimpanzees, they cannot produce sperm to compete to such a level with each other as promiscuous animals do, therefore humans are not meant to be promiscuous.

[RedFW]

I am not particularly interested in the science of this, moskitto, but if humans are not meant to be promiscuous, then why are they, and why do some couples have open relationships (where both partners are free to have sex outside of the relationship), how does one explain the desire in some couples to include one or more other persons in their sex lives, why do so many relationships succumb to infidelity?

Also, you have offered an example of human testicles being smaller, what is your example for females to prove that humans are not meant to be promiscuous?

[Moskitto]

i'm not saying don't be promiscuous, i'm saying if you commit yourself to one person you can't have something on the side.

[mentalbunny]

if you think that everything should be free, no restrictions then you probably haven't been in love before, because that is definitely not what you feel when you love someone that much, you hate to think of them with other people. maybe this is just what society has done to us, but i doubt it and i think it unlikely that anyone can convince me otherwise.

when you have comitted to someone, anything else is unacceptable. if you don't want to commit then you won't get a deep and meaningful relationship, you'll just get loose sex.

[Moskitto]

very true mentalbunny,

[Eastside Revolt]

I think polygamous love is possible.

[Moskitto]

lust yes, true love no.

[Arkham]

Nice that you can make a blanket statement with no proof or analysis whatsoever. Monogamous relationships are a social construct. This is clearly proven by virtue of the fact that they dont exist in every culture. First off, one would have prove that "love" exists, and is any different than lust combined with friendship, which you cannot do, and second, you would have to prove why monogamy is better inherently than polygamy, which no one here has done.

As I stated before, it sounds like all you monogamy only proponents need to get more experience in the real world.

[Umoja]

Government is a social concept. We can look at other cultures and see how they are successful without marriage, but many of the so called "modern" nations exist with marriage, just like we exist with running water. Just playing devils advocate.

[redstar2000]

"LORD WINSTON, Ph.D. (CHIEF OF THE HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY) SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!"

You mean, Moskitto, that he just "said it" and didn't bring it down from Mount Sinai engraved on a stone tablet? :cheesy:

Tell him "Lord Redstar" says he's full of shit!

And the "argument" about the size of human testicles...that is hilarious! It's the kind of "fact" you'd expect to turn up in some new high school text book written for the purpose of telling kids to just say no to sex before marriage. :cheesy:

And people who adopt kids do so simply because they are unable to have kids of their own...wrong, again, Moskitto. In fact, there's an odd event that has been remarked on: people who adopt children often subsequently do have children of their own...even when they thought they "couldn't".

Moskitto, I think you should forget about athletics and seriously consider a career in stand-up comedy. If I am, in your words, "the most arrogant person on the internet", you are surely the funniest.

:cool:

[YerbaMateJ]

The emotional consequences of "infidelity" are often quite unpleasant...but hardly disasterous. There are many potential partners in this world for nearly all of us, and if we feel that "infidelity" is unacceptable, we need merely to abandon the unfaithful partner and seek a new one. It ain't the end of the fucking world!

I like that. It's empowering.

[RedFW]

i'm not saying don't be promiscuous, i'm saying if you commit yourself to one person you can't have something on the side.

No, but you did say:

they cannot produce sperm to compete to such a level with each other as promiscuous animals do, therefore humans are not meant to be promiscuous.

If humans are not meant to be promiscuous then why are many promiscuous? And I asked if there was a female example.

if you think that everything should be free, no restrictions then you probably haven't been in love before, because that is definitely not what you feel when you love someone that much, you hate to think of them with other people. maybe this is just what society has done to us, but i doubt it and i think it unlikely that anyone can convince me otherwise.
when you have comitted to someone, anything else is unacceptable.

Mentalbunny, I don't know who you are addressing this to, but I will answer.

You have described the way you feel and your expectations. For the most part, I can empathise with your feelings and expectations about it, but it is discursive to assume that your view, and even my own view, of what consitutes a loving relationship is static and uniform. And couples have varying levels of commitment.

