Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You're either straight, gay, or lying?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 91 of 158 (511621)
06-10-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2009 2:38 PM


CS writes:
Just face it, Rrhain: I'm not going to have sex with you. You might as well just stop trying.
Please, I don't need the image in my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 158 (511623)
06-10-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Taz
06-10-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Not clear cut!
I must admit that I am very poorly educated on homosexuality in other species. Does anybody have any ideas on why it occurs? Is it just a natural consequence of sexuality, i.e. if sex in a species is based on attraction rather than "wham, bam, thank you mam!" style sex found in insects, then that attraction can simply "wander" to the same gender, maybe?
Any idea folks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 4:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 7:33 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 93 of 158 (511632)
06-10-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Son Goku
06-10-2009 5:00 PM


Re: ...more clear cut.
I just wanted to add something. Some of the evolutionary reasons for monogomy can be difficult to see when looking at society today. In modern times a single mother can actually raise a healthy child, but in the time of early humans this would be very unlikely considering the hardships.
So a male was more likely to have differential reproductive success by "sticking around", as it would be beneficial for the health of the child.
Is this a point for monogamy, or, rather a point for ensuring successful offsprings?
Example would be the male lion. Who I would say also sticks around for reasons of protection and to ensure successful offsprings, but is far from monogamous.
Also, the gorilla has this type of living arrangement as well. Them being closer to us on an evolutionary scale.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Son Goku, posted 06-10-2009 5:00 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Son Goku, posted 06-11-2009 6:36 AM onifre has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 94 of 158 (511638)
06-10-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Son Goku
06-10-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Not clear cut!
Son Goku writes:
I must admit that I am very poorly educated on homosexuality in other species. Does anybody have any ideas on why it occurs? Is it just a natural consequence of sexuality, i.e. if sex in a species is based on attraction rather than "wham, bam, thank you mam!" style sex found in insects, then that attraction can simply "wander" to the same gender, maybe?
Any idea folks?
Being an expert on homosexuality (thank you thank you), allow me.
There are animals that are monogomous and there are animals that enjoy casual sex. We've found gay members in both cases. There are certain types of birds that are monogomous. Gay members of these birds form life-long bonds. Biologists have observed these gay animals adopt orphans and rear them as their own. In some instances, these gay couples have even chased away unsuspecting parents to steal their eggs and rear the hatchlings. So, we know that the maternal/paternal instincts are still there. I think we all remember the gay penguins that successfully hatched an egg given to them by the zoo and actually reared the hatchling.
Then we have the animals who enjoy casual sex. One very good example is the gay rams. They cost unsuspecting farmers million of dollars simply because they wouldn't breed. Male oriented rams (rams that would only mate with other rams) just would not mate with the females even when they're in heat. Just imagine being the farmer that paid big bucks for the prized ram for his sheeps only to find out the damn ram would only mount other rams.
Anyway, my cousin bought pure bred dog (don't remember what it is) with the intention of breeding him. He's been complaining with me that the dog wouldn't even look at a female dog in heat. All he seems to be interested in are other male dogs.
Anyway, the point is people have made the argument that animals like dogs would hump just about anything. They totally ignore the fact that these 'gay animals' wouldn't even go near the females that are in heat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Son Goku, posted 06-10-2009 5:06 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 95 of 158 (511672)
06-11-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2009 2:38 PM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Just face it, Rrhain: I'm not going to have sex with you.
Of course, by bringing it up, you only prove that you want to. Such overcompensation. Who here is going apoplectic in his attempts to prove that he isn't gay?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
C'mon...you can be honest with us. You're never going to get what you want until you admit what you really want. All you need is a man to give it to you hard and deep but no honorable man is going to throw you a pity fuck.
And as the studies show, those who make the biggest deal about not being gay are the ones who actually are. To continually obsess about the sex lives of other people of the same sex is pretty conclusive evidence that you're getting something out of it. As the joke goes, "You're not in this for the hunting, are you?"
C'mon...you're among friends. You can tell us. Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-11-2009 12:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 158 (511678)
06-11-2009 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by onifre
06-10-2009 5:55 PM


