First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/19/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

In terms of human biology and human evolution standpoint, it is completely reasonable...

But socially and morally speaking... I still think we shouldn't engage in polygamy....



Why not? There is nothing inherently immoral about the act of polygamy, in and of itself, it has been practised by our ancestors until perverted custom taught them monogamy.


Yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...
But like I've said.. society doesn't sees it that way...

...and by today's definition of morality, it is incorrect to engage in polygamy... isn't it?
Posted 8/19/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

In terms of human biology and human evolution standpoint, it is completely reasonable...

But socially and morally speaking... I still think we shouldn't engage in polygamy....



Why not? There is nothing inherently immoral about the act of polygamy, in and of itself, it has been practised by our ancestors until perverted custom taught them monogamy.


Yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...
But like I've said.. society doesn't sees it that way...

...and by today's definition of morality, it is incorrect to engage in polygamy... isn't it?
Nope, when the human biology of romantic love drive has evolved for us to focus on one mating partner, in order for ourselves to form a stable and nurturing emotional environment for our offspring.

Marriage and Monogamy

What is it:

Monogamy is traditional in most cultures, and it is the law throughout America since Utah gave up polygamy to acquire statehood. Is there any philosophical basis for favoring monogamy over polygamy? Or any reasons grounded in clear empirical facts or social needs? With a looming shortage of females relative to males in large parts of Asia, is it time to question this traditional assumption about marriage?

Listening Notes:

Most creatures on this earth are polygamous, why then are modern humans for the most part monogamous? Is monogamy useful in society? Does monogamy or polygamy have a basis in biology? Is there some normative fact about monogamy/polygamy? How come so many relationships are monogamous in name only? Ken introduces Helen Fisher, Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies at Rutgers University.

John mentions that many people want committed monogamous relationships while still having adventurous sexual lives, is there a biological basis for this tension? Fisher identifies three different brain systems that humans have evolved for mating purposes: the sex drive, romantic love, and the sense of attachment. Fisher goes on to claim that these distinct systems can interact or act separately from one another.

John asks about the seemingly vague notion of "romantic love" and Helen Fisher responds with a categorization of romantic love as a universal phenomenon across cultures that begins with the loved-one taking on special meaning and focus; an intense increase in energy; mood swings and dependence on the loved one; and more than any other characteristic--obsession. From this universal categorization Helen Fisher concludes that romantic love originates in specific brain circuitry.

Ken wonders why we would ever evolve to be so conflicted, Fisher responds that we didn't evolve to be happy, we evolved to reproduce! Ken and Helen discuss whether men and women are wired differently in this regard. John pushes for a definition of monogamy and Helen Fisher discusses monogamy around the world. Ken wonders why our culture and our biology seem so conflicted, Helen uses our anthropological history to explain this dichotomy. John and Ken discuss monogamy in pop and high cultures, and Helen Fisher discusses society's reasons for imposing rules of sexuality. Fisher explains the societal and philosophical justifications for our disapproval of adultery. Helen Fisher's primary argument for the evolution of monogamy is that when species have young which are susceptible to harm they need a pair of parents to protect them through infancy: humans, wolves, most birds. Ken and John seem to agree that the three-part definition of relationships is a very powerful intellectual tool for thinking about marriage and other concepts.
28240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Houston
Online
Posted 8/20/12
So basicly... Most poeple seem to be ok with the IDEA of it, But are unwilling to share for selfish reasons. Talk about the plot point of basicly all harem amime... now thats what I would call sad. Anyway Im good with the idea if thats just what happened naturaly. It would break my heart to selfishly make someone choose me over someone else they also care about. If I also happen to like the person +++!

SCREW THE GOVRNMENT!
AND YES I AM AN AMERICAN GIRL!
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/20/12

DomFortress wrote:

Nope, when the human biology of romantic love drive has evolved for us to focus on one mating partner, in order for ourselves to form a stable and nurturing emotional environment for our offspring.