Every person has their own idea of monogomy and infidelity what constitutes either for some may not constitute it for others. For some couples a kiss is considered infidelity, for others it isn't.

Will outlawing infidelity/promiscuity prevent it and the emotions it engenders for a partner who discovers it and expects otherwise? Are monogomous relationships possible without laws to prevent infidelity/promiscuity?

And will people have to be married, co-habiting, have made a verbal commitment, have children together, will there be an age of consent? If there is such a law, then how will it be enforced?

I have been "in love" before and still am with the same person for the last five years, and it is a monogomous relationship. What does this prove? It proves that we are two people who have made the decision to have this type of relationship, there is always a possibility that one of us may choose to sleep with someone else and disregard that commitment. I would find it unacceptable if it did happen because I have made it clear that I am seeking a monogomous relationship; however, this is not going to prevent it from happening.

But I think two discussions are going on here. One is should people (including young people) be sexually free and not be expected to commit the rest of their lives to the first person they sleep and should they be ashamed of this experimentation with sex? I think we should have the freedom to experiment with sex and not be forced to commit to someone, and I think no one should be ashamed of sexual experimentation and enjoyment, for that matter. The point that is being conflated with this, IMO, is that this either encourages infidelity in committed relationships or discourages committed relationships altogether. I don't think it does in either case. I am at a point in my life where I am committed to one person, other people are not. If anything, I think being more open about sexual matters and desire will enable people to be more honest about their desires or lack of for commitment to one person.

if you don't want to commit then you won't get a deep and meaningful relationship, you'll just get loose sex.

What is wrong with "loose" sex, not that I am particularly fond of the term? If people enjoy having sex then why should they not have it or should only people who are in committed relationships have it?






(Edited by RedFW at 9:12 am on Mar. 14, 2003)

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 10:33 pm on Mar. 13, 2003
if you think that everything should be free, no restrictions then you probably haven't been in love before, because that is definitely not what you feel when you love someone that much, you hate to think of them with other people. maybe this is just what society has done to us, but i doubt it and i think it unlikely that anyone can convince me otherwise.

when you have comitted to someone, anything else is unacceptable. if you don't want to commit then you won't get a deep and meaningful relationship, you'll just get loose sex.


I am a lot like you Mentalbunny--- but there are very few individuals that I would trust enough to live up to this expectation. Especially in this frenetic society, the population increase, the media, and all the chaos. That is why I liked Redstar's comment about it "not being the end of the world" and that there is always someone else out there. I am trying to think more like that. It hurts too much the other way.

I agree with it being more meaningful when people are faithful. I agree. I guess the key is to pick well.

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from Arkham on 1:54 am on Mar. 14, 2003
Nice that you can make a blanket statement with no proof or analysis whatsoever. Monogamous relationships are a social construct. This is clearly proven by virtue of the fact that they dont exist in every culture. First off, one would have prove that "love" exists, and is any different than lust combined with friendship, which you cannot do, and second, you would have to prove why monogamy is better inherently than polygamy, which no one here has done.

As I stated before, it sounds like all you monogamy only proponents need to get more experience in the real world.


Arkham, you make me feel like I am so brainwashed. I think I am. But it is so damn diffucult to start new neuropathways in my brain. But I try.

Che vive!

[mentalbunny]

RedFW, where did I say there would be a law? I was just saying that the really good and fulfilling relationships have a higher level of commitment and so on, than those which just consist of sex, or maybe even sex and friendship.

Maybe when the human race has evolved then we will no longer see a need to have monogamous relationships, but maybe not.

I just think that promiscuity shouldn't be encouraged because it usually ends up hurting someone and I have a quite a Buddhist view on suffering and the like. One of the 5 precepts says "no sexual misconduct" which includes promiscuity, because sleeping around damages self esteem and can hurt those who feel more deeply.

