Tell Me About Sex

**TheUncanny** · 11-30-2007 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You're taking it personally when the truth simply based on evolution and the different strategies that the sexes have for maximizing their reproductive potential.

And I'd go as far as to say that they aren't even sexual "strategies". A strategy implies a plan or a conscious method, whereas evolution only works off of genetic dispositions (which is how such traits are able to be inherited). Back to EvoDevo 101, for evolution to be possible, two things must be true: 1.) That there is genetic variance, and 2.) that this variance affects the organism’s ability to survive and/or mate. In short, what this means is that, for polygamy to have become an evolutionary trait, it must have originated as, and permeated our species via, genetics. Unless what we learn in our lifetime somehow leaves an impression on our genetics, evolution (in a scientific sense as opposed to a figurative sense) isn't a learned thing.

This is a small but important detail that many people overlook or don't seem to understand. Evolution isn't a cognizant phenomenon in the sense that the organisms "know" what needs to be done in order to have the evolutionary "edge" over other organisms (except for in the past 200 years or so); it’s just the accumulative nature of the playing out of unequal probabilities. If a certain animal is found throughout an entire island, but this animal survive slightly better on the coast as opposed to inland, overtime that slight advantage builds on itself in an exponential fashion. What happens is that, in time, you will find many more of this animals around the coast compared to those that live inland...but as you can see its wasn't a conscious decision of the animals to just up an migrate to the coast. Those that just happened to be on the coast (or that just happened to come across the coast) flourished, whereas those that didn't eventually dwindled in numbers.

The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving". The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision. And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread biological ramifications on the species as a whole.

Bada bing, bada boom.Thats how it works.

**Moonbeam** · 12-01-2007 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by ethen

And I'd go as far as to say that they aren't even sexual "strategies". A strategy implies a plan or a conscious method, whereas evolution only works off of genetic dispositions (which is how such traits are able to be inherited).

This is a small but important detail that many people overlook or don't seem to understand. Evolution isn't a cognizant phenomenon in the sense that the organisms "know" what needs to be done in order to have the evolutionary "edge" over other organisms

I know it!! I'm not trying to say that there is any conscious plan! It's just hard to talk about without using words that imply that!

Disclaimer: Genes are molecules which replicate themselves. That is their nature, and it is the same as any other chemical reaction. They do this by means of the bodies of orgnisms. The better a gene is at getting the organism to reproduce itself, the more common that gene will be.

That's all!

Even Dawkins talked about "Selfish Genes"; did he have to go around his whole life explaining that, no, he wasn't really saying that genes don't know how to share or play well with others!

I guess I should get out his book and see how he dealt with it. Of course he probably only had to do it once at the beginning, not every paragraph!

Originally Posted by ethen

The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving". The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision. And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread biological ramifications on the species as a whole.

Obviously.

**Serkat** · 12-01-2007 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by ethen

The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving". The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision. And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread biological ramifications on the species as a whole.

That's not really true in my opinion. We're talking about genetic traits that evolved probably over a million years ago. People were living in congenetic tribes. Quite simply, not everyone got to fuck. Males have a much stronger disposition to be polygamous because certain social positions that not everybody got to be in, basically made this possible for them. However, for the genes to actually survive, there's more to it than mere fucking. I'm talking child raising and protecting the community long term. So you can't have losers banging the tribe-chicks.

**TheUncanny** · 12-03-2007 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

...

Youd be suprised by how many people who think they understand evolution really have no understanding the basic fundamentals. The words you used seemed very similar to the words often used by such people. My mistake.

Originally Posted by Korittke

That's not really true in my opinion. We're talking about genetic traits that evolved probably over a million years ago. People were living in congenetic tribes. Quite simply, not everyone got to fuck. Males have a much stronger disposition to be polygamous because certain social positions that not everybody got to be in, basically made this possible for them. However, for the genes to actually survive, there's more to it than mere fucking. I'm talking child raising and protecting the community long term. So you can't have losers banging the tribe-chicks.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are getting at. What exactly don't you think is true...that polygamy is genetic in nature?

Thats about all I was really trying to get at. For polygamy to have become an evolutionary trait, it must have been genetic in nature...not social (unless I am misunderstanding what you meant). In such tribes, the social standing of an individual, such as the "alpha male", is based on how big/strong/aggressive that male is...all of which are largely determined by genetics. The social standing of an individual is byproduct of such things, so I wouldn't say that they are what caused males to have polygamous dispositions, at least not ultimately. Sure, the social standing is what allows one males to have sexual rights over several females...but the social standing arises from genetics that have long been selected for being "badass".

Its like this genetics > social standing > polygamy > genetics

If I missed your point, feel free to correct me.

**hankwheels** · 12-12-2007 10:50 PM

I don't think there is anything wrong with having sex before marriage, as long as you honestly love the person you're having sex with and you see yourself with him/her for the long run.
I'm waiting till marriage.

**grasshoppa** · 12-13-2007 12:38 AM

Waiting till marriage is pointless because marriage is pointless.

