"We know how to treat a lady."

[chrispillertkd]

You said that if you were me you'd move, thats plenty judgemental.

Read my post again. I said if I lived there, I'd move. I didn't say if I were you. There's a difference. The latter implies that you should do something. The former does not.

But be that as it may, there's nothing judgemental about what I said. Unless you think it's being judgemental to prefer living in one locale to another.

Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's her right, people who don't approve (though it's fine for men to do it) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads.

Where in my post did I say anything about anyone, women or otherwise, being "free with [their] favours"? Please point it out to me. Simply quote it in your next response. I reread my post and didn't see anything in it that mentions such things but perhaps I missed it. Can you help me out here? Just repost the part of my comment that you saw that mentions what you said.

I also point out that you seem fine with women using men. I won't ask if you think two wrongs make a right, too.

I wouldn't project anything on you, couldn't be bothered.

Would that this were true. It's obvious that, barring you producing proof of your claim, you're projecting your judgementalism onto me. I said nothing besides that I would choose to live elsewhere than the locale you mentioned. I made no further comments. The only one who has been making judgements about people is you, Tez.

Please refrain from judging me with your narrow ideas of right and wrong. Who are you to pass judgement on others?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Sukerkin]

A most interesting read, ladies and gentlemen. In the end I stopped dropping 'Thanks' on posts because I found something I agreed with in almost all of them.

Now, it is time for all posters to ponder for a second exactly what they are writing and how they are addressing each other. Sexual morality is a volatile issue and is one where national and cultural characteristics can vary greatly; which is something to bear in the forefront of our minds when being affronted by generalisations.

In plainer form, please maintain a suitable amount of politeness and regard for the codes of conduct expected in this forum.

 

[CoryKS]

Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's her right, people who don't approve (though it's fine for men to do it) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads.

It's interesting, that's the second time in this thread that the "double standard" in judging the behavior of men and women has been noted. I believe Elder mentioned it above as well. And yet, this thread is mainly about pointing out the contradiction between the men's words and the actions that got them here. In other words, it is a criticism of their behavior. The woman was not even mentioned, which led to a number of posts by folks who seemed concerned that she was being held blameless.

In my opinion, all the participants are equally repugnant. And again, that is only my opinion. There are many like it but this one is mine. YMMV.

Update: Should clarify that I meant "equally repugnant, until she falsely cried rape."

 

[Tez3]

Being totally honest I really don't care what people get up to, the only way I get involved is if it's illegal, I'm on duty and have to deal with it. I don't find the idea of gang bangs either repugnant or attractive, doesn't bother me either way, none of my business.
The issue to me is that she alleged rape where there was none, therefore the lads were innocent of that crime. I don't care what they were doing with her or even each other so I'm not going to say their behaviour was good or bad, I'm indifferent. I expect she was the good time had by all until she made the allegations up.

Cory I wasn't pointing out the double standards in this case, I was pointing out, in reply to a particular post, that often people won't accept that some women have a strong sex drive and chose to do things that are acceptable in men but are deemed unlikely things for a woman to want to do therefore she must have been coerced.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

That's debateable. But you didn't even offer evidence.

Pax,

Chris

Hi Chris,

Respectfully, it is not debateable. That is how science works. A hypothesis can be supported by overwhelming evidence, even to the point where they are considered "laws" (such as Newton's 3 laws of motion), but they are not considered "proved". The scientific paradigm is that we accept a hypothesis only as long as it is supported by evidence, and that when contrary evidence is provided we re-evaluate that hypothesis. That is what makes science recursive. When one is trained as a scientist (and I am) this is drilled into one's head again and again and again.

With respect to your arguments, the only way that we could offer overwhelming evidence would be to jump in a time machine and travel to those ancient forests and jungles and observe directly. This being impossible, our only recourse is to use the scientific tools at our disposal to examine this question.

When evolutionary biologists are trying to discover when a particular morphological or behavioral trait evolved, the primary approach they use is the comparative phylogenetic method. They build a "tree" which depicts the evolutionary relationships of species which possess the trait, and include those species which are thought to be basal, or at the "root" of the tree. If the basal species possesses the trait, and all but one of the offshoot species possesses the trait, then any offshoot species that does not possess the trait is considered "derived". The most parsimonious explanation is that the trait disappeared in that single species, rather than disappearing and then re-appearing in all the species except that one. The situation becomes more complicated when the basal species condition is unknown, or when more than one species exhibits the derived condition. The hypothesis encompassing the fewest mutations which explain a particular pattern is the one we cannot reject.