[Moskitto]

From the top AS Biology student in the UK (Ben Ayres)

Say there's a mating season, human males may only copulate once or twice in a day, so that tends towards non-promiscuity in the human species. However you could argue that evolution has turned the human species to a non-promiscuous species, however other species such as swans and female gorillas practice monogamy so this is not related to an religious practice of marriage, also swans have loyalty as do humans as it is an essential part of social development, as any animal in such a situation would, loyalty is an essential part of marriage, and it still remains that humans are non-promiscuous species whether it is engineered or natural.

From RAM (ethics expert)

The bible does not condemn sex outside a single marriage partner, in reality, the bible Allows polygamy, so you're claim that may support for single sex partners is "neo-puritan" is basically, bullshit. Also noticed I would have quoted the bible Not Lord Winston PhD had I been a "neo-puritan" also he's Jewish which makes you're case for my "neo-puritanism" even worse, since a real neo-puritan would never quote a Jew.

Redstar, Lord Winston is a World Renowned Expert in the Science and Ethics of reproduction, he has in the last 2 months produced a television program about human genetics and reproductive instinct, For Adults which explains everything behind lust, promiscuity, jealousy, and guess what was in it? The reason testicles of chimps are larger than those of humans, because testicular size is directly proportional to the promiscuity of the species, it's not even very complex logic, larger testicles produce more sperm to compete with the sperm of other males, look if you want some girl to be mother of your kids, and everyone else is fucking her as well, it's gonna help if you can put more sperm into her, it's simple evolution.

[Moskitto]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/tv/...rogramme2.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/tv/humaninstinct/programme2.shtml)

[Arkham]

Your biological proof notwithstanding, nothing has been shown that monogamous relationships are "natural", or beneficial. As human beings we are very much animals, but we are also outside of reacting in a purely biological fashion. We are designed to be omnivores, and yet, many people decide to be vegetarian, for a myriad of reasons, moral and health reasons being the largest.

We are not bound to behave like animals without higher reasoning. Whether it was a greater being, or a fluke of evolution, we now can choose to operate outside pure biological motivation. I myself don't want children. Do I want my partner of 3 years or so to get knocked up by some random guy? No. Do I really care if she decides to have sex with someone else for fun, excitement, or to express feelings of warmth and sharing with them? Not particularly. We have birth control for a reason. Sex does not automatically lead to pregnancy, so everyone claiming that non-monogamous relationships automatically lead to children by a questionable father are putting forth a specious argument.

Let go of your ideas that your partner is your property, and that sex is a huge deal, and you'll see how clear this becomes. We are free people, and if we wish to express love, or just human physicality with someone, we can. Simple as that. If we don't take the proper precautions, someone will end up pregnant. That happens in monogamous and polygamous relationships.

[RedFW]

RedFW, where did I say there would be a law?

I don't recall saying you said this. I did raise some questions regarding whether such a law would be effective, and that was in response to points raised by others in the thread and the general direction the thread seemed to be going in. I distinctly remember you saying early on in this thread that you don't wish for any sort of law.

I was just saying that the really good and fulfilling relationships have a higher level of commitment and so on, than those which just consist of sex, or maybe even sex and friendship.

This type of relationship is fulfilling for you.. That is all I was saying.

Maybe when the human race has evolved then we will no longer see a need to have monogamous relationships, but maybe not.

I don't think this is something we need to concern ourselves with, some people right now want monogomous relationships and some people don't. I just don't see why one needs to be encouraged or even observed more than the other.


I just think that promiscuity shouldn't be encouraged because it usually ends up hurting someone and I have a quite a Buddhist view on suffering and the like. One of the 5 precepts says "no sexual misconduct" which includes promiscuity, because sleeping around damages self esteem and can hurt those who feel more deeply.

