Pastor Says

[Punish_her]

But the women don't necessarily WANT to leave them! They simply want the right to choose for themselves! The fact that the religion REQUIRES them to submit to their fathers, or brothers, or husbands, is where the problem lies. And remember, they wouldn't just be leaving their church. In many, if not most, cases, they would be exiled from their own families as well.

you can't force someone to accept someone else. if my father had told me that if I didn't go to college in x state, he wouldn't have helped me pay for it, he's completely within his rights to do that. if my father tells me if i was gay he wouldn't talk to me, he's completely free to do that. it's not coercion, it's just someone being whiney they don't get their way.

Unless she has one child for each husband. With so many providers, she certainly wouldn't need to work outside the home. She could be a veritable baby factory if she wished. Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun. The point is, SHE gets to decide. And men, generally, don't like that.

this is the most illogical thing i've ever heard. CUCKOLDED MEN DON'T LAST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY GENE POOL! if you're really this much of a self-hating man, i pity you

If humans ONLY mated for procreation that might be true. But with modern medicine, a man could insure that any children would be his, but still share her if he wished.

this happens, they're called swingers

The only benefit of monogamy for men is the lower cost of maintaining a household. If he can afford it, polygamy would be more beneficial for any individual male. And in the genetics game, it is the Alpha male who's seed tends to dominate. He doesn't want the others to propagate at all, so it's in his interest to deprive them of wives. And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line. Of course, modern morality, not to mention modern psychology, has changed us all. For the better, I should hope. After all, we aren't strictly animals anymore.

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of. only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

[Thorne]

you can't force someone to accept someone else. if my father had told me that if I didn't go to college in x state, he wouldn't have helped me pay for it, he's completely within his rights to do that. if my father tells me if i was gay he wouldn't talk to me, he's completely free to do that. it's not coercion, it's just someone being whiney they don't get their way.

It is attempted coercion. Your father is using his authority to try and force you to do as he wishes. Unless you can afford to pay for your own college, if you don't do what he wants you risk not getting the education you want. If you were gay, he wouldn't speak to you (which might actually be a good thing!) But what if he tells you that if you don't marry the old widow next door he'll toss you out on your own? And you're only 14 years old? What real choice would you have? Sometimes, submitting is the safer choice. That doesn't make it any less coercive.

this is the most illogical thing i've ever heard. CUCKOLDED MEN DON'T LAST IN THE EVOLUTIONARY GENE POOL! if you're really this much of a self-hating man, i pity you

They do if they are also cheating on their wives! And I don't hate myself. I respect women. Even married one. JUST one.

this happens, they're called swingers

Yes, it does happen. But it's a lot riskier if the husband can't insure that his wife won't get pregnant by another man.

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of. only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

Except that the outlaw biker is prone to live hard and die young. And the women he's using aren't likely to live long, either. Certainly not if they get pregnant and lose their appeal. The 'nice' guy will tend to live longer, and therefore have more opportunity for sexual encounters, and far more likelihood of having healthy, viable offspring.

One thing evolution demonstrates is that anti-social, even criminal, activity is not necessarily a positive trait. People like that don't tend to propagate nearly as often or as successfully as more normal, acceptable males. Yes, alpha males will have a better chance of mating with the most desirable females. But in human terms, at least, one of the more desirable characteristics of a prospective husband and father is stability. And outlaw bikers don't typically have that.

[thir]

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

Mao and Stalin did, if I am correct, go heavily against religion, but Hitler called upon it - Kinder, Kirche, Kuche, women making soliders for Der Faterland, working in the kitchen, and being churchgoers were good women. Why the church? Because it keeps them in their place. In a lot of former facist contries (like for instance Spain) the Catholic church was heavily in bed with the facist regime, both getting more control by the alliance. So much so, that it is only in recent years that that grip is loosening. That is why the could for instance do the baby stealing thing for so many years, in even now these crimes are not to justice, though they might be.

The debatre here is not about your individual church goer or religious person, but about the social impact on society, as a society, by dogmatic religions. I would like to mention the Pope's many very anti this and that policies, while many individual nuns and priests, and just your individual religous person, choose to go another way.

