Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 02-27-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
I have to disagree. What evolved as the best method remains the best method. And we are not evolved now, we are constantly evolving. And we understand that when facing an evolutionary hurdle, genes spread among multiple partners is the best method some of your offspring has to clear that hurdle.

As has always been the case. Monogamy is not natural, it is programmed. The two parent family group is a strategy that benefits the offspring more than a single parent, there is no denying this. But since there is no denying that. There is also no denying that a multi parent family group is even better than a two parent family group.

Three, five, seven adults. Intermingling resources, genes, and nurturing upon a brood of children. This group would be more successful than any two parent group.

Only if the adults were happy with the arrangement.

Quote:

You can tell me that some have been programmed to believe monogamy is the be all end all. And they might even believe it. But that doesn't make it so.

Yes it does, for them.

Is your argument that what furthers the species is what truly makes people happy?

Are all gay people in denial, then? They think they are happy but really they are not because they are reproducing more humans?

What about people who use contraceptives? Are they not happy because they aren't creating more humans? Or have they found a way to 'trick' what evolved through happiness and reproduction being linked?

Maybe family groups evolved because they were more successful child-rearing groups; in which case people who preferred monogamy would have been naturally selected for, wouldn't they?

Because evolution has not 'succeeded' just because conception occurs. Success hasn't happened until the next generation gets old enough to reproduce and does so.

Therefore, for various reasons that I tried to mention above, invoking evolution cuts both ways and doesn't unambiguously support your position, imo.

Helen

Jamie_L · 02-27-2003, 07:34 AM

Dangin:

My point had nothing to do with the successfulness of a family unit (in terms of providing resources for the children). My point was related to the happiness of the adults involved. Some people, for whatever reason, will be happier with this arrangement, and their happiness also relates directly to the emotional resources provided to the children.

Furthermore, what we have evolved may be an effective method, but there may be other methods that work as well or better that just never made it into the equation. And lastly, we are evolved for a world that no longer exists. The modern world has developed so rapidly that it is now erroneous to say we are "evolved" for it.

Really, most adults are more concerned with being happy than maximizing the resources available to their offspring. Even multiple partner associations develop more because the partners just like that than because they are strategizing about the futures of their offspring.

So, again, it's incorrect to point to life-long monogamy and say "that method is a bad idea." It may be a bad idea for some. But for others, it can work well, and make them happier than they otherwise would be.

And, as far as I'm concerned, that's the real goal of most humans. To be happy.

Jamie

dangin · 02-27-2003, 07:48 AM

Hey Helen Baby, how you been? I'm supposed to cast innuendos your way anyway, (I'm under orders) so I'm glad you came along today.

First of all, you so fine.

Second of all, Of course I don't advocate people be in family groups who aren't happy with it. I also don't advocate people stay in monogamous marriages who aren't happy with it. I do advocate that they put their children first when they split up, as much as is possible.

Helen (in bold from here on out)

Is your argument that what furthers the species is what truly makes people happy?

No my argument is that sexual pleasure evolved because those that felt sexual pleasure bred more, thus passing on their genes more. This alone does not account for offspring success but is a good part of it. It is also my argument that we are driven to procreate as a whole, and that since those who have spread their genes the most, are the most represented today (we all have ancestors who impregnated or were impregnated by multiple partners. In fact the majority of our ancestors fit this category I would posit). Thus the drive to be this way is very much alive in us.

Are all gay people in denial, then? They think they are happy but really they are not because they are reproducing more humans?

No, gay people (some) do breed. They (some) also feel the need to be parents. And their sexual practices are consistent with how their heterosexual counterparts evolved. Also nature does select some to not breed. Homosexuality, infertility, asexuality, can all be aspects of the random mixture of genes. Just as it is natural that some do not get a chance to breed.

What about people who use contraceptives? Are they not happy because they aren't creating more humans? Or have they found a way to 'trick' what evolved through happiness and reproduction being linked?

As one of the few species who seek sex outside of female reproductive cycles it is not strange that we have learned to control reproduction. And we have evolved to want sex, not want sex only when a female is fertile. Many of our sexual mechanisms utilize a "shotgun" approach. IOW, throw enough bullets out there, one of them is going to hit something.

Finally, contraceptives have not been around long enough to have an evolutionary effect on our development.

Maybe family groups evolved because they were more successful child-rearing groups; in which case people who preferred monogamy would have been naturally selected for, wouldn't they?

