In today's society we have single-parent
families. We have cohabitation, we have
"serial" marriages, with people marrying,
divorcing, remarrying, perhaps divorcing
again, and so on. Infidelity has also
been in the media recently - Sandra Bullock's
husband being the latest celebrity.

Yet in all Western nations, the law insists
that a many may have only one wife at a time,
and a woman, only one husband. However, this
ideal is held by a minority of the societies
of the world.

My question is - is monogamy natural?
Why or why not?

I wonder how many here on OLO would be happy for their spouses to be having it off with someone else. son.

Monogamy is not natural when we are ruled by our adamic nature. It is very natural when we have love and respect for our spouse and children. Prison is full of people as a result of selfish individuals unable to control their sex life. No doubt the more godless a society is the more cheating, child abuse and selfishness. Many are happy to defend this position mainly due to failure in their own life.

Always an interesting subject Foxy!
However, a discussion on monogamy is sure to bring out the 'all women are sluts unless they are married or celibate, and all children of the nasty,wicked single mothers are criminals' brigade!

Speaking of which- Runner is already off and running!

I am definitely a member of the monogamy camp, as I wouldn't be able to handle my husband having sex with anyone else, to say the least.

I am not really a strong supporter of the need to be married though.
One can practice monogamy in a defacto or gay relationship just as happily.

I believe that monogamy is a natural practice in our modern day society.
Back in the dark ages, women died quite often in childbirth, and children died young from many diseases.
Therefore having several female partners was probably necessary for the males to ensure their genes were carried on to the next generation.

I would imagine there were terrible problems with jealousy even then though! I have read many books about Polygamy, and it seemed to me that the main problems they had were financial and jealousy!

Having affairs is an even worse consideration as far as I am concerned. Then you can add lies, deceit and possible transmission of deadly sexually transmitted diseases to the problems.

Add to all this the upset and sadness caused to children when their parents have affairs and separate, and it is definitely worth being monogamous.

Foxy,
For me it is ....I have a tire easily these days....of responsibility..... for everything that goes wrong.
More wives = more of the above.
Nah pass.

Regards
Examinator ;-)

I think monogamy is a life style choice influenced by social construct.

Is it natural?. Personally don't think so, if it was we wouldn't be talking about it. IMO.

"My question is - is monogamy natural?
Why or why not?"

Good question.

Answer: yes and no. If we put aside all preconceptions, ideology, morality and so on, and look only at the 'field work' - the experience of human beings in general in all places and all times, we find that the general pattern of human sexual and reproductive behaviour is a series of nearly monogamous relationships; serial monogamy with the occasional bit on the side.

Those who marry as virgins and die having had sex only with their spouse are in a minority, in all cultures and all times. So while that kind of perfect monogamy does not appear to be natural, in the sense that most people don't do it, on the other hand, there is definitely a drive for man and woman to pair up in more or less exclusive pair-bonds. In this sense monogamy is more natural than random promiscuity. However casual sex is also natural, as is polygamy.

Is monogamy natural ? Probably not !

"Yet in all Western nations, the law insists
that a many (sic) may have only one wife at a time,
and a woman, only one husband."
It depends on how you define "insists":
"An Iraqi-Canadian was acquitted of bigamy Tuesday by a Windsor, Ontario judge who said that while he had no doubt the man has two wives, it could not be proven the man left the country "with intent" to take a second partner."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/canada-windsor-man-with-two-wives-dodges-bigamy-charge.html
"It was announced last year that the British Government had already accepted that Muslim husbands with more than one wife in this country qualified for extra benefits even though they technically were breaking the anti-bigamy law."
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/category/polygamy/
Polygamy is a growing reality in all Western countries with Islamic immigration.
If "the law insists that a man may have only one wife at a time", where are all the successful prosecutions?
All "Western nations" are effectively capitulating to polygamous Islamic marriages, even though the "law insists" otherwise.
This is largely because of the dilemma faced by "local authorities (who) are in a bind, faced with issues of freedom of religion".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/07/europe-adapts-to-allow-for-islamic-polygamy.html
Hands up anyone naïve enough to imagine that the same process isn't happening in Australia with the tacit approval of the law.
Polygamous marriage will increase in all "Western nations" despite the law's "insistence" and whether or not it is considered natural.
Silence from feminists on this issue indicates that multiculturalism trumps women's rights in their ideological hierarchy.

StG and Individual don't think monogamy is natural.
I would be interested in why you think this?

I think Peter is probably right here. Serial manogamy seems to be practiced as much as manogamy in our cluture.

In some of the cultures I have visited circumstances tend to cause different responses.

Where there is no economy as such, there is no "cost" in having children. In many of these the kids, after there first couple of years, are raised more or less by the whole village.

In most of these places sexual activity starts very young, & a girl is more likely to find a husband if she is all ready a mother, with thus proven fertility.

We are all products of our experience, & history, so what we think of as "right" can be very different.

Dear Suze,

I can fully understand your feelings.
I think many people will agree with you.

Each society views its own pattern of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right
and proper, and usually as God-given as well.

However, if we assume that there is only one
"right" marriage/partnership form, then naturally any change
will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the
whole institution.

However, today, there is an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns, what I'm
curious to learn is that will the family, and monogamy,
like any other social institution change through time,
in our society? Do we accept what we have only because
that's the way it's always been? Or is there more to it?

Dear runner,

Thanks for your response. It's always appreciated.

Dear Examinator,

If I understand you correctly - you only approve
of monogamy because anything else is too much
trouble and responsiblity?
At least you're honest.

Dear Peter Hume,

Thanks for your well reasoned response.
It makes sense.

Dear StG,

You don't think so? But you don't elaborate as to
why?

Dear Individual,

I second Suze's question - why don't you think
monogamy is natural?

Dear Proxy,

You may well be right when you state that,
" polygamous marriages will increase in all Western Nations..."
Personally, I can't envisage it happening any time
soon - because our laws don't allow it. However in a
survey of evidence from 238 mostly preindustrial societies,
it was found that only 43 insisted on restriction to one
mate at a time. In 4 of the remaining societies a woman
was permitted to have more than one husband, and in all
the rest a man was allowed to have more than one wife,
a ratio that reflects the superior power and privileges
of the male partner in the family institution.

Another traditional Western assumption has been that
people should not have premarital or extramarital
sexual experience, a value still very strongly held
by many people in industrialized societies. In cross-
cultural terms, however, this belief is something of
an exotic curiousity, and the idea of virgin marriage
is considered ludicrous.

Dear Hasbeen,

I totally agree. What each of us thinks is "right"
can be very different. In our modern industrialized
societies, we generally assume that married partners
should be adults of much the same age, and yet certain
exceptions are made for an older man and a younger woman.
It's frowned upon when the reverse happens, an older
woman and a young man.

Oh, I get it.
We’re talking about monogamy and Western society but we’re not allowed to talk about the driving force behind the inevitable polygamisation of the West, even though it's already happening.
We’re talking about whether monogamy is natural but we’re not allowed to talk about whether other “marriage-like” arrangements are natural.
We’re claiming that Western societies laws “insist” that polygamy is illegal but we’re not allowed to talk about the fact that they don’t insist on enforcing these laws, in the face of polygamisation.
But we are “curious to learn whether monogamy, like any other social institution will change through time in our society?”
The answer is yes, with the increasing Islamisation of the West.
Damn.
Wrong answer again.

Proxy aren't there a number of fundy Christian sects in the US practicising polygamy? I remember years ago watching a documentary about polygamous marriages in North America among a radical Mormon community. It was scary stuff to think that this was happening in the 20th Century and continues to this day in some communities.

Foxy I think man is naturally monogamous even if he/she is not always faithful.

Throughout time human beings have sought life partners and the love and security that comes with that. Now that we live much longer and with the advent of the "me me" society marriage has become less important, but even the divorced among us appear to seek new and loving relationships in the hope that the next time it will work, which may reveal a natural need for monogamy.

Most of us take a dim view of our partners being unfaithful - I tend to think it is more than just a human construct.

Even cavemen took a woman for his own didn't he without the modern human construct of marriage. Well as far as we know anyway.

I think Monogamy is natural for some, unnatural for others and just how it has to be for the rest of us.

I have always been monogamous, because I have a great face for radio which only a mother could love....lol

The true test of monogamy is opportunity. If you had a naked, attractive person of your sexual persuasion throwing themselves at you would you pass the monogamy test? I suspect I, like many would fail such a test.

But alas as it has never happened, so my wife is stuck with me....lol

I suspect Polygamy is more my style, but, I doubt I could cope with that many lists on the fridge of jobs to do...lol

I did actually have the opportunity to perhaps forgo my monogamous lifestyle, many years ago whilst dancing, with a very attractive woman. When dancing closely she kissed my neck and I responded very bravely.... Um Oh Um...that's my wife over there... and ran to safety...lol

The woman was gorgeous and luckily for her self esteem it was very dark, so she didn't realise she could have done much better...lol

Yes Proxy, your worries about Muslim polygamous practices without acknowledging that some Christian groups still practice polygamy (although it is still illegal), say more about you than them.

I imagine that legal Gay marriages would have to be considered before polygamous marriages would get a look in, Proxy?

If polygamy is ever considered to be made legal in our country, I can't imagine how it would be allowed to become a lawful relationship unless women are also allowed to have multiple husbands.

So I am confident in saying it will never be legal here because men of all religions (and those with no religion) would not be happy with allowing equal rights with the number of spouses that ALL citizens would be allowed to have.

It will never happen.

I don't believe that monogamy is natural, because there is part of our brain that might be happy to have sex with a large number of people. It is just a matter of keeping these feelings under control. I don't believe that honesty, respecting other people's property or avoiding violence are natural either. Part of our brain wants us to punch every driver who cuts us off in traffic. Humans would live like neanderthals, if we just did what is natural.

Foxy:"a ratio that reflects the superior power and privileges
of the male partner in the family institution."

Or perhaps just mirrors the fact that most men like to see some physical variety, something well-attested to by the existence of porn. Nah, that couldn't have anything to do with it...

Do I think monogamy is natural? It's a preferred mode for women, since they get to have a helpmeet and a protector to some degree and it's a useful mode for men, since they get to be more sure that they're not looking after some other man's child. So I guess that makes it "natural", but it's by no means the only arrangement that can claim that.

Foxy:"It's frowned upon when the reverse happens, an older
woman and a young man."

Rot. I lived with a woman for 6 years who was 11 years older than me. When we started, I was 24 and she was 35. We never encountered any kind of "frowning". You might also look at the hugely approving media attention given to "cougars"

'Not natural', as in genetic caveman instinctual stuff, not as in 'we shouldn't be doing it'.

There was a show on years ago about how relationships work etc. About our genetic scent attracting our most suitable partners, and how that is responsible for not being attracted to our siblings - excluding some - and explaining that 'seven year itch', and why we do what we do based on our gender and instincts.

Going by memory - obviously fallible - they went on about how 'way back when' the male would mate with the female and hang around long enough for the child to be mobile. This makes sense when you consider the Alpha Male stuff. The survival of our species was based on breeding and monogamy by instinct wouldn't have done us any favours at our origins. IMO anyway. Could be totally wrong, I'm not an expert.

Another interesting question Foxy .
Mr Hume, I think we should presume, is correct.

The answer to your question is THEREFORE yes ( quantum test morality?) . The reactionaries ( the ones who keep trying something different) , in historical reality, are proved wrong in the long term. Read history, not just the ever present reactionary media .

The reasonable thing THEN is not to be a reactionary.( or give up our childish ways cause we all seem to be a bit that way when we were teenagers ) ; find the working models and prove everything in between. http://dogood.blogspot.com

To believe that " what's natural" provides the imperative is to be predictably reactive and worse --stuck with whatever imperative "you think natural tells you to be" - noone should tell you what to be! you are free (eg stuck in a marriage where that marriage is in name only?)
Far more liberating to see that life calls us to make the choice to pick the idea apart: to be faithful ; to resist temptation ; to deal with my emotions not live off them ( anti- natural) and so on .
. http://knowlove.blogspot.com
. What really works for happiness is I think , and have experienced , a bit hidden. Take a natural like "aggression" ; on the surface its frightening so many now try to deny its natural or fail to deal with it openly ; Deeper down its a useful and powerful istrument for BOTH good and evil. We are naturally aggressive , but does that MEAN WE SHOULD fight back, bully or be wusses . Nature provides only the structure and the tools - not always "the right choice ". Thats the freedom we have within structure.
What can inspire us in relationship objectives is to model ourselves on real people and how deal they effectively with aggression ( and a range of other emotions like jealosy , guilt etc) Using ideals to drag us beyond the mere mechanics.
Did anyone see hear Elizabeth Gilbert at the Sydney Writers festival? What was she saying?

Foxy

My comment was an *old* joke.Perhaps not the *best* joke being base on stereotyping as it was.
However, I assumed the comments would be based on stereotyping of one on one relationships which they are. No mention of gay relationships or non sexual ones in sight.

It was to avoid a very long and complicated dissertation. On what "natural" means. i.e.From biological imperative to the cultural mores.
One needs to understand the nature of personal relationships through the lenses of time, experience and health and subsequent wants and needs.

Most of the comment's tend to focus on child rearing and sexual availability but as previous neither are necessarily the be all and end all.

In the absence of a truly deep kinship old age is difficult enough but without a partner it would be a lonely end.

