Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are Humans NATURALLY promiscuous?

Page 10 of 12 [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The NATURAL sexual state for most humans is
Asexuality 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Monogamy 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Polygyny (one man, multiple women) 13%  13%  [ 4 ]
Polyandry (one woman, multiple men) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Promiscuity (multiple men, multiple women) 48%  48%  [ 15 ]
Other (specify) 26%  26%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 31

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

06 Feb 2014, 11:13 pm

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
I think the species would still carry on even if people were monogomous plus considering how over-populated the world is at this current moment in time, I think the survival of our species is perhaps not on the top our list of things with which to be concerned. Also, surely this is not always the case with STD's being spread in polygamous environments, which can cause infertility and thus prevent people's genes from spreading.


Well, the OP asked about "naturally" promiscuous.

The value of monogamy is a social construct, not what's hard-wired into our DNA.

I voted that the natural state is Polygyny (one man, multiple women). One man can sire with many different women. I was about to pick that we were naturally promiscuous (many men, many women), but if left to nature, a woman will refuse to mate with sub-standard men (alpha males preferred) and men are not inclined to mate with sub-standard women (if there's an option).

This is how nature keeps the species strong, and it is observed across multiple species.

In a given population, I'd expect that the best of the men would be the desired fathers for the fertile women as there is a genetic instinct to breed with the party that promises to produce the strongest offspring.



Alyoshka
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 41

07 Feb 2014, 1:58 am

I feel people force themselves to be monogamous because that is what is socially acceptable.


_________________
?Everyone has a soap dish. If you lift the soap and find that underneath it is dry, you?re all right. If its gooey, you have the poisoning, which turns your blood to powder. The powder then depletes your energy and eats away at your body.?


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

07 Feb 2014, 2:29 am

LKL wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Moreover, among hunter-gatherer folk, the men generally cooperate together for hunting (and other manly pursuits). Someone used to say "it takes a village to raise a child." Rather than each man taking care of his own children, the boys would eventually join the group of men. The girls would stay among the women, and participate in the cooking, cleaning, and other womanly pursuits around the camp.

It's always amusing when a man (and it's almost always a man) talks about 'hunter-gatherers' but completely disregards the 'gatherer' part.


Yep. Archaeological evidence points strongly to women and the children being the gatherers...and the ones that provided 90%~ ish of the daily nutrients the group consumed (this means men and women). The game the hunters brought in provided the protein...which if you look at your food pyramid is not exactly a big chunk of what you need to survive. Since meat was rather a rarity back then (from a daily consumption point of view) the hunter group bringing game once a week (avg) got the job done.

For most of the time however, the group survived from what the gatherers (women) brought in.

...also, 'cooking' was not exactly a womanly persuit back then. Women often were the ones processing the gathered foods (grinding them on stone, separating meat from bone/leather,etc) while the men did the actual cooking. In one of my last univ. classes in archaeology we were shown cooking implements found in different parts of the world from those times and the thumb-marks and usage wear indicated the hand that wore it down was male. In contrast, practically all food processing items had female wear indicators.

Back then, we made our own sandwiches. ;)



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

07 Feb 2014, 4:59 am

Shau wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Monogamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Polygamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Which relationship is MOST beneficial depends entirely on your circumstances.


If the benefits are referring to survival of the children carrying your DNA then a polygamous relationship would be most beneficial.


Cite plz. If not, it's speculation. Also: Herpes and AIDS.


Both monogamous and polygamous settings carry the same risk of STD's.

To be completely free of the risk of STD then all parties who enter into a relationship (be it polygamous or monogamous) must be virgins.



fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 7:33 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Shau wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Monogamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Polygamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Which relationship is MOST beneficial depends entirely on your circumstances.


If the benefits are referring to survival of the children carrying your DNA then a polygamous relationship would be most beneficial.


Cite plz. If not, it's speculation. Also: Herpes and AIDS.


Both monogamous and polygamous settings carry the same risk of STD's.

To be completely free of the risk of STD then all parties who enter into a relationship (be it polygamous or monogamous) must be virgins.


Yes, true but then once you are in a relationship the chance of such a disease spreading, assuming both parties are spreading, is less.



fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 7:36 am

Alyoshka wrote:
I feel people force themselves to be monogamous because that is what is socially acceptable.


