Sexuality

[Valodya Bassarov]

In order for something to be considered a part of human nature, it must be present to some degree in all humans in all parts of history. Human nature is something universal, which crosses both time and cultures.

This is simply not the case with monogamy. We can say that monogamy is the norm in societies at certain stages of economic development or in certain cultures, but we can not say that it is universal.

Even to this day, there are people who are not monogamous. Are these polygamous people fighting their "natural" urges to be with one person?
Or are they perhaps less than human?

Let's take a look at native american people. White people came to America and were shocked to see the "wanton sexual practices" of such people as the Iroquiose (and many others). They were shocked to see the sexual freedom of these cultures where extra marrital sex was the norm if even "marriage" was the present.

But the same can be said about african tribes, or even early Europe.

At one time, polygamy was normal. At one time, there was no taboo about marrying your sister or brother, having sex with your mother or father, and many other sexual practices that in modern western capitalist society would be highly frowned upon.


You can say that monogamy is an accepted part of our society, but it is culturally arrogant to call that human nature, when clearly there are many humans for which that was not the accepted norm.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

To build upon what Bassarov said, not only is it culturally arrogant to say that monogamy is in human nature, but downright insulting to brazenly disregard over 90% of the history of humanity, and the other cultures on this planet who aren't in an advanced capitalist state. I think that in comparing humans to animals is well, dehumanizing... haha... Not only that, but to say that humans only have sex for mating would completely disregard over 3/4's of the characters on this board for crying out loud!

Just speaking for myself, and those who are close to me, I can say that this is not true. Sexuality is something defined by culture, and not genetics. I'm sure marriage has been around for quite some time, but marriage as we know it now is a very new thing.

As for the issue of love that Hayaji pointed out earlier, I think that is a good point, and it is difficult to love more than one person, but I don't think it's impossible. Sex and love are two very different things, which is why there are so many warped relationships nowadays that revolve around sex and nothing else.

I have friends who have tried polygamous relationships and have failed due to jealousy issues, but that shouldn't be used as an argument against open relationships, that should be an argument against capitalism, and how it makes us nothing but competitive, territorial drones, on ALL levels. Which is strange, considering that the mass media portrays this message of, sex is good, sex sells, sex sex sex... What's the number one entertainment industry in the US? Pornography. Hands down. And I don't think anybody can argue that pornography marketed towards males is far more prevalent than it aimed towards females.

You can take this argument one of two ways... 1. Men are naturally horny, and want nothing more than to "spread their seed". Or 2. The mass media turns us into drones, and uses sex to sell their products, which dehumanizes women, and justifies men abusing women on the grounds of "boys will be boys".

Sex is a huge part of a culture that, like I said, it's just downright insulting to say that women are naturally "wanting to stay at home", and men just naturally "want to spread their seed".

And as for the drinking age issue. Look at Europe. 'Nuff said.

I don't have time to read over what I just read, so I'll just assume that I touched down on all bases.

[Lempo]

"Human nature" is not a term that is all-encompasing, it merely applies to a good chunk of most humans, and I disagree with your evidence. Many cultures developed some form of marriage, some tribal cultures had marriage like the African and Native American tribes, some did not. The fact remains, in most cultures, some form of marriage DID exist, and was widely accepted.

Humanity has a massive propensity for differences many aspects, what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. HOWEVER the very fact that all of these cultures, many of which had had no contact with one another developed the concept of marriage speaks for itself. That isn't to say that ALL humans find such to be a totally acceptable practice (as you two obviously do not) but human history has shown us a far different picture. Be they Indian, Asian, European, even African or Native American, just about every culture had within it some sort of marriage ritual. You can't just ignore that and say it isn't applicable, it is.

Oh and by the way, as far as the natural inclination, that's off of valid psychological studies of the very basic human psyche. As with all psychological studies, it doesn't necessarily fit everyone but a good percentage of people do have that natural inclination.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

"Human nature" is not a term that is all-encompasing, it merely applies to a good chunk of most humans, and I disagree with your evidence. Many cultures developed some form of marriage, some tribal cultures had marriage like the African and Native American tribes, some did not. The fact remains, in most cultures, some form of marriage DID exist, and was widely accepted.