The situation we are talking about at present is very complicated. We can measure this trait directly in chimps, by observing female sexual behavior. But assessing this behavior in human females is more challenging, because there is so much variation in the trait when humans are considered. Thus arises the very real possibility that the trait has been heavily influenced by culture. So we ask the question "Before the advent of cultural distortion, what might this behavior have looked like?" Our goal then becomes identifying the trait in a currently extant species, but it it's evolutionary past. Another complication is that the trait is not discrete (sexual promiscuity vs. monogamy), but instead lies on a contiuum.

So our goal is to determine whether a species exhibited a behavior sometime in its evolutionary past. Using the phylogenetic method, we normally would identify the basal species, and the offshoot species, and figure out which species exhibit the behavior and which don't. Thus chimps, even though they are not in our direct evolutionary history, are indeed relevant to this discussion. Hominids split off from the lineage which led to modern common chimps about 6 million years ago, so the last common ancestor we shared with them is the basal species. Two problems with this: we haven't identified that ape species in the fossil record, and behavioral traits don't fossilize, so we don't know if the basal species or any species which evolved after that possessed the trait. So we can't even determine if the trait is basal or derived, which is frustrating.

We are left with falling back on our knowledge of how morphological traits are associated with sociosexual behavior. That evidence I presented to you earlier. There is a continuing debate in paleoanthropology about this very subject (there is a huge literature), and scientists have come to the tentative conclusion that there is strong evidence to suggest that modern humans did (and perhaps still do) engage in sperm competition, which in turn is linked throughout the animal kingdom to female promiscuity. Testicular tissue is expensive to maintain, and there would be strong selective pressure to reduce the size of the testicles if the extra sperm (and different types of sperm associated with multiple matings) was not needed. For instance, gorilla males have huge bodies (twice the size of females), because they compete directly with other males for territory, but the mate competition within a group is reduced because there are only one or two sexually mature males in it. Thus gorilla males have really tiny testicles. It is therefore not a parsimonious explanation to suggest that humans lost the trait (big testicles, associated with sperm competition), and then re-evolved the trait but use it for something else, as you suggested.

Perhaps the original poster would have been wiser to put a "maybe" in front of the assertion that ancient modern human females engaged in promiscuous sexual behavior. Because that is what science is saying...maybe they did, *probably* they did, but we don't know for sure because we don't have a time machine. Now, if you want to continue this dicussion further, let's do so in a private message, so this thread isn't derailed any further.

Jen

 

[Rich Parsons]

I think their "character" is plain for all to see. Its an issue of if you think their behavior is distasteful of not.

Lets not confuse being "innocent" in the eyes of the law and "equal justice" with being a person of character.

I believe I have probably done more to uphold justice for ALL regardless of my opinion of their beliefs or behavior than you probably have. I obey, uphold and enforce the law impartially for everybody. So DONT go assuming I dont know the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Yes I do think that their choice of sexual behavior is "low rent".."distasteful"..." and a sign of a decline in values. So what? Where have I said she is "innocent" or shouldnt be prosecuted? Or that these guys (regardless of my opinion of their behavior) were not wronged?

They should sue her and she should be arrested. I have said that numerous times but you seem to be focused on my distaste for ALL of their behavior.

At what point in our society did stating a dislike for a persons behavior AUTOMATICALLY imply some sort of bias when it comes to doing what is right? Just because some people decide to let their opinions of someones lifestyle influence their decisions when dealing with them doesnt mean that EVERYBODY does.

If you want to participate in this stuff FINE. I will still treat you like everybody else but I will still dislike what you do.

ArchAngel,

I am confused on some points. I know you are trying to make some very fine distinctions. But, it is coing across as you are passing judgement on people. It comes across as they are guilty because you dislike them.

You post was left intact above, but I would like to also bring forth a couple of comments:

I believe I have probably done more to uphold justice for ALL regardless of my opinion of their beliefs or behavior than you probably have. I obey, uphold and enforce the law impartially for everybody. So DONT go assuming I dont know the difference between rape and consensual sex.

What does you upholding the law have to do with anything about this discussion? Celtic Crippler said he was playing Devil's Advocate and asking the hard questions. You here make it sound like that becuase your are in Law enforcement that you are better and able to pass judgement on people, even though you may protect them legally.

I understand being upset or taking the Rape and Consensual Sex comment, but address it separately. Brake down your arguement from above that lead to that question and then brake down his points and show where the misunderstanding occurred and clarify it.

Do not get all holy then thou and "I am THE LAW" aka Judge Dread on us here.

Personally, I think the guys were dirt bags. I think she should be presecuted to make a point, but she has already done the damage to those who are really assaulted. I would not want to date her. But, as you stated in you post as well form above:

If you want to participate in this stuff FINE. I will still treat you like everybody else but I will still dislike what you do.