Re: ...more clear cut.
Is this a point for monogamy, or, rather a point for ensuring successful offsprings?
Neither, on its own it isn't a significant argument, since it can run both ways.
More accurately there are other things to consider, humans have very low sexual diffeomorphism which is correlated with monogomy in the animal kingdom. Some physical features in human males are known in other animals to be due to a monogomous set up.
Let me emphasise that this is not a certain thing, it's just that the field of sexology and anthropology is currently leaning in this direction. However even if one disagrees with sequential monogomy in our species, we are not a "get with everybody" species. None of our evolutionary ancestors seemed to be set up for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 5:55 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 97 of 158 (511724)
06-11-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rrhain
06-11-2009 4:50 AM


C'mon...you're among friends. You can tell us. Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat.
Catholic Scientist replies...
http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_..." width="480" height="360" >

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 06-11-2009 4:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rrhain, posted 06-12-2009 4:21 AM onifre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 98 of 158 (511818)
06-12-2009 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by onifre
06-11-2009 12:33 PM


Onifre writes:
quote:
Catholic Scientist replies...
And Broadway responds. First come the denials:
The protestations then escalate:
Until finally it comes out:

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-11-2009 12:33 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 158 (511871)
06-12-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rahvin
06-09-2009 6:16 PM


I also feel the need to correct those who think that the way they feel is the way everyone feels.
I understand that and agree. All I am really saying is that with many people it is known to cause some problems. That does not mean everyone. But in all reality, how many hookers out there find a deep sense of job satisfaction? How many are really fucked up in the head, due in part to their job? I think it takes a toll on people more than they are aware.
Becasue of the lying and betrayal, genius.
Ah, but that begs the question... Why must one lie in the first place? Obviously there is a stigma that exists before the action of lying or cheating begins, right? So, it's self-defeating to say that it is because of lying and betrayal, especially when taken in its context.
And I'm saying that you're playing armchair psychologist and speaking from the orifice typically utilized for expelling solid waste. Casual sex need not have consequences in terms of the ability to bond with other human beings. The actual consequences of casual sex are an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs, both of which can be controlled to some extent. The emotional consequences you're talking about do not always apply.
I'm not suggesting that they always apply. There are exceptions to every rule. I am speaking about normative, human behavior. Not everyone feels remorse, as in the case with sociopaths, but most people do. That's a good thing.
How many monogamous relationships are stable? It looks to me like all human interactions runt he risk of being filled with conflict and drama
Naturally, but right now you are comparing apples to oranges. So because life itself involves risk, it somehow undermines specific risks? That's being far too broad.
What exactly is "the norm?" Who defines it? Is it anything more than an appeal to popularity, where whatever the most people do must be the "right" way?
Normative behavior is a predominant behavioral trait shared by a species. Doctors and scientists don't so much assign as it as they do observe the phenomena and then report on it. But I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong. I'm not saying there is some moral imperative at hand here. I'm just saying that there is a dichotomy here.
WHAT EVIDENCE? Point out where in this thread you have used any sort of evidence beyond personal anecdotes. Granted, I've doen the same, but don't feed me a pile of bullshit by saying the evidence is against me when you've not even attempted to show any.
The evidence I was referring to is all around us in society. It's observational.
Many cultures have engaged in non-monogamous traditions. Typically, this involves polgamy, though I've heard of women with multiple husbands as well. Just because monogamy is widespread today in developed countries doesnt mean that there's anything hardwired.
Which societies?
I didn't ask for your permission, nor do I require your blessing. I'm simply stating that human relationships are many and widely varied, and that blanket statements like "casual sex leads to reduced capacity to establish meaningful relationships and bond to other people" are ignorant and demonstrative of armchair psychology. Not everyone thinks, feels, loves, or bonds the same way you or Taz or I do.
Want some more armchair psychology? I'm being perfectly respectful in this conversation and you are growing more agitated as time goes on. Sometimes (as in, NOT ALWAYS) people that become easily offended by remarks that don't involve them often lash out because subconsciously they agree to some degree, but don't want it to be so. So instead of having a calm conversion, they attack defensively as a self-defense mechanism.
How's that for armchair psychology?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 6:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2009 12:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 2:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 158 (511874)
06-12-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 12:27 PM


But in all reality, how many hookers out there find a deep sense of job satisfaction? How many are really fucked up in the head, due in part to their job?
I think you're overlooking hookers who are legally prostitutes in places like The Netherlands or even Nevada. They don't seem to have a lot of head fuck-ups from their job. You seem to be focusing on the street-walking hookers, who are fucked-up in the head for most likely a myriad of reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 1:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 158 (511880)
06-12-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2009 12:42 PM


I think you're overlooking hookers who are legally prostitutes in places like The Netherlands or even Nevada. They don't seem to have a lot of head fuck-ups from their job. You seem to be focusing on the street-walking hookers, who are fucked-up in the head for most likely a myriad of reasons.
I can only speak on experience. I've never been to the Netherlands and the only time I was ever in Vegas was in the airport. Didn't see too many people hooking there. So I can't comment on those two cities.
But I have lived in a lot of different large cities in the US. And while there are of course many different reasons for a person's mental state, doesn't one usually lead to the other?