**Jeff777** · 12-13-2007 12:42 AM

...I wonder if you get this.

**cuddleyperson** · 12-13-2007 12:44 AM

ah, a tad more on track now.

I agree about marriage being more of a written statement of something you already know, " you two love each other and, for now at least, want to spend the rest of your life's together". So unless it is strict taboo and you will be punished for having sex outside marriage( stoned to death for example, is that only the women though in such cultures?), which is simply barbaric, there is no reason not to.

**O'nus** · 12-13-2007 02:55 AM

Jeff, that movie poster thing is hillarious.
~

**Jeff777** · 12-13-2007 06:08 AM

I know!

**Oneironaught** · 12-13-2007 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

...marriage is pointless.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.

The movie posters picture is cool.

**Carôusoul** · 12-13-2007 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.

The movie posters picture is cool.

Have you ever had the pleasure of marriage?

Do you deserve it?

**Oneironaught** · 12-13-2007 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Have you ever had the pleasure of marriage?

No, only two failed engagements.

Do you deserve it?

Only if I continue to respect, value and hold in high regard its meaning. Why would anyone deserve anything that they refuse to appreciate or that they treat as a meaningless joke? You've heard the expression about "not casting pearls before swine", no? That means that you don't give things to people that have no intention of realising its value.

**grasshoppa** · 12-13-2007 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.

The movie posters picture is cool.

You mean the financial benifits? Having a loving relationship with a woman is all I need in that regard. I don't need to be married to her to make our relationship official. Have you seen the divorce rates over the last 50 years...? most people who get married don't take it seriously anyway.

**Oneironaught** · 12-13-2007 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

...most people who get married don't take it seriously anyway.

Ahhhhh, yahhhh. That's precisely my point. People who think it's a joke and don't take their commitments seriously need not apply. I wonder why it might be that so many broken families end in broken marriages. Oh, that's right: people jump into it without any intention of taking it seriously. Duh! Marriage isn't meant to be a financial perk. It's meant to be a commitment to another Human Being, to whom you pledge your heart and loyalty.

Hence my statement that you don't deserve marriage. You don't deserve the commitment that goes along with it because it doesn't mean sh!t to you. Duh!

It's only "pointless" if you don't have the honor, value system, sense of duty and commitment, selflessness and testicular fortitude to make it mean something. If you think it's a damn joke then that's exactly what it will be.

Don't say it if you don't mean it.

**grasshoppa** · 12-13-2007 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Ahhhhh, yahhhh. That's precisely my point. People who think it's a joke and don't take their commitments seriously need not apply. I wonder why it might be that so many broken families end in broken marriages. Oh, that's right: people jump into it without any intention of taking it seriously. Duh! Marriage isn't meant to be a financial perk. It's meant to be a commitment to another Human Being, to whom you pledge your heart and loyalty.

Hence my statement that you don't deserve marriage. You don't deserve the commitment that goes along with it because it doesn't mean sh!t to you. Duh!

It's only "pointless" if you don't have the honor, value system, sense of duty and commitment, selflessness and testicular fortitude to make it mean something. If you think it's a damn joke then that's exactly what it will be.

Don't say it if you don't mean it.

I have been deemed unworthy of marriage! oh noes. Obviously I don't care. Just because you are not married doesn't mean you can't have a meaningful relationship with your spouse. When it comes down to it, the relationship is all the matters. If you have honour and trust then why the need for the legal documentation and publicity?

**Oneironaught** · 12-13-2007 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I have been deemed unworthy of marriage! oh noes. Obviously I don't care. Just because you are not married doesn't mean you can't have a meaningful relationship with your spouse. When it comes down to it, the relationship is all the matters. If you have honour and trust then why the need for the legal documentation and publicity?

Quit trying to equate "relationship" with "marriage". We're talking about MARRIAGE. If MARRIAGE means nothing to you then stay the hell away from it: you are not worthy. How much more plain can it be stated?

**grasshoppa** · 12-13-2007 09:22 PM

I was planning on not ever getting married

**ClouD** · 12-13-2007 10:25 PM

Marriage takes away the freedom we value as much as love.

**Oneironaught** · 12-13-2007 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by ClouD

Marriage takes away the freedom we value as much as love.

Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.

**Carôusoul** · 12-13-2007 10:31 PM

I think if two people are in love it doesn't matter whether they have official documentation or official vows themselves.

All the vows they need they have made together, in their hearts.

That said I don't believe true love exists. But you get what I'm saying.

**Carôusoul** · 12-13-2007 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.

Not to be nasty but,

Actually yeah, I need more nasty.

How the hell can you talk about its greatness having failed twice and never experienced it!?

**ClouD** · 12-13-2007 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.

The very act of swearing your life materialistically away to someone seems quite ball and chain to me.
Till death do we part?

Understanding that greatness is always existant is much easier.

**GestaltAlteration** · 12-13-2007 10:46 PM

It is only a ball and chain because people like to cheat... What is love if your lover is found after the both of you have screwed around with 100 other partners in look for "the one"?

Humans are humans.