You can dislike them, but your word choice and presentation has come across as something more than dislike. Which is why I believe there have been hard questions put to your posts.

Good Luck and Thanks

 

[Rich Parsons]

We were fine till that line which I find both "offensive" and "distasteful". What gives you the impression that I think anything of the kind?

Im one of the guys who's job it is to figure out which is which and hope that I am doing justice for the right side. It doesn't mean that I am not allowed to think that all their behavior was distasteful.

Are you a LEO or a Prosecutor or Judge?

I thought LEO's enforced the law and or made their initial judgement call and then the Detectives did further investigation and the Prosecutors took it to trial to use the Justice System to make an attempt at Justice, while Judges make sure that the legal process in court is followed and all is valid.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Hi Chris,

Respectfully, it is not debateable. That is how science works. A hypothesis can be supported by overwhelming evidence, even to the point where they are considered "laws" (such as Newton's 3 laws of motion), but they are not considered "proved". The scientific paradigm is that we accept a hypothesis only as long as it is supported by evidence, and that when contrary evidence is provided we re-evaluate that hypothesis. That is what makes science recursive. When one is trained as a scientist (and I am) this is drilled into one's head again and again and again.

So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.

That sounds like something I have heard of before, but I can't place it... Can you help me out here?

With respect to your arguments, the only way that we could offer overwhelming evidence would be to jump in a time machine and travel to those ancient forests and jungles and observe directly. This being impossible, our only recourse is to use the scientific tools at our disposal to examine this question.

When evolutionary biologists are trying to discover when a particular morphological or behavioral trait evolved, the primary approach they use is the comparative phylogenetic method. They build a "tree" which depicts the evolutionary relationships of species which possess the trait, and include those species which are thought to be basal, or at the "root" of the tree. If the basal species possesses the trait, and all but one of the offshoot species possesses the trait, then any offshoot species that does not possess the trait is considered "derived". The most parsimonious explanation is that the trait disappeared in that single species, rather than disappearing and then re-appearing in all the species except that one. The situation becomes more complicated when the basal species condition is unknown, or when more than one species exhibits the derived condition. The hypothesis encompassing the fewest mutations which explain a particular pattern is the one we cannot reject.

You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here, right? Sure, it might make things easier, but it's not necessarily going to give an accurate explanation.

The situation we are talking about at present is very complicated. We can measure this trait directly in chimps, by observing female sexual behavior. But assessing this behavior in human females is more challenging, because there is so much variation in the trait when humans are considered. Thus arises the very real possibility that the trait has been heavily influenced by culture. So we ask the question "Before the advent of cultural distortion, what might this behavior have looked like?" Our goal then becomes identifying the trait in a currently extant species, but it it's evolutionary past. Another complication is that the trait is not discrete (sexual promiscuity vs. monogamy), but instead lies on a contiuum.

And yet the species you're using isn't human. It isn't even directly related to humans. Nor is it in the same temporal situation as when said trait developed in humans. I also point out that there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition.

So our goal is to determine whether a species exhibited a behavior sometime in its evolutionary past.

This is something you'll never know given your own statements at the start of your post.

Using the phylogenetic method, we normally would identify the basal species, and the offshoot species, and figure out which species exhibit the behavior and which don't. Thus chimps, even though they are not in our direct evolutionary history, are indeed relevant to this discussion. Hominids split off from the lineage which led to modern common chimps about 6 million years ago, so the last common ancestor we shared with them is the basal species. Two problems with this: we haven't identified that ape species in the fossil record, and behavioral traits don't fossilize, so we don't know if the basal species or any species which evolved after that possessed the trait. So we can't even determine if the trait is basal or derived, which is frustrating.

Frustrating to say the least. It's more accurate to say that your statistical probability of arriving at an accurate answer is rapidly approaching zero given then number of missing links (pardon the pun) and rather expansive temporal difference in situations today and that 6 million years ago.

How does one even measure statistical probability when there is a time differential of 6 million years?

We are left with falling back on our knowledge of how morphological traits are associated with sociosexual behavior. That evidence I presented to you earlier. There is a continuing debate in paleoanthropology about this very subject (there is a huge literature), and scientists have come to the tentative conclusion that there is strong evidence to suggest that modern humans did (and perhaps still do) engage in sperm competition, which in turn is linked throughout the animal kingdom to female promiscuity.

Since we're talking about modern humans now can I assume that there is something concrete on which they based this conclusion? I have seen various figures for the emergence of modern homo sapiens (between 55,000 and 100,000 years ago). Or do you mean something else by "modern human"? In any event 100,000 years is a lot less than 6 million so perhaps there's more evidence for what you're talking about. Or perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed? That way we wouldn't have to rely on hypotheses that are untestable. We'd only have to worry about the anecdotal evidence of the written record.