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2009 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2009 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 158 (511883)
06-12-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 1:05 PM


It was just a bad example.
It'd be like looking at a homeless panhandler and saying that sitting on the sidewalk makes you lose your teeth.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 158 (511886)
06-12-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2009 12:42 PM


I think you're overlooking hookers who are legally prostitutes in places like The Netherlands or even Nevada. They don't seem to have a lot of head fuck-ups from their job.
Eh...I don't know about this one CS.
It doesn't seem like the type of profession little girls hope for, or try to strive for, it seems like a last hope for survival in a fucked up world that forces them to prostitute.
They may not be "fucked up" in the head, as in "mentally fucked up" (like someone on crack or who was abused would be), but their lives are fucked up in the sense that they sell their bodies just to survive, and their heads can't be right if they've convinced themselves that this is OK. Just like pornstars.
Here's an opinion from "the Chomsky" that deals with what I'm saying.
The main point is to stop the conditions that force women to have to humiliate themselves - even if they consent to it - the point is it shouldn't be an option. However, if they have convinced themselves that it's OK to humiliate themselves by selling their bodies, or don't even find it humilitating in the least, then I would say they are "fucked up" in the head. And of course, as always, I blame the system.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2009 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:46 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 158 (511888)
06-12-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
06-12-2009 1:24 PM


The irony of dichotomy
It doesn't seem like the type of profession little girls hope for, or try to strive for, it seems like a last hope for survival in a fucked up world that forces them to prostitute.
They may not be "fucked up" in the head, as in "mentally fucked up" (like someone on crack or who was abused would be), but their lives are fucked up in the sense that they sell their bodies just to survive, and their heads can't be right if they've convinced themselves that this is OK. Just like pornstars.
Yeah, that pretty much summarizes my position. Rahvin seems to think that I'm invoking and advocating some puritanical life as the only way to live. Pshhh... Far from it! In fact, it could be said that people that come from strict, puritanical backgrounds are just as fucked up, if not more, than people who trivialize sex.
All I offered was that with sex comes some responsibilities and some consequences. If someone literally slept with a new stranger every day of their lives, I'm sorry, but eventually you are going to objectify men or women to some degree. I think eventually as a self-defense mechanism, they might do what they can to disassociate feelings of love and/or affection with sex as much as possible.
Here's an opinion from "the Chomsky" that deals with what I'm saying.
Chomsky's position here is shocking to me. This guy is as liberal as it gets. Huh...
The main point is to stop the conditions that force women to have to humiliate themselves - even if they consent to it - the point is it shouldn't be an option. However, if they have convinced themselves that it's OK to humiliate themselves by selling their bodies, or don't even find it humilitating in the least, then I would say they are "fucked up" in the head. And of course, as always, I blame the system.
Yeah, good points...
See, the people that advocate loose sex the most often can do so only because of that intentional detachment. How many fathers want their daughters to be loose? Honestly... Who? It doesn't happen.
I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression here. I like sex a whole lot. But things that we like may not always be the best things for us. I like pizza too, but by that logic should I eat the shit every damn day? No, that wouldn't healthy. I like money, but does that mean that I'm willing to let it control me? No. Sometimes we feel like literally killing people that piss us off. Imagine if we followed every impulse that flashed in our mind.
So, that's kind of how I feel about casual sex. I just attach a small caveat with it. I don't think that people that engage in it are doomed or anything. I just think that, like it is with most anything else, there is some risk involved... And not just physically with diseases.
The interesting thing about it is the irony. On the one hand, people that are in serious and monogamous relationships end up getting that itch to stray, even if it's a fleeting glance through a surge of hormones. You know, just because you're in a relationship doesn't mean that all of a sudden you aren't attracted to other people.
Ironically, people that do have lots of casual sex either long for love or flee from it, perhaps to mask some pain. Therein lies the dichotomy of the situation.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 1:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 2:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 2:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 105 of 158 (511897)
06-12-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 12:27 PM