[thir]

incorrect reverse logic, not every conquered nation was a matriarchy, but every matriarchy was conquered. not the same

I do not get this. Most of cilivilisations that have been in history have been conquered, whether matriarchy or not!

from upenn: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys..._Happiness.pdf
freakonomics: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/...en-so-unhappy/
huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus..._b_289511.html

upenn: "Diener (2000) notes that one of the hallmarks of subjective well-being is that it
is subjective, stating that “objective conditions such as health, comfort, virtue, or
wealth” are “notably absent” and, while influencing subjective well-being, “they
are not seen as inherent.” This aspect of subjective well-being makes understanding
what is behind declining female happiness a challenging task, yet decoding the
paradox identified in this paper may be the key to a better understanding of subjective
well-being."

freakecnimics: "3. There was enormous social pressure on women in the old days to pretend they were happy even if they weren’t. Now, society allows women to express their feelings openly when they are dissatisfied with life.

4. Related to No. 3 in the preceding paragraph: these self-reported happiness measures are so hopelessly garbled by other factors that they are completely meaningless. The ever-growing army of happiness researchers will go nuts at this suggestion, but there is some pretty good evidence (like this paper by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan) that declarations of happiness leave a lot to be desired as outcome measures.

Stevenson and Wolfers don’t take a stand on what the most likely explanation might be. If I had to wager a guess, I would say Nos. 3 and 4 are the most plausible."

huffingtonpost: says clearly that the trend is that men start out sad but become happier as they get older. women start out happy, but get sadder as they get older.
Is that hard to understand??

well that's just a crock of shit.
contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage.

What planet are you living on?? Of course they can, and are!

not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself).

So, the choice is leave all you have been told is right and proper, and your family, and your society and everything you know, or go out into the unknown in a world you do not know?

The two teenagers who had run off and who were in the show, said they missed their families horribly, but could not stand being married at 15 with someone they hardly knew.

John Stossel had a feature about polygamy and sister wives, and they seemed happy and even advocating it. but here's some evo psych for you:

I do not know who John Stossel is, but know myself of one group that lived happily polygamy and have heard of others. Noone says is it wrong or impossible, given voluntary participation by all.

we are a historically polygamous psecies

Nonsense!

, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men.

I do not understand what is meant by this

think about it in these terms:
would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife? i rest my case

You lost me here. Do you mean the mormon's John Smith? But most people would like to be one man's wife, as we see in countries where you can choose.

and before you say "that'sdumb, nuh-uh!" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...it-polygamy-an it's completely true

"Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society. This is because polygynous society allows some women to share a resourceful man of high status. George Bernard Shaw (who was one of the founders of the London School of Economics and Political Science where I teach) put it best, when he observed, “The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.”"

LOL - what nonsense! Most women want to be a 10th wife rather than having one for themselves? Do you see women of today clamouring to get polygamy relationships???

There is a poly group who wants group marriages, but that is with every concievable combination.

furthermore, dr phil is not there to actually confront any real issues, he's there to entertain and get ratings, most of which are from women

So you think women are entertained by a show showing how bad polyamory is? You know, I think you are right there.

[thir]

the 5,000 years of society is a comically short amount of time compared to the primordial ooze we all crawled out of.

Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.

only a fool would believe that a nice guy gets laid as much as an outlaw biker

Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

[leo9]

Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.

Actually, this is one of the reasons I point out to sociobiologists for an evolutionary argument for homosexuality. Most mammals that live in groups have some mechanism for limiting the population, usually by having only certain individuals breed. Given that communal childcare seems to be part of human evolution (for instance, women without children can lactate if they suckle somone else's baby regularly,) it would be pro-survival for a clan to have a percentage of males who not only aren't interested in mating but have more "feminine" behaviour, and are therefore more likely to help with childcare.

I don't actually believe this theory, because it depends on assuming that stereotypical "gay" behaviour is genetically determined. But sociobiologists do believe that such minutiae are not only genetically programmed but have survived unchanged since we were cracking flints in Olduvai Gorge, and it amuses me to turn their logic back on them.