Suffice it to say that in the final analysis it comes down to the wants and needs of the people involved.

Kind regards
Examinator

Dear Proxy,

There are no right or wrong answers.
The whole point about this thread is
to get opinions expressed to what you
feel about the issues. However people
are entitled to disagree with you.

However, as I and others have pointed
out, there are all sorts of other
"marriage-like" arrangements that
already exist in societies around the
world.

Dear Pelly,

From my research I would say that human
beings throughout time sought partners
according to their culture and traditions and
what was considered "right" in their society.

Dear Opinionated2,

Examinator would probably agree with you.
He too thinks that anything apart from monogamy
would tire him out.

As for your having a face only for radio?
That may or may not be true. However as the old
adage goes - "Beauty fades, but stupid is forever."
In other words, it's personality that matters!
And by the sound of it - you've got one that makes
gorgeous women want to kiss you, so I wouldn't be
complaining if I were you. ;-)

Dear Suze,

Totally agree with you about polygamy.
It won't happen here.

Dear benk,

Love your reasoning.

Dear Anti,

It's not "Foxy's ratio," it's what sociological
surveys indicated. And, I agree with you. It's
great that changes are being made in the way of
gender equality.

Dear StG,

Thanks for explaining further.
It makes sense.

Dear Hanrahan,

Is there such a thing as objective history?
I'm not sure. A historian can establish that
an act took place on a certain day but this
only constitutes chronology. The moment the
historian begins to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other considerations,
the product becomes unacceptable for one or another
camp of readers.

You say that no one should tell you what to do?
But they do don't they? From parents, teachers,
and society in general. We tend to follow the
norms and values of the society in which we live.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks for explaining the "old joke."
I tend to take things at face value
and believe what people tell me.

However, I do agree that the final analysis
comes down to the wants and needs of the
people involved. The heart wants what it wants,
right?

The trouble is we are all products of our socialisation and culture. What would happen if we removed all of those constraints and let people develop and mature as 'nature' would have it. It is not possible to know the outcome for sure, but human nature seems to gravitate to one main partner every time even if later there is infidelity.

Polygamy is just another human construct but reading about polygamy in Islamic societies it would seem jealousy and rivalry is a big thing indicating it is not a natural need for spouses to share their partners around.

Men would I am sure be unlikely to desire their wives take on another husband in the family home. Although he may enjoy that to do list on the fridge door being shared around. :)

I love the 'to do' list. And the husbands 'pocket money'. They were a feature of all my friends households growing up.

Both are urban myths of course, as we all know marriage is the oppression of women to a life of financial dependence and domestic drudgery and violence.

'The trouble is we are all products of our socialisation and culture.'

Correction. Women are victim to 'societal expectations', men are an autonomous group of powerful people who make all the 'societal expectations'.

Dear Foxy ,
History is very useful as means of testing ideas and reality .
As a practical earth scientist, let me tell you history can be useful as science and yes its true that it suffers from the same limitations as any science ( fits the facts only so far ). You would be logically correct to say that i am game even arrogant ?, to say that I can see things happening in a laboratory as big as history - but the reality is i do and can. Why not others ?

Let me remind you again, and any who think science is the final refuge of all reality - I think they limit themselves. Science does not help solve some of these questions - you have to use assumptions beyond the superficial and the plainly proven . Whats proven anyway?

Revisionists, like reactionaries get there kicks out of being clever here and they get a big audience . I would rather move on from the safe circle and help us predict the future, rather than just react to it .

Dear Pelly,

I'm sure that most males and females aren't
really into "sharing," although as you point
out - the "to do list," might tempt some.

Dear Houellebecq,

Thank You for sharing.

Dear Hanrahan,

I'm not sure that "science is the final refuge of
all reality." I think that there are still gaps
in our understanding that science is not able to fill.
On the ultimate important questions of the meaning
and purpose of life and the nature of morality,
for example.

Suzeonline & Foxy,
In response to your questions I can only go by (hence the probably) what I have experienced over the years. I know of many, many couples who have strayed to where the grass was no greener. I reckon that humans are not all that much different when it comes to desires of any kind. The only real difference is that nature has blessed animals with "seasons" whilst human have been cursed with an "any time" need for the close company of the other sex. Look at a pride or herd or whatever & you'l find that the male is constantly defending his position over several females. There're many human males who would be beside themselves if societal pressure didn't prevent them from being with more than one female. Same goes for females.
Ok I might be way off but that's how I think it is. The only thing stopping us is that we have been conditioned for monogamy by closet polygamists.

Dear Individual,

Thanks for answering Suze's and my questions and
responding so quickly.

You could be right. Quite frankly, I don't know
what's natural for others. I suspect it's a case
of whatever floats your boat.

To some, marriage is founded on romantic love
between the partners and the choice of a mate is
left to the individual. To others marriage may be
regarded as a practical economic arrangement or
a matter of family alliances, not a love match.

Throughout history for example we have alliances
between entire societies that have been sealed by
marrying a prince of one royal family to a princess
of another. Earlier in this century, there's another
example, Ibn Saud, a local Arabian chieftain, married
over 300 women from various tribes, binding these
groups into the country now called Saudi Arabia.

And so it goes. To each his own.

Foxy, as a librarian you should have no problem having a look at a
book written by anthropologist Helen Fisher, called "Anatomy of
Love - The Natural History of Mating, Marriage and why we stray"

http://www.helenfisher.com/books.html

She has written various books, this one is the fourth one down.

Its very factual, examines various societies and periods in
history. Her view is that biologically we have a history of
serial monogomy, thus the 7 year itch. The notion of lifelong
monogomy only came about with the advent of the plow, agriculture
etc. That is really when men started treating women as possesions,
because it was when women started to depend on men for a living.

Pairbonding as its called in nature, occurs amongst many species,
in particular in those species where it takes more then one
individual, to provide the resources, to feed the offspring.

Anyhow, if you ever get to read it, let me know what you think.

cont'd...

Dear Individual,

I like this quote from Albert Einstein:

"Strange is our situation here on Earth.
Each of us comes for a short visit, not
knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to
divine a purpose. From the standpoint of
daily life, however, there is one thing we
do know: that man is here for the sake of
other men (i.e. mankind) - above all for
those upon whose smiles and well-being our
own happiness depends."

Dear Yabby,

I've been waiting for you to post.
Thanks for finally doing it and for
the book reference. It sounds spot on.
I only wish that I'd read it prior to
starting this thread. However, I definitely
will read it and let you know what I think.

I suspect it'll be great!

Hi Foxy

Yes it is natural within our culture given our westernised country thinking and knowing one word 'finances'. Though, with more women in high profile well-paid careers and multi-culturalism, who knows if legislation will change under public pressure within the next 50 years!

If polygamy were legalised....Ooooh yes.....wouldnt I and others have fun, [extra support from one another]!

Can just see it now....an extra husband who can put out the garbage just once, come with me to do the grocery shopping a few times a year, cook just once, clean just once, attend to all of the emotional needs of my children and himself sometimes, assist with homework, say 'You are a great mother' occasionally, acknowledge all of my giving and loving attributes, pull me gently into line when I am wrong or hurtful to anyone, say "I love you" a few times in 20 years, give me hugs and kisses when feeling down, come bike riding with me, camping and fishing, be romantic once.

Gee...how would the father of my children cope with another man doing all of these things with me [and more]? Knowing this Aussie chauvanist it would not go down too well LOL.

Dear Foxy,
In todays society we believe science is the ultimate arbitrter of truth. Is DNA a science as it is used to obtain evidence
I heard a story last weekend that the gold found in the Egyptian tombs was mined at Gympie Qld and the workers were their slaves who were the ancestors of the Aust aboriginal. So I googled up "origon of the australian aboriginal" and dna evidence says That they came from North Africa not Asia as we were taught to believe. So lets suppose the bible is true and and Adam started it all in northern Africa . God gave Adam a help mate not two or three. When we chose to follow the lusts of the flesh troubles come. I have just finished a book called Escape by Carolyn Jessop about plural marriages and it is a real eye opener about where lusts of the flesh can lead. God is not a spoilt sport party pooper he is a loving father who wants the very best for his children but like any loving father he knows that you have to let the bird fly and if it comes back it is yours. We have free will and it is our choice whether we follow his word or the lust of the flesh which leads to the mess the human race is in at this present time. So my opinion is that if we choose to remain faithful to one wife forsaking all others we build a strong society not trouble.

Richie

The Barrineans/Negritos probably came from Africa. The first Aborigines came much later from New Guinea.

Those who say that marriage exploits women are failing to consider the position of women in a society in which everyone was ignorant of physical paternity. This was the most probable condition of our species from our nearest common ancestor with other species, about seven million years ago, down to when physical paternity was discovered in about the last ten thousand years.

For the vast majority of the time in which the general patterns of human sexual and reproductive behaviour evolved, people did not understand the connection between men, sex and babies. This is crucial.

In the absence of social paternity, men and women would still have sex, and women would still have babies. If a woman was to look after the baby she had borne, she would need help, especially in the first few years. She could look to other women, but they would tend to be in the same position. She could look to a man or men who as a class would have a surplus of 'disposable income' over and above his or their needs. But ex hypothesi he or they would not have any reason of paternity to contribute to her children.

Now what can a woman do to induce a man to be kind to her and give her stuff? Well we all know the answer to that, don't we?

In the ignorance of paternity and absence of patriarchy, the condition of the woman was much worse and more unequal, as she obtained her major supplementary subsistence from exchanging sexual favours with a man or men who had no commitment based on paternity. Her economic independence and her sexual independence were largely the same thing.

Once paternity became understood, it enabled the woman to exchange the insecurity of a ‘freelance’, as it were, for the security of an ‘employee’ with tenure. She could say to him “*You and only you* are the father of this child. I’ll do you a deal.” Instead of a fee for service type deal, she participated jointly in his income and equity for life; and also stood to inherit.

In return she undertook to look after him and provide sexual services on demand - hence the traditional view that there was no such thing as rape in marriage.

The traditional vow for the woman to "obey" also meant "come across whenever I want" - otherwise the deal would not have made sense from the point of view of the man, who by contributing so much was generally depriving himself of the material means to induce other women to favour him with their charms. And in order for the man to know that the child he was contributing to was his, he had to be able to control the woman’s sexuality, and to do that, he curtailed what had been her *economic* freedom.

The advantages of the new dispensation had its corresponding disadvantages. Women were worse off in that they became subjugated in the patriarchy. But men also were worse off because their opportunities for casual sex with many, or various women, were greatly curtailed.

Both men and women chafe under the harness of marriage, but the great beneficiaries were children. Whatever the disadvantages to sex, the advantages to reproduction were so great that the new order comprised a moral and economic revolution that quickly swept aside the old order.

Although this happened very late in pre-history, still it was just before the invention of writing and therefore before history. Modern-day feminists, taking paternity for granted, complained that women are subjugated under patriarchy, which is true, but concluded that the main beneficiaries are men, which is false.

After feminism, women enjoy not equality, but the double standard of having all the advantages of patriarchy – moral and legal obligation on men to contribute to the support of their biological children – without the disadvantages of pre-patriarchy – need to freelance sexual services with multiple men – and without the disadvantages of patriarchy – subjugation to patriarch and obligation to obey and provide sexual services on demand.

What about that?

Wow Peter H that is a very in depth analysis. It is interesting to note though, that poorer women were often 'allowed' to participate in the workforce even in those patriarchal times. Babies being looked after usually by one other woman who had a few to care for, or a family member like a grandparent if they were still alive. In Agrarian communites husbands and wives often took the children into the paddock while they worked for the landowner.

But what about love in all this? Ultimately these arrangements start from love or attraction of some sort, except in societies where marriages are pre-arranged by parents.

Love (in Western cultures) is what attracts and binds people together even if all those practical issues are catered for as you have outlined. The arrangements of any one family then become a decision and personal choice for both partners.

Dear We Are Unique,

Thanks for making me laugh!
Loved your post.

Dear Richie 10,

I have enough trouble with one husband.
I don't think I could deal with any more.

Dear Peter Hume,

Thank You for your in-depth analysis.
It's much appreciated.

Dear Pelly,

Ah yes, that old black magic has us in
a spin - Love! Sweet Love!
It's something we fall into, and can fall deeper
into still - so why does passion or caring
sometimes fade into utter indifference?

Philosophers, religious leaders, psychologists
have long tried to define love. Plato, preferred
the love of knowledge. To think about love is,
useful to consider the opposite. The opposite of
love could be indifference or apathy. When the
caring has gone, so has the love.

However, human beings have a huge capacity for
love in many forms, from the romantic passionate
love we might feel for a partner to the protective
love for a child or friend to a love of concepts,
such as freedom or knowledge, and things, such
as a beautiful painting or treasured object.

All of these enrich us.

People are enjoying better health and living longer than at any other time in history.

It means that people really can dream about growing extra-old together and it also means that monogamy lasts longer.

There is something wonderful about the long term experience of sharing one's vulnerabilities yet feeling safe and secure with another person and the interest never ends in sharing the changes one undergoes with the years. The old boy maturing is just great; I think he has become much more handsome and interesting with time. We have got all the variety we need just adapting to each other's changes.

I know that lots of people say that monogamy isn't for everyone and of course a consideration of other cultures and forms of social organization down through time bear that out. I can see a lot of common sense and benefits in polygamy and other types of relationship/family formation too - it's a shame that more people don't try real, long-term monogamy - they really don't know what they're missing.