quote:
I also feel the need to correct those who think that the way they feel is the way everyone feels.
I understand that and agree. All I am really saying is that with many people it is known to cause some problems. That does not mean everyone. But in all reality, how many hookers out there find a deep sense of job satisfaction? How many are really fucked up in the head, due in part to their job? I think it takes a toll on people more than they are aware.
To expand on CS' response to this, most hookers have issues because of the abuse (both before and during their "employment") that statistically goes with thier profession. In places where prostitution is legal (and thus the prostitute can call on the authorities for protection ratehr than a pimp, for example) far fewer hookers tend to have such serious issues.
The sex itself, it would appear, doesn't have much of an effect at all. Ever seen the HBO series about the legal bordello in Nevada? Those girls seem to be perfectly happy with their jobs.
quote:
Becasue of the lying and betrayal, genius.
Ah, but that begs the question... Why must one lie in the first place? Obviously there is a stigma that exists before the action of lying or cheating begins, right? So, it's self-defeating to say that it is because of lying and betrayal, especially when taken in its context.
The lying and betrayal happens when a couple has specifically entered a monogamous relationship, and one person violates that agreement. The stigma is created by the couple themselves - one partner knows, because of their relationship, that the other will not allow an affair, and so he/she lies about it.
That stigma does not always exist. It depends on the boundaries of the relationship. I do believe that, when it comes to human sexuality, "normal" is a lot more strange and varied than you would imagine. Which is my point - you're excluding a wide range of relationships from classification as "normal" based on...what, exactly? Public perception of normal? We all know that, with sexuality more so than other things, "public perception" and "what's going on under the covers" are rather widely divided.
quote:
And I'm saying that you're playing armchair psychologist and speaking from the orifice typically utilized for expelling solid waste. Casual sex need not have consequences in terms of the ability to bond with other human beings. The actual consequences of casual sex are an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs, both of which can be controlled to some extent. The emotional consequences you're talking about do not always apply.
I'm not suggesting that they always apply. There are exceptions to every rule. I am speaking about normative, human behavior. Not everyone feels remorse, as in the case with sociopaths, but most people do. That's a good thing.
Thats a rather curious comparison to use - sociopaths feeling no remorse, compared to those who can have guilt-free casual sex within the bounds of a polyamorous relationship. But I think that you'd find such relationships to be far more common, as well as far less sinister, than sociopaths. And I think you'd be surprised at what "most" people do or have done with regards to sexuality. This isn't the 1950s...and even then... I think that those who engage in casual sex without being diminished in their capacity to feel love and bond with others is far closer to "the rule" and less the "exception" than you believe.
quote:
How many monogamous relationships are stable? It looks to me like all human interactions runt he risk of being filled with conflict and drama
Naturally, but right now you are comparing apples to oranges. So because life itself involves risk, it somehow undermines specific risks? That's being far too broad.
Perhaps you should try reading again.
I'm saying that polyamorous relationships are no less stable than monogamous relationships; that the perceived instability is due to selection bias and the nature of human relationships that affects both types. I'm saying that there is no real heightened risk associated with polyamorous relationships. The "risk" of a polyamorous relationship is no different from the "risk" of a monogamous one. Unless you'd care to prove that there is a heightened risk associated with polyamorous relationships? Since you're the one making that claim, the burden of proof rests on you.
quote:
What exactly is "the norm?" Who defines it? Is it anything more than an appeal to popularity, where whatever the most people do must be the "right" way?
Normative behavior is a predominant behavioral trait shared by a species. Doctors and scientists don't so much assign as it as they do observe the phenomena and then report on it. But I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong. I'm not saying there is some moral imperative at hand here. I'm just saying that there is a dichotomy here.
And yet human relationships aren't like those of animal species: there isn't really a predominant species behavior associated with sexuality. It changes based on culture, not biology. Some humans mate for life; some mate sequencially and monogamously; some practice polygyny, and others simply have casual sex. Sometimes an individual person can go through several of these - casual sex, a monogamous marriage intended to be lifelong, followed by a divorce and remarriage, etc. Predominance only arises culturally among humans...and in modern, western culture, the predominant trait is that people tend to be doing more under the covers than the rest of us are led to believe.
