| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Reality Check" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2004 11:13:49 AM |
| Object: |
Mating for Life? |
All Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus (Bonobo), and Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee),
are Class-Mammalia; Order-Primates; Family-Hominidae, and are biologically
predisposed to polygyny (a successful male mates with numerous females --
and generally without pair bonding). Approximately 3% of mammals are
monogamous. To deny this fact or attempt to discourage it (including male
penis mutilation, also known as circumcision, and female genitalia
mutilation) is abusive, inhumane, along with physically and emotionally
stressful for Homo sapiens. However, to protect our species, STDS must
always remain an important consideration.
Find out more about it at: The Gospel Writers:
http://www.thegospelwriters.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Energumen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
18 Nov 2004 01:45:30 PM |
|
|
"Reality Check" <info@thegospelwriters.com> wrote in message
news:hL4nd.355228$wV.226678@attbi_s54...
All Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus (Bonobo), and Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee),
are Class-Mammalia; Order-Primates; Family-Hominidae, and are biologically
predisposed to polygyny (a successful male mates with numerous females --
and generally without pair bonding).
Rubbish, the proper comparison would be with existing or recently existing
homo sapiens hunter gatherers, who do have pair-bonding, even if not always
lifelong. They are also generally socially monogamous, even if not totally
reproductively monogamous. In other words they are pretty similar to modern
western societies are today. They basically pair off like teenagers do but
generally don't have large marriage ceremonies and oaths etc. They certainly
do not behave anything like gorillas or bonobos (each of which do not behave
like each other either incidentally).
There is also a relationship between monogamy and diet in mammals, that the
more carnivorous an animal is the more monogamous it generally is and vice
versa. Also the greater parental investment in offspring the greater the
likelihood of pair-bonding and monogamy.
Approximately 3% of mammals are
monogamous.
Total monogamy is rare (in mammals but not birds), partial monogomy is not
that rare. Besides humans are exceptions to many rules.
To deny this fact or attempt to discourage it (including male
penis mutilation, also known as circumcision, and female genitalia
mutilation) is abusive, inhumane, along with physically and emotionally
stressful for Homo sapiens. However, to protect our species, STDS must
always remain an important consideration.
Find out more about it at: The Gospel Writers:
http://www.thegospelwriters.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
20 Nov 2004 06:45:13 PM |
|
|
"Reality Check" <info@thegospelwriters.com> wrote in message news:<hL4nd.355228$wV.226678@attbi_s54>...
All Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus (Bonobo), and Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee),
are Class-Mammalia; Order-Primates; Family-Hominidae, and are biologically
predisposed to polygyny (a successful male mates with numerous females --
and generally without pair bonding).
Generally without pair bonding? What are you generalizing from, the
sex lives of 20-year-old gay club kittens?
Sorry, that sooo doesn't fit the profile of most of the people I know.
Furthermore, female humans mate with multiple males (and females) over
their lifetimes^1 as well!
Approximately 3% of mammals are
monogamous.
On today's Spot That Logical Fallacy we present The Fallacy of the
Excluded Middle. Made famous by Dubya (you're either with us or
against us), brought to gut-busting lows by PETA (humans aren't
carnivores so they must be herbivores!), and lampooned by chemists
everywhere (if you aren't part of solution, you're part of the
precipitate), poster "Reality Check" has used to conclude (ha ha!)
that since humans are not an exclusively monogamous species (a rara
avis in nature, 'tis true) and neither are our closest relatives, then
we *MUST* be a polygynous species. Well, that makes perfect
doo-diddly-do-dah sense, don't it?
Incidently, citing Bonobos in favor of polygyny is pretty amusing.
-Hypatia
1-and sometimes over a weekend. not that I *cough, cough* would know
anything about that...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
18 Nov 2004 08:52:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:13:49 GMT, "Reality Check"
<info@thegospelwriters.com> wrote:
All Homo sapiens, Pan paniscus (Bonobo), and Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee),
are Class-Mammalia; Order-Primates; Family-Hominidae, and are biologically
predisposed to polygyny (a successful male mates with numerous females --
and generally without pair bonding). Approximately 3% of mammals are
monogamous. To deny this fact or attempt to discourage it (including male
penis mutilation, also known as circumcision, and female genitalia
mutilation) is abusive, inhumane, along with physically and emotionally
stressful for Homo sapiens. However, to protect our species, STDS must
always remain an important consideration.
Find out more about it at: The Gospel Writers:
http://www.thegospelwriters.com/
Well then how DO you explain the dominant cultural value of monogamy
amongst homo sapiens? How did that happen?