To appease whom exactly? At this current moment in time, there is nothing stopping anyone from having multiple sexual and emotional partners if they will. Plus, there is no way you can know that. It is pure speculation and the line between what is socially acceptable and what people really want to do is so blurred and complex, no-one can really know. Plus, who cares if it is what is socially acceptable? Things may be socially acceptable for a particular reason and may not be any less negative for it. I probably eat with a knife and fork and wear clothes because it is socially acceptable yet I am glad to some degree I am not naked eating with my hands all the time. Sometimes, social conditioning is helpful.



fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 7:42 am

zer0netgain wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
I think the species would still carry on even if people were monogomous plus considering how over-populated the world is at this current moment in time, I think the survival of our species is perhaps not on the top our list of things with which to be concerned. Also, surely this is not always the case with STD's being spread in polygamous environments, which can cause infertility and thus prevent people's genes from spreading.


Well, the OP asked about "naturally" promiscuous.

The value of monogamy is a social construct, not what's hard-wired into our DNA.

I voted that the natural state is Polygyny (one man, multiple women). One man can sire with many different women. I was about to pick that we were naturally promiscuous (many men, many women), but if left to nature, a woman will refuse to mate with sub-standard men (alpha males preferred) and men are not inclined to mate with sub-standard women (if there's an option).

This is how nature keeps the species strong, and it is observed across multiple species.

In a given population, I'd expect that the best of the men would be the desired fathers for the fertile women as there is a genetic instinct to breed with the party that promises to produce the strongest offspring.


Could you please cite some sort of evidence to back up the statement that it is not hard wired into our DNA and is thus a social construct? Plus, DNA is exceptionally complex and we are still unaware completely of its functions at this current time. Furthermore, just because something is hard-wired into our DNA does not somehow mean we are obliged to follow it if we somehow feel that a better lifestyle exists that goes against the genetic inclinations of our DNA. It may be hard-wired in our DNA to murder one another in order to spread genetic information better however we have made a conscious decision as a species that we would rather over-ride such hard wiring. Also, there may be the possibility that certain genetic information is turned on through cultural conditioning at a young age while some is turned off. Once again, considering the rise of std's in places in which promiscuity is rife, surely that does not necessarily make the species strong? Also alpha male is a subjective term since it is dependent on the various values that the society that the female inhibits esteems.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

07 Feb 2014, 9:07 am

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
I think the species would still carry on even if people were monogomous plus considering how over-populated the world is at this current moment in time, I think the survival of our species is perhaps not on the top our list of things with which to be concerned. Also, surely this is not always the case with STD's being spread in polygamous environments, which can cause infertility and thus prevent people's genes from spreading.


Well, the OP asked about "naturally" promiscuous.

The value of monogamy is a social construct, not what's hard-wired into our DNA.

I voted that the natural state is Polygyny (one man, multiple women). One man can sire with many different women. I was about to pick that we were naturally promiscuous (many men, many women), but if left to nature, a woman will refuse to mate with sub-standard men (alpha males preferred) and men are not inclined to mate with sub-standard women (if there's an option).

This is how nature keeps the species strong, and it is observed across multiple species.

In a given population, I'd expect that the best of the men would be the desired fathers for the fertile women as there is a genetic instinct to breed with the party that promises to produce the strongest offspring.


Could you please cite some sort of evidence to back up the statement that it is not hard wired into our DNA and is thus a social construct?


It is only fairly recently that monogamy has become the norm. The majority of marriages in ancient times were polygamous, both as polygyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands) depending on culture. Additionally, you can look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2286682/Monogamy-natural-men-AND-women-equally-promiscuous-TED-lecturer-reveals.html

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
Plus, DNA is exceptionally complex and we are still unaware completely of its functions at this current time. Furthermore, just because something is hard-wired into our DNA does not somehow mean we are obliged to follow it if we somehow feel that a better lifestyle exists that goes against the genetic inclinations of our DNA. It may be hard-wired in our DNA to murder one another in order to spread genetic information better however we have made a conscious decision as a species that we would rather over-ride such hard wiring. Also, there may be the possibility that certain genetic information is turned on through cultural conditioning at a young age while some is turned off. Once again, considering the rise of std's in places in which promiscuity is rife, surely that does not necessarily make the species strong? Also alpha male is a subjective term since it is dependent on the various values that the society that the female inhibits esteems.