I also note that even here you can only refer to scientists having a "tentative conclusion." That's rather less than I would hope for given the absolute statement that was made by elder999.

Testicular tissue is expensive to maintain, and there would be strong selective pressure to reduce the size of the testicles if the extra sperm (and different types of sperm associated with multiple matings) was not needed. For instance, gorilla males have huge bodies (twice the size of females), because they compete directly with other males for territory, but the mate competition within a group is reduced because there are only one or two sexually mature males in it. Thus gorilla males have really tiny testicles. It is therefore not a parsimonious explanation to suggest that humans lost the trait (big testicles, associated with sperm competition), and then re-evolved the trait but use it for something else, as you suggested.

This is only even possibly true if you have a denuded concept of human sexuality. I don't even have to step outside the merely biologicsal to posit that your explanation here is unnecessary since the emotions are, properlly speaking, part of the biological make-up of an organism. Sexual characteristics can develop, in other words, to enhance the emotional aspect of sexual intercourse not just the procreative aspect (although that would certainly be primary). In other words, it's completely to be expected that species that can engage in sexual congress without the need for the female to be "in heat" would have these characetristics because they're going to spend mroe than a bit of time engaging in that behavior. The procreative aspect remains, of course, and those traits are passed on because they are beneficial to procreation. But the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them (which is why you'll often see women with guys who are complete losers, I might theorize LOL).

Perhaps the original poster would have been wiser to put a "maybe" in front of the assertion that ancient modern human females engaged in promiscuous sexual behavior.

Yes, now that you mention it he might have said that instead of making a blanket statemet and expecting people to blindly accept it.

Because that is what science is saying...maybe they did, *probably* they did, but we don't know for sure because we don't have a time machine.

Actually it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true.

In fact, now that you mention it, I do wish more scientists would add those two statemets whenever they are saying anything to the media. It would save so much time and prevent many otehrwise fine people from making complete asses of themselves, IMHO.

Now, if you want to continue this dicussion further, let's do so in a private message, so this thread isn't derailed any further.

Jen

I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.

Pax,

Chris

 

[KELLYG]

From a different point of view. Most parents that send their children to college have sacrificed a lot to get them there. This behavior is a slap in their face.

 

[arnisador]

So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.

Yeah, I'm totally not buying this "oxygen" in the "atmosphere" theory. What next? Biological pathogens and elementary particles too small for the human eye to see?

You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here

That's rather the point of axioms, as it turns out.

And yet the species you're using isn't human.

Yes, it's as absurd as testing cosmetics on rats or medicines on pigs or smoking effects on mice.

How does one even measure statistical probability

How does one even define "statistical probability"? It isn't a term used in statistics (or probability).

There's a lot to criticize in evolutionary psychology (though I think they're on to something). But no empirical science proves things beyond all doubt--that's the province of mathematics. Even cherished "laws" like F=ma can fall.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.

Thread Drift may indeed be a force rampant throughout the Net but it is one that it is attempted to keep under control here at MartialTalk.

Threads in the Study are expected to cleave to the original topic as much as is possible.

If drift occurs, then first there is a nudge (like this one), then an official warning. If that warning is not heeded, then the thread is either locked or the Moderation Team attempt to split it as logically as they can.

So, interesting as the exchange maybe and as blase as individual posters may be about 'Drift', it would be best to take the discussion encapsulated by a couple of posts above to another thread.

That in turn is preferable to taking the talk 'private'. As long as the topic is truly not a 'private matter' and things that are undeniably personal are not being disclosed, all posters are urged to make discources open for all to contribute to.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Thread Drift may indeed be a force rampant throughout the Net but it is one that it is attempted to keep under control here at MartialTalk.

Threads in the Study are expected to cleave to the original topic as much as is possible.

If drift occurs, then first there is a nudge (like this one), then an official warning. If that warning is not heeded, then the thread is either locked or the Moderation Team attempt to split it as logically as they can.

So, interesting as the exchange maybe and as blase as individual posters may be about 'Drift', it would be best to take the discussion encapsulated by a couple of posts above to another thread.

That in turn is preferable to taking the talk 'private'. As long as the topic is truly not a 'private matter' and things that are undeniably personal are not being disclosed, all posters are urged to make discources open for all to contribute to.

Well, like I told Jenny_in_Chico she can PM me if she wants.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yeah, I'm totally not buying this "oxygen" in the "atmosphere" theory. What next? Biological pathogens and elementary particles too small for the human eye to see?