But honey, it (monogamy) hasn't been. There is no sexual study, or culture you can point to that shows life long monogamy to be the norm. Family groups evolved because as a group we thrive. As individuals we fail. Besides, what about all those time you wanted me to meet you in a hotel in Chicago?

Because evolution has not 'succeeded' just because conception occurs. Success hasn't happened until the next generation gets old enough to reproduce and does so.

Quite right. That is why humans evolved facing two selections. We have both natural and sexual selection. Natural selection means we have the strength (both physical and mental) to survive. Sexual selection means not only are we surviving, we are appealing enough to the opposite sex so they will accept our genes to mix with theirs. And once again, family groups are better prepared to care, provide for, protect, and educate children than single or double parent paradigms. Of course there is also the shotgun approach here, where a man just impregnates as many females as possible, and hopes some make it through. But that is not as successful as a paternal investment. A paternal investment which is possible whether or not monogamy is present.

Therefore, for various reasons that I tried to mention above, invoking evolution cuts both ways and doesn't unambiguously support your position, imo.

Everyone of your ancestors bred. A large mixture of things about them led to their being involved in procreation. Every time a being dies without procreating, the entire line of ancestors behind that being is cut off from further development along that line. (most of these ancestors will be represented by other lines though) But the one failure, the last of the line, will not be represented in the future at all except indirectly by the offspring of siblings and or close relatives.

Each of these failures, and there are billions, no trillions (OK more than that) are no longer represented.

Those that are represented are the successful products of both natural and sexual selection. The most successful use of sexual selection is multi partner. I really don't see what the objection can be here. Monogamy can work, it simply has less efficacy than a multi partner situation. Which is played out because we are all the products, thousands of times over, of multi partner sexual practices. If life is a struggle, the plan that works somewhat well, will fail when confronted by the plan that is more aggressive.

FlyingWOOxygen · 02-27-2003, 07:54 AM

When I met my wife, we both had "significant others". She had a boyfriend and I had a girlfriend.

Very shortly after meeting each other we dumped our "others" and began dating. We celebrate our 10th year together this year.

HelenM · 02-27-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
Besides, what about all those time you wanted me to meet you in a hotel in Chicago?

I might have known you'd bring that up...

C'mon, there was only one and it was when you were supposed to be here for work reasons (but your plans changed). I only wanted to meet you. And you assured me nothing non-consensual would take place if I did. And as you know I'm 100% committed to monogamy...

Ok, having dealt with that, I have no further comments on the rest of what you said - and I do appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Helen

dangin · 02-27-2003, 08:50 AM

Oh Helen, don't deny it, what about all our Song of Solomon flirting that got me banned from the I Love Jesus boards. You're a strumpet and you know it.

HelenM · 02-27-2003, 09:15 AM

If it was both of us, why did they only ban one of us?

Anyway, this surely off-topic

Helen

brighid · 02-27-2003, 11:04 AM

Quote:

When I met my wife, we both had "significant others". She had a boyfriend and I had a girlfriend.

Things like this happen all the time, but thankfully both of you had enough respect to leave your "other."

My personal philosophy and practice has been when other men start looking much appealing then the man I am with, I either need to reevaluate the relationship to see what is lacking OR I need to leave and move on. I have had to do that and it wasn't pleasant, but it was the right thing to do. I can also honestly say that I have never cheated on a partner I had a commitment to, even though the temptation and opportunity where available.

Brighid

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

02-27-2003, 07:34 AM	#52
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Dangin: My point had nothing to do with the successfulness of a family unit (in terms of providing resources for the children). My point was related to the happiness of the adults involved. Some people, for whatever reason, will be happier with this arrangement, and their happiness also relates directly to the emotional resources provided to the children. Furthermore, what we have evolved may be an effective method, but there may be other methods that work as well or better that just never made it into the equation. And lastly, we are evolved for a world that no longer exists. The modern world has developed so rapidly that it is now erroneous to say we are "evolved" for it. Really, most adults are more concerned with being happy than maximizing the resources available to their offspring. Even multiple partner associations develop more because the partners just like that than because they are strategizing about the futures of their offspring. So, again, it's incorrect to point to life-long monogamy and say "that method is a bad idea." It may be a bad idea for some. But for others, it can work well, and make them happier than they otherwise would be. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's the real goal of most humans. To be happy. Jamie