How should it be encouraged? Why encourage people to do things they are perfectly capable of coming to a conclusion about themselves? Is it promiscuity that hurts someone or is it commitment that has been broken? Again, I think being open and allowing sexual freedom will encourage people not to make commitments they will break and make better decisions regarding relationships, but I don't think anything can completely prevent infidelity. I think sleeping around damages self-esteem if one is told that sleeping around is bad, evil, nasty, slutty and that one should only ever have sex with the person one is to spend the rest of their life with. Getting sex confused with love is what hurts.

[Moskitto]

your statement about my views that I "consider my partner to be my property" are irrelevant since I don't If I did, I would be following a fundamentalist muslim approach where a woman has one sex partner but a man may have many, my approach is that if you decide to have a partner you should be loyal to that partner and they should be loyal to you. If them being loyal to you means they belong to you then you belong to them as well since you are also being loyal to them, it is called "being mutually faithful." If you want to sleep around that's fine, but don't criticise people who are in stable loving relationships and don't need that "little side order".

[YerbaMateJ]

Let go of your ideas that your partner is your property, and that sex is a huge deal, and you'll see how clear this becomes. We are free people, and if we wish to express love, or just human physicality with someone, we can. Simple as that. If we don't take the proper precautions, someone will end up pregnant. That happens in monogamous and polygamous relationships.


That one is empowering too. I don't know where I got the idea that a partner should be my property, but somehow it got in my psyche somewhere. And it causes nothing but problems.

[Arkham]

If you are bound to only have sex with one other person, and they you, then you are each other's sexual property. Thats what marking your territory and rams butting heads during rutting season is all about.

Why is sex such a big deal to you? Why do you put that activity on such a pedestal in your relationship that that is the deal breaker for a relationship. That's what you're saying with "I am in a monogamous relationship". The one thing you are not allowed to do, that makes it monogamous, is to be sexually active. That practically defines the relationship as being based on sexuality. What if you were "in love" with someone who was polyamorous? Would you walk away from that person to seek the comfort of the social construct that is monogamy? Seems backwards to sacrifice the person instead of the arrangement, not the other way around.

Again, even if you dispute the ownership thing, why is sex such a huge deal to you? Its just a physical act, that is enjoyable and easy. Its all the baggage we stick on it that makes it a big deal.

[Exploited Class]

your statement about my views that I "consider my partner to be my property" are irrelevant since I don't If I did, I would be following a fundamentalist muslim approach where a woman has one sex partner but a man may have many

Well that would be 1 of many different ways to express ownership in a relationship, perhaps the more extreme. That is pretty much saying that, "If I don't physically hit my partner like Ted down the street, then I am not in an abusive relationship" When in reality there is perhaps dozens of dozens of different ways to be abusive, physical just being the most apparent.

my approach is that if you decide to have a partner you should be loyal to that partner and they should be loyal to you. If them being loyal to you means they belong to you then you belong to them as well since you are also being loyal to them
Well you are using the terms of ownership pretty freely.
Loyality would only be if you agree and stick to terms and conditions of a relationship. I know for sure that I talk about my dynamic relationship with my partner constantly. We speak often on where the other stands currently in our relationship. As we grow as people, together as a team and individualy, we both know logicaly we will not be the same as we were when we first met. Inherently we will probably still have certain morals, no theft, no abuse ect..ect. but as far as our one chance life experiences are concerned, we will want to try things and perhaps even stick with them.

Loyality for us is to do no harm intentionaly to the other. Loyality does not mean we are only going to physicaly be with each other, unless one of us is at the experience level and doesn't feel comfortable moving past that. If the other partner never feels comfortable with doing that or me experiencing it to see if I enjoy it then out of loyality I wouldn't do it or I would hope they wouldn't. If I am not growing at the same level my partner is intellictualy, there is a good chance we aren't communicating enough. Loyality is different for everybody.

it is called "being mutually faithful." If you want to sleep around that's fine, but don't criticise people who are in stable loving relationships and don't need that "little side order".

I don't think anybody is critizing but saying why aren't you examining closer as to the reasons why you are only comfortable in those types of relationships.