All of our primate cousins are polygamy... studies have shown that human were meant to be that way as well...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html
Posted 8/20/12 , edited 8/20/12

shuyi000 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Nope, when the human biology of romantic love drive has evolved for us to focus on one mating partner, in order for ourselves to form a stable and nurturing emotional environment for our offspring.



All of our primate cousins are polygamy... studies have shown that human were meant to be that way as well...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome.html
Was it you who commented here that "I believe that we. collectively as a human race would do better if every single one understand the line between factual and fantasy."? Well you've just crossed that line, when you relied on a scientific hypothesis as proof, not a fact.

A few prehistoric men had all the children
ALL the women in the world were hogged by just a few men until around 10,000 years ago. That, at least, is the latest theory proposed to explain a mystery thrown up by genetic studies.

The history of the sexes is recorded in the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son, and mitochondrial DNA, which is always inherited from the mother. Recent studies have revealed surprising differences in the patterns of diversity in mitochondrial DNA and in Y chromosomes. One explanation is that the female population boomed about 100,000 years ago - around the time that modern humans are thought to have spread out of Africa - whereas the male population expanded only recently, around 12,000 to 18,000 years ago.

But that would mean there were far more women than men for much of prehistory, which is simply impossible
, says Guido Barbujani of the University of Ferrara in ...

That was a counterargument embedded within your own source through a hyperlink. Thus until we can collect a demographic statistic from prehistory, your proof remains at best a hypothesis that's trying to explain itself. In philosophy we called such an argument as "circular logic/reasoning".


Furthermore, since you used polygynous mating behavior that's observed in other primate species other than humans, let's see what natural polygyny(not polygamy) in other primate species were really all about, before you used it as a justification for polygamy as a human cultural practice. Keep in mind that "polygyny refers to the practice of males mating with multiple females", according to your own source.

Researchers have observed various male animals--including insects, birds, and mammals--chasing, threatening, and attacking females. Unfortunately, because scientists have rarely studied such aggression in detail, we do not know exactly how common it is. But the males of many of these species are most aggressive toward potential mates, which suggests that they sometimes use violence to gain sexual access.

Jane Goodall provides us with a compelling example of how males use violence to get sex. In her 1986 book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Goodall describes the chimpanzee dating game. In one of several scenarios, males gather around attractive estrous females and try to lure them away from other males for a one-on-one sexual expedition that may last for days or weeks. But females find some suitors more appealing than others and often resist the advances of less desirable males. Males often rely on aggression to counter female resistance. For example, Goodall describes how Evered, in persuading a reluctant Winkle to accompany him into the forest, attacked her six times over the course of five hours, twice severely.

Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe, a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized--the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh--but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behavior hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

These chimpanzee and hamadryas males are practicing sexual coercion: male use of force to increase the chances that a female victim will mate with him, or to decrease the chances that she will mate with someone else
. But sexual coercion is much more common in some primate species than in others. Orangutans and chimpanzees are the only nonhuman primates whose males in the wild force females to copulate, while males of several other species, such as vervet monkeys and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), rarely if ever try to coerce females sexually. Between the two extremes lie many species, like hamadryas baboons, in which males do not force copulation but nonetheless use threats and intimidation to get sex.

These dramatic differences between species provide an opportunity to investigate which factors promote or inhibit sexual coercion. For example, we might expect to find more of it in species in which males are much larger than females--and we do. However, size differences between the sexes are far from the whole story. Chimpanzee and bonobo males both have only a slight size advantage, yet while male chimps frequently resort to force, male bonobos treat the fair sex with more respect. Clearly, then, although size matters, so do other factors. In particular, the social relationships females form with other females and with males appear to be as important.