[leo9]

Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild.

The population pinch had a massive effect on our evolution, because of genetic drift in a small group. But it didn't put a premium on breeding, otherwise we wouldn't have come out of it with more dependent infants with longer childhoods. And a percentage of homosexual individuals isn't actually any bar to breeding. One male is all a clan really needs to keep the females fertilised (why some other primate species live in harems,) and before the turkey baster was invented, any lesbian who wanted a child badly enough could shut her eyes, grit her teeth and lie still for the few minutes necessary.

And we were never poorly equipped to survive, otherwise we wouldn't have spread all over the world before we got past the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. On the contrary, most cultures that don't get rid of their surplus population by migration or war have had to evolve ways to limit their fertility, such as restrictions on marriage, taboos on sex, exposing female babies or the like.

[leo9]

contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage.

That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?

not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself).

"You have a perfectly free choice, dear. You can do what God wants, or you can leave your home and your family and the one true Church and damn your soul to Hell forever. Up to you."

[leo9]

Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun.

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking. Of course that would place it way back in the days when we still had a mating season.

And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line.

One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

[Punish_her]

Agreed! And no one - noone - knows how groups and societies were organises in those distant times.



Then call me a fool, because that is exactly what I think.

Anyway, you keep talking about marriage and getting kids, and who do you think most women would want to marry? According to your line of reasoning, the one who would help support the kids.

Honestly, I think there is a sort of misunderstanding between men and women in these matters. Some men seem to think that being a criminal or off society violent person is macho, and that that will attract women. But I think that the things that (might) give points between men are not neccesarily the things that (might) score with women.

incredibly, unequivocally false. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGMTBVFQJ1.DTL

[Punish_her]

That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"

thats cmparing apples and oranges and i assumed that sex slavery via gunpoint, kidnap, and violence is obviously beyond the realm of a mormon girl becoming the second wife of a well off, affluent man

[Punish_her]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.

the prevailing theory is that a girl who had too much pleasure from sex would impregnate too often, therby putting her and her children's life in harm's way given her vulnerability during the gestation. this is why the clitoris is outside the vagina

One of the biggest fallacies in pop evolution is that there is one "best" genotype. The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

i beg to differ. strength, speed, and physical fitness are good in any climate- this is why women prefer a higher shoulder to hip ratio. furthermore, being intelligent is a nonissue. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038...SIN=0385342160 there is no time where a woman will leave a fit, healthy man for a fat man just because it gets cold. the reverse would be true, she has limited eggs and doesn't want to waste them with duds. this is why humans have less genetic diversity than other mammals though we have more numbers. there is a certain set of traits that all females from nearly every culture finds attractive, things like syymetry, distance between eyes relative facial width and so on. and to hammer it home, we are descended from 2 to 3 times more females than males, so the genetic winners amongst the y chromosomes were a select few, not women breeding with a diverse group of men

[Thorne]

There is, actually, a theory that the reason women find it harder to orgasm than men is that they're not evolved for just one partner; evolution designed them to orgasm after the third or fourth fucking.

My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though!

The world doesn't stay the same, and no Alpha Male is perfect for everything. In Selfish Gene terms it's actually a better strategy for a female to breed with several different males, so that whatever qualities happen to be most useful to the next generation - strength, speed, cunning, a good thick coat - at least one set of her genes will be paired with that.

I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

[thir]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

[thir]

incredibly, unequivocally false. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGMTBVFQJ1.DTL

Do you think that the women who wants to marry a criminal on death row for fame value are representative for the female sex?

If so they would not get proposals in tens, but in millions.

[thir]

"That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"

thats cmparing apples and oranges and i assumed that sex slavery via gunpoint, kidnap, and violence is obviously beyond the realm of a mormon girl becoming the second wife of a well off, affluent man

Why is that comparing oranges and apples? The topic was coercion, and a forced marriage is coercion, or at the extreme end of coercion. Also in DK there is a lot of trouble with forced marriages from cultures where the parents have traditionally arranged the marriages. The girls (they are usually quite young) run away, with the risk of either fending for themselves at an early age, or ending up a victim of an 'honour' killing. Also the boys end up in this situation, except they do not get killed, but they are likewise under a lot of presure. I have personal knowlegde of one such girl, who is still in hiding while trying to figure out how to get an education while avoid getting killed.
Many cannot handle that - they get married.