I personaly would say anybody mature enough to escape past the social teachings of what a relationship is based around, do it with another willing partner (which can be willing to explore as well or allow the other to explore options) is a very strong and wise person. Divorce almost always because of infedality or suspicious infedality. If you can experience something doing no harm and learning what Jealousy is, you are your compatable partner have better odds of staying together in a long term relationship.

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from Arkham on 12:13 am on Mar. 15, 2003
If you are bound to only have sex with one other person, and they you, then you are each other's sexual property. Thats what marking your territory and rams butting heads during rutting season is all about.

Why is sex such a big deal to you? Why do you put that activity on such a pedestal in your relationship that that is the deal breaker for a relationship. That's what you're saying with "I am in a monogamous relationship". The one thing you are not allowed to do, that makes it monogamous, is to be sexually active. That practically defines the relationship as being based on sexuality. What if you were "in love" with someone who was polyamorous? Would you walk away from that person to seek the comfort of the social construct that is monogamy? Seems backwards to sacrifice the person instead of the arrangement, not the other way around.

Again, even if you dispute the ownership thing, why is sex such a huge deal to you? Its just a physical act, that is enjoyable and easy. Its all the baggage we stick on it that makes it a big deal.


What you said makes a lot of sense--- and I guess I'm still trying to figure it out in my own life. I think there are many social constructs that I have bought into that no longer apply. I just spoke to a friend a few minutes ago that told me that the minute one "trusts" someone, it is all over. This is because "trust" means expectation and limits the other's freedom. Now, thinking about it, that makes total sense. I never thought of it that way before. Usually in psyche circles and such, you hear the total opposite like "if you don't have trust, you don't have anything." Hummm....

And you've got a point about love. Love--- if it is real to begin with--- should not be "thrown out" if someone does something you don't want them to do.

This same friend that I just spoke with said that because she no longer needs her partner, she is now free to fully love him.

Someday I will be able to figure all of this out. Until then
VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!!!!

[Exploited Class]

YerbaMateJ - Nice to see somebody willing to explore just mentally possibilities that lie outside the social constructed walls. Good posts.

I will say this about Polygamy since I have had several thoughtful discussions with friends about it, and even tried it.

First off it isn't cheating. Cheating is when you do something behind somebody else's back. I would hope to never be in a relationship where my partner feels they need to cheat or do something behind my back. I would hope that both of us would be willing to discuss one another's desires with each other and decide what to do from that. If my partner honestly feels she needs to experience that and I am not yet able to handle the situation (because of social pressures and teachings) that they would be willing to respect my wishes or if it is so important for them and I can't get over that hurdle move on to a different relationship. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where my partner would feel they have to do something dishonest for their own personal growth.

If we were to reach a conclusion that we are both willing to explore the possibilities that we should both feel comfortable that the other person is comfortable. If I wanted to and spoke with my partner on this, if after discussing the possibility she didn't seem 100% sure or if it seemed like she was doing it to please me or afraid of losing me if she didn't, I would wait or drop it. Or even asses the situation and figure out if it is that important to me to even go any further.

If we both seem comfortable with this, then we should research and find out about all the possibilities of doing this. There isn't just a, "I'm going to go to a bar and find somebody." The other person, the third party involved would have to understand what they are being invited to and should also be at the same level of understanding. There is no reason to project possibilities that do not exist. After researching options, reading or speaking with people who do engage in polygamous relationships (many large cities do have support groups for that) we could go on to try different things.

Perhaps those would involve, me being in the room but not being an active participant, all three being involved actively in the act, one of us leaving and going to the other person's place. Both of us seeking out other sexual partners separate from our continual relationship which we engage with that doesn't interrupt our relationship. Perhaps our relationship isn't even physical attraction but mental and compatibility so we seek sexual satisfaction elsewhere. The possibilities are endless.

During the first or starting period a lot of open and honest dialogue should be present, to see if any social hang ups are present so nobody continuous doing something they aren't comfortable with or later found out they don't like. Once it is very natural this probably isn't much of an issue.