As a retired anthropologist, let me just say that I'm enjoying this thread.

In particular, the recent imaginative posts from benk and Peter Hume tickled my fancy. Perhaps they could get together and write a novel along the lines of 'Clan of the Cave Bear'.

Peter Hume,

An interesting article. I wonder if there was not some advantage to the men in agreeing to share the women so at least every man had a woman. Otherwise I would imagine the men would have spent a lot of time fighting amongst themselves.

Ironically, maybe it is because of women’s liberation that polygamy is again becoming feasible in Western style cultures because with women working and contributing at least some funds to their children’s care a man can afford to father more children and also with the advent of the pill the children can be limited to reasonable numbers with each partner.

It reminds me of a mormon I saw on a documentary one night, who had umpteen wives and children and they were all funded by social security. That would not make Western taxpayers at all happy.

Cherful:"share the women so at least every man had a woman."

In PNG, where small tribal groups abound, "bridal wars" have long been a feature to prevent in-breeding. I'm sure CJ will be able to enlighten us further on this topic.

Pelican

>But what about love in all this?

Good question.

The natural history of love is best explained in the excellent book that Yabby cites, and which I also highly recommend: Helen Fisher’s The Anatomy of Love, the natural history of marriage, adultery and divorce.

Fisher started from the proposition that if the standard social science model were true, and cultural mores were the main determinant of sexual and reproductive behaviour, then we should expect the rates of divorce to differ significantly as between different cultures with different values on marriage and divorce.

Fisher studied the best available statistics on divorce from the United Nations and found instead that, to the contrary, the general pattern is highly consistent across all cultures, despite the great cultural differences.

Contrary to popular belief, divorce is not mainly a middle-age phenomenon. It happens most commonly in relationships in the following order:
1. Childless couples together less than four years
2. Couples with one child together less than four years, and
3. then, with increasing children and time together, divorce becomes less and less probable.

Fisher also found that the infatuation phase of love – the ‘sweet madness’ phase – perhaps better known by the work of poets and musicians than by that of scientists, was scientifically demonstrated to be because of a certain hormonal brain-bath set off by courtship and sexual behaviour. It lasts about four years, after which, either the couple break up, or the love morphs into the more comfortable, companionable, attachment style love of long-married couples – still lovely, but not the original intense passionate emotion of romantic love - and catalysed by a different hormone set.

Fisher’s theory is basically that human sexual love evolved as a sexually selected adaptation to the need to care for infant children, which by coincidence, have a period of greatest dependence of about four years – in the foraging societies in which our evolution took place. Four years dependence of child, four year duration of infatuation love, and four year pattern of divorce. Love evidently evolved to make the relationship last about four years.

The man and woman form the smallest division of labour, a little private mutual-benefit association that is the sweetest thing, the wellspring of new human life, and the building block of much larger societies of humans. The woman specialises in supplying domestic and sexual services. The man specialises in supplying providing and protecting services, and is a kind of walking entertainment system for the amusement of the woman.

For a trait to be sexually selected means – as with the peacock’s tail - that the genes for it are passed on because they increase the chances of reproduction, rather than of survival itself. Like the peacock’s tail, the peculiar characteristics of the human mind: love, morality, religion, art, science, ethnocentrism, may actually decrease the individual’s chances of survival. But the sexually selected trait will still tend to be passed on so long as it increases the average probability of reproduction.

Cherful
“I wonder if there was not some advantage to the men in agreeing to share the women so at least every man had a woman.”

From the evolutionary point of view, once a woman is pregnant, she can’t increase her reproductive success by having more children, for at least nine months. But a man can double and triple his reproductive success with a second and third woman. It is the single most significant variable in his reproductive success.

Thus the incentive for men to compete for women is probably much greater than the incentive to share. The husbands who had not impregnated her would be devoting scarce resources to someone else’s offspring. And thus we see that polyandry is very rare among humans.

However a very common example of men sharing a woman is with female prostitutes; but the whole point is, they don’t share them as wives.

Mind you, people do things because they want, not because their genes want.

Reminds me of a story about a 19th century cowboy who queried a native American’s hospitality in lending his wife to guests for the night.

“She’s not made of soap.” said the hospitable native: “She won’t wear out.”

Dear Foxy, Love is a decision. Lust is a feeling. Don't confuse the two. When you make the decision to love one another forsaking all others till death do us part the feelings fall into line with the truth. If a job is worth doing it is worth doing properly. God is not mocked we reap what we sow. If you sow discord how can you reap joy and harmony. Sowing is an active or doing word not a negative or inactive word. Most people believe that they are being positive in self centeredness (reactive). (proactive) Serving your life partner brings joy to the giver for it is more blessed to give than receive. A kind word brings life. A harsh word kills joy. Studying the problem never fixes it. Study the answer.

Yabby and Peter H
The book looks interesting - so do some of her other works.

Many women growing up in my generation (born in the 60s) fell for the concept of the masculine knight in shining armour, the whole being swept off your feet scenario - probably from reading too many fairy stories. :) We probably had it reasoned out of us in the 70s with the advent of feminism, but speaking to other women, most women do crave to be loved, not necessarily cherished or put on a pedestal, but loved. Humans have a need to nuture as well, whether it be children, friends or other family members (or even pets).

Reality is our biology is interesting (and in anthropological terms) but as Peter H said, ultimately our behaviour is very much rooted in our brains and our decision making abilities including weighing up the risk factors.

As far as fidelity goes, there are risk factors - what might be lost, keeping one's promise or vows, and how much they love their partner. Even if it isn't that mad giddy passionate love but a more solid and enduring partnership type of love and respect.

Dustin Hoffman once said he was surrounded by temptation but never strayed because he loved his wife too much and did not want to hurt her. I would imagine most men and women would hope for that same reasoning, love and concern from their mate.

However, humans are a varied bunch, some people are into swinging and swapping. Not my cup of tea but if it is a mutual decision and transparent then it probably would not fall under the infidelity banner which usually implies deception.

Pelican, I think what has changed for the positive today, is that
people have choices and continue to do so, unlike 40-50 years ago.

Let's face it, when we were teenagers, we did not always make
the wisest decisions, hormones were raging etc. Yet I know of a
few cases, where parents virtually forced their daughters to stay,
because they had made an initial commitment, perhaps a mistake
in their teens. All that they forced on their daughters turned
out to be lives of continuing misery and often violence. For what?

So to me, commitment for life, if it then means misery, is rather
pointless. We only live once and are dead a long time etc.

OTOH I can't see a point in committing to a relationship, if
its not based on honesty, trust and communication. Once deception
sets in, there is not a hell of a lot left.

There are some relationships that do last a lifetime and last so
happily, not just to enforce the principle that they should.

They are wonderful, especially if people have met their soulmate
and best friend all in one. But in my experience they are
quite rare. Lots of people simply stay in the relationships
that they are in, because of fear of the unknown.

One of the interesting aspects of monogamy is that it is more 'Naturally' suited to women than men. What I mean by that is that there are BIG differences in the drivers for genetic survival between women and men that have developed over 100,000 yrs but are still very prominent in determining our behaviour today.
All of us have a direct ancestral line that goes back the full 100,000 yrs. (It’s probably lucky we can’t follow it). We are the direct family of those ancestors who successfully raised some of their children to mating age. The genetic lines of those who didn’t raise children died out forever.
Remember life for the first 98,000 yrs was tough. Wars, starvation, ice ages, mammoths, etc etc restricted the chances of raising your children up to their mating age. The successful behaviour for a women was to find one strong, powerful man and form a very strong attachment with him. It was only through his protection that she could maximise the chances of raising her children. And it was a definite advantage for your children not to have your man distracted in his role as protector by him forming further attachments with other women. So strong jealous behaviour was rewarded by further maximising the chances for your children.
However for the men, apart from being a strong protector and provider, the most important behaviour that maximised the chances of your children getting to mating age was to maximise the number of your children. This meant that forming more than one strong attachment was more successful for men. So Polygamy is more ‘Naturally’ suited to men. Also for a man, mating outside of these attachments with 'Any' women also increased the chances of your genetics being successfully passed on down the line.
So that is why Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus and they never will understand each other

Dear Pynch,

Helen Fisher tells us that lust and attraction
don't last. But the phase of love that does she
lists as "attachment." "As you walk together holding
hands, when you sit next to each other reading
in the evening, as you laugh simultaeously at a movie
or stroll through a park or on the beach, your souls
are merged..."

I know this kind of love, and there's not enough of
it in the world.

Dear CJ,

Who'd have thought you'd enjoy "Clan of the Cave bear?"

Dear Cherful,

Most women I know aren't really into sharing
their partners. But who knows what the future
will bring?

Dear Antiseptic,

Glad to see you're giving CJ credit for his
knowledge!

Dear Peter Hume,

Your knowledge is impressive.
I love reading your posts.
And, I'm going to buy Helen Fisher's book.

Dear Richie 10,

Your heartfelt post brought tears to my eyes.
Thank You.

Dear Pelly,

When you consider we're all born into relationships -
starting with the maternal one, it seems only
natural that people generally want to share their
life with a partner. Love and affection are beneficial
throughout life, people know this innately.
Marriage isn't compulsory of course, and its likely
to occur less frequently in the future, but it's a
fair bet people will continue to fall in love and try to
find harmony together just as they always have.

Dear Yabby, and Bill25,

"We're never so defenceless against suffering as when
we love," said Sigmund Freud.

Love does take courage. So why bother, if it's
such a minefield? One sense that larger forces are
at work, and not just the desire to perpetuate
the species. It's about people taking care of themselves
by finding what they need to nurture their souls, to
give life meaning. This might be with another
person, in which case it will help satisfy their need
for intimacy and acceptance (to know and be known) as well
as companionship, sexual fulfillment, warmth and
affection. If it's not with a significant other they might
find it in whatever
else gives their life meaning.

Bill25
Yes I think there's something to that. Polygamy is unpopular in an egalitarian age, but the fact is that it exists in all cultures and all times; but polyandry doesn't. Remember Jack Thompson? He had two sisters as partners at one stage. I read an article about a guy in Byron Bay who had eleven wives - all of them paid for by the government. Very wise fellah. I'd love to have multiple wives, but my wife can't seem to be persuaded about how wonderfull it would be!

>So that is why Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus and they never will understand each other

Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes "No-one will ever win the battle of the sexes because there is so much fraternising with the enemy."

Dear PETER HUME <the battle of the sexes will never be won because there is too much fraternising with the enemy>

Thnak you for that lighthearted comment it is always good to have some merriment to break up these serious discussions.

<Polygamy is unpopular in egalitarian times but the fact is that it exists in all cultures and all times, but Polyandry doesn’t.>

The reason for that maybe that women don’t need to keep the men they sleep with in an exclusive relationship because they always know who their children are. It has always been the men who actually needed to keep their women in an exclusive relationship so as to be sure they weren’t providing protection and support to some other males offspring.
Even today the Muslims are fanatical about faithfulness in women to the point of putting them in prison or to death.

Therefore in most societies women have needed to keep their polygamy secret.

My dad was an insurance salesman back before they had the pill and he realised that there were a whole lot of married women having sex with other partners when their husbands went to work for the day. He of course got in on the action womanising philanderer that he was. He says it still amazes him that this went on when there was no pill. He seems to want to confess his sins to me in his old age now at 79years.

I was surprised by this information about women too.

The advantage to women being, the chance to mate with more partners and ensure different genetics for their children giving them a bigger chance of survival. Also if the present partner were to die or leave and stop protecting and providing then there was another protector and provider available in the form of the secret lover.

My conclusion is that dominant male societies sanction polygamy only for males, so the females practice polyandry in a more secret selective way.

Dear Peter Hume,

According to Ian Robertson, "Sociology,"
" Most societies favour polygyny
rather than monogamy, most men in the world
have only one wife - partly because the
societies that insist on monogamy contain
the bulk of the world's population, and partly
because there are not enough women to permit
widespread polygyny even in societies that favour
the arrangement. In practice, it is usually the
more wealthy and powerful men in these societies
who have more than one wife. Polyandry occurs
only under exceptional conditions. The Toda of
India, for example, practice female infanticide,
so they had a large surplus of males. When a
Toda woman married a man, she became wife to all
of his brothers as well."

"Love is blind but marriage is an eye opener."

Dear Cherful,

You may appreciate this.
Seen on a bumper-sticker in Los Angeles:

"An erection does not count as personal growth."

suzeonline,
“Yes Proxy, your worries about Muslim polygamous practices without acknowledging that some Christian groups still practice polygamy (although it is still illegal), say more about you than them.”
Mohammed had eleven wives, from age six and upwards, as well as countless sex slaves.
Mohammed is the perfect example according to Islam.
Hence, Islam endorses polygamy.
Christianity does not endorse polygamy.
Your desperate comparison between some obscure “Christian” sects and Mohammedanism reveals something about you.
I nowhere claimed that polygamy would be made legal in this country.
I merely disputed the claim that Western laws “insist” that marriage-like relationships exclude polygamy.
Welfare laws granting de facto recognition of polygamous relationships lends credence to my point of view.

A lot of people when faced with the break up of a marriage because of an affair will often choose to try and mend the marriage. Oft times they don’t succeed in saving the marriage but a lot of times they do. The important point being that they never intended the affair to end the marriage.