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
19 Nov 2004 09:45:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu 18 Nov 2004 08:52:08p, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated
at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Well then how DO you explain the dominant cultural value of monogamy
amongst homo sapiens? How did that happen?
It's only dominant in Christian-dominated cultures. Polygamous,
polyandrous, and monogamous societies all exist in one place or another.
In Christian-dominated areas of the world, monogamy is the accepted
tradition because Christianity teaches that humans should be monogamous.
In societies dominated by non-monogamous religions, monogamy is far more
rare.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
20 Nov 2004 06:54:37 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A6655531BC0Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On Thu 18 Nov 2004 08:52:08p, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated
at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Well then how DO you explain the dominant cultural value of monogamy
amongst homo sapiens? How did that happen?
It's only dominant in Christian-dominated cultures.
*****. The Japanese fucking OUTLAWED Catholicism in the 17th
century and their culture has always been monogamous. (And sexist,
with a divorce system that favored men.) Meanwhile, China had a
polygynous system (at least for those men who were wealthy enough)
along with the requisite number of eunuchs. Hey, I don't know why, but
I doubt it was Buddhism. (Buddhist monks are celibate--well, as much
so as their Western counterparts, let's put it that way.)
Polygamous,
polyandrous, and monogamous societies all exist in one place or another.
But not in equal portions. Polyandry is pretty fucking rare, and far
from being some sort of Amazonian or feminist culture, is, from what I
can gather, pretty much dictated by extreme circumstances.
Sure, I won't deny the impact Christianity had in bringing monogamy to
a certain part of the world. Of course, in some cases in spread into
places where that was already the accepted cultural practice. But
Christianity is not the sine qua non of monogamy in the world.
In some cases Islam brought polygyny to places where monogamy had been
the norm. (During their heyday, they also had armies of eunuchs. Sex
and economic imbalances of severe proportions seem to be a frequent
theme in polygynous cultures.)
In Christian-dominated areas of the world, monogamy is the accepted
tradition because Christianity teaches that humans should be monogamous.
Except for Christian polygynists.
In societies dominated by non-monogamous religions, monogamy is far more
rare.
Thanks for that boner of a tautology.
-Hy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
19 Nov 2004 08:54:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:45:33 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On Thu 18 Nov 2004 08:52:08p, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated
at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Well then how DO you explain the dominant cultural value of monogamy
amongst homo sapiens? How did that happen?
It's only dominant in Christian-dominated cultures. Polygamous,
polyandrous, and monogamous societies all exist in one place or another.
In Christian-dominated areas of the world, monogamy is the accepted
tradition because Christianity teaches that humans should be monogamous.
In societies dominated by non-monogamous religions, monogamy is far more
rare.
Why would Christians be monogamous if it was so contrary to their
nature? Obviously if the religion is non-monogamous, then the people
that made it almost surely were (or else they would have put it into
their religion). And, I doubt that Christianity is particularly more
monogamous than any other religion or that it is particularly
monogamous, for that matter. There are sects that to this day are not
monogamous and certainly one can find instances of polygamy in the
bible.
Christians aren't monogamous because of their religion, but rather
their religion reflects the fact that they are predominantly
monogamous.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
22 Nov 2004 10:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri 19 Nov 2004 08:54:23p, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated
at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Why would Christians be monogamous if it was so contrary to their
nature?
Why would African natives be polygamous if it is so contrary to their
nature? For that matter, why would we restrict our eating habits when
it is unquestionably contrary to our nature? Humans do many things that
are contrary to their instinctive nature -- that's one of the effects of
having congnitive skills that can override instinct. The very fact that
men have the urge to sleep with as many women as possible shows that our
instincts are contrary to monogamy.
Obviously if the religion is non-monogamous, then the people
that made it almost surely were (or else they would have put it into
their religion). And, I doubt that Christianity is particularly more
monogamous than any other religion or that it is particularly
monogamous, for that matter. There are sects that to this day are not
monogamous and certainly one can find instances of polygamy in the
bible.
Yes, there are, and yes, one can. But New Testament teaching, and the
vast majority of Christian teachings today, hold that polygamy is
immoral. This is taught more strictly in Christianity than in almost
any other religion today.
Christians aren't monogamous because of their religion, but rather
their religion reflects the fact that they are predominantly
monogamous.