Way to miss my point. If you have a problem with what Jenny_in_Chico said regarding the nature of science I suggest you take it up with her. I was completely willing to say that science can, in fact, prove things (but that there was no proof offered in this particular instance). She was the one who said it cannot do so, strictly speaking.

That's rather the point of axioms, as it turns out.

Sure. But if you're again missing the point of what I was saying.

Yes, it's as absurd as testing cosmetics on rats or medicines on pigs or smoking effects on mice.

No, it's not even in the same ball park. Animal experimentation certainly has its place, particularly in the areas you mentioned. But if we're talking about tracing the development of physical characteristics in human beings I'd think you'd want to actually do that, at some point. It's not a matter of testing drugs to see if they are harmful to the subject, it's a matter of getting accurate information on the subject you're talking about.

How does one even define "statistical probability"? It isn't a term used in statistics (or probability).

Yes, it's used in statistics. But it deals with the probability of an event occuring over a period of time. I'd think that would be of some interest when dealing with the passing along of genetic traits over millions of years of evolution. Or do things like that not interest people in scientific fields?

There's a lot to criticize in evolutionary psychology (though I think they're on to something). But no empirical science proves things beyond all doubt--that's the province of mathematics. Even cherished "laws" like F=ma can fall.

That was my point, despite that fact that you obviously ignored my post and instead chose to reply with your snarky comments. elder999 made a blanket statement, which I questioned. Jenny_in_Chico gave an explanation as to why it was possible (but to be honest offered no actual evidence for her position). I then pointed out a counter explanation that I would say is at least as likely as hers. This is especially true since there is no way to actually observe the behavior you're trying to prove. All that you can do is identifiy the presence of a genetic trait and offer theories as to why it's present. You can't test these theories. Using parallels in non-human subjects is interesting but ultimately fails to convince since, well, it's not dealing with human subject (which was the original topic of conversation).

So, if you have any evidence to offer in support of elder999's comment I'd gladly see it.

If, on the other hand, you have only snarky comments that result in your ignoring the point of my post, I'm not all that interested.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Hi Chris,

It wasn't my plan to respnd to this post, because I don't invest a lot of energy in debating people whom I think are wrong on the internet. I am losing interest in this debate primarily because it seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that you have difficulty in extracting information from written material. But it also seems weird not to respond when there is conversation which includes references to me. I encourage the moderators to split this thread since it has drifted so far off topic.

I'll do my best to respond to each point, but I haven't figured out how to separate your quotes in response to my previous quotes, so my comments have been removed and readers will have to refer back to your last response for them.

So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.

That sounds like something I have heard of before, but I can't place it... Can you help me out here?

You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here, right? Sure, it might make things easier, but it's not necessarily going to give an accurate explanation.

And yet the species you're using isn't human. It isn't even directly related to humans. Nor is it in the same temporal situation as when said trait developed in humans. I also point out that there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition.

This is something you'll never know given your own statements at the start of your post.

Frustrating to say the least. It's more accurate to say that your statistical probability of arriving at an accurate answer is rapidly approaching zero given then number of missing links (pardon the pun) and rather expansive temporal difference in situations today and that 6 million years ago.

How does one even measure statistical probability when there is a time differential of 6 million years?

Since we're talking about modern humans now can I assume that there is something concrete on which they based this conclusion? I have seen various figures for the emergence of modern homo sapiens (between 55,000 and 100,000 years ago). Or do you mean something else by "modern human"? In any event 100,000 years is a lot less than 6 million so perhaps there's more evidence for what you're talking about. Or perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed? That way we wouldn't have to rely on hypotheses that are untestable. We'd only have to worry about the anecdotal evidence of the written record.

I also note that even here you can only refer to scientists having a "tentative conclusion." That's rather less than I would hope for given the absolute statement that was made by elder999.



This is only even possibly true if you have a denuded concept of human sexuality. I don't even have to step outside the merely biologicsal to posit that your explanation here is unnecessary since the emotions are, properlly speaking, part of the biological make-up of an organism. Sexual characteristics can develop, in other words, to enhance the emotional aspect of sexual intercourse not just the procreative aspect (although that would certainly be primary). In other words, it's completely to be expected that species that can engage in sexual congress without the need for the female to be "in heat" would have these characetristics because they're going to spend mroe than a bit of time engaging in that behavior. The procreative aspect remains, of course, and those traits are passed on because they are beneficial to procreation. But the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them (which is why you'll often see women with guys who are complete losers, I might theorize LOL).



Yes, now that you mention it he might have said that instead of making a blanket statemet and expecting people to blindly accept it.



Actually it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true.

In fact, now that you mention it, I do wish more scientists would add those two statemets whenever they are saying anything to the media. It would save so much time and prevent many otehrwise fine people from making complete asses of themselves, IMHO.