In some species, females remain in their birth communities their whole lives, joining forces with related females to defend vital food resources against other females. In such female bonded species, females also form alliances against aggressive males. Vervet monkeys are one such species, and among these small and exceptionally feisty African monkeys, related females gang up against males. High-ranking females use their dense network of female alliances to rule the troop; although smaller than males, they slap persistent suitors away like annoying flies. Researchers have observed similar alliances in many other female-bonded species, including other Old World monkeys such as macaques, olive baboons, patas and rhesus monkeys, and gray langurs; New World monkeys such as the capuchin; and prosimians such as the ring-tailed lemur.

Females in other species leave their birth communities at adolescence and spend the rest of their lives cut off from their female kin. In most such species, females do not form strong bonds with other females and rarely support one another against males. Both chimpanzees and hamadryas baboons exhibit this pattern, and, as we saw earlier, in both species females submit to sexual control by males.

This contrast between female-bonded species, in which related females gang together to thwart males, and non-female-bonded species, in which they don’t, breaks down when we come to the bonobo. Female bonobos, like their close relatives the chimpanzees, leave their kin and live as adults with unrelated females. Recent field studies show that these unrelated females hang out together and engage in frequent homoerotic behavior, in which they embrace face-to-face and rapidly rub their genitals together; sex seems to cement their bonds. Examining these studies in the context of my own research has convinced me that one way females use these bonds is to form alliances against males, and that, as a consequence, male bonobos do not dominate females or attempt to coerce them sexually. How and why female bonobos, but not chimpanzees, came up with this solution to male violence remains a mystery.

Female primates also use relationships with males to help protect themselves against sexual coercion. Among olive baboons, each adult female typically forms long-lasting friendships with a few of the many males in her troop. When a male baboon assaults a female, another male often comes to her rescue; in my troop, nine times out of ten the protector was a friend of the female’s. In return for his protection, the defender may enjoy her sexual favors the next time she comes into estrus. There is a dark side to this picture, however. Male baboons frequently threaten or attack their female friends--when, for example, one tries to form a friendship with a new male. Other males apparently recognize friendships and rarely intervene. The female, then, becomes less vulnerable to aggression from males in general, but more vulnerable to aggression from her male friends.

As a final example, consider orangutans. Because their food grows so sparsely, adult females rarely travel with anyone but their dependent offspring. But orangutan females routinely fall victim to forced copulation. Female orangutans, it seems, pay a high price for their solitude.

Some of the factors that influence female vulnerability to male sexual coercion in different species may also help explain such variation among different groups in the same species. For example, in a group of chimpanzees in the Taï Forest in the Ivory Coast, females form closer bonds with one another than do females at Gombe. Taï females may consequently have more egalitarian relationships with males than their Gombe counterparts do.

Such differences between groups especially characterize humans. Among the South American Yanomamö, for instance, men frequently abduct and rape women from neighboring villages and severely beat their wives for suspected adultery. However, among the Aka people of the Central African Republic, male aggression against women has never been observed. Most human societies, of course, fall between these two extremes.
- Apes of Wrath

by Barbara Smuts
Aside from the fact that your "all of our primate cousins are polygamy" was false, let's look into some human societies, were the cultural practice of polygamy is a perceived social norms, and analyze the human parallel of sexual coercion that were observed in other primates. After all, it's what you've suggested that we humans were "meant to be".

Up to half of Tajik women subjected to violence

The authorities in Tajikistan are failing to curb rampant domestic violence against women in the country, said Amnesty International today (24 November), as it published a new report on the topic.

Amnesty's 53-page report - Violence Is Not Just A Family Affair: Women Face Abuse In Tajikistan - shows that girls being married off under-age, unofficial 'unregistered' marriages (with husbands often having multiple wives), and uneducated and poor women being treated as servants in their husbands' homes - are all contributing to very high levels of violence against women within Tajik families.

Amnesty's report accuses the Tajik police and other authorities of often sharing the values of husbands and in-law families in condoning violence and discrimination against women. One Tajik government official told Amnesty: 'Violence against women is not a problem in Tajikistan, it is a family matter; and it depends on individual people how they resolve their problems.'

