Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nic Tamzek · 02-03-2003, 11:12 PM

Quote:

You left out misogynists and homophobes.

There is, of course, feminist and pro-gay ev. psych. as well. Which is yet another reason that the whole lot should be treated extra-carefully. The fact that politics is so influential, I mean, not that feminists have a say...

[beats hasty retreat]

PS: Age of onset of puberty/menstruation is a rather crucial consideration in discussing male attraction to young ladies and the appropriateness thereof. The cited post by "aristoff" cites some Yanomamo stats that the age of female puberty is 12.3 years or something, but this article

The Impact of Increased Menstruation Rates on Women�s Health and Reproductive Cancers
Rachel Bayer
December 19, 2001

...says:

Quote:

While the reasons behind why women menstruate remain unclear, research shows that the number of menstrual cycles modern women experience differs greatly from the number experienced by pre-agricultural women. It is impossible to know with certainty the reproductive patterns that prevailed 10,000 years ago. However, it is likely that the reproductive patterns of Stone Age women are more closely related to those of current hunter-gatherer societies than to those of western women (Eaton and Eaton III 1999). The best opportunity to study the natural pattern of human reproduction occurs with women in current foraging societies. American women currently experience three times as many menstrual periods as women who have continued living in the ways of earlier ancestors. Foraging women are 16 years old at menarche, 19.5 year old at first birth, nurse for three to four years, have a completed family size of 5.9 live births, and an average age at menopause of 47 years. They experience a total of 160 ovulations in their lifetime. Contemporary American women are 12.5 years old at menarche, 24 years old at age of first birth, nurse for 3 months (if at all), have a completed family size of 1.8, and are 50.5 years old at menopause. American women experience approximately 450 ovulations within their lifetime (Eaton et al 1994). A study done with the Dogon women of Mali shows a similar relationship. The Dogon are a foraging society that practices natural fertility by not using modern contraceptive methods. The Dogon have a fertility rate of 8.6 � 0.3 live births per woman. Median number of lifetime menses experienced by the Dogon was 109, with a U-shaped relationship between menstruation and age showing that, from menarche to menopause, women in primary child-bearing years (20 �34 years old) rarely menstruated (Strassman 1999). Overall, this data indicates that monthly menstruation for decades on end is not the historical norm. Today, women have earlier menarche, later first birth, and fewer pregnancies. There is also a decreased suppression of menstruation through lactation as _ of children are never breast-fed and the rest only breast-feed for 3 months. Early menarche is an especially recent development. In the 19th century, the age of first menarche was the same as in the hunter-gatherer women observed today. The earlier age of first menarche can be linked to an increase in caloric intake, while at the same time occupational, educational, and social forces have led to a later first birth (Eaton and Eaton III 1999). The consequences for these changes in menstrual cycling may be seen in cancer rates among women in industrialized nations.
(bold added)

Modern high-protein, high-fat diets have made quite a difference in the age of onset of puberty. In the old days, if you were lucky enough to live to 16, you hit puberty, got married, and lived happily ever after for your nasty, brutish, and short life.

Blame McDonalds.

Oolon Colluphid · 02-04-2003, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Tamzek
Blame McDonalds.

I gather the Campbells did at Glen Coe...

[This sassenach ducks for cover...

]

DT

Jobar · 02-04-2003, 04:43 AM

Greetings Tat; welcome to Internet Infidels. Please don't apologize for the length of your post, as I found it extremely interesting; in fact I don't think I have ever even heard of HBE before. As the mod on this forum with the least expertise in university-level evolutionary science, I hope you continue to post on the subject.

Totalitarianist · 02-04-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain
Yes, I have heard that before and it seems to be a reasonable explanation. What exactly is your point?

Simply sharing information that may be of interest to persons likely to have their mind-state of non-attention mitigated by reading the contents of the article on the webpage to which I linked in my original post. It is funny how I invariably have to have an opinion of every article which I am kind enough to share with the members of the infidels.org forums, wheras the case is quite different with other members. Many members of these forums are in the habit of sharing information that they had not themselves written without sharing their opinions of it. I am suprised and appalled that you would respond to my original post so rudely.

openeyes · 02-04-2003, 11:43 AM

Even if one could argue for this evolutionary predisposition, it doesn't necesarrily make it ok. What may be good for the male in this case doesn't make it good for the female. Men may also have a predisposition for sex with many partners, but we still expect them to use their heads also and decide if that's the "right" thing to do.

pz · 02-04-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Simply sharing information that may be of interest to persons likely to have their mind-state of non-attention mitigated by reading the contents of the article on the webpage to which I linked in my original post. It is funny how I invariably have to have an opinion of every article which I am kind enough to share with the members of the infidels.org forums, wheras the case is quite different with other members.

Well, gosh. I'm sorry that you found my response and those of other people in this thread to be so lukewarm and lacking in strong personal opinion. I had no idea that my comment of "Baloney!" would be considered so tepid or ambiguous.

Quote:

Many members of these forums are in the habit of sharing information that they had not themselves written without sharing their opinions of it. I am suprised and appalled that you would respond to my original post so rudely.

You are surprised that IIDB members express strong personal opinions? What planet are you posting from?

Totalitarianist · 02-04-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by openeyes
Even if one could argue for this evolutionary predisposition, it doesn't necesarrily make it ok. What may be good for the male in this case doesn't make it good for the female. Men may also have a predisposition for sex with many partners, but we still expect them to use their heads also and decide if that's the "right" thing to do.

Did you know that 87% of all cultures are polygamous? The only thing that is "wrong" here is that people force their beliefs upon others so that what they believe to be "wrong" is "wrong" for everyone else, without question. I personally do not think that obeying one's natural impulses can be "wrong", immoral, etc; so long as such impulses are natural.

Totalitarianist · 02-04-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

You are surprised that IIDB members express strong personal opinions? What planet are you posting from?

I never said that. I said that I am surprised that one would respond to me so rudely when I did not heretofore express my opinions on the subject.

Dr Rick · 02-04-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
I personally do not think that obeying one's natural impulses can be "wrong", immoral, etc; so long as such impulses are natural.

Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer both followed their impulses, and it was wrong and immoral for them to do so, in my opinion.

Rick

openeyes · 02-04-2003, 12:20 PM

My point is that what's natural for men and what's natural for women may be two different things, so that's not really a good guide, as Dr Rick also pointed out, for what is moral or immoral.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2003, 04:43 AM	#13
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Greetings Tat; welcome to Internet Infidels. Please don't apologize for the length of your post, as I found it extremely interesting; in fact I don't think I have ever even heard of HBE before. As the mod on this forum with the least expertise in university-level evolutionary science, I hope you continue to post on the subject.

02-04-2003, 11:43 AM	#15
openeyes Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 4,215	Even if one could argue for this evolutionary predisposition, it doesn't necesarrily make it ok. What may be good for the male in this case doesn't make it good for the female. Men may also have a predisposition for sex with many partners, but we still expect them to use their heads also and decide if that's the "right" thing to do.

02-04-2003, 12:20 PM	#20
openeyes Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 4,215	My point is that what's natural for men and what's natural for women may be two different things, so that's not really a good guide, as Dr Rick also pointed out, for what is moral or immoral.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.