Why? They try to keep the marriage because it provides a sense of home and stability (providing the marriage is reasonably companionable) and a very real sense of purpose in life especially if there are children involved. A sense of belonging and identity and a support group when times get tough is very important to human beings. Emotionally we flounder without that.

If you are talking about monogamy in terms of soul mates and love sick sexual attraction, well I don’t believe in soul mates and the idea that in this whole world men and women can only be attracted to and love one mate. So sexual attraction between the sexes will always be there, monogamous relationship or not.

I never hear men speak about soul mates, only women, I think men are more practical about the realities of other sexual attractions because they feel those attractions much more keenly given their physical responses to visual attractiveness. Men are visual and women are audio. Hence women’s need for the audio fairytale story when it comes to relationships. The words, soul mates is the modern equivalent to Cinderella and Prince Charming (soul mates who lived happily ever after

Dear Foxy,
I have just seen your very funny car sticker quote,

It has really given me a laugh. Thank you very much.

Checkmate fellows, game, set and match to foxy.

Is it natural? In my opinion, "natural" then becomes a highly subjective question parameter. What is natural in my boring conservative middle class white hetero male perspective, realistically, is the version of natural for maybe 40% of the population. I dont think many "open" relationships do very well, and the key parties of the 60's or 70's probably did more harm than good.
Marriage, in a fair world whats good for the goose is good for the gander. So, you have 4 wives, they each all have 4 husbands, who in turn each have 4 wives, and so on it goes. Even if it fails to dilute the experience of intimacy, it sounds like STD's will explode.

*I never hear men speak about soul mates, only women, I think men are more practical about the realities of other sexual attractions*

Not so Cherful, I am male and speak of soulmates, as I've experienced
what they are all about. Its not about the physical, its about the
mental. I shall just have to classify you as philosophically shallow:)

You can develop a mental bond with somebody, which is so deep and
meaningful, that is goes way past the physical. The beauty is in
that bond and its meaning to you both. The girl with the perky
breasts might be pretty, but she is little but attractive meat,
quite different to a mental bond which one can develop with
the right person, so she is no threat to that kind of relatonship.

I do concede however, that these kinds of relationships are rare,
a good % of people are simply too shallow to be interested in that
kind of thing.

Fair enough, each to their own.

My goodness Yabby - have you finally found Ms Right?

Pat
Just because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, doesn’t mean each wife would require or desire four husbands. Equality or fairness doesn’t mean each needs to get the same thing. If I want an ice-cream and my wife wants an orange, it doesn’t mean we should each have half an ice-cream and half an orange; half of what we don’t want and half of what we do. Equality is satisfied if the wants of each party are satisfied. I know lots of men who would like multiple wives, but I don’t know any women who would like multiple husbands, though doubtless there are a few around.

Cherful
Yes I daresay that’s right. Obviously for all the male philandering there must be corresponding women. Often it will be a minority of women whom the men are, in effect, sharing, as with the prostitute population.

And for a wife secure in her marriage to have another man’s child, who would know if it’s the same race? I once read that the Canadian immigration department suspected Vietnamese immigrants of bringing in their neighbours’ children under the family immigration program. The authorities wanted to know what proportion of such children were not the biological children of the ‘father’, the mother’s husband. But in order to know whether that proportion was significant, they had to compare it against the same proportion in the Canadian population. So they did studies on middle Canada. They found that ten percent of first born children, and 25 percent of fourth-born children, were not the offspring of the mother’s husband.

But the point is, polyandry means multiple marrige, and such ‘polyandry’ by women is not by way of marriage. The critical difference is, the men don’t voluntarily undertake to support the women’s offspring. It’s a question of legitimacy, which evolved to protect *men’s* freedom of choice.

Reminds me of the one about the happy couple going to hospital to have the baby.
“Wonderful news” says the obstetrician. “They’ve just invented a new machine that can transfer the pain of childbirth from the mother, to the father!”
“Oh great!” they say, so happy and enthused.
“So we’ll be able to transfer some of the pain to you!” he says to the husband.
“Oh we’re so happy to be having this baby, and I just love my wife so much, so that’s just great!” he says. So they strap on the electrodes and turn on the machine.
“But” says the obstretrician, his hand on the dial, “Because the ordinary pain a woman experiences in childbirth is enough to kill the ordinary man, we won’t give you the full charge, okay? We’ll just start you on 25 percent, see how you go.” (Cranks dial). “How’s that?”
“That’s fine” says the husband “Doesn’t hurt. I can take it.”
“Okay” says the ob/gyn - cranks it up to 50. “How about that?” they inquire anxiously.
“Doesn’t hurt.” boasts the guy “I’m tough enough. Gimme the lot.”
So the doc cranks it right up to 100. Wife feels no pain, neither does the husband, baby is born no worries, couple are happy, staff wish them well, off they go back home - and find the milkman dead on the doorstep.

just browsing I saw this interesting mention from the voyage of the RATTLESNAKE in 1849.
POLYGAMY.
Polygamy is practised both on the mainland and throughout the islands of Torres Strait. Five is the greatest number of wives which I was credibly informed had been possessed by one man--but this was an extraordinary instance, one, two, or three, being the usual complement, leaving of course many men who are never provided with wives. The possession of several wives ensures to the husband a certain amount of influence in his tribe as the owner of so much valuable property, also from the nature and extent of his connections by marriage. In most cases females are betrothed in infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to disparity of age, thus the future husband may be and often is an old man with several wives. When the man thinks proper he takes his wife to live with him without any further ceremony, but before this she has probably had promiscuous intercourse with the young men, such, if conducted with a moderate degree of secrecy, not being considered as an offence, although if continued after marriage it would be visited by the husband (if powerful enough) upon both the offending parties with the severest punishment.

CJ, lets just say that I've had an interesting love life over the
years. That included some deep and meaningful relationships
with women from various parts of the world.

Living in the backblocks of WA has its price, one being that
90% of women prefer city life, especially women with careers or
with kids living on other continents. I don't believe that
people should live where they arn't naturally happy, just for
the sake of a relationship.

Meantime your average Aussie country girl would be perfect
for the likes of Cherful, she wants her financial security
as much as he wants his regular legover.

Sorry, but that is just not my scene. There is alot more then
that, but one has to have experienced it, to understand it.

You're awesome, Foxy.

I've never liked the saying "soul mate" either. The term is overused and long devalued. I've come across people who find their soul mate every six months or so ;^0

Anyway, a little jocularity:

A Love Poem from my inbox ~

Bobbie Sue done fell in love
She planned to marry Joe
She was so happy bout' it
She wanted her pappy to know

Pappy told her... Bobbie Sue
You'll have to find another...
I'd just as soon your ma not know
But Joe is your half brother

So Bobbie broke it off with Joe
And decided to marry Will
But when she told pappy this
He said... Bobbie... There's trouble still

You cannnot marry Will my gal
And please don't tell your mother...
But Will and Joe and many more
I'm sure... are your half brothers

But mama knew and said... My child...
Just do what makes you happy...
Marry Will or marry Joe...
Cuz' you aint no kin to pappy

Good one, Pynchme,
Reminds me of that 70's song, 'Shame and Scandal in the Family'....and a line that went..."Your daddy aint your daddy, but your daddy don't know".

Poirot:""Your daddy aint your daddy, but your daddy don't know"."

and that was the punch line, just as in Pynchme's effort. It's interesting that we seem to have glossed over cuckoldry as a society. While there has been a litle focus on it as a result of the advent of DNA parentage testing, it's still not a subject which is discussed much, compared to the alleged wandering proclivities of men (who all require a woman to "wander" with, let's not forget), which I find a little puzzling.

It's the old madonna/whore dischotomy that has been at the heart of our relationship with sexuality for a long time now. As men, we want our women to enjoy sex so we get to do so, but we don't want them to be driven by their desire for it, as we sometimes are.

As women, I suspect that you want your men to see you as above suspicion, since if you are not, it undermines the basis of your essential authority within the home, which is that you carry the next generation for us.

It's gloriously convoluted.

psychophant, keep up the good work!

Antiseptic touches on something I have noticed for many years, when he says men need a woman to "wander" with.

In fact I believe that at there are many more women who wander, than there are men. This observation depends on the fact that the "ladies man" wanderes with a quite large number of women.

This was particularly obvious when I was at school, back in the old days, of course.

I am quite sure that at graduation, there were many more male virgins than there were female. This was all down to just a half a dozen young blokes, who really did understand the ladies. To the virgin blokes, women could have been from an alien race.

A little later, as I started to see some of this, I found it quite funny to watch a change in some of these girls. They would suddenly start mixing in the ranks of the male virgins, then, having selected one, they would take him to bed, & then down the aisle.

The fact that the bloke would think this was all of his doing showed just how naive the average bloke is, when it comes to women.

Heh. Men have been anxious about paternity since before written history - indeed, it's a classic cultural trope about which veritable libraries have been written. For an early Western example just read anything by Aristophanes, but the same hold trues for virtually every society.

Of course, this is precisely the postulated reason why men pretty well universally try and control women through custom and law across cultures and through history. Unfortunately for contemporary men in the developed world, women have largely succeeded in achieving autonomy and equality, just at the point where it's now technologically possible to determine paternity conclusively.

It's quite ironic, really.

CJMorgan:"Unfortunately for contemporary men in the developed world, women have largely succeeded in achieving autonomy and equality"

You think this is unfortunate? Don't tell Severin, will you...

In my view, what's unfortunate is that this wonderful expansion of possibilities for women has been informed and lead and cheered for largely by dysfunctional people who see men as some sort of scary enemy, rather than as a valued and essential partner in life.

It's good to see your expert knowledge of human thought extends so far as to go beyond written history. How do you manage this feat of psychic legerdemain?

hasbeen, I reckon you're spot on. As the old saying goes: man proposes, woman disposes.

"How do you manage this feat of psychic legerdemain?"
By making it up as he goes along.

So Hasbeen and Anti, you are arguing then that women are the strayers and men are the stayers.

That seems to go against any of the other biological and anthropological arguments. How did you come to that conclusion

You're quite right, Antiseptic, at least partially. I should have specified paranoid, anxious men rather than implying that recent gains in status by women are unfortunate for the vast majority of us. Personally, I know lots of feminists, none of whom regard men in general as "some sort of scary enemy" - rather, they are opposed to that minority of men who are unreconstructed patriarchal anachronisms.

As for "psychic legerdemain", perhaps you could look up the use of ethnographic analogy in archaeological reconstruction. As I said, there's a huge body of literature pertinent to this topic if you could be bothered consulting it.

Dear Proxy,

I thought only one wife at a time was officially
recognised?

Dear Cherful,

Some people will try to mend a marriage,
if it's at all possible, especially if
children are involved. And some marriages
can be saved. But, I guess it depends on the individuals
involved and the circumstances. We've got a friend who's
just gone through a divorce. He suffers from a bi-polar
disorder, and his wife quite frankly had enough.

As for soul-mates? Again I think that depends on what
you're looking for in a relationship, doesn't it?

In a mature love, individuals can be authentic,
instead of trying to impress or please others and
denying their real feelings and fears. The bottom line
is our relationships will only be as satisfactory as we
are in ourselves. Interestingly, Buddhists turn the truism
about having to love yourself first before you can love
another on its head, saying you come to love yourself
through the practice of loving others first. That's
something to think about.

I'm glad that you liked the bumper-sticker. It's one of
my favourites.

Dear Pat,

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

I prefer this saying:

"Don't argue about what a good partner is.
Be One!"

Dear Yabby,

You're full of surprises.
Although - it sounds like you've got nothing to
complain about. Your life sounds anything
but dull.

Dear Peter H.,

More interesting facts. Thank You.
Loved your milkman joke.

Dear Individual,

Interesting facts about Torres Strait.

Dear Psychophant,

Welcome Back!

Dear Pynch,

Loved your poem!

Dear Poirot,

"Your daddy ain't your daddy,
but your daddy don't know..."

This can be fixed nowadays.

Dear Anti,

Now with DNA testing of paternity -
perhaps this problem will improve
for both genders.

Dear Hasbeen,

Always interesting to get a glimpse of
different worlds to the one I lived in.
Perhaps I was just a bit too naive
growing up - and under strong parental influence.
I'll have to ponder about that.

Dear CJ,

We've come a long way with DNA.
(sounds like a slogan).

cont'd ...

Dear CJ,

You may enjoy this one:

"A woman who strives to be equal to a man
lacks ambition."

Foxy,
"I thought only one wife at a time was officially recognised?"
I would have thought that granting welfare benefits on the basis of being one of multiple wives constituted official recognition.

Foxy
It’s always good to be back amongst beautiful people!

CJ
The original condition must have been ignorance of paternity, which we shared with other non-human species. This conclusion follows from the theory of evolution. Since paternity was already recognised when history began, its discovery must have happened before then. How far back is a matter of speculation, but it seems likely for a number of reasons to have happened in just the last 10,000 years. In the 20th century there were still human societies that did not cognise paternity, including the Aranda people of Uluru that CP Mountford describes in 'Brown Men and Red Sand' 1949. Also in Biblical times it was thought that the man's 'seed' was the genitive factor, the woman merely providing a matrix or soil. And sperm and egg were not sighted under the microsocope until the 19th century.

The relatively late recognition of paternity means that the hard-wiring of human sexual and reproductive behaviour evolved in the long ages in which paternity was unknown; and therefore when a woman could not make a claim on a man in his capacity as father.