A natural inclination to be promiscuous is the same as a natural inclination to commit murder? I don't see the similarity.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

07 Feb 2014, 9:28 am

Shau wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I heart you.

:heart:


You heart a dickheaded prick like me? SEE, WOMEN ONLY DATE BAD BOYS AND JERKS!

/trollface :wink:


You caught me. :D


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 9:31 am

Jono wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
I think the species would still carry on even if people were monogomous plus considering how over-populated the world is at this current moment in time, I think the survival of our species is perhaps not on the top our list of things with which to be concerned. Also, surely this is not always the case with STD's being spread in polygamous environments, which can cause infertility and thus prevent people's genes from spreading.


Well, the OP asked about "naturally" promiscuous.

The value of monogamy is a social construct, not what's hard-wired into our DNA.

I voted that the natural state is Polygyny (one man, multiple women). One man can sire with many different women. I was about to pick that we were naturally promiscuous (many men, many women), but if left to nature, a woman will refuse to mate with sub-standard men (alpha males preferred) and men are not inclined to mate with sub-standard women (if there's an option).

This is how nature keeps the species strong, and it is observed across multiple species.

In a given population, I'd expect that the best of the men would be the desired fathers for the fertile women as there is a genetic instinct to breed with the party that promises to produce the strongest offspring.


Could you please cite some sort of evidence to back up the statement that it is not hard wired into our DNA and is thus a social construct?


It is only fairly recently that monogamy has become the norm. The majority of marriages in ancient times were polygamous, both as polygyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands) depending on culture. Additionally, you can look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2286682/Monogamy-natural-men-AND-women-equally-promiscuous-TED-lecturer-reveals.html

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
Plus, DNA is exceptionally complex and we are still unaware completely of its functions at this current time. Furthermore, just because something is hard-wired into our DNA does not somehow mean we are obliged to follow it if we somehow feel that a better lifestyle exists that goes against the genetic inclinations of our DNA. It may be hard-wired in our DNA to murder one another in order to spread genetic information better however we have made a conscious decision as a species that we would rather over-ride such hard wiring. Also, there may be the possibility that certain genetic information is turned on through cultural conditioning at a young age while some is turned off. Once again, considering the rise of std's in places in which promiscuity is rife, surely that does not necessarily make the species strong? Also alpha male is a subjective term since it is dependent on the various values that the society that the female inhibits esteems.


A natural inclination to be promiscuous is the same as a natural inclination to commit murder? I don't see the similarity.


Just because something has become the norm in recent times does not mean that it is hard wired in one's DNA. Furthermore, many things went on thousands of years, which do not seem particularly natural, such as genital mutilation and the belief in spirits and gods.
Haha, yes, yes I was...No, of course not, i was using it as an analogy to show how to some extent we can over-ride our DNA (if there is even evidence to prove that it is in our DNA) when we feel that our natural instincts do not serve as as well as we want them to.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

07 Feb 2014, 10:06 am

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Shau wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Monogamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Polygamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Which relationship is MOST beneficial depends entirely on your circumstances.


If the benefits are referring to survival of the children carrying your DNA then a polygamous relationship would be most beneficial.


Cite plz. If not, it's speculation. Also: Herpes and AIDS.


Both monogamous and polygamous settings carry the same risk of STD's.

To be completely free of the risk of STD then all parties who enter into a relationship (be it polygamous or monogamous) must be virgins.


Yes, true but then once you are in a relationship the chance of such a disease spreading, assuming both parties are spreading, is less.


In a polygamous group there would be greater opportunity for natural immunity to evolve. As appears to have happened amongst some prostitutes in Africa who have been discovered to have a natural immunity to HIV which has been shown to be genetic.

(Source: Richard Dawkins - The Genius of Charles Darwin)

In a monogamous setting such evolved immunities would not occur due to lack of exposure (assuming both parties remain monogamous - which is asking a lot it seems)



fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 10:18 am

Robdemanc wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Shau wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Monogamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Polygamous relationships have benefits for both men and women.

Which relationship is MOST beneficial depends entirely on your circumstances.