Amnesty International Tajikistan expert Andrea Strasser-Camagni said:

'Women in Tajikistan are beaten, abused, and raped in the family but the authorities tend to reflect the societal attitude of blaming the woman for domestic violence. They see their primary role as mediator, to preserve the family rather than protect the woman and to safeguard their rights.

'By writing off violence against women as a family affair the authorities in Tajikistan are shirking their responsibility to a large part of the population. They are allowing perpetrators of such crimes to act with impunity and, ultimately, denying women their human rights.'


Surveys have shown that between a third and a half of Tajik women have suffered violence from a family member. One survey showed 58% of wives reporting physical and/or sexual violence from their husbands, and young - often uneducated - women married in 'unregistered' ceremonies are particularly at risk. In many Tajik households women are demeaned and attacked by husbands and in-laws alike.

Sexual violence in marriage is common. In one case a husband forced his wife to have anal sex 'in order to have a boy' (they already had six girls). In another case a husband brought a second wife home and beat his first wife after she complained when he began having sex with the newcomer in the same room as her.

Unregistered wives can also be divorced by husbands who simply repeat a phrase in front of two witnesses. This often leaves divorced women with nowhere to live and no source of income. In some cases wives have been divorced over the telephone by husbands working abroad who have already started new families abroad (widespread poverty in Tajikistan has led to millions of Tajik men working in other countries in recent years, especially in Russia).

Despite the fact that research reveals very high levels of domestic violence in the country the Tajik authorities do not compile comprehensive data on the issue and there is only one shelter for at-risk women in the entire country.

Amnesty is calling on the Tajik authorities to begin full monitoring of domestic violence, to provide women's shelters across the country, and to establish specialised police units to deal with the problem. The prosecutorial authorities are also being urged to end impunity for the perpetrators of domestic violence by pursuing prosecutions themselves rather than placing the onus on victims to initiate cases - something that victims of domestic violence in Tajikistan rarely feel able to do.

Cases
Zamira got married at 18 in a traditional Islamic marriage. The marriage lasted for five years and in this time Zamira was never allowed to leave her husband's house. 'It was like in prison,' says Zamira. She told Amnesty that when she asked his permission to go out or when they had a quarrel, her husband would beat her. One day her husband divorced her according to Islamic tradition and she was thrown out of the house by his parents. Now Zamira and her nine-year-old son live with her parents in an over-crowded house. She dreams of a home for her and her son.

Tahmina, a mother of three children, has been married for 13 years. She says that she had three stillbirths and after that her husband began to beat her. As a result of a beating another baby died; then she miscarried while five months pregnant and her first child was born deformed. She once went to the police when she was black and blue and had a knife cut on her arm. They said she could write a complaint, but otherwise did nothing. She felt they blamed her for having provoked the violence.

Risolat, a 17-year-old from a small town was raped by her boyfriend, who threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. He forced her to have sex during a four-month period. He also beat her. A year later she went to the police wanting to file a complaint, but she was mocked by the officers and sent away.
-Tajikistan: Child brides, polygamy and poverty contributing to rampant domestic violence- new report

I don't know about you, but my self-assessment on justifying human polygamy based on primal polygyny, which are enforced through sexual coercion by both species alike, is simply wrongheaded and immoral, not to mention scientifically unethical.

Ethics of topics and findings

Despite his egregious breach of scientific ethics, no criminal charges were ever filed against Schön. In other cases, actions that breach the scientific ethic also breach more fundamental moral and legal standards. One instance in particular, the brutality of Nazi scientists in World War II, was so severe and discriminatory that it led to the adoption of an international code governing research ethics.

During World War II, Nazi scientists launched a series of studies: some designed to test the limits of human exposure to the elements in the name of preparing German soldiers fighting the war. Notorious among these efforts were experiments on the effects of hypothermia in humans. During these experiments, concentration camp prisoners were forced to sit in ice water or were left naked outdoors in freezing temperatures for hours at a time. Many victims were left to freeze to death slowly while others were eventually re-warmed with blankets or warm water, or other methods that left them with permanent injuries.