I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.

Pax,

Chris

In response to "scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen"...regrettably, there are many natural objects or phenomena that simply can't be measured or observed directly. For instance, there is evidence for "dark matter" in astrophysics. At this time we dont have the ability to directly observe it, but its gravitational influence on visible matter can be observed and measured. The presence of dark matter answers a lot of questions that have bothered physicists concerning how galaxies behave. Not all physicists support this hypothesis, but most do, until something better comes along which explains these phenomena more adequately. In the same vein, evolutionary biologists often cannot observe directly the evolution of particular traits, because of an incomplete fossil record or an unresolved phylogenetic tree. At this point, we can either throw up our hands and run home crying to momma, or we can use the tools at our disposal to try and address the question. Those tools are based both in logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) and in technology (statistics, genetics, functional morphology, reproductive physiology). Because the recursive scientific method is an effecient way to reduce big confusing questions down to testable hypotheses, and because science is subject to hyper-critical peer review, science is the best approach available for learning about the natural world. It is not at all like religion, where people are asked to accept things on faith. In this case, I argued that sexual promiscuity in our evolutionary past was probable, because the *well-documented morphological correlates to that behavior* are present in modern humans and in our closest living relatives. You suggested a less parsimonious explanation for that trait being present in humans, ie. I believe you suggested (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that human males have large testicles because they need to service their female partner throughout the month (no visible signs of estrus). This is actually a clever idea, and I give you full props for it. However, human males could have testicles the size of grapes and accomplish this chore on a regular basis throughout the month, just as monogamous gibbons do. Large testicles are required when a very high rate of sperm production is required, ie. several matings a day. Also, in species where the male engages in sperm competition with other males, they make different types of sperm...some sperm impregnate the female, while other types are evolved to form a glutinous "sperm plug" which prevents entry by ejaculates deposited by later males. Human sperm does this.

Later, you argue that my non-human primate examples are bogus, because they are not in the human evolutionary lineage. I stand by what I stated earlier, that this is a common comparative phylogenetic approach. I cannot give you a crash-course in phylogenetics. I respectfully suggest that you do some reading in this area, and perhaps we can talk again later. At this point however I feel that you don't have the background to assimilate my arguments. Please don't take this as an insult or an evasion, it truly is not intended that way.

You then make the point that "there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition." However, I think that both I and the original poster have been referring to a period during hominid evolution when culture was not developed, in the sense that you and I and anthropologists view "culture". There are some indications of cultural idiosyncracies with respect to tool use in pre-human hominids, and then an explosion of cultural artifacts when modern humans were fully established. But there is a muddy area in there, between 200,000 and 40,000 years ago, when the anatomical differences between Homo sapiens and other sympatric hominids were not pronounced, and some anatomically modern human sites don't have culturally significant artifacts associated with them. So it may or may not be true that the human condition is a cultural condition.

Later you mention that "perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed?" My response to this is to look at modern human societies. Formal polyandry is rare, but extra-pair copulatory behavior is common in every society that has been studied, and this is supported by genetic parentage assignment. This, of course, is not identical to the "gang bangs" that we've been discussing, but it does suggest that human monogamy is just as rare as it is in the animal world.

You also state that "the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them." I absolutely agree with this, and with your argument that human psychology plays a huge role in the expression of sexuality. Off the cuff, I think that human sexuality is equal parts culture, biologically-based mate choice, psychological perception of the current situation, and chance. There are factors (biological or psychological) which may encourage a human female to be faithful to her mate (he is "sexy" to her and she wants to have offspring with him; she doesn't want to violate her own self-identity; she is afraid of disease or discovery), and there are factors which may encourage a female to cheat (her mate is a good provider but not "sexy" to her; she feels like she never had a chance to sample other males; she is feeling old or unattractive and wants the thrill of sexual attention from a new conquest).

You then argue that "it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true." I would rephrase the caveat to state "Perhaps modern humans had gang bangs in the forest; there is evidence to suggest human female promiscuity, but the jury is still out until the fossil record is more complete and extensive behavioral genetic research has been accomplished in the area of human sexuality and mate choice." Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered a gene (the receptor gene for the neuropeptide arginine vasopressin) which is associated with infidelity in human males, based on previous work done on monogamous and polygamous species of voles. So we may be closer than we think to answering this question, because phylogenetics can be performed with single genes just like morphological traits, and the "record" is preserved in our genomes.

I can't believe how much time I've spent on this discussion. Frankly, I wish it would die, not because it isn't interesting but becuse it takes time away from other things. For instance, my yellow belt test in kenpo which is happening this Saturday!

Jenny

 

[Touch Of Death]

Here ya go.