The fact that DNA testing can now establish paternity does not of itself provide any ethical justification for compelling men to pay contributions for the support of their biological offspring.

Some people of course argue that men have a moral "responsibility" to contribute to the support of their offspring, on the ground that the man has biologically caused the child to come into being. This is to argue that *factual causation* necessarily gives rise to a *moral justification* for the use of coercion.

But the fact that men biologically cause children, is no more a justification of coercing men to give satisfaction of women's interest in men's services, than is the fact that women biologically cause sexual desire in men, a justification of men raping women - of coercing women to give satisfaction of men’s interest in women’s services.

The argument is a complete non sequitur, a double standard, and a hypocrisy when argued by a woman who denies the moral validity of rape – and who doesn’t?

The rule should be that all exchanges and transactions must be voluntary. There should be no payments without consent, just as there should be no sex without consent. This would answer the legitimate interests of men and women in equality and liberty, without trespassing on the valid rights of either.

If this were the rule, the result would be that women would tend, before agreeing to sex, either
a) to make sure that they had evidence of the man’s agreeing to contribute to the cost of any offspring, or
b) to obtain sufficient consideration.

But if a woman chooses to have sex without doing that, that’s entirely her right, I don’t morally condemn her for it, and on the contrary, I hope I meet more women like that.

There is not the slightest reason of morality or public policy why anyone should be forced to pay contributions to the support of a child, which a woman has had as a result of agreeing to have sex without the most obvious prudential consideration. All politicians have created two classes, those who do not take responsibility for their own reproductive behaviour, and live by parasiting those who do and are forced to pay for them.

Women have everything they need to get child support, and it’s right between their legs. The idea that they should not have to resort to this method of raising the funds, is entirely a product of the patriarchy which western women have hotly decried, abolishing its legal obligations on women, while re-doubling the enforcement of its legal obligations against men.

Pelican, I don't know who has been feeding you rubbish on biology, but it is rubbish, even if it is the common wisdom.

I have breed stud horses, & cattle. This requires the males & females to be kept seperate, & only be brought to gether for the breading.

I have never had a stalion, or bull break out to get to the mares or cows. I have had numerous instances of the horny [excuse the pun] female, moving heaven & earth to get to the male.

When you introduce a mare & a stalion together, a little too early. A mare, who is not ready will sometimes be quite viscous. It can be quite funny to see the look on a stalions face, when the mare, who was trying to kick his head off yesterday, is all over him, like a rash, today. He wants to oblige her, but he's not quite game.

He had better learn damn quick, that once she has what she wanted, & is in foal, it's head kicking time again, as I don't think there is anything more vulnerable than a stalion mounting a mare.

Then look at the bird world, where the male has to build mounds, bowers a & other such things, then display like a loon, just to get a lady to so much as look at him.

So Pelican, what ever they have been telling you is a load of old bull, & it's not much different in our world in my experience. Just look at the number of blokes who thought they were happily married, & can't believe it, when she suddenly ups & leaves. It can be with the boy friend he knew nothing about, or simply because she prefers his money & space, to his company.

Hasbeen
You begin by telling me that biology is rubbish then go on to defend that stance by talking about the biology of horses and birds.

Animal species all have unique characteristics - I would not say human beings match up with your examples. For example, it is usually the women that get made up with eye make up and colours (like the male of a bird species) to attract a mate.

I just dispute your view that it is women who are predominantly unfaithful. That is all.

Gender wars aside the best adage is as Foxy said "Don't argue about what a good partner is. Be One!"

Peter Hume - Every time that two people have sex they know that a baby may result.

Even when birth control methods are used a pregnancy is still possible.

An unwanted result already has greater burden for the female in the 9 month pregnancy, pain of birth, risk of death or deformity and disruptions to earning capacity and future relationships. She shouldn't have to manage the financial burden alone as well, though many do.

Therefore any intelligent and morally responsible male should proceed as if the act might result in many years of shared responsibility for a child's welfare. A male's responsibility involves more than operating his zipper. He can help avoid an unwanted outcome by using a condom or (unthinkable I know) not having sex in the first place or being very selective about the women with whom he chooses to have sex.

You can help alleviate what you perceive as the victimization of males who are merely captives of their hormones, by promoting the further development of male contraceptives:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

You might also question why Viagra has attracted billions in funding as a priority to the development of male contraception. My guess is that there is a market for old blokes wanting boners, over any one even considering additional ways that men can avoid contributing to unwanted pregnancies.

You might also question why, in the US at least, health insurance covers Viagra but not female contraception.

Here's a laugh, especially in the comments section:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBm3FMDM8aE&NR=1

CJ is right.
There is an obesity of literature from the time before written history.
Unreconstructed archaeological anachronisms have unearthed the veritable libraries of the patriarch Pissedoffanes himself.
These substantiate men’s anxiety over paternity since before man evolved.
Ethnographic legerdemain has revealed these cultural tropisms, for those who can be bothered consulting their psychics.

Well put Pynchme. All transactions should be voluntary but there should be shared responsibility.

Foxy, I was one of those naive virgins, myself. I used to listen to the boys at school cadet camp, or scout camps, boasting of their prowess with the ladies.

It was only as I grew up that I realised that the more noise, the less prowess. Apart from the odd kiss & tell type, it was the ones who did not need to boast that had the prowess.

At these things you would suddenly realise that everyone was looking at you. It was your turn. As I had nothing to talk about, I used to say, "I'm a virgin, nobodies had me". That was accepted & I think they thought I was experienced.

It was at pony club camp I started to get an education. We had a camp, at the showgrounds each may school holidays. there would be about 40 kids with their horses, half from town, & half boarding school kids, home for the holidays. I have often wondered why they didn't go home for the holidays.

At my last one of these, I was "selected" by one of the boarding school girls, to be her boy for the week. I didn't seem to have much say in it, & I guess I was much too flattered to complain. It was the start of a rapid education, that high school had not provided.

Life has been amusing ever since.

Dear Proxy,

I saw a TV program sometime ago - about
a man who "unofficially" had several
wives. However, welfare only paid for
one of them. His relationships with the
other women were not recognised.

Dear Psychophant,

" Whatever is in any way beautiful hath its
source of beauty in itself, and is complete
in itself; praise forms no part of it.
So it is none the worse nor the better for
being praised."
(Marcus Aurelius Antoninus - 121-180 A.D.)

Thank You anyway - and please feel free to
include yourself in the group of beautiful
people!

Dear Peter H.,

I totally agree.
A double standard is -
Do as I tell you,
Not as I do!

Dear Hasbeen,

As I've said before love and affection are beneficial
throughout life, and people know this innately.
There's a fair amount of cynicism about relationships,
love and marriage around, especially with divorce
skyrocketing, and so many children living in single-
parent hosueholds. However blaming people of either
gender is not a good thing to do. We're all individuals,
with individual problems. What works or fails for one,
may not work or fail for another. Besides if almost
half of all marriages break-up, that means more than
half survive. And many who divorce may marry again.

Dear Pelly,

I fully agree - it is up to each individual to find
what they want out of a relationship. One size does
not fit all.

Dear Pynch,

Thank You - beautifully put!

Dear Proxy,

Please explain.
You've lost me.

"It was announced last year that the British Government had already accepted that Muslim husbands with more than one wife in this country qualified for extra benefits even though they technically were breaking the anti-bigamy law."
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/category/polygamy/

"Is monogamy 'natural'"
Foxy, you surprise me. Of course it's not! Monogamy is the product of social evolution. I can't speak for the ladies, but men are either actively adulterous or frustrated (or conservative twits busy ingratiating themselves with God). Monogamy is decidedly unnatural; if it were natural, would we have so much sexual misconduct?
But let's forget sex; marriage is like (kryptonite to superman) poison to a healthy relationship, it kills all mystery and spontaneity, reducing life to banality and convention. There are ways to counter these effects, of course: separate bedrooms will keep the patient alive, but ailing. The only real cure is a tempestuous, if superficial, affair that the partner can invest some real spleen in, and the villain (what Oprah lovingly calls a "cheater") can draw kudos and succour from. Much better if each party conducts a sordid extramarital affair--then each can gloat while savouring the guilt simultaneously. This, indeed, is the secret to conjugal bliss!

Dear Hasbeen,

Thank You for being so open and honest on this
thread. You've had your share of bittersweet
experiences by the sound of it and the life
you've lead sounds like such a rich and full
one. I'm glad though that you finally
received your education at the camp -
and got to sizzle
and sparkle as you so rightly deserved.

Foxy, Pelican, don't take my bit of fun as a serious concept.

Dear Proxy,

Thanks for the link.
I wonder though what they mean
by "extra benefits?"
Full state benefits for each wife?
Now that certainly would mean that
they recognise polygamy in the UK
as you originally suggested.

Dear Squeers,

I think you're pulling my leg.
Much as I may enjoy it, I can't
however take you seriously.

Dear Hasbeen,

I should have known better.
You're a sweetie!

Foxy,
"in Britain and Canada, immigration and welfare rules tacitly admit that polygamy,
which remains illegal in both countries, is one of the new facts of life."
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26830

My dear lady (Foxy), the truth is always outrageous, and the virtuous a lie. You need not take me seriously, but my verities have the virtue of verisimilitude--whatever they lack in the abstract.

Squeers,
<<my verities have the virtue of verisimilitude>>
Your assinine alliterations have the veneer of verbosity.

Dear Proxy,

Thanks for the link.
Most interesting.

Dear Squeers,

Truth cannot be owned.

We have an arena of warring ideals -
allegory versus mimesis,
versimilitude versus the ideal,
the marvellous versus the probable,
lucidity versus obscurity...

Appearances, appearances, appearances...

Dear Proxy and Foxy (sorry about the alliteration). There are perfectly lucid arguments beneath the persiflage. Don't be put off by the occasional play on words--my meaning is plain, but perhaps too deep?

Foxy,
Here's one on polyandry, for the girls:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_secret_china_doesnt_want_t.html
This might well be more widely applied throughout China, given the gender imbalance caused by the one-child policy.

Foxy, I looked up the Centrelink site re whether the government recognised people who had relationships with multiple partners.

" What are multiple relationships?
Multiple relationships are when you have multiple concurrent relationships with other people, who may be of the opposite-sex or same-sex, and each relationship is considered to be the same as being a member of a couple. A family group could include a customer with multiple male or female partners.
A separate member of a couple assessment is undertaken for each relationship and a person can be considered to be in a member of a couple relationship with more than one person at any time."

So there you have it! The Government recognises 'couples' who are parts of multiple relationships- homosexual, lesbian, men with more than one female relationship, and women with more than one male relationship.

Thus, the Government is quite happy to pay out on and tax on multiple relationships.
It would certainly be very expensive for anyone on centrelink benefits to maintain multiple relationships. Monogamy may be cheaper!

Of course, it is still illegal to actually marry more than one of these 'relationships'.

So to sum it up, we know that serial monogomy is natural , as it
exists in nature, amongst species where substantial investment is
required to raise the offspring.

We know that there are genes which code for it, as in prairie voles,
where it comes down to the hormone vasopressin, reacting with
parts of their limbic system.

We can't test this on humans as with prairie voles, as there is
an ethical problem with injecting humans with radioactive substances.

But given the amount of screwing around that goes on amongst married
people, we can safely assume that not all humans carry the monogamy
gene :)

We also know that humans are a social species, who enjoy pairbonding
for its benefits, as they are driven by self interest.

We've also learned that integrity is a rare commodity, when it
comes to human relationships.

It does seem that social monogamy is common in nature, though according to studies cited in Wikipedia over 80% of all human cultures are polygamous--exceptions being based more on economics than morals.
But I'm more interested in sexual monogamy (much to the discomfort of the prudes). In "The Myth of Monogamy" "biologists have discovered that for nearly every species, cheating is the rule -- for both sexes".
Here's a short review of the book; http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/MythMonogamy.htm

The uncomfortable truth, for those devoted to chivalrous fantasies, is that humans are very highly sexed, and that if they followed their 'natural' inclinations (I put commas around 'natural' above too, but they don't seem to have been noticed) all men (at least) would be screwing as many mates as possible.
Social monogamy is a civilising influence observed mainly in the breach.

Is it still monogamy, btw, when the faithful husband masturbates, or has sex with his wife, while imaging someone else?

Dear Squeers,

I love a play on words...

The skill of writing is the skill of using words.
So, please continue to widen the mind's eye and
take us far beyond the ordinary to a new and
exciting experience.

Dear Proxy,

Again, Thanks so much for the link.
I've read all of it and as I've said previously,
this thread has certainly been an eye-opener
for me. I deeply appreciate your contribution.

Dear Suze,

It's all very odd isn't it?
I had no idea that the Government is quite
happy to pay out on multiple relationships.

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for your summary. I guess it all goes
back to the old adage - to each his own.
One size doesn't fit all.

Dear Squeers,

Some men think "monogamy" is something you make
dining room tables out of.

As for "masturbation?"
Woody Allen said, "Don't knock it,
it's sex with someone you love."

Pynchme
Rape is already illegal. The considerations you raise are all valid, however they justify only a moral, not a legal obligation on men.

Suzieonline
That is fascinating.

In law, the difference between a de facto marriage and a de jure marriage is that a de jure marriage involes the man and woman taking each other to be husband and wife “in words of the present tense”.