At the end of the war, 23 individuals were tried for war crimes in Nuremberg, Germany in relation to these studies, and 15 were found guilty (Figure 3). The court proceedings led to a set of guidelines, referred to as the Nuremberg Code, which limits research on human subjects. Among other things, the Nuremberg Code requires that individuals be informed of and consent to the research being conducted; the first standard reads, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The code also states that the research risks should be weighed in light of the potential benefits, and it requires that scientists avoid intentionally inflicting physical or mental suffering for research purposes. Importantly, the code also places the responsibility for adhering to the code on “each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.” This is a critical component of the code that implicates every single scientist involved in an experiment – not just the most senior scientist or first author on a paper. The Nuremberg Code was published in 1949 and is still a fundamental document guiding ethical behavior in research on human subjects that has been supplemented by additional guidelines and standards in most countries.

Other ethical principles also guide the practice of research on human subjects. For example, a number of government funding sources limit or exclude funding for human cloning due to the ethical questions raised by the practice. Another set of ethical guidelines covers studies involving therapeutic drugs and devices. Research investigating the therapeutic properties of medical devices or drugs is stopped ahead of schedule if a treatment is found to have severe negative side effects. Similarly, large-scale therapeutic studies in which a drug or agent is found to be highly beneficial may be concluded early so that the control patients (those not receiving the effective drug or agent) can be given the new, beneficial treatment.
-Scientific Ethics

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D.

The way I see it, unless you can identify a factual human cultural polygamy practicing society, that didn't require a history of sexual coercion as a form of repression, enforcement, or dominance within itself to sanction just such practice, your argument on how polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be, is merely an entitlement claim without sufficient justification.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/20/12 , edited 8/20/12

DomFortress wrote:



First, I said that it is morally and socially better to be monogamy... so I donno why you're so butt-hurt...

Second, you seems to be looking at it from human history, which at best lasted only a few thousands years...

Third, you highlighted that from the source i provide, it shows that baboons demonstrated aggression towards his female mate, but that doesn't tell us anything except he is extremely possessive... they probably have multiple relationship like that towards many female.

Fourth, there is plenty of empirical data showing that throughout human history, the emperor/king/ruler have multiple mates... or at least engaging in sexual activity with multiple different women...
Posted 8/20/12 , edited 8/20/12

shuyi000 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


The way I see it, unless you can identify a factual human cultural polygamy practicing society, that didn't require a history of sexual coercion as a form of repression, enforcement, or dominance within itself to sanction just such practice, your argument on how polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be, is merely an entitlement claim without sufficient justification.


First, I said that it is morally and socially better to be monogamy... so I donno why you're so butt-hurt...

Second, you seems to be looking at it from human history, which at best lasted only a few thousands years...

Third, you highlighted that from the source i provide, it shows that baboons demonstrated aggression towards his female mate, but that doesn't tell us anything except he is extremely possessive... they probably have multiple relationship like that towards many female.

Fourth, there is plenty of empirical data showing that throughout human history, the emperor/king/ruler have multiple mates... or at least engaging in sexual activity with multiple different women...
Because you didn't establish the moral reasoning of why it's "morally and socially better to be monogamy", when you used a science journal that hypothesized polygyny in other primates, while you completely ignored my scientific proof on how evolutionary biology(not "human history") had proven that humans' romantic love drive is evolving towards monogamy.

Furthermore, the source where it reported on male primate aggression in polygyny wasn't even yours(titled "Polygamy left its mark on the human genome" by Ewen Callaway) to begin with. That's new information which I provided(titled "Apes of Wrath" by Barbara Smuts). You're bullshitting, when you didn't even bother to proofread your own source.

And why are you accusing me of using human history(which I didn't) as a source, when you endedup relying on "empirical data showing that throughout human history"? That's selfishness by yourself excluding others from using the same source of information.