Why is a mormon girl always getting an affluent man? Does this mean that there are a lot of poorer men who never get married? In programs I have seen, a lot of the affluence came from a number of wifes working outside the family, and bringing their wages home, while the rest takes care of the home and children.

Anyway, if she is coerced, I do not see what affluence or not matter, but she could be wife no 6 or 7. How fun do you think it is for a girl of perhaps 15 to be married to a man 3 or 4 times her age? Do you think she gets enough attention, love, sex? Does any of them? Money isn't everything, and anyway in this day and age people can earn their own money.

[Thorne]

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

[Punish_her]

Do you think that the women who wants to marry a criminal on death row for fame value are representative for the female sex?

If so they would not get proposals in tens, but in millions.

women don't like nice guys. if you dont know that by now, i pity you
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

[Punish_her]

"That would be news to the special units in every police force in this country set up to protect young Asian women from forced marriages. And we're not talking about just the emotional force a family can bring to bear, we're talking about girls who know they will be hunted down and killed if they run away. Still, no pressure, right?"



Why is that comparing oranges and apples? The topic was coercion, and a forced marriage is coercion, or at the extreme end of coercion. Also in DK there is a lot of trouble with forced marriages from cultures where the parents have traditionally arranged the marriages. The girls (they are usually quite young) run away, with the risk of either fending for themselves at an early age, or ending up a victim of an 'honour' killing. Also the boys end up in this situation, except they do not get killed, but they are likewise under a lot of presure. I have personal knowlegde of one such girl, who is still in hiding while trying to figure out how to get an education while avoid getting killed.
Many cannot handle that - they get married.

Why is a mormon girl always getting an affluent man? Does this mean that there are a lot of poorer men who never get married? In programs I have seen, a lot of the affluence came from a number of wifes working outside the family, and bringing their wages home, while the rest takes care of the home and children.

Anyway, if she is coerced, I do not see what affluence or not matter, but she could be wife no 6 or 7. How fun do you think it is for a girl of perhaps 15 to be married to a man 3 or 4 times her age? Do you think she gets enough attention, love, sex? Does any of them? Money isn't everything, and anyway in this day and age people can earn their own money.

jesus christ, in that case any marriage is coercion. what if the guy gets down on one knee and the girldoesnt want to hurt his feelings, coercion.
what if a girl gives the guy and ultimatum of marriage or seperation, coercion.
what if a guy wants to get a divorce but the girl will get most of his assets so he just lives in a shitty marriage, coercion

[Punish_her]

No one is saying we are exactly the same now as then. And IF there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be a more recent mutation, though we know there were homosexuals existing at least in Biblical times, at least for the last 10,000 years. That's an eye-blink in terms of genetic mutation rates, though.

But not all genetic changes need be slow. Environmental stresses, including overcrowding, can speed changes along far more rapidly than previously believed. Still, you're talking many generations to see even small changes. Not something you will see in a single lifetime.

there are some documented cases of man on man action in the wild, bonobos are horny monkeys and the men frequently engage in sexual escapades, but even then, the entire population sis considered "bi-sexual" because its more for sex and a social bonding mehcanism

[Thorne]

So you're admitting that it's a naturally occurring state, even among other species? Then what's the objection to it in humans? Homosexual marriage wouldn't just be for sex, obviously. They can do that without the hassle of marriage. So there is a social issue there. Hell, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages which don't necessarily involve sex. Why are people so squicked by what might be happening behind closed doors of homosexuals? And it's almost always MALE homosexuality which bothers them. You seldom hear them talking about lesbians. I guess that's not so icky, is it?

[denuseri]

Leo9
"Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources."

Punish Her
"Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild."

I do not follow this argument. If our genes were exactly the same as then , we would still look like those bipedals and Darwin with his ideas of slowly but ever changing genes would be all wrong.