A de jure marriage can either be a common law marriage or a marriage under the Marriage Act. The Act requires notice, witnesses, official celebrant, registration, etc. Common law doesn’t require any of that. If a man and a woman without witnesses exchange commitments in words of the present tense, then it’s a marriage at common law.

A de facto marriage on the other hand, means ‘living together as husband and wife although not legally married’. Contrary to popular opinion, a common law marriage and a de facto marriage are not the same thing. A common law marriage is a true marriage – one involving exchange of commitments. A de facto marriage is not a true marriage.

In other words, if they are just living together without having exchanged commitments, it’s a de facto marriage. But if they are living together and have exchanged commitments, it’s a common law, and therefore a legal marriage.

So the state of the law is:
The feds will pay you if you’re in a multiple sexual relationship that is marriage-like, so long as you have not been good enough to exchange commitments.
But if you have, they’ll still pay, but it’s a crime in state law.

Does that make sense?

Polygamy should be decriminalised.

Yabby
>But given the amount of screwing around that goes on amongst married
people, we can safely assume that not all humans carry the monogamy
gene :)

LOL. Seems pretty safe.

Squeers
>Is it still monogamy, btw, when the faithful husband masturbates, or has sex with his wife, while imaging someone else?

Yes, on etymological grounds. The ‘-gamy’ refers to a marriage or fertilization.

Dear Peter Hume,

You Sir, are an inspiration!
Could you please tell us a little
about yourself? Your background,
profession? And where does your
knowledge come from?

Peter Hume:
<Squeers
>Is it still monogamy, btw, when the faithful husband masturbates, or has sex with his wife, while imaging someone else?

Yes, on etymological grounds. The ‘-gamy’ refers to a marriage or fertilization.>

Well thank you for your pedanticism PH, however my question was plainly rhetorical and I'd already distinguished between sexual and social monogamy.

But I'm more interested, Foxy and Yabby, in what you make of my (and the book's, 'The Myth of Monogamy') heretical assertion that humans are by 'nature' raving sex pots?

"But given the amount of screwing around that goes on amongst married
people, we can safely assume that not all humans carry the monogamy
gene :)"

Good point, but many of these people may have stayed faithful, under other circumstances. If they had only married someone else for example.

Whether or not monogamy is natural, it nevertheless represents the ideal civilisational response in terms of maintaining social order, providing gender equality, ensuring child welfare, providing security and sexual fulfilment while inhibiting disease transmission.
In order to validate their relationships while seeking "marriage rights", even homosexuals pretend, for now, that they too hold on to the monogamous ideal.
As our civilisation devolves, so too will the ideal of monogamy be deconstructed, as we are already witnessing.
Homosexual "marriage" and Muslim immigration will accelerate this process.

"Ideal", proxy? Marriage is what's messing us all up:

<Men and women are dispensable carriers, respectively, of
seeds and eggs; programmed to mate and die, mate and die,
mate and die. One can see why “love” was invented by some
artist who found depressing the dull mechanics of our mindless
mission to be fruitful and multiply. Apparently, the first human societies were tribal-extended families. Then the pre-nuclear family was invented. The monotheistic religions from which we continue to suffer are fiercely grounded on the only fact that we can be certain of, Man plus Woman equals Baby. This, for many, IS the Natural Law. Inevitably,if unnaturally, natural lawyers thought up marriage and monogamy and then, faced with the actual nature of the male
and the female, they created numerous sexual taboos in order
to keep the population in line so that the senior partners in
the earthly firm could keep the rest of us busy building expensive
pyramids to the glory of the Great Lawyer in the Sky.(“It’s all in the vagina, dear”) Freud, noted, all those
fierce do’s and don’ts have created discontents, not to mention
asthma and date rape. In fact, everything that the Book
(from which comes Judaism, Christianity, Islam) has to say
about sex is wrong. Of course, practically everything the Book
has to say about everything else, including real estate, is wrong
too, but today’s lesson is sex.
The male’s function is to shoot semen as often as possible into
as many women (or attractive surrogates) as possible,
while the female’s function is to be shot briefly by a male in
order to fertilize an egg, which she will lay nine months later...>

So sayeth Gore Vidal

Dear Squeers,

I haven't read the book that you refer to.
However, I'm not sure that I buy into the
generalization that humans are by "nature"
raving sex pots.

I feel that our sexual responses
are not dictated by genes. Human sexual
behaviour and feelings are primarily learned
through the socialization process and generally
conform to the prevailing norms of the society
concerned. Ideas about what is sexually
appropriate or inappropriate, moral or immoral,
erotic or offensive, are purely social in origin.
Human sexual behaviour is highly flexible.

Dear Benk,

Staying faithful is a choice.

However as Oscar Wilde said, "I can resist
everything except temptation." (or words
to that effect). ;-)

Dear Proxy,

Research into the sexual practices of people
is very limited and unreliable. The greatest
obstacles is the difficulty of surveying a
representative, random sample of the population.
It's easy enough to discover how people will
vote or which brand of washing powder they use,
but it's much more difficult for researchers
to inquire in depth into the sex lives and
marriage/partnership choices, of complete
strangers. Understandably, many of those sampled
will refuse to respond. Since these people differ
in unknown but perhaps significant ways from those
who are willing to answer, the results of any survey
may be biased. In addition, many who do answer may
not always tell the truth. Therefore it would be
difficult to predict with any accuracy what the
future will be regarding monogamy/polygamy, same-sex,
or any other relationship in this country.

One thing's for sure - things are certainly different
today - from what they were certainly in my parent's
time, and I imagine that they will certainly be
different again in my children's time and beyond.
But in what way? Who knows? Only time will tell.

*But I'm more interested, Foxy and Yabby, in what you make of my (and the book's, 'The Myth of Monogamy') heretical assertion that humans are by 'nature' raving sex pots?*

Sheesh, Squeers, you are dragging me back a few years now, when
I used to read up on this stuff out of sheer curiosity. Not in
your book, but in various literature.

My first point would be that in humans as well as other animals,
we have genetic variation, so not all of any species will behave the
same. Some genes are switched on, some off.

We know that in humans, as in some other species, pairbonding evolved,
those brain chemicals which trigger are not the "magic" of love,
but good old evolution at work. So I'd say that serial monogamy is
certainly natural, for providing resources is another way of ensuring
that one's genes continue. In evolutionary terms the big losers
are those who feed somebody else's children.

As to having a bit on the side to ensure genetic diversity, I guess
within other species it would vary, as it does with humans. At the
time, I was in email contact with one of the researchers studying
prairie voles and the way I remember it, they put in quite a bit
of effort in tempting pair bonded prairie voles with other cute
female prairie voles, but they were seemingly not interested!
But yes, pairbonded birds do in fact have a quicky on the side.

With humans, its most likely a mixture of genes and environment.
Some people see the boundaries of life as whatever they can get
away with, others take their integrity a bit more seriously.
The quality of the relationship would no doubt play a huge role.

IMHO, if one really clicks mentally with somebody, the quality
of that relationship can evolve into something so special,
that perky breasts etc simply don't matter, for the mental bond
is simply far too enjoyable and valuable to bother with looking
around elsewhere.

Thanks Yabby and Foxy for your responses.
I agree particularly with your comment Yabby about good old love. Our socialisation, marriage and love are certainly inhibiting factors apropos the sex drive. My more serious position would be that we are both animal and cultural, and the drives of the former jostle with cultural norms for pre-eminence. Freud of course came up with his very useful trinity here (ego,superego, id) to formulate the trillema in the psyche, wherein the drives and the mundane self are in perpetual conflict with the hyper-moral dictates of the superego--the ultimate killjoy.
I don't believe that we need be forever 'determined' by this three-way contest, or at least I chose to hope that transcendental materialism is possible (that we can live in the world yet be free, or aware, of ideology). Such was the goal of the Buddha and other ascetics, and is the goal of modern phenomenologists.
This kind of freedom is not just from physical drives, but from the ideological chimeras we observe as well.
Thus while I enjoy monogamy myself, I'm not taken in by the institutional rationales that surround it.
So as you see, I don't subscribe to any form of determinism; I at least live in hope that humans can transcend all, at least virtually.

On the sex thing; of course the cultural constraints imposed upon natural human promiscuity takes a heavy psychological toll on many; those for whom the war between the superego and the id is a pitched battle. They must suffer either frustration, and possibly spontaneous cathartic release (such as rape), or are ravaged by guilt for giving in to their baser instincts. Civilisation comes at a price, for one party or the other.

For me this thread has now run its course
and I'd like to take this opportunity to
Thank everyone who contributed to it.
It's been an interesting discussion,
one that I've really enjoyed Thanks to you
all.

Opinion polls show substantial tolerance
for diversity in sexual behaviour, but
they also show a continued commitment to
marital fidelity and a declining interest
in promiscuity. The epidemic of sexually
transmitted diseases may have played a part
in this trend, but it also seems that the
sexual climate now calls for caring and
commitment rather than rebellion and
experimentation. The most important result
of the preceding years of change, perhaps,
has been wide-spread acceptance of newer
concepts of sexual morality.

Many people still adhere to the stern rules
of earlier generations, and some seem not to
believe in sexual morality at all. But
increasingly, judgements about right and wrong
in sexual matters seem to be based on the
attitude that moral behaviour is that which involves
mutual affection and respect and does no physical
or psychological harm to those involved.

See you on another thread.

Foxy,

<<But increasingly, judgements about right and wrong
in sexual matters seem to be based on the
attitude that moral behaviour is that which involves
mutual affection and respect and does no physical
or psychological harm to those involved.>>

This sounds wonderful, of course, but it is patently untrue.
If it were true, then the obvious physical harm caused
by homosexual behaviour would cause it to be deemed immoral.
I'm talking about the statistics which consistently demonstrate
that homosexual males have vastly higher rates of HIV, AIDs, Syphilis,
Hepatitis (put alphabet here), MRSA, etc, etc, etc.

Furthermore, would you therefore classify homosexual "cruising" as immoral behaviour
or do you imagine that it is based on mutual affection and respect?

Feel goodisms may very well earn you browny points from certain sectors
but what do they really contribute to the debate?

Dear Proxy,

I was looking at things through
a broader spectrum not just the
narrow focus of the
Gay and Lesbian Community. If you
want to discuss them - you're
welcome to start your own thread.

I'll look forward to contributing.
Until then ...

Foxy,
I hope that you will someday come to realise that you have a pattern of doing this.
You make a statement which simply doesn't hold water and then when someone points out the obvious flaws in what you say, you claim that your statement holds true in general terms and that specifics are unrelated to the issue.
I admire much of your commentary, not so much for what you say as how you say it, but I think the way you dismiss valid arguments in this manner lacks integrity.

Squeer
I don’t see why it’s heretical to say that humans are by nature not perfectly monogamous – it seems obvious they aren’t - and why the inverted commas around ‘nature’.

All
The whole nature/nurture or nature/culture divide is ill-founded, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it’s a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be nature or not-nature. But human life and reproduction are part of nature, at the same time as humans are cultural animals. Everything is part of nature; nothing is not.

Secondly, it goes back to Aristotle’s bogus distinction between the natural and the artificial. Aristotle, being an aristocrat, thought that the products of agriculture satisfy ‘natural’ wants, while the products of trade satisfy ‘artificial’ wants. This explanation is really empty of explaining power and has spread far more fake reasoning, fake moralizing and genuine confusion than understanding.

Thirdly no-one is suggesting that just because something is natural – for example, aggression or promiscuity or rape – that therefore
a) it’s okay, or
b) that we don’t have a choice about whether to do it.

My Jack Russell Terrier definitely has a natural drive to kill little white fluffy critters. However she knows it’s okay to kill a rabbit, but not okay to kill a chicken, which she has learnt. That doesn’t mean the drive and the behaviour aren’t natural. And it’s similar with humans; our learnt behaviors are also natural. Being natural is not a justification of immoral behaviour.

Thirdly, if we define nature to be only action that has no learnt component, we would be left with the knee-jerk and sucking reflexes. Yet obviously having sex, eating, walking - these are all natural.

Fourthly, many psychologists have a very bad habit of positing theories of the human mind that take no account of the theory of evolution. This, to my mind, is completely unacceptable unless they are going to give some plausible alternative account of the origin of species. But if they don’t – and they never do – then they need to come to terms with the tenet of evolutionary theory that our physical characteristics *and* our mental characteristics are adaptations that are the result of selection pressure either for survival or for reproduction. It is far more enlightening to consider how a behaviour may have been an adaptation to survive or reproduce, whether we like the answer or not, than to assert it is ‘natural’ or ‘cultural’, which really answers nothing.

Fifthly, it is not an answer to say that sexual mores, say, are ‘cultural’ because this only begs the question what it is about the evolution of the human mind that would produce cultural mores like this in the first place, and why. If it’s cultural, why don’t we do the mating dance of the bower-bird instead? So we must go back either to evolutionary theory, which explains a lot, or to restricting the definition of ‘nature’ to the non-learnt reflexes, which explains nothing.

Sixthly, it is much more plausible that man is an animal with many *more* instincts than other animals, not less; and that the debate is about which of these inherited impluses we should act on, and why; rather than whether a behaviour is ‘natural’ or cultural.

My own moral and political philosophy is that people should be free to do what they want so long as they are not aggressing against the person or property of others, and this includes the freedom to have lots of lovely sex with whomever they want, which is nobody’s business but their own.