Well, I think that in order to "apply to a good chunk of most humans", then you can say that this is as all encompassing as possible, because with humans, nothing is "all encompassing" in the most literal of terms. The very meaning of the words, "human nature", implies that it is all encompassing, like natural instincts that animals of the wild have. And as I said previously, marriage has always existed in one form or another, but marriage as we know it now, is very different from what it was before. And I'm not really sure how you can disagree with said evidence, since well, even amongst non-marxists, it is widely accepted

For one, marrying out of love is a relatively new concept. For most of humanity, when there wasn't enough to go around, you'd usually have to marry within or without your tribe, in order to survive. During fudal times, for example, within relationships amongst peasants, and the rest of the poorer population, it really wasn't a big deal to have romantic relationships with multiple partners, or even relatives, of the same or different sex. Hell, look no further than some of the stories in the bible. Or even look at the history of prostitution, whereas in a lot of Shakespearean plays there are frequent references to prostitutes, and it's seen as no big deal.

Humanity has a massive propensity for differences many aspects, what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. HOWEVER the very fact that all of these cultures, many of which had had no contact with one another developed the concept of marriage speaks for itself. That isn't to say that ALL humans find such to be a totally acceptable practice (as you two obviously do not) but human history has shown us a far different picture. Be they Indian, Asian, European, even African or Native American, just about every culture had within it some sort of marriage ritual. You can't just ignore that and say it isn't applicable, it is.

Sure the concept of marriage has been around, but the concepts of fidelity and monogamy didn't really come around until the feudal era, and were perfected in the capitalist era. Polygamy applies to marriage as well, and even among nobility, it wasn't uncommon for soldiers, who were in a monogamous relationship, to sleep with prostitutes. Some early native american tribes had polyamorous marriages, and monogamy and fidelity were only "virtuous" when private property became an issue. As soon as it became possible to create more than was necessary for your immediate family to survive, then the issue of who was going to own this came up.

Oh and by the way, as far as the natural inclination, that's off of valid psychological studies of the very basic human psyche. As with all psychological studies, it doesn't necessarily fit everyone but a good percentage of people do have that natural inclination.

I'm leary of said psychological study, since well, how could you *possibly* strip away all the psychological aspects that were created through society, and simply say "these are the 'natural inclinations'"? That, and it totally discounts the huge portion of human history where monogamy was as unheard of as polygamy is today.

[Zinn]

I don't think using animals as a model is a good idea. Some species of spiders eat their mates. Humans do not.

I think humans are in the curious state of not having any idea what is natural. So, we have invented religion to fill that void.

We have no idea what is right or natural. That is why I think everyone should just do what they are comfortable with. Personally, I am anti-social, and have problems talking to a lot of people and having a lot of close friends, let alone doing something as intimate as having sex with a lot of people. Regardless of whether it is a product of society or not, it all comes down to what people feel comfortable with, as long as that doesn't involve overly controlling or hurting other people without consent.

I don't think there should be a drinking age, and I think all drugs should be legal. If its all legal, the rebellion factor is removed. Plus, the government could make a bundle of money regulating stuff like pot.

Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. If you make something legal, then connected crimes are no longer necissary.

Yeah, anyway, off topic.

[Mr. Futsu]

"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

Yeah I agree. On the issue of sex, I think anything is okay so long as everything is consentual. And as for drugs, all research in regards to drug rehabilitation points towards decriminalizing them is the only real way to fight them. Let the crack heads get their drugs on perscription so they don't have to rob people and pay the mobs high drug fees.

Thank you Jello Biafra.

[Zinn]

I disagree with Jello on some things. He tends to see conspiracies in some rather unlikely places. He's very funny though.

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

((A little late in response... Sorry))

Yeah I agree, like when he said "this could still make Hiroshima look like a picnic" in regards to the first Gulf War. Granted, there were some nutcases in the white house who really did want to nuke baghdad, some of those nutcases are still IN the white house, but really, a nuclear war over Iraq?

But I really like what he had to say over Columbine. Have you heard his skit Hellburbia? A little off the topic of sexuality, I know, but hey...

[Kazenara Miyajima]

ok please forgive me if i start to not make sense i'm tired as hell and should be sleeping but i have to work in a few hours...i hate my life sometimes
anyway it is human nature to become jealous that's why in my opinion polygamy wouldn't work. maybe you could pull it off for a while but then eventually you too will become jealous when someone that you are with does the same thing to you.

[Void]

((Sorry, I've been really busy of late and haven't been keeping up on my posts as I should))

One thing I would like to point out is that the psychological studies I am citing have been done cross-culturally and are quite accurate. You can choose to believe them or not, but they all have solid evidence and numbers to back them up. What it seems to me is that some of you are operating under a self-serving bias, in which you place your own personal views and the views of those around you up as the norm. After all, anecdotal evidence tends to FEEL far more powerful than the numbers, but the fact of the matter remains that the numbers do not lie. I'm not saying your personal beliefs with regards to how things should be are necessarily WRONG, but I AM saying that for a majority of the people, they disagree, and much of this desent comes from the very core of human nature. Some of you seem to believe that society is not a reflection of human nature, but to that I pose the following question: What would cause thinking beings such as ourselves to PURPOSEFULLY enact a society that we found distasteful? We as humans do what we think is right, and society evolves from there into what we see today.