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

[thir]

women don't like nice guys. if you dont know that by now, i pity you
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-10391704.html

Ehm - I happen to be a woman myself - If you were aware of that, I am a bit puzzled your remark -?

I do not choose my partners according to whether they are 'nice' or 'bad', sounds a bit juvenile to me, actually, not to say oversimplified. Not many people are all 'bad' or 'nice', that seem quite a two dimenisonal view of humans.

Anyway, this one survey said:

"Who did the gals go for? The study showed they preferred guys who looked proud or moody and ashamed. But the guys were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to those who appeared proud and confident."

No figures given.

"But Beall pointed out in the statement that the people in the study weren't asked to evaluate men on the basis of whether they might make a good mate. "We wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction," he said."

UBC says about this:

"Very few studies have explored the relationship between emotions and attraction, and this is the first to report a significant gender difference in the attractiveness of smiles. The study, published online today in the American Psychological Association journal Emotion, is also the first to investigate the attractiveness of displays of pride and shame."

"He [Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author]says previous studies have found positive emotional traits and a nice personality to be highly desirable in a relationship partners."

"While this study focused on sexual attraction between heterosexual men and women in North America, the researchers say future studies will be required to explore the relationship between emotions and sexual attractiveness among homosexuals and non-Western cultures."

"Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men."

Underlinings are mine.

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2011...ttractiveness/

Not such a one-sided result as you would have it, I think. These US women (representative, or taken from students?) seem to like shamed and proud men equally - a bit confusing really. As for the pride, I found the pic they showed to be 'happy' and showing off muscles as well as 'proud', and it would be fun to see what women and men from other cultures would choose.
As for all the interpretations and ideas the researchers come up with, they are just that - ideas.

[thir]

It's not so much the genes themselves as the switches being turned on or off to activate them...which can be influenced by environment (and our environment is more than just a matter of climate and general locality IE dessert, arctic etc but also urban and social settings including levels of affluence effecting one's immediate surroundings and it is rapidly changing as we proceed through the modern era).

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago. According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

[thir]

jesus christ, in that case any marriage is coercion. what if the guy gets down on one knee and the girldoesnt want to hurt his feelings, coercion.

The decision is hers and not coercion - unless the family is threatening to kill her if she refuses. Coercion is a pressure from the outside.
Or are you suggesting that a person can coerce him- or herself??

what if a girl gives the guy and ultimatum of marriage or seperation, coercion.

?? I do not understand - marriage or seperation?

what if a guy wants to get a divorce but the girl will get most of his assets so he just lives in a shitty marriage, coercion

Then he himself decides beween comfort and freedom, doesn't he? Again, coercion by defintion comes from the outside, and from people.

However, if the wife had said: 'if you break this marrage, I will make sure you never see the children again' - that is a threat or attempting to coerce him to stay in the marriage.

[thir]

My personal theory is that most women have difficulty reaching orgasm because their mates don't know HOW to make them orgasm. I'm still gathering data on that, though!

A complex thing indeed ;-)
At least until one has managed to wriggle out of various counter-productive ideas imposed in an early age. Or can by-pass them with the help of various bdsm styles ;-)

I can see that as a valid survival strategy. One part of the problem IMO is that the human race is short-circuiting evolution, allowing those with poor survival characteristics to survive due to artificial intervention (medicine). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, morally speaking. Just saying that it might not be in the best interests of the human race, ultimately. I certainly wouldn't want to set up genetic tribunals to determine who should be allowed to reproduce!

What are the best survival traits, and are they in the best long-term interest oif the human race?

I cannot help thinking of some of the most brilliant physicist minds trapped in a wheelchair. Or the woman without legs who finished a marathon - will power worthy to pass on? Sick people who can beget healthy survivors?

I think immediate survival is not the same as the interest of the species, and even in the very beginning, handicapped people were taken care of - at least in some places. Who knows, maybe they knew things of importance, or could take care of the children, or were good story-tellers?