Foxy
Thanks for your kind remarks. My background is in natural and social sciences, and law.

*So as you see, I don't subscribe to any form of determinism;*

Squeers, I read alot of Freud and Jung when I was in my late
teens, but to be honest, I never could make much sense of them.

Later on, when I got interested in evolutionary biology and then
neuroscience, as brainscans started revealing what was going on
up top, things made a lot more sense to me.

I don't think that anyone is claiming that genes determine behaviour,
just that they have a large influence on behaviour. I disagree with
Foxy, when it comes to sexuality, its not all learned.

If you read up on twin studies that have been published, where
identical twins were separated at birth and brought up in different
households, that gives us a pretty good idea about the power of
genetics to influence our every thought and action.

We also know that by dosing people with naturally produced hormones,
we can alter human behaviour. So clearly they play a role.

We might think its all just free will, but what we know from brain
studies are that there is competition going on between various centres
of the brain, so every thought and action is coloured to some degree
by our emotional centres, our state of mind etc.

Now lets say that rather then her sweet natured and soft personality,
Foxy had inherited the genes which gave her the brain of a testosterone loaded psychopath. Her love life would highly likely
be quite different, no matter what she learned.

So the point is, genes certainly have a large influence on
behaviour.

Dear Proxy,

My or your integrity is not the subject
of this thread. And as I've told
you earlier, there are no right or
wrong answers, merely opinions.
This is after all just a discussion
on a given topic - and the way we approach
it, whether we discuss specifics or not, is
our choice, and style of posting, as well of
course - as our knowledge of the topic.
I shan't point out to
you that you also follow a certain pattern
in your postings, that would be rude and
impolite, because like most people,
we tend to not see our own flaws.

As I said, this thread has run its course
for me. I've exhausted what I wanted to say,
and I don't see the point in repeating
myself. My apologies, if this is not to your
liking.

Once again, Thanks for your input and I look
forward to discussing other topics with you
elsewhere.

Thanks Foxy ,the question is important to young people as it SUGGESTS some guidance in a world of few guideposts.

Why though, are we at this point after 20 pages? All our thinking around these things( eg nurture / nature divide) has done little to make clearer the BASIS for the choices we have all made on this subject . Maybe nature is neutral, or at least uncommitted ? .
Even if we can't agree about a rationale / understand, is it important for our children to have one --so , where to next?

I see no point in offering young people the dumb choice( no choice ) of sacrificing themselves to the ongoing experiment- symbolized by the freedom myth of the Meads and Greers . Hume made the point well that in experimental terms, marriage is the go. How to promote it when the mere natural facts seem to tell us little ?
Maybe if we move closer to nurture and away from nature ( Humes call?) we might ask "Marriage - is it a good idea?" . Not " Marriage -is it natural" .
Bottom line : I think many of us on this line agree that to use nature as our moral guardian is to limit ourselves. Maybe that in itself is a good conclusion?

Maybe we missed the point .
Maybe we are making it too hard ? .
You have got to be a bit jealous of the Jews . They had it simple . "No adultery ". Ten laws fitting on ten lines .
The Jews were not monogamous to a tee, but there rationale for any ...gamy was at least interesting, and dare I say it, consistent; Was about protecting women and families .Moving from one family to another ; effective transitions . The focus of their rationale was on commitment . Are we going to get to that point ourselves by prolonging the reality that we maybe limiting ourselves if we assume that what we know of nature/sex is the key. I think so
http://quickfiz.blogspot.com

Yabby,
I've read my share of natural science and certainly don't take the simplistic approach you credit me with, such as that "it's all free will". As a matter of fact I'm a long time devotee of the more rigorous scientific approach--though its (sometimes only tacit) reductionisms are just as absurd, on occasion, as some of the absurdities of metaphysics.
But I'll save it for another occasion. Time permitting, I hope to put an article or two on the OLO boards myself some time this year, on this very topic.

YAbby,

How many beautiful foreign women did you say were your soul mate.

Sheesh Cherful, sounds like you want me to write my life story here :)

So rather then write a book, I will try and sum it up this way:

I was not born in Australia, but have lived in Africa, Europe,
as a kid in the US, then moved to Australia in my 20s.

In that time I've been married once, but have landed up in relationships
with people from around the world, as well as a few
Australian scrubbers :) Perhaps because my thinking is international
and not like your typical Aussie fellow, such as yourself.

Clearly you think that the soulmate concept is nonsense. I guess we
would first have to define it. Various people have various definitions.

What constantly surprises me is when I have discussions with people
who are married, how little many of them actually know their partners,
keep secrets from their partners, or married their partner as she
was a good cook with nice tits. Fair enough, there are plenty who
want no more from a relationship.

Have you ever tried to go beyond that? Where you are in a relationship
with somebody, who knows your inner core, accepts
you as you are, where you can be totally honest, whom you respect
and admire, where you are tuned to the same mental frequency?

Its rare, but it does happen and when it does, its something
pretty special. I've had it happen, but never with an Australian.

Sounds like you've had a good life, Yabby.

That is wonderful you have had meaningful relationships Yabby with people from all over the world yet sad about those scrubbers who are not myself nor many of my other loving highly intelligent wonderfully warm sensual women I know (as my Australian friends single and married)of all ages.

Guess it depends where you meet women of any origin - 'environment' here is a golden key as I see it.

Yabby
I think we should vote for you to go on "Farmer wants a wife". There's bound to be an outdoors lady who would love the life of an outback WA farm just waiting for you. :)

Hehe Pelican, better yet, if you should one day perchance land
up single again, just give me a call :)

Since reading this thread and with the recent ANZAC day, I have been thinking about an uncle of mine, now deceased, who I love/d dearly. I hope you don't mind if I share his story.

Uncle R was a WW2 vet. I knew him long after the war when I was a little girl visiting my gran. Uncle R always came home late at night but always remembered to bring something for me - a chocolate or something like that so that every morning that I woke there would be some little gift for me.

One evening I was still up when he came home a little earlier than usual. I realized that he was a little bleary eyed and unlike his usual clear self (when I was older I realized it was the odour of alcohol that I'd detected). I thought at the time that he was sick or something; I noticed too that he seemed sad. I followed him to his room and saw him sitting on his bed holding a tiny photograph. He was weeping.

The faded pic was of a pretty young woman who he said was named Marie.
They had met when he was in France during the war. They'd fallen in love and wanted to marry but her family wouldn't allow it - because he was Presbyterian and they were Catholic. It was an unthinkable notion that Marie marry outside her faith.

So he returned home to Australia broken hearted. He never married or even dated and Marie joined a nunnery rather than marry anyone else.
He stayed faithfully loving her for about 40 years.

I don't know whether it's sad or good or bad that he never married, but I think it says something about the idea that biological imperatives drive our actions and decisions. Does love have a biological basis ? What is this level of deep loyalty about ?
At any rate, I have known a lot of men whose main driving purpose wasn't to fertilize all and sundry, but something more selective and more noble.

Dear Pynch,

I wasn't going to comment any further
on this thread but your story reminded
me of one of my mother's favourite songs
by Nat King Cole, called "Nature Boy."
She used to play it over and over again,
and reading your post brought back the lyrics
to me, that I know off by heart...

" There was a boy,
A very strange enchanted boy,
They say he wandered far, very far,
Over land and sea.
A little shy,
And sad of eye,
But very wise,
Was he.

And then one day,
A magic day he passed my way,
And while we spoke of many things
fools and kings,
This, he said to me,
"The greatest things
You'll ever learn,
Is just to love,
And be loved in return..."

"Does love have a biological basis?"

As opposed to what?

The problem with the ‘nurture’ explanation is general is that it only begs the question why the human mind has the hardware for learning those particular behaviours in the first place.

'What is this level of deep loyalty about?'

In evolutionary terms, it's about a particular reproductive strategy. It is easy to see how this particular strategy, if focussed on the right partner, and producing children, would result in reproductive success that would in turn be passed on; because the children would benefit far more than in the absence of the father’s contribution.

However the genes for such behaviour do not produce a reflex reaction, an involuntary behaviour that we cannot control. For example, a chicken has an instinct to sit on eggs. Subjectively, she probably feels a strong drive to sit on her clutch of eggs. But yet if you approach her while she's sitting, she might jump off and run away. She can control the behaviour, turning it on or off at will.

Humans have a very large number of such mental programs or instincts, some relatively simple, like spitting out bitter food, and others very complex, like sight or language. Some of these programs are at cross-purposes with each other, like programs for monogamy or fidelity, and programs for promiscuity or cheating. The genes don't dictate our behaviour: they only have to work on average in average circumstances to get passed on. But we still can and do choose whether or not to have sex, to be loyal, to be promiscuous, to pretend to be loyal while being promiscuous, and so on.

In general, other things being equal, a woman has more to gain by a monogamous strategy than a man; hence women’s general preference for this strategy; and condemnation of other reproductive strategies which make more sense from the male point of view.

>At any rate, I have known a lot of men whose main driving purpose wasn't to fertilize all and sundry, but something more selective and more noble.

I think it's a bit of ethical sleight-of-hand to characterise monogamy as necessarily more noble; especially when we consider the difference of interests as between male and female; and all the false pretences, double standards, and cheating that characterise monogamy. Besides it's an arbitrary moral judgment.

I could just as easily, and do, maintain that many, various and beautiful young women having promiscuous sex with me is the most noble thing of all. Yessirree, I'm nothing if not noble-minded.

Dear Peter H,

Psychologist Cynthia Hickman wrote an article
some time ago in the magazine, "Wellbeing,"
entitled, "Sexual Freedom: being true to
yourself." In it she explains:

"Sexual choice depends, among other things, on
your own unique combination of libido level,
emotional wiring and life experience..."

In other words everyone's physical, emotional,
spiritual and relationship needs are different,
so it follows that this will be refelcted in the
way an individual expresses their sexuality.

She says that, "The 'rules' for sex should not be
based on morality, as was the case in the past,
implying that some sex is good, virtuous and
upright while other sex is shameful and wrong.
Threats of hell, judgement and damnation were
an unhealthy way to control sexual behaviour in
the past and it's good that such rules were
thrown out the window. But this does not mean
that for everyone all sex is necessarily
acceptable and "good."

Sexual standards aren't written on stone tablets
somewhere, but they are written in your soul.
So navigating sexual territory means being true
to your deeper self. The challenge is to find
out what is right for you and enhances your
wellbeing instead of diminishing it.
Part of developing a sex life that works for you
will be deciding what sort of boundaries are
appropriate for you.

We're all built differently, with a unique
combination of libido level, sexual style and
emotional capacity. As Cynthia Hickman points
out, "It's therefore essential that people
decide for themselves how their sex life will
reflect their individual characters and not be
swayed by - "I have to appear modern," or
"I have to keep a man (woman)."

What about intimacy and deep relating?
Not for you?

Fair enough.

As Hickman sums up:

"Sex can be honouring, playful, raunchy, experimental,
loving ... the list goes on. It's a great menu and
YOU get to choose. Don't let anyone decide for you."

There you have it folks.
If bestiality and/or adult incest work for "your own unique combination of libido level, emotional wiring and life experience" then who's to say that they're any less moral than monogamous, heterosexual, conjugal sex?

*I could just as easily, and do, maintain that many, various and beautiful young women having promiscuous sex with me is the most noble thing of all.*

Indeed you could Peter, for morality is of course nothing more
then our subjective opinion. As could your wife, if she screwed the
milkman, to spread the risk of you having dud genes. In evolutionary
terms those things make sense, for nature does not really care
about morality, simply survival of the fittest and those that
adapt.

We already know that you are the body that dna uses, to pass itself
on from one generation to the next. Sounds to me like you are the
perfect slave of your dna, as you try to spread your genes around :)

Peter Hume, "especially when we consider the difference of interests as between male and female".

Men also have a vested interest in their progeny surviving and doing well. The stereotypical male who is forever ready and bangs everything with a heartbeat then departs is a myth. Sure some are feral but some women act like alley cats on heat too.

Society's 'randy' stereotype of men victimises them, putting them under pressure to perform and be responsible for the chase, seduction and even the orgasm of the female. It also detracts from their credibility as caring fathers, with a vested interest in the care and wellbeing of their children.

Life has often shown me that contrary to what some might like us to believe, men rather enjoy being surrounded by family and they are very hurt and grieve enormously if that is suddenly taken away from them for any reason. I am sure too that men are not hard-wired to require a leadership or controlling role in a family and the vast majority are generally willing to go along with what the women want. Again, that might be petrol for some but it shouldn't be.

I do believe Cornflower has written a post with which I agree:

>> Men also have a vested interest in their progeny surviving and doing well. <<

Exactly.

I tend to believe that serial monogamy is a natural strategy for humans. In the past, when our lives were shorter - relationships were often till death did part. In fact my own parents were separated when my father died. However, we have long lives, not all of us change in the same direction in the course of our lives - remaining with the same partner is wonderful but not necessarily the right thing for everyone.

Quite happy to play the field when single, but I have always been faithful when in a relationship. Works for me - but not for everyone.

However, for the majority of humans, raising children with two adults is far easier and generally more stable for the kids. The adults may or may not be the biological parents or even heterosexual - it is the love and stability that matters.

severin,
"The adults may or may not be the biological parents or even heterosexual - it is the love and stability that matters."
Children also need male and female role models.
How is a boy going to grow up normal if he is raised by two homosexual men?
At least he'll have plenty of male role models, with an ongoing stream of "uncles" visiting his two daddies.
Give us a break.