I had friends that live together, 5 people all polygamous but monogamous with each other. There was no continuous relationship and all were very comfortable with that situation.

One a personal note, my partner and I have had a try at a polygamous relationship and it didn't turn out so well. We didn't do much of what I described above, I still had possessive tendency towards her as I still do but to a much lesser extent. We were both immature about the whole thing but we didn't give up on our relationship, it was consensual on everybody's part and there was no infidelity or cheating. Since my partner is probably still open to the idea she will probably explore it again when we are both ready. And if it fails again, we can explore other avenues, try different things. Then maybe even discuss the possibility that although we want to be great piano players doesn't necessarily mean we can be great piano players, and have to scratch the whole idea. It can also be something that is too complicated or requires more energy than we wish to expel or that it isn't a major priority anymore.

[YerbaMateJ]

Exploitedclass--- It sounds like you are coming from a place of love and honesty. That seems to be all that counts as we deal with relationships each and every day. The friend I referred to before described it as "a continuous negotiation" between her and her husband.

Thank you sharing your experience--- I hope it all works out for you and your partner to your mutual satisfaction.

[Arkham]

Yerbaj, the thing I want you to know is that I am in no way attacking monogamy. Monogamy is fine, my main concern is that people understand why they do things. Most people just accept what the bible, politicians, their parents and schools tell them. All of these view points have their place, and are valid in the correct context, but are usually just reflections of the status quo.

I just want to think that people are capable of seperating themselves from what society tells them, and decide whats right for them. It may be society's point of view, or it may not. But just use critical thinking.

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from Arkham on 3:23 am on Mar. 16, 2003
Yerbaj, the thing I want you to know is that I am in no way attacking monogamy. Monogamy is fine, my main concern is that people understand why they do things. Most people just accept what the bible, politicians, their parents and schools tell them. All of these view points have their place, and are valid in the correct context, but are usually just reflections of the status quo.

I just want to think that people are capable of seperating themselves from what society tells them, and decide whats right for them. It may be society's point of view, or it may not. But just use critical thinking.

Arkham---Critical thinking--- exactly. If we do the robot thing, then nothing means anything. Like-- for example--- I just can't understand the traditional version of marriage anymore. It fails 60% of the time where I live (clearing throat). The arena of marriage, in my view, is a landmine unless both people know EXACTLY what they are doing and why. No fantasies.

Eckhart Tolle in his book "Power of Now" said that exclusivity is all part of the Ego---that love is not exclusive and in some other body, but in ourselves. That is a hard one for me to get through my thick skull. Someday...

And again, until then HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!!! On ALL battlefronts.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:39 pm on Mar. 14, 2003
From the top AS Biology student in the UK (Ben Ayres)

Say there's a mating season, human males may only copulate once or twice in a day, so that tends towards non-promiscuity in the human species. However you could argue that evolution has turned the human species to a non-promiscuous species, however other species such as swans and female gorillas practice monogamy so this is not related to an religious practice of marriage, also swans have loyalty as do humans as it is an essential part of social development, as any animal in such a situation would, loyalty is an essential part of marriage, and it still remains that humans are non-promiscuous species whether it is engineered or natural.

From RAM (ethics expert)

The bible does not condemn sex outside a single marriage partner, in reality, the bible Allows polygamy, so you're claim that may support for single sex partners is "neo-puritan" is basically, bullshit. Also noticed I would have quoted the bible Not Lord Winston PhD had I been a "neo-puritan" also he's Jewish which makes you're case for my "neo-puritanism" even worse, since a real neo-puritan would never quote a Jew.