If the benefits are referring to survival of the children carrying your DNA then a polygamous relationship would be most beneficial.


Cite plz. If not, it's speculation. Also: Herpes and AIDS.


Both monogamous and polygamous settings carry the same risk of STD's.

To be completely free of the risk of STD then all parties who enter into a relationship (be it polygamous or monogamous) must be virgins.


Yes, true but then once you are in a relationship the chance of such a disease spreading, assuming both parties are spreading, is less.


In a polygamous group there would be greater opportunity for natural immunity to evolve. As appears to have happened amongst some prostitutes in Africa who have been discovered to have a natural immunity to HIV which has been shown to be genetic.

(Source: Richard Dawkins - The Genius of Charles Darwin)

In a monogamous setting such evolved immunities would not occur due to lack of exposure (assuming both parties remain monogamous - which is asking a lot it seems)


Sorry, I but I just personally do not see any reason for me to become monogamous. MAY I just say that I am in favor of sexualities existing, even people marrying multiple people, since people should be able to do as they wish sexually however personally I do not see the point. I have a girlfriend with whom I enjoy spending the most time, I get on with her more than any other person I have met and do not see any reason, because of this, to seek out anybody else sexually but also emotionally. Far enough if other people wish to do that and they should not be stigmatized for it but I personally do not see anything to gain from it. It is not asking a lot if both parties are completely wishing to be together and if they are not, then they should say instead of sleeping around behind the other persons back and be completely honest about it. I do not see why such a debate even exists since both options are available. I suppose if the disease were confined to two people and they were not sleeping around, such immunity would have no need to evolve in such a way in the first place.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

07 Feb 2014, 10:54 am

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:
Could you please cite some sort of evidence to back up the statement that it is not hard wired into our DNA and is thus a social construct?


Just do some cursory research into animal behavior. Most every species that physically mates has a mechanism to ensure the offspring are of the best parentage.

Primitive humans mated with either women selecting/desiring the "alpha male" for their partner or the men had to compete for the women.

Weak men/unhealthy women were not desirable mating partners.

We didn't learn this...it was hard-wired into our system to seek it out.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

07 Feb 2014, 1:01 pm

fibonaccispiral777 wrote:

I do not see why such a debate even exists since both options are available. I suppose if the disease were confined to two people and they were not sleeping around, such immunity would have no need to evolve in such a way in the first place.


The debate exists because the OP asked the question if humans are naturally promiscuous.

If the disease were confined to two people and it was fatal they would both die. It could be possible they conceive and give birth to a child with an immunity, but then that child would likely die after the parents died.

In a polygamous setting the child would have a greater chance of survival if both its biological parents died of an STD, assuming others in the group were not infected and were able to look after the child.



fibonaccispiral777
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 441

07 Feb 2014, 5:16 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
fibonaccispiral777 wrote:

I do not see why such a debate even exists since both options are available. I suppose if the disease were confined to two people and they were not sleeping around, such immunity would have no need to evolve in such a way in the first place.


The debate exists because the OP asked the question if humans are naturally promiscuous.

If the disease were confined to two people and it was fatal they would both die. It could be possible they conceive and give birth to a child with an immunity, but then that child would likely die after the parents died.

In a polygamous setting the child would have a greater chance of survival if both its biological parents died of an STD, assuming others in the group were not infected and were able to look after the child.


Yes, they would but in a polygamous world both partners would die but there is a possibility it would also be spread to other people.
Perhaps the child would but then we are no longer talking about a polygamous society we are talking about a completely new paradigm of living. Surely, that also happens in a monogamous scenario when the child is cared for by Grandparents, friends, sisters, brother, cousins and other family relatives. Sorry, if you think I sound completely stupid. I just do not think any system, whether it be sexual, political, economic or otherwise is natural since i believe human beings to be more flexible than that.



yournamehere
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,673
Location: Roaming 150 square miles somewhere in north america

07 Feb 2014, 9:41 pm

when I was younger, I read the kama sutra. it was said to be a 2000 year old 2000 page wise mans indian text. I thought it was a horrible mess of arranged marriages, rape, cheating, treating women like garbage, and other stuff. I like what ducks do. together forever. somehow, i'm torn between that, and breeding a superior race. if you think there is a problem with breeding out bad genitics, than you can kiss my royal bloodline.