tronvillain

luvluv:
Hey, it's better than having sex with strangers for free. If being in porn is how they choose to deal with their pain, I see no problem with it. Of course, I am highly skeptical that this is true in many cases.

Now, you failed to address these points:

tronvillain

luvluv:
Of course, their teen pregnancy rate is tiny compared to that of the US. As LadyShea points out, its because people are choosing to have children outside of marriage.

tronvillain

So, women in general might have more of a tendency towards monogamy (or at least choosiness) than men. So what? That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with women who go against that tendency. Men probably have more of a tendency towards promiscuity than women. So what? That doesn't mean there's something wrong with men who go against that tendency. Such a limited little mind.

Pomp

Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

SanDiegoAtheist

Thank you folks, both ladies and men...

This is exactly the point I would have made...if tron & LadyShea hadn't done it first.

And in fact, we find this to be the case. Europeans marry later than Americans (if indeed they marry at all).

Moreover, there is either no difference, or little difference, under most European governments (and this is certainly the case in Sweden) between an unmarried, but cohabitating couple, and a married couple (unlike in the US, where a cohabitating couple, even if one of the two is a stay at home parent, pays taxes as a single person).

To my knowledge, this is the ONLY stat (and as pointed out, a very questionable one) that could possibly be related to sexuality, that the US leads Europe in.

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether I'm ever "married" in a court of law. To me, as to many nonreligious folks, it's simply a piece of paper. The only reason I'd bother is that in the USA, there is a definitive advantage to being married if one of the two plans on being a stay-at-home parent.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

luvluv

All right, I'm quoting now from the June 2002 issue of Essence magazine. The article is called "The Truth About Casual Sex". This is from page 127:

"(PHD psychologist Patricia) Allen explains that our(women's) urge to invest emotionally in a sexual partner is probably due to oxytocin, a hormone that plays a key role during three of a woman's most intimate physical acts - childbirth, breast-feeding, and orgasim. This chemical seems to create more of a bonding effect in women than in men. [The higher testosterone in men may overried its touchy-feely effects.] The result? 'Soon the sound of his voice, the look on his face, the touch of his hands become intensely associated with the addictive pleasure oxytocin brings' Allen says. The memory of that pleasure keeps a woman bonded to a man she's had intercourse with, even after they seperate."

*parentheticals mine, brackets hers.

Patricia Allen, PHD, is the author of a book called Getting to "I Do".

"Human males are located somewhere in the middle, indicating that, as anyone with a bit of common sense can already see, human beings are "naturally" neither completely monogamous nor indiscriminately promiscuous."

Somewhere in the middle? Speak for yourself, Pompous . Seriously, do you really think gonad size is the only relavent criteria for judging how sexual behavior among humans is supposed to operate?

At any rate, nature was only one source I was using to justify my position, and I used it not because I thought it to be the strongest argument but the one which you guys would at least partially respect. I am only trying to get you folks to conceed one tiny point: that at least SOME of the sexual differences between men and women are grounded in biology. I'm sure of it is socialized, but some of it is not.

luvluv

tron:

"So, women in general might have more of a tendency towards monogamy (or at least choosiness) than men. So what? That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with women who go against that tendency. Men probably have more of a tendency towards promiscuity than women. So what? That doesn't mean there's something wrong with men who go against that tendency."

That would be an excellent point if promiscuity and monogamy were consequence-neutral options. Which is to say, if there was not much difference in the physical, emotional, reproductive, and social consequence between monogamy and promiscuity, then there would be no reason to be concerned about promiscuous women. However, we both know that promiscuity is a much more dangerous option than monogamy and it has more potential for emotional, pysical, reproductive, and social disruption than monogamy. Monogamy is a safer, healthier choice even for men.

And again, this isn't just an issue of my little narrow mind.

"Why the hell are you singling out women? I guess it's okay for men to not attach deep significance to sex, but it's not okay for women. No, women are fragile and have to be protected - the men can look after themselves."

I've been addressing this for two pages now. I am more concerned about the women because women are more likely to be emotionally hurt through pornography than women. For the record, if the men in porno know they are exploiting emotionally distraught women and continue to do this for a long period of time, I think there is something emotionally off with them as well.

Shea:

"Have you ever had a long term relationship luvluv? How about casual sex in your pre-Christian days?"

Well, I'm only 25 so no, I've probably never had anything you would call a long term relationship. I guess a year and a half would be the longest relationship I've had. No, I haven't really had that much casual sex though to be honest that was not as much the result of moral convictions as it was of my bad luck. I was actually pretty shy throughout high school and as a result did not do as well with the ladies as I might have. Ironically, since I have become a Christian I've had much more success with the kind of women I used to want than I did before. I've had to painfully extract myself from some beautiful women who weren't really going in the same direction I was. Dumb luck, that.

"May I remind you that whatever their theories, they are far from infallible, or have you forgotten that uterus in need of tethering?"

May I remind you of that, the next time you are over in the evolution forum? There are some of you I better not ever catch berating a creationist on his unwillingness to accept scientific data.

Pompous:

"The evolutionary history just doesn't support the idea of completely monogamous women, luv."

I don't believe I ever said that women were completely monogamous, simply that they were more monogamous than men, and that they were more emotionally attached to the sex act than men.

Good looking out on that Samoa link, I'll peruse it later.

bonduca

Any "data," pseudo-scientific or otherwise, that cannot stand up to examination and question is likely nonsense. Therefore the hot-rodding uterus is as patently absurd as Noah's ark.

I do not consider "Essence" magazine to be the last word in sexual biology. Nor do I consider the author of a book called "Getting to I Do" to be a source free from stereotyping.

Try instead the new book by Tim Birkhead, "Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition." You may be interested in the theory that the reason men ejaculate so many sperm, is that they may have to compete with sperm from other males already in the vaginal cavity.

Though he has not been featured in Essence magazine, I hope his other credentials [(BSc (1972) University of Newcastle; DPhil (1976) University of Oxford
Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader in Zoology, University of Sheffield (1976-92)
Professor of Behavioural Ecology, University of Sheffield (1992-present)] will be sufficient.

I agree that some general standard of ethical behavior in sexual relations is something all mature members of a civilized society should strive to attain.

I do not believe, however, that nature conveniently designed the male and female of any species to conform to a 1950's model of sexual repression and subordination. Nature has its own agenda, which we must attempt to study free of man-made sexual stereotypes or human neurosis.

I hope you find this book interesting reading.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

bonduca there was actually a Discovery Channel series on cheating that covered the same issue and I watched it and was fascinated. (I don't have the virgin ears you folks are assuming I have.) Again, I am not arguing that all biological females in the animal kingdom are one hundred percent monogamous. All I am saying is that RELATIVE TO MALES OF THE SAME SPECIES, most females are more monogamous. Women are more monogamous and more emotionally invested in the sex act than men. You have admitted that you felt this was the case, but that you felt that this was ENTIRELY due to socialization. My own, and far less radical, opinion, is that it is a factor owing both to socialization and biology.

bonduca

I disagree, (that was actually LadyShea's assertion, btw. Mine is that it is only stereotyping) and I think you should at least attempt to read this book, rather than quoting Discovery Channel, your admittedly limited experience, and popular magazines as they were (if you will pardon the term) gospel.

Please read the book, as well as some other more detailed and scientific material before coming to your conclusion. I will be happy to make a donation toward its cost, if you are unable to afford it.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>