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that the woman was faultless, and I hope she is prosecuted for what she did. But the quote I posted stuck out to me because of the indignance that someone might think poorly of him. CC, you go ahead and play devil's advocate but, consensual or not, I think that participating in a gangbang is low-rent. YMMV.

I'm sure it will slip out eventually.
sean

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic, and please keep the discussion polite and respectful, as well.

jks9199
MT Senior Moderator

 

[chrispillertkd]

Hi Chris,

It wasn't my plan to respnd to this post, because I don't invest a lot of energy in debating people whom I think are wrong on the internet. I am losing interest in this debate primarily because it seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that you have difficulty in extracting information from written material. But it also seems weird not to respond when there is conversation which includes references to me. I encourage the moderators to split this thread since it has drifted so far off topic.

Thanks for insulting me. I guess all that work on my doctorate has been wasted sinc e I don't know what I've actually been reading. Bummer.

I'll do my best to respond to each point, but I haven't figured out how to separate your quotes in response to my previous quotes, so my comments have been removed and readers will have to refer back to your last response for them.

I thought about writing you directions on how to separate quotes but as I read my own description I was unable to extract the information on how to do it so I just figured you were so much smarter than me you could figure it out yourself. One day.

In response to "scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen"...regrettably, there are many natural objects or phenomena that simply can't be measured or observed directly.

Yes, I know that. You have missed my point. Apparently you didn't do a good job at extracting information from my written material.

For instance, there is evidence for "dark matter" in astrophysics. At this time we dont have the ability to directly observe it, but its gravitational influence on visible matter can be observed and measured. The presence of dark matter answers a lot of questions that have bothered physicists concerning how galaxies behave. Not all physicists support this hypothesis, but most do, until something better comes along which explains these phenomena more adequately.

All of which I know and is rrelevant to this topic.

In the same vein, evolutionary biologists often cannot observe directly the evolution of particular traits, because of an incomplete fossil record or an unresolved phylogenetic tree. At this point, we can either throw up our hands and run home crying to momma, or we can use the tools at our disposal to try and address the question. Those tools are based both in logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) and in technology (statistics, genetics, functional morphology, reproductive physiology). Because the recursive scientific method is an effecient way to reduce big confusing questions down to testable hypotheses, and because science is subject to hyper-critical peer review,

"Hyper-critical peer review." Yeah.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47477/title/Peer_review_No_improvement_with_practice

science is the best approach available for learning about the natural world. It is not at all like religion, where people are asked to accept things on faith.

Me thinks that 1) you don't have a very informed definition of faith, and 2) you didn't read what I wrote in my last post and which you actually quoted in your response. I guess you just aren't that great at extracting information from written material.

Let me ask you again, and I'll see if you get the message this time, it appears that scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen. Does that sound familiar at all?

In this case, I argued that sexual promiscuity in our evolutionary past was probable, because the *well-documented morphological correlates to that behavior* are present in modern humans and in our closest living relatives. You suggested a less parsimonious explanation for that trait being present in humans, ie. I believe you suggested (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that human males have large testicles because they need to service their female partner throughout the month (no visible signs of estrus).

Technicsally speaking, it isn't a "need." People do a lot of things they don't need to do. My explanation took into account something yours did not: human nature.

This is actually a clever idea, and I give you full props for it.

Aww, gee thanks. I'm "clever"! I don't feel talked down to at all. For a minute I thought you'd be patronizing towards me.

However, human males could have testicles the size of grapes and accomplish this chore on a regular basis throughout the month, just as monogamous gibbons do. Large testicles are required when a very high rate of sperm production is required, ie. several matings a day. Also, in species where the male engages in sperm competition with other males, they make different types of sperm...some sperm impregnate the female, while other types are evolved to form a glutinous "sperm plug" which prevents entry by ejaculates deposited by later males. Human sperm does this.

None of this actually argues against my theory or for yours, of course, since my theory doesn't rest on mating only several times a month as you mentioned before.

I did know about the "sperm plug" before you mentioned it, btw. Heard about it several years ago, in fact.

Later, you argue that my non-human primate examples are bogus, because they are not in the human evolutionary lineage. I stand by what I stated earlier, that this is a common comparative phylogenetic approach.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a common practice.

I cannot give you a crash-course in phylogenetics. I respectfully suggest that you do some reading in this area, and perhaps we can talk again later. At this point however I feel that you don't have the background to assimilate my arguments. Please don't take this as an insult or an evasion, it truly is not intended that way. [/quote]

You don't need to give me a crash course. And since I have trouble extracting information from written material such time would obviously be wasted anyway, right?

On the other hand, you might do well to familiarize yourself with the basics of logic. That was a skill you mentioned that was necessary when dealing with problems such as the one we are discussing, viz. interpreting evidence of things not seen.