Redstar, Lord Winston is a World Renowned Expert in the Science and Ethics of reproduction, he has in the last 2 months produced a television program about human genetics and reproductive instinct, For Adults which explains everything behind lust, promiscuity, jealousy, and guess what was in it? The reason testicles of chimps are larger than those of humans, because testicular size is directly proportional to the promiscuity of the species, it's not even very complex logic, larger testicles produce more sperm to compete with the sperm of other males, look if you want some girl to be mother of your kids, and everyone else is fucking her as well, it's gonna help if you can put more sperm into her, it's simple evolution.
Moskitto, I really don't give a fuck about the biology of the thing. There's too much attention paid to what is 'natural' and what is not. Something being 'natural' is equated with it being morally right (case in point: the homosexuality debate).

As for the idea of there being sucha thing as an 'ethics expert', that too is a load of dingos' kidneys. Anyone who questions motivation and reason is an ethics expert. The idea of forming ethical views on the basis of someone else's authority is not only preposterous, it is dangerous.

[redstar2000]

Moskitto, as far as I am concerned, "evolutionary psychology" is junk science pure and simple.

Trying to explain the complexities of human behavior by inclusive reproductive fitness alone is as stupid as trying to explain weather by the position of the earth in relation to the sun alone.

If "evolutionary psychology" were the panacea of explanations that it pretends to be, the existence of humans that do not want to reproduce--after 250,000 years of natural selection--would be impossible.

We'd be doing almost nothing except making babies, as many as we could, as quickly as possible.

Frankly, I find that so stupid that it practically drools.

But of course, we know why it's fashionable, don't we? "Evolutionary psychology" can be and is used to "scientifically" justify hierarchy, "superiority", and, ultimately, class society and capitalism.

In fact, it's nothing more than re-packaged and re-branded "socio-biology", which was re-packaged and re-branded "social darwinism" and "racial science." It was crap in 1903...and, a century later, it's still crap!

As to your personal neo-puritanism, Moskitto, you no longer need to quote the "Bible"...it would be superfluous. We know where you stand.

In fact, "evolutionary psychology" supports the "Bible": natural selection "insures" that high-status males--"good genes"--shall have access to many women and have many children; low status males--"bad genes"--shall have only one woman or none.

What about females with "good genes"? Well, um, er, um..."more research is needed on that one". Yeah, right.

Why wouldn't a neo-puritan quote "a Jew"? What the fuck do you think "Jesus" was? A Buddhist???

"The Science and Ethics of Reproduction", eh? Sounds like a pretty good scam to me. Maybe I'll become a "world-renowned expert in the Science and Ethics of Neo-Puritanical Nonsense" and the Queen will give me a title, too. Redstar, First Earl of Soho, perhaps?

How much does it pay, being a Lord and all that?

As long as we're on this foolishness, it did occur to me that the "evolutionary psychologists" are overlooking a market: Testicular Enhancement! If "big balls" are a reproductive plus...like big breasts, then why not a little help from the surgeon? Imagine her reaction when you "show your grapefruits"! :cheesy:

Thanks for the fun, Moskitto.

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:06 pm on Mar. 18, 2003)

[Umoja]

It seems that people want emotional relationships and these are broken apart by sex. If people just accepted that other people slept around, I guess this wouldn't be quite so bad.

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from Umoja on 9:25 pm on Mar. 19, 2003
It seems that people want emotional relationships and these are broken apart by sex. If people just accepted that other people slept around, I guess this wouldn't be quite so bad.

But doesn't sex (sometimes) bond people emotionally? Sometimes it bonds people that don't even like each other. I would love to have an attitude of "no demands, no expectations, no regrets." Everything else is a mess.

But I'll have to work on it. ;)

[honest intellectual]

Speaking of fooling around, I gots me a blonde, buxom, bisexual Danish bird (for the weekend at least). woohoo
There's this Danish class visiting my school and i had to give this talk on WB Yeats and for no particular reason I had got all glammed up before going into school and she kept smiling at me during the talk, then we got talking and stuff and anyway, woohoo. People tend to get pretty wild on these school trips and, um yeah, woohoo.

[Note: this is of very little relevance to the thread. Do not read the above post]