So again, who gets to be the arbiter of "normalcy" and "healthy behavior?" The majority of people I know engage in what you would likely consider "abnormal" sexuality (though not necessarily all of the same types). Many of them are in stable, healthy, long-term relationships, whether those relationships are what you'd call "normal" or not.
quote:
WHAT EVIDENCE? Point out where in this thread you have used any sort of evidence beyond personal anecdotes. Granted, I've doen the same, but don't feed me a pile of bullshit by saying the evidence is against me when you've not even attempted to show any.
The evidence I was referring to is all around us in society. It's observational.
So, what...anecdotal? Well, we have a problem then - my anecdotes against yours. It's unfortunate that they don't really prove anything.
So how about this: since you're the one making a claim (that casual sex carries a higher risk of diminishing participants' ability to bond with others of have healthy, loving relationships in the future), immediately present non anecdotal evidence or concede that you don't have any, and thus your claim is baseless.
quote:
Many cultures have engaged in non-monogamous traditions. Typically, this involves polgamy, though I've heard of women with multiple husbands as well. Just because monogamy is widespread today in developed countries doesnt mean that there's anything hardwired.
Which societies?
From Wikipedia:
quote:
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[2] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.[8] To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy
...
Until 1935 polygyny was legally recognised in Thailand. In Burma, polygyny was also frequent. In Sri Lanka, polyandry was practiced (though not widespread) till recent times. [9] When the Buddhist texts were translated into Chinese, the concubines of others were added to the list of inappropriate partners. In Tibet as well, both polygyny and polyandry were commonly practiced. Having several wives or several husbands was never regarded as having sex with inappropriate partners.
...
Both polygyny and polyandry were practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times.
...
The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists. Notable examples include Abraham, who bore for himself a child through his wife's maidservant;[15] Jacob, who had fallen in love with Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her sister, Leah;[16] David, who inherited his wives from Saul;[17] and perhaps most famously, Solomon, who was led astray by his wives
...
The history of Mormon polygamy (more accurately, polygyny) begins with belief that Mormonism founder Joseph Smith received a revelation from God on July 17, 1831 that some Mormon men would be allowed to practice "plural marriage".
...
In Islam, polygamy is allowed for men, with the specific limitation that they can only have up to four wives at any one time, by considering the first wife's wishes...In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures[citation needed], Saudi Arabia, West and East Africa (In Sudan it is encouraged from the president as female population is high).[54] Among the 22 member states of the Arab League, Tunisia alone explicitly prohibits polygamy;
...
In South Africa, traditionalists commonly practice polygamy.[61] The president, Jacob Zuma is also openly in favor of plural marriages, being married to numerous wives himself.
...
Polygamy is encouraged in countries such as Sudan, where President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has encouraged multiple marriages to increase the population.
And that's jsut polygamy, which is restricted to non-monogamous marriage. That doesn't even begin to cover the whole of cultures where non-monogamous relationships were common. Homosexual affairs were accepted and commonplace in Rome, Greece, and even Europe at various times.
quote:
I didn't ask for your permission, nor do I require your blessing. I'm simply stating that human relationships are many and widely varied, and that blanket statements like "casual sex leads to reduced capacity to establish meaningful relationships and bond to other people" are ignorant and demonstrative of armchair psychology. Not everyone thinks, feels, loves, or bonds the same way you or Taz or I do.
Want some more armchair psychology? I'm being perfectly respectful in this conversation and you are growing more agitated as time goes on. Sometimes (as in, NOT ALWAYS) people that become easily offended by remarks that don't involve them often lash out because subconsciously they agree to some degree, but don't want it to be so. So instead of having a calm conversion, they attack defensively as a self-defense mechanism.
How's that for armchair psychology?
Not bad, pseud-Freud. But as the real deal said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Or, perhaps you're simply not aware of all of the variables involved in my moods, and what may make me a somewhat "hostile" poster. Perhaps I'm offended at your baseless claims that people who engage in casual sex must suffer some consequence that for all objective purposes you seem to have completely made up. Perhaps I get irritable when a person paints an entire class of people as "abnormal" or not healthy" without any evidence to back up such claims. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Or maybe I just don't like your avatar - Vader looks much better in his normal black, thank you. Maybe all of the above...or something else entirely.
Insisting that I'm "lashing out" because I'm in denial over secretly agreeing with you sounds to me like a lot of overcomplicated horseshit, personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 3:00 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024