You then make the point that "there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition." However, I think that both I and the original poster have been referring to a period during hominid evolution when culture was not developed, in the sense that you and I and anthropologists view "culture". There are some indications of cultural idiosyncracies with respect to tool use in pre-human hominids, and then an explosion of cultural artifacts when modern humans were fully established. But there is a muddy area in there, between 200,000 and 40,000 years ago, when the anatomical differences between Homo sapiens and other sympatric hominids were not pronounced, and some anatomically modern human sites don't have culturally significant artifacts associated with them. So it may or may not be true that the human condition is a cultural condition.

Parts of the human condition certainly are culturally conditioned. But even these things already exist in human nature at least logically prior to culture. In other words, something needs to exist before a culture can influence it. Indeed, human nature is inherently gearedto forming cultures.

But, again, you miss my point. My comment was meant to indicate that it isn't necessarily a "distortion" when you are dealing with humans. Cultures influence traits, certainly. But cultures also spring from traits that man possesses.

You seemed to miss, however, that if the species we're talking about is pre-human than culture isn't going to exist in the first place. So then you have to take into account the behavior of a pre-cultural species which results in a trait which is passed onto man via evolution which may or may not be influenced by various cultures across time. Good luck.

Later you mention that "perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed?" My response to this is to look at modern human societies. Formal polyandry is rare, but extra-pair copulatory behavior is common in every society that has been studied, and this is supported by genetic parentage assignment. This, of course, is not identical to the "gang bangs" that we've been discussing, but it does suggest that human monogamy is just as rare as it is in the animal world.

You are apparently not so good at extracting information from written material as my comment about written records was meant to illustrate the difficulty of gathering evidence for your position even after the evolution of modern man (to say nothing of his pre-human ancestors). I would've thought you would be better at such a skill given that you insulted me for what you took to be my shortcoming in this area.

You also state that "the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them." I absolutely agree with this, and with your argument that human psychology plays a huge role in the expression of sexuality. Off the cuff, I think that human sexuality is equal parts culture, biologically-based mate choice, psychological perception of the current situation, and chance. There are factors (biological or psychological) which may encourage a human female to be faithful to her mate (he is "sexy" to her and she wants to have offspring with him; she doesn't want to violate her own self-identity; she is afraid of disease or discovery), and there are factors which may encourage a female to cheat (her mate is a good provider but not "sexy" to her; she feels like she never had a chance to sample other males; she is feeling old or unattractive and wants the thrill of sexual attention from a new conquest).

And yet you apparently ignore or cannot see that given this fact the explanation you give (or at least present as others are giving) seemingly takes no account of this. Any such ommision runs a high risk of completely misunderstanding human nature and thus offering an explanation that can only be called "inaccurate" at best.

You then argue that "it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true." I would rephrase the caveat to state "Perhaps modern humans had gang bangs in the forest; there is evidence to suggest human female promiscuity, but the jury is still out until the fossil record is more complete and extensive behavioral genetic research has been accomplished in the area of human sexuality and mate choice."

Sure. And then end it with "... but we'll never know." Because we won't.

Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered a gene (the receptor gene for the neuropeptide arginine vasopressin) which is associated with infidelity in human males, based on previous work done on monogamous and polygamous species of voles. So we may be closer than we think to answering this question, because phylogenetics can be performed with single genes just like morphological traits, and the "record" is preserved in our genomes.

Yes, we may be. Or we may not be.

I can't believe how much time I've spent on this discussion. Frankly, I wish it would die, not because it isn't interesting but becuse it takes time away from other things. For instance, my yellow belt test in kenpo which is happening this Saturday!

Jenny

Good luck.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Archangel M]

I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good".

I dislike the "well its human nature" excuse for bad, crass, disgusting or aka "base" behavior. It could be argued that it's "in my nature as a male" to kill another male for mating rights with his female (willing or not), and that trait has reared it's ugly head on many battlefields.

When "Human Nature" trumps "right and wrong" we are truly lost.

 

[elder999]

I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good".

I dislike the "well its human nature" excuse for bad, crass, disgusting or aka "base" behavior. It could be rgued that it's "in my nature as a male" to kill another male for mating rights with his female (willing or not), and that trait has reared it's ugly head on many battlefields.

It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, breaks no laws, and doesn't harm anyone else.

When "Human Nature" trumps "right and wrong" we are truly lost.

"Human nature" is human nature, while "right and wrong" are largely social constructs.

 

[yorkshirelad]

It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, breaks no laws, and doesn't harm anyone else.
.

If this is the case, maybe it's not for us to judge the people who judge such things....just saying.