02-27-2003, 07:48 AM	#53
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Hey Helen Baby, how you been? I'm supposed to cast innuendos your way anyway, (I'm under orders) so I'm glad you came along today. First of all, you so fine. Second of all, Of course I don't advocate people be in family groups who aren't happy with it. I also don't advocate people stay in monogamous marriages who aren't happy with it. I do advocate that they put their children first when they split up, as much as is possible. Helen (in bold from here on out) Is your argument that what furthers the species is what truly makes people happy? No my argument is that sexual pleasure evolved because those that felt sexual pleasure bred more, thus passing on their genes more. This alone does not account for offspring success but is a good part of it. It is also my argument that we are driven to procreate as a whole, and that since those who have spread their genes the most, are the most represented today (we all have ancestors who impregnated or were impregnated by multiple partners. In fact the majority of our ancestors fit this category I would posit). Thus the drive to be this way is very much alive in us. Are all gay people in denial, then? They think they are happy but really they are not because they are reproducing more humans? No, gay people (some) do breed. They (some) also feel the need to be parents. And their sexual practices are consistent with how their heterosexual counterparts evolved. Also nature does select some to not breed. Homosexuality, infertility, asexuality, can all be aspects of the random mixture of genes. Just as it is natural that some do not get a chance to breed. What about people who use contraceptives? Are they not happy because they aren't creating more humans? Or have they found a way to 'trick' what evolved through happiness and reproduction being linked? As one of the few species who seek sex outside of female reproductive cycles it is not strange that we have learned to control reproduction. And we have evolved to want sex, not want sex only when a female is fertile. Many of our sexual mechanisms utilize a "shotgun" approach. IOW, throw enough bullets out there, one of them is going to hit something. Finally, contraceptives have not been around long enough to have an evolutionary effect on our development. Maybe family groups evolved because they were more successful child-rearing groups; in which case people who preferred monogamy would have been naturally selected for, wouldn't they? But honey, it (monogamy) hasn't been. There is no sexual study, or culture you can point to that shows life long monogamy to be the norm. Family groups evolved because as a group we thrive. As individuals we fail. Besides, what about all those time you wanted me to meet you in a hotel in Chicago? Because evolution has not 'succeeded' just because conception occurs. Success hasn't happened until the next generation gets old enough to reproduce and does so. Quite right. That is why humans evolved facing two selections. We have both natural and sexual selection. Natural selection means we have the strength (both physical and mental) to survive. Sexual selection means not only are we surviving, we are appealing enough to the opposite sex so they will accept our genes to mix with theirs. And once again, family groups are better prepared to care, provide for, protect, and educate children than single or double parent paradigms. Of course there is also the shotgun approach here, where a man just impregnates as many females as possible, and hopes some make it through. But that is not as successful as a paternal investment. A paternal investment which is possible whether or not monogamy is present. Therefore, for various reasons that I tried to mention above, invoking evolution cuts both ways and doesn't unambiguously support your position, imo. Everyone of your ancestors bred. A large mixture of things about them led to their being involved in procreation. Every time a being dies without procreating, the entire line of ancestors behind that being is cut off from further development along that line. (most of these ancestors will be represented by other lines though) But the one failure, the last of the line, will not be represented in the future at all except indirectly by the offspring of siblings and or close relatives. Each of these failures, and there are billions, no trillions (OK more than that) are no longer represented. Those that are represented are the successful products of both natural and sexual selection. The most successful use of sexual selection is multi partner. I really don't see what the objection can be here. Monogamy can work, it simply has less efficacy than a multi partner situation. Which is played out because we are all the products, thousands of times over, of multi partner sexual practices. If life is a struggle, the plan that works somewhat well, will fail when confronted by the plan that is more aggressive.

02-27-2003, 07:54 AM	#54
FlyingWOOxygen Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 15	When I met my wife, we both had "significant others". She had a boyfriend and I had a girlfriend. Very shortly after meeting each other we dumped our "others" and began dating. We celebrate our 10th year together this year.

02-27-2003, 08:50 AM	#56
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Oh Helen, don't deny it, what about all our Song of Solomon flirting that got me banned from the I Love Jesus boards. You're a strumpet and you know it.

02-27-2003, 09:15 AM	#57
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	If it was both of us, why did they only ban one of us? Anyway, this surely off-topic Helen

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.