Why are they predominantly monogamous? The discussion here is about the
source of that monogamy. You say it isn't religion (even though the
culture invariably follows the teaching of their religion in this
regard); well, then, what is it? It's not genetic, or we wouldn't see
just as many polygamous cultures as monogamous ones (today, monogamy is
dominant, but over the course of history monogamy doesn't seem to be any
more popular than polygamy). It could be culture, perhaps; but what
element of culture teaches monogamy? In America, for example, in what
part of our learning do we learn to be monogamous? The only part of our
culture that explicitly teaches that is religion. Why is this, if
religion has nothing to do with it?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Mating for Life? |
24 Nov 2004 08:24:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:17:19 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On Fri 19 Nov 2004 08:54:23p, Liberator Veritatis
<LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated
at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
Why would Christians be monogamous if it was so contrary to their
nature?
Why would African natives be polygamous if it is so contrary to their
nature? For that matter, why would we restrict our eating habits when
it is unquestionably contrary to our nature? Humans do many things that
are contrary to their instinctive nature -- that's one of the effects of
having congnitive skills that can override instinct. The very fact that
men have the urge to sleep with as many women as possible shows that our
instincts are contrary to monogamy.
That's not true at all. The desire for sex is not contrary to our
nature. Dieting is a matter of survival which is also not contrary to
our nature. Nor is polygamy contrary to our nature under the right
circumstances.
But, neither is monogamy contrary to our nature when there are roughly
equal numbers of men and women.
Obviously if the religion is non-monogamous, then the people
that made it almost surely were (or else they would have put it into
their religion). And, I doubt that Christianity is particularly more
monogamous than any other religion or that it is particularly
monogamous, for that matter. There are sects that to this day are not
monogamous and certainly one can find instances of polygamy in the
bible.
Yes, there are, and yes, one can. But New Testament teaching, and the
vast majority of Christian teachings today, hold that polygamy is
immoral. This is taught more strictly in Christianity than in almost
any other religion today.
I don't think so. While Baptists, for instance, are monogamous, most
of the young single Baptists out there are promiscuous and most
Baptists don't really think that they will go to hell for it.
Although most of them think of a monogamous marriage as the ideal, as
well. So, the extent to which Christianity systematically attempts to
stamp out alternatives to monogamy is highly dubitable.
Christians aren't monogamous because of their religion, but rather
their religion reflects the fact that they are predominantly
monogamous.
Why are they predominantly monogamous? The discussion here is about the
source of that monogamy. You say it isn't religion (even though the
culture invariably follows the teaching of their religion in this
regard); well, then, what is it?
No -- the teachings of the religion follow the culture in this regard.
What motivation do Christians have for making a Christianity
monogamous? Does the church gain power from this? How? What other
motivation is there? How did it happen if it is as you say that we
are so predisposed to something other than monogamy?
It's not genetic, or we wouldn't see
just as many polygamous cultures as monogamous ones (today, monogamy is
dominant, but over the course of history monogamy doesn't seem to be any
more popular than polygamy).
On the contrary, it is plenty genetic, subject to a particular
context. Polygamy and polyandry are selected against when there are
equal numbers of males and females. If the females vastly outnumber
the males, then polygamy is natural. And conversely (probably to a
less extent) if males out number females. Promiscuity as an
alternative to monogamy when there are roughly equal numbers of males
and females is problematic due to the spread of disease and the
rearing of children.
It is the latter that is particularly an issue. Parents want to raise
their own children and do not want to be responsible for another's
child. This is why men would, for instance, want their wives to be
monogamous. Wives want their husbands to devote all of their
resources to their own children and not the child of another woman.
And so on.
It could be culture, perhaps; but what
element of culture teaches monogamy? In America, for example, in what
part of our learning do we learn to be monogamous? The only part of our
culture that explicitly teaches that is religion. Why is this, if
religion has nothing to do with it?
Why would religion just decide to be monogamous? What about monogamy
makes a religion stronger that it would be this way in the face of our
natural inclination? All things being equal, if there were two
religions -- one that coincided with our natural sexual inclinations
and one that did not, but otherwise the same -- it would seem that the
one that coincided with out sexual inclinations would instantly be
adopted over the one that did not.
What if there was a religion that taught that heterosexuality was
immoral? How long to think that religion would last? How many
converts would it get? I'm sure gay people would love it, but the
world must remain predominantly heterosexual over the long run and so
I do not believe such a religion could possibly make it very far.
What if a religion taught that one ought to kill their children or to
never have children? How long would that religion last? Maybe a
generation among a small subset of people, but not much longer.
So, this is why it is hard to take it terribly seriously that religion
can really dominate over a human nature.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