[Punish_her]

The decision is hers and not coercion - unless the family is threatening to kill her if she refuses. Coercion is a pressure from the outside
Or are you suggesting that a person can coerce him- or herself??

someone else's expectations of you,from the outside

?? I do not understand - marriage or seperation?

what's not to get, tie the know or take a hike

Then he himself decides beween comfort and freedom, doesn't he? Again, coercion by defintion comes from the outside, and from people.

and she'll seize is assets because of court systems, from the outside

[denuseri]

But you are still saying hat the genes we have are the same as millions of years ago.


Um...nope I did not.

According to Darwin this is a rank impossibility - the law of evolution is change according to a mix of random mutations and changing circumstances.

Its perhaps more helpful at least in layman's terms if you think of the gene as a line of code...the switches (in combination with a bunch of other things) that are active today make up what you are today...a great deal if not almost all of that old code is still there...it (depending upon what switches were on and off at the time) made up what your ancestors were in the past. With each and every exchange of dna that produces a new offspring tiny little sometimes imperceptible changes do take place (in some cases a variety of factors can cause rampant changes or even a switch being disconnected or miss-connected etc) but the overall line of code (including the old code) for the most part remains.

I assume (correct if wrong) that you mean the 'hard-wired' idea that genes in our brain are exactly the same as then, and that they are so detailed that they can decide our behaviour now, ( oh I didn't say they alone decide...the decision making process of a mind is complex...not so complex we don't know how it works mind you, just complex...and we have found that one's brain chemistry and overall physiological programing play a much larger part in the process than most people are comfortable discussing because they get overwhelmed and tend to think that science is telling us we are just like any machine etc and that our programing and built in responses largely guide our choices and that free will ...may just be illusion after all... its real enough tough...at least from our own perspectives) with these 'switches'. No one have been able to prove that such 'switches' excist, (um actually they did some time ago now...prove they exist...though not at all in the way your portraying them) they are just an idea - in the face of the many seriously working biologist who tear their hair and point out that genes can not express such detailed behaviour.

Like I said...the genes themselves are not expressing the behaviors.

[Punish_her]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/sc...inds.html?_r=3

[Alchemystic]

I read as much as my head could handle, so if I missed someone else making the points I am about to, I apologize.

1) Mankind has been hijacking religion and manipulating it to control and subvert the masses for as long as there have been humans walking the earth. A favorite tactic amongst the thumpers is to cherry pick scripture to prove whatever. Here is but one telling example of thousands: "Children obey your parents." If you went to a Christian church as a child, you heard it, over and over and over. What most don't realize is that this pillar of good christian parenting is an incomplete instruction. Those who quote it never continue with the second part: "and parents do not anger your children, lest you turn them unto darkness." The complete verse paints a different picture than the partial one most of us had crammed down our throats.

2) I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the canon, a condemnation of homosexuality from the divine. Neither God, God's child, nor the holy spirit is ever heard to say one word against homosexuality. The only such scripture is in Leviticus, which was and is a handbook of sorts for the Priests. It is a human that says, "when a man layeth with another man, as with a woman, it is an abomination." Again, it's what is left out that makes the difference. The verses before and after the oft quoted portion all deal with what is proper behavior within the sanctuary on a day of worship. In plain language, what is basically being said is, "Hey, no buttfucking in the pews on Sunday." From this passage we are told, quite erroneously, that being gay is an "abomination". Twisting scripture to exclude and condemn an entire group of people, all of whom are just as much "God's Children" as those doing the condemning? Now that's an abomination all it's own.

3) There are no genes governing gender preference. None whatsoever. Current theory is that hormonal antagony within the womb informs gender preferences for the fetus. We know that there are many examples of same sex sexual dynamics all across the planet. Nature doesn't seem to care if anyone's gay or not. There is no law or theory that says everything that happens has to be for some kind of evolutionary purpose. Nature itself seems to enjoy diversity. Human beings looking to validate their own prejudices will cling to whatever is available to justifty their views. Anything is preferable to having to admit being wrong. Spiritual belief or non-belief, and what anyone does with their sex organs are personal matters that are really nobody's business. Why we as a society spend so much time on these private issues is beyonnd me. Are we so insecure that we have to force belief and practice on each other, so we can feel better about ourselves? When will we evolve beyond that? The sooner the better.