Finally, you still didn't have enough justification on why polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be. And when I've proved how your scientific hypothesis wasn't even a factual claim, your opinions here of "all of our primate cousins are polygamy... studies have shown that human were meant to be that way as well...", and here of "yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...", were just circular logic/reasoning that's based on your own fantasy.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/21/12

DomFortress wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


The way I see it, unless you can identify a factual human cultural polygamy practicing society, that didn't require a history of sexual coercion as a form of repression, enforcement, or dominance within itself to sanction just such practice, your argument on how polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be, is merely an entitlement claim without sufficient justification.


First, I said that it is morally and socially better to be monogamy... so I donno why you're so butt-hurt...

Second, you seems to be looking at it from human history, which at best lasted only a few thousands years...

Third, you highlighted that from the source i provide, it shows that baboons demonstrated aggression towards his female mate, but that doesn't tell us anything except he is extremely possessive... they probably have multiple relationship like that towards many female.

Fourth, there is plenty of empirical data showing that throughout human history, the emperor/king/ruler have multiple mates... or at least engaging in sexual activity with multiple different women...
Because you didn't establish the moral reasoning of why it's "morally and socially better to be monogamy", when you used a science journal that hypothesized polygyny in other primates, while you completely ignored my scientific proof on how evolutionary biology(not "human history") had proven that humans' romantic love drive is evolving towards monogamy.

Furthermore, the source where it reported on male primate aggression in polygyny wasn't even yours(titled "Polygamy left its mark on the human genome" by Ewen Callaway) to begin with. That's new information which I provided(titled "Apes of Wrath" by Barbara Smuts). You're bullshitting, when you didn't even bother to proofread your own source.

And why are you accusing me of using human history(which I didn't) as a source, when you endedup relying on "empirical data showing that throughout human history"? That's selfishness by yourself excluding others from using the same source of information.

Finally, you still didn't have enough justification on why polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be. And when I've proved how your scientific hypothesis wasn't even a factual claim, your opinions here of "all of our primate cousins are polygamy... studies have shown that human were meant to be that way as well...", and here of "yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...", were just circular logic/reasoning that's based on your own fantasy.


So your problem is with me claiming that human were meant to be polygamy... due to the lack of research in this area... is that what you trying to get to...?

If so, I apologize and please allow me to rephrase my statement....
Based on the studies we currently have... I infer that we're meant to be polygamy in nature...
Posted 8/21/12

shuyi000 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


The way I see it, unless you can identify a factual human cultural polygamy practicing society, that didn't require a history of sexual coercion as a form of repression, enforcement, or dominance within itself to sanction just such practice, your argument on how polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be, is merely an entitlement claim without sufficient justification.


First, I said that it is morally and socially better to be monogamy... so I donno why you're so butt-hurt...

Second, you seems to be looking at it from human history, which at best lasted only a few thousands years...

Third, you highlighted that from the source i provide, it shows that baboons demonstrated aggression towards his female mate, but that doesn't tell us anything except he is extremely possessive... they probably have multiple relationship like that towards many female.

Fourth, there is plenty of empirical data showing that throughout human history, the emperor/king/ruler have multiple mates... or at least engaging in sexual activity with multiple different women...
Because you didn't establish the moral reasoning of why it's "morally and socially better to be monogamy", when you used a science journal that hypothesized polygyny in other primates, while you completely ignored my scientific proof on how evolutionary biology(not "human history") had proven that humans' romantic love drive is evolving towards monogamy.

Furthermore, the source where it reported on male primate aggression in polygyny wasn't even yours(titled "Polygamy left its mark on the human genome" by Ewen Callaway) to begin with. That's new information which I provided(titled "Apes of Wrath" by Barbara Smuts). You're bullshitting, when you didn't even bother to proofread your own source.

And why are you accusing me of using human history(which I didn't) as a source, when you endedup relying on "empirical data showing that throughout human history"? That's selfishness by yourself excluding others from using the same source of information.