[Kazenara Miyajima]

yes that is why i put my opinion not of this has to be the way it is or anything to get upset about its an opinion "opinions are like not a very nice persons everyone has one" so yeah we stated our opinion
i guess i went a little bit over board but my opinion and the opinions around me match so yeah

[Lightmer Witmer]

Let me begin dear friends with anecdotal evidence, then I shall move to hard fact

King Ismail of morocco had one thousand and 56 children. An extra wife would have meant that he could have had even more children. Queen Hecuba of Troy had just 20 children, it is unlikely that an extra husband would have meant that she would have had more children. This would explain why males complete for as many females as possible, whereas females have no need.

A silly example, but let's begin to resolve this mystery of Human Polygamy!

[Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa)]

One thing I would like to point out is that the psychological studies I am citing have been done cross-culturally and are quite accurate. You can choose to believe them or not, but they all have solid evidence and numbers to back them up.

Cite these sources for me?

What it seems to me is that some of you are operating under a self-serving bias, in which you place your own personal views and the views of those around you up as the norm. After all, anecdotal evidence tends to FEEL far more powerful than the numbers, but the fact of the matter remains that the numbers do not lie.

You're right, the numbers do not lie. The fact of the matter is, for well over 90% of humanity, people have lived in polygamy. And as stated previously, I would like to see your psychological studies, and I can show you history.

I'm not saying your personal beliefs with regards to how things should be are necessarily WRONG, but I AM saying that for a majority of the people, they disagree, and much of this desent comes from the very core of human nature. Some of you seem to believe that society is not a reflection of human nature,

I think you're misunderstanding where we're coming from here, Void. We're not advocating polygamy, we're saying that such values as polygamy and monagamy come from society. How could you possibly do an accurate psychological study that cuts out the factors in our persona that are created by society? And as far as I'm concerned, history speaks for itself. How can you ignore 90% of humanity's history and simply say "well now psychologists say that monagamy is in human nature"?

but to that I pose the following question: What would cause thinking beings such as ourselves to PURPOSEFULLY enact a society that we found distasteful? We as humans do what we think is right, and society evolves from there into what we see today.

As I stated, we're not advocating polygamy, we're simply stating that monogamy is a social construct. And we're not saying that after the revolution, everybody immediately has to sleep with everybody else, that's totally absurd.

[Lightmer Witmer]

Throughout the animal kingdom larger males are generally more successful at attracting mates, but in order to become big they have to eat more food (a risky business). Size is important so as to physically compete with other males; However, when there is little time for competition the body size of males is similar to that of the females. Where female receptivity is synchronous the body ratio of male size and female size is close to parity. A large male would have little time to monopolise the mating.

Polygynous animals show large sexual dimorphism and larger males are selected.

Humans were mainly polygamous before Christianity enforced monogamy. The fact that men are generally 5 to 12% taller than women would suggest that humans are naturally polygamous.

[Zinn]

I'd like to see those studies cited too. Of course, most psychological studies with people are very inaccurate, and oepn to interpretation because of the huge mental variations within our society. How many people were studied? How was the study conducted? What demographic were the people from? There are a lot of factors to consider.

There are matriarchal, matrilinial societies that have women with multiple husbands in areas of China, and areas of Africa.

I think that "Are people a product of culture, or is culture a product of people in today's world?" is a chicken and the egg sort of argument.

Women are just as sexually driven as men, speaking on a first hand basis. The only difference is that culture protray's women who show this outwardly as very *friendly* persons. That is the only aspect of sexuality that I think most people know is natural: people want to have sex. Otherwise, I think sexuality is basically oepn to interpreation.

Undoubtedly the majority of the human race was polygamistic early in history. However, it isn't in the morman or multiple wives sort of way. Anthropologists theorize that early human sexual behavior and human ancestors' sexual behavior was most similar to that of the bonobo monkeys and/or chimpanzees. The debate on that one rages on, and may never be solved.

Off topic: Yes, I have heard Hellburbia. I really like that one. I like "Running for Mayor," and anything that has to do with his trial. Have you heard about his account of being on Oprah with Tipper Gore? It cracks me up every time.

I believe that jealousy, while a part of the human experience, is agitated and swollen by our culture.