Proxy

How come 'normal' heterosexual parents frequently have homosexual children?

It is the quality not the gender that is important in the caring and upbringing of children. But in your narrow homophobic world, you will never understand.

severin,

Consider this:

"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991.

Are my childhood experiences unique? According to a growing number of personal testimonies, experts, and organizations, there is mounting evidence of strong commonalities to my personal experiences. Not only do children do best with both a mother and a father in a lifelong marriage bond, children need responsible monogamous parents who have no extramarital sexual partners. Parental promiscuity, abuse and divorce are not good for children. If same-sex marriage is legalized, a person, couple or group who practice any form of sexual behavior would eventually be able to obtain children through previous heterosexual relationships, new reproductive technologies, and adoption due to the undefined term sexual orientation. This would force all public and private adoption agencies to hand over children into experimental relationships or risk charges of discrimination."

http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/dawntest.htm

She must be an ignorant homophobe, by your measure.

Dear Proxy,

"There is no such thing as a homosexual or
a heterosexual person. There are only
homo--- or heterosexual acts.
Most people are a mixture of impulses if not
practices."
(Gore Vidal).

Severin - do you think that our resident homophobic troll is one of those "dire straights" that Peter Sellick writes about in his latest incomprehensible article?

CJ

YES! The most dire of heteros - do you suppose the Title was a Sellick oooops or an OLO one? Either way, continue to chuckle over that as well.

Havagooweegend, my friend.

Aaaah,
I can feel the textual oxygen invigorating me for a fresh bout of trolling.
Stay tuned while I polish the facets of my bigotry.
I'll be strait back into it soon.

Dearest Proxy, whenever I wander back to check out how some discussions are going, I always find you discussing your favourite topic- homosexuality.

It never seems to matter what the subject of the day is does it?
Ignorance is bliss it seems.

Proxy
The idea of having sex with animals completely disgusts me, as it does most people. However I once read a book whose author interviewed a guy who loved to have sex with dogs. Although it disgusts me, I see no reason why he should be stopped from doing it, so long as he’s not hurting the dog. Yes we can and do say it’s disgusting, and immoral, and we may castigate or ostracise him. But I would be against any legal penalty, which in the final analysis, is about people’s disgust. I don’t see why he should be forcibly prevented from doing what he wants, for no other reason than that it offends the sensibilities of people when it’s none of their business.

Similarly with adult incest.

No doubt children do benefit most from the loving marriage of their parents. But that is no reason for other consensual behaviours to be prohibited. It is a reason for heterosexual monogamy to be valued, not enforced. If it cannot be achieved without the voluntary consent of each party, then the children have no moral right to it. Those who want to look after the children voluntarily should do it. In particular, men are not just milking-cows and beasts of burden for the benefit of women and children.

Foxy
I agree with all of that. And I’m all for intimacy and deep relating.

Yabby
>... to spread the risk of you having dud genes.

… that unlikely event :-)

Cornflower
There’s no question men have, or may have a reproductive and emotional interest in loving marriage and family life. However during the time a woman is pregnant, she cannot get pregnant again, but a man can impregnate a second and third woman during the pregnancy of a first woman he impregnated. And the behavioural difference that we would predict as a result of that sexual difference – men’s far greater readiness and willingness for promiscuous sex - we do in fact see in the real world.

I know lots of men whose idea of a good time is to permanently have promiscuous sex with many, various, and good-looking women. I don’t know any women whose idea of a good time is the reciprocal. Indeed most women are disgusted by the idea. *Some* women may be like alley cats. But virtually *all* men – in all cultures, in all times - given the chance, desire promiscuous sex with young, good-looking women. And that is in conditions in which the men face enormous natural, social, rivalrous and legal obstacles to such sex. The fact that all societies universally prohibit rape, is only a small part of the proof of the strength of the underlying tendency that they know would be let loose without the strongest prohibitions. If women did not receive the *non-consensual* payments that the state forcibly compels from men for women’s children, and if men could spend their now-confiscated earnings on their own desires, you may be confident there’d be even more male-sponsored casual sex going on.

If the argument from ‘stereotyping’ were correct, we would expect significant sexual differences among different cultures and ages: for example, some societies in which the great bulk of the prostitution industry supplied male promiscuous sex to randy female customers. It doesn’t exist. We would expect some cultures to be polyandrous, some in which women preferred porn to romance novels and men vice versa, and so on. This is so far from reality as to be a joke. To argue it’s because of stereotypes is circular.

‘The stereotypical male who is forever ready and bangs everything with a heartbeat then departs is a myth.’

If we think of a scale with 1 being random promiscuity, and 100 being perfect monogamy, humans are clearly closer to the monogamy end of the scale than the random promiscuity end. But just because men are not at 1 on the scale, doesn’t mean they are not generally far more ready and willing for promiscuous sex relative to women. I regard it as ideology gone mad to deny it.

suzeonline,
Homosexuality is not my favourite subject.
My favourite subject is the global Islamic jihad.
As Australia pursues its multicultural death wish it will become increasingly Islamicised.
It will be interesting to observe the inevitable clashes between Muslims and homosexuals.
This is already happening in the Netherlands,
but their Islamic population is higher than ours.
You, however, would be blissfully unaware of these realities.

PH: Your whole notion that men are driven or at least inclined to bonk endlessly is very tiresome and old fashioned. As Cornflower and feminists who share that opinion point out - men have a vested interest in seeing that their offspring attain maturity. There is more to ensuring one's genetic survival than the act of copulation. That's why many males of various species are in charge of eggs and young etc.

But more!

If it was meant to be that men have sex endlessly; then we'd only need about 100th of the numbers of men who are born and survive. As in nature, either 99/100 men would be asexual or at least have their libido suppressed in some way, or only 1/100 would be born or survive infancy.

In fact forming small care groups - ie: family units (of various configurations) - ensures that the species as a WHOLE is successful in raising a next generation. We are group creatures.

If all depended on each individual wanting his genes to dominate, then it would make more sense for each woman to have sex with numerous males. ie gang-banging would be the norm. Since she can only have so many eggs fertilized and carry so many embryos at a time, sperm from various contributors would be competing and therefore the fastest, strongest sperm would succeed ahead of the rest. BUT, that sort of arrangement is very rare.

Your comments are not biological absolutes - they are interpretations from a very specific cultural standpoint. They suit your preferred code of behaviour but don't account at all for most others.

PHume you comment: "I once read a book whose author interviewed a guy who loved to have sex with dogs. Although it disgusts me, I see no reason why he should be stopped from doing it, so long as he’s not hurting the dog."

It's hateful. You think it's so trendy to be so tolerant? I don't. I think you opinion and his actions are callous and cruel. It takes no account of the power differential between two beings. How can the dog give consent? Why should that creature endure the invasion of body by some slob huffing and humping his way to an irrelevant orgasm? How do you know it doesn't hurt the dog - did it tell you? Animals have so few rights or protections; the least we can do is allow them to retain their inherent damned dignity.

You took the words right out of my mouth Pynchme.
PH you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating cruelty to animals. Even bringing up the subject says a lot about you.

Peter Hume <"Some* women may be like alley cats. But virtually *all* men – in all cultures, in all times - given the chance, desire promiscuous sex with young, good-looking women. And that is in conditions in which the men face enormous natural, social, rivalrous and legal obstacles to such sex."

Gee, you must know some really 'interesting' men Peter?
You don't have a very high opinion of 'virtually all men' do you?
Are you seriously suggesting that if there were no legal constraints, 'virtually all men' would be out there raping all the women?

I sure hope I never meet any of the men you know.

I've been away and missing all the fun.

Yabby:
<morality is of course nothing more
then our subjective opinion.>

Well, it's not quite that open and shut for me. Ethics is, aspirationally, systematised morality. Are you saying there is nothing, which could be construed "ethical", that humanity has in common?

And then, on the other hand, why belittle "subjective opinion"? Are you saying there is such a thing as "subjectivity" btw?.
Why is it that for something to be valid it must be "natural"--that is available for the natural sciences to measure?
It's not that simple, I'm afraid. To quote a hero of mine; seriously considering possibilities beyond empiricism (which is itself based upon metaphysics) will "elicit snickers from all the imbeciles, until the end of time, who never believe anything, of course, because they are so sure that they see what is seen, everything that is seen, only what is seen".
Not that I'm calling you and imbecile, Yabby; it's pure rationalism that I (and Derrida) consider imbecilic----though you do seem to buy into the dogma ...?

Also "what" is seen?

In populations there are aproxomately equal numbers of males and females born, so the law of the jungle would arise if Western society allowed multiple wives or husbands.

Though I do not agree with Islam it is at least governed by religious laws, and women are viewed as lesser beings in their religion than a man. Many young women are given as brides to older men against their will. Mohamet himself set their standard for multiple wives.

Rarely is the case where women legally have multiple husbands in a society as it results in abuse.

Squeers, you raise some interesting points, so I shall add my 5c worth.

The only ones whom I know, who make a claim about objective morality,
are the religious. Usually its their particular interpretation
of messages from the alleged Almighty, that we should regard
as objective. The Vatican is an extreme example.

The only objectivity that I can note is the morality that seems
to be grounded in biology. Most species squabble, but generally
don't kill those of their own tribe, for they would soon go extinct
if they did. We seem to have adopted that law from nature.

If you study primatology, you'll find that in quite a few species,
at adolesance, either the males or females leave and eventually
join other tribes. An innate instinct, which avoids incest.
We too, claim incest to be immoral.

Food sharing, helping raise each others young, assisting the weaker
etc, are all common in species like the bonobo and others.

We do the same, then label it as moral.

As for any other kind of objective morality, I guess it comes
down to the evidence.

AS for PHs claim that humping lots of young ladies is noble of
him, well I still think that is simply his subjective opinion :)

Pynchme and suzie
Don’t be absurd.

I won’t disgust you with the details, but
a) the guy wasn’t hurting the dog – on the contrary,
b) dogs are perfectly capable of indicating whether or not they consent; and
c) what you say would apply to any use of any animal for any human purposes. How do we know that dogs ‘consent’ to muster sheep, or that horses ‘consent’ to be ridden? The argument is idiotic.

You are merely proving my point - confusing your sense of disgust with your sense of being justified in forcing other people to obey you on something that is none of your business.

I am unclear what the feminists are actually arguing, and I suspect they are too.

> If it was meant to be that men have sex endlessly;

Define ‘have sex endlessly’.

Biology doesn’t go by what’s ‘meant to be’; it goes by what functions to survive or reproduce.

>then we'd only need about 100th of the numbers of men who are born and survive.

A biologically meaningless concept. It doesn’t go by what ‘we’ as a species ‘need’ –- it goes by what individual genes survive to replicate.

> If all depended on each individual wanting his genes to dominate…

People don’t act because they ‘want their genes to dominate’; they act because they want to eat, or drink, or make love, or whatever.

>As in nature, either 99/100 men would be asexual

What’s that supposed to mean? In nature, 99% of men or non-human males are *not* asexual.

> or at least have their libido suppressed ... or only 1/100 would be born or survive infancy.

Just because 1% of males could fertilise all available females, doesn’t mean that the sex ratios must be equal. You are displaying complete confusion.

If what you were saying were correct, then there would only be 1% of males in all species, so clearly your homespun theory is incorrect, isn’t it?

> then it would make more sense for each woman to have sex with numerous males. ie gang-banging would be the norm.
(cont.)

(cont.)
It is a non-sequitur to reason that if success at reproducing were the driving force behind mating behaviour, *therefore* random gang-banging would be the norm.

What would be the norm, is what most succeeds in the real world on average.

The reason humans are closer to, but not at, the perfect monogamy end of the scale is because although monogamy is more successful than ‘a bit on the side’, nevertheless the latter still works. Hence we would expect to, and do, see both sexes engaging in it.

But there is neither reason nor evidence to think that the sexes’ interest in such behaviour is either identical or equal.

> In fact forming ... family units … ensures that the species as a WHOLE is successful in raising a next generation.

No it doesn’t. If I form a family here, it doesn’t help the bushmen of the Kalahari to raise the next generation. It doesn’t even help the next door neighbours. Evolution doesn't work by the 'species as a whole'; it works by individual genes.

>Since she can only have so many eggs fertilized ... sperm from various contributors would be competing and therefore the fastest, strongest sperm would succeed ahead of the rest. BUT, that sort of arrangement is very rare.

Laughable. This time you are confusing *spermatozoa* with *men*.

The fastest strongest sperm *by definition* * always* succeeds in fertilizing the ovum ahead of the rest.

As to men, if what you are saying were correct, then we would expect no infidelity at all, because all people would be monogamous 'for the good of the species’.

You are displaying the most complete and laughable confusion of thought, combined with biological illiteracy.

Does anyone honestly believe that if we abolished the laws against rape and laws forcing men to pay for child support, there would be no significant difference in men’s behaviour? Or that the difference in male and female sexual response in the bedroom is because of ‘stereotyping’?

If this is what passes for feminist theory, you really should be embarrassed to be associated with it.

Peter Hume, am I right in assuming you could imagine a world where bestiality wasn't outlawed, rape wasn't a crime, and men did not have to take financial responsibility for their children, simply because men have been held back from their