Finally, you still didn't have enough justification on why polygamy is a natural course of how we humans were meant to be. And when I've proved how your scientific hypothesis wasn't even a factual claim, your opinions here of "all of our primate cousins are polygamy... studies have shown that human were meant to be that way as well...", and here of "yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...", were just circular logic/reasoning that's based on your own fantasy.


So your problem is with me claiming that human were meant to be polygamy... due to the lack of research in this area... is that what you trying to get to...?

If so, I apologize and please allow me to rephrase my statement....
Based on the studies we currently have... I infer that we're meant to be polygamy in nature...
Even when I've pointed out just exactly how the scientific hypothesis that you based your inference on, was itself inconclusive? I know you were sloppy when it comes to yourself proofreading, but are you still believing in your "we're meant to be polygamy in nature" opinion?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/21/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

In terms of human biology and human evolution standpoint, it is completely reasonable...

But socially and morally speaking... I still think we shouldn't engage in polygamy....



Why not? There is nothing inherently immoral about the act of polygamy, in and of itself, it has been practised by our ancestors until perverted custom taught them monogamy.


Yes, in practice... we are evolved to seek multiple mates...
But like I've said.. society doesn't sees it that way...

...and by today's definition of morality, it is incorrect to engage in polygamy... isn't it?


Why, then, is 'Today's definition of morality' valid?
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

longfenglim wrote:



Why, then, is 'Today's definition of morality' valid?


Do you mean why is morality the way it is today?
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

DomFortress wrote:



So your problem is with me claiming that human were meant to be polygamy... due to the lack of research in this area... is that what you trying to get to...?

If so, I apologize and please allow me to rephrase my statement....
Based on the studies we currently have... I infer that we're meant to be polygamy in nature...
Even when I've pointed out just exactly how the scientific hypothesis that you based your inference on, was itself inconclusive? I know you were sloppy when it comes to yourself proofreading, but are you still believing in your "we're meant to be polygamy in nature" opinion?

Yes, It is a conclusion I come to... but like you've pointed out, there is still much more we do not know about to make a conclusive statement.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/23/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Why, then, is 'Today's definition of morality' valid?


Do you mean why is morality the way it is today?


No, I mean what I say, why is it valid? Polygamy doesn't detract from the greatest happiness, and, in fact, may produce even greater happiness than monogamy, so it doesn't hold from a Utilitarian standpoint, nor does it hold if we consider the greatest good to be that which is done with the best intention, because, for all we know, the polygamist may indeed have the best intention in marrying multiple wives.
13697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/25/12

longfenglim wrote:



No, I mean what I say, why is it valid? Polygamy doesn't detract from the greatest happiness, and, in fact, may produce even greater happiness than monogamy, so it doesn't hold from a Utilitarian standpoint, nor does it hold if we consider the greatest good to be that which is done with the best intention, because, for all we know, the polygamist may indeed have the best intention in marrying multiple wives.


I'm pretty sure women doesn't see it that way...!
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/25/12 , edited 8/25/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



No, I mean what I say, why is it valid? Polygamy doesn't detract from the greatest happiness, and, in fact, may produce even greater happiness than monogamy, so it doesn't hold from a Utilitarian standpoint, nor does it hold if we consider the greatest good to be that which is done with the best intention, because, for all we know, the polygamist may indeed have the best intention in marrying multiple wives.


I'm pretty sure women doesn't see it that way...!


If a woman willingly enter a marriage with the knowledge that a man has multiple wives, I am sure she is probably satisfied with that arrangement, so, no, you are quite wrong to assume that a woman would be unhappy to 'share' her husband with other women. In addition, if you believe that humans were not made for Monogamy, as you and some others would hold, then monogamy would, indeed, produce far greater unhappiness, in that it is anti-natural, and therefore, detract from our happiness. Even supposing that were not so, then Monogamy still is asinine, because there should be no reason why it would be immoral so long as all parties are satisfied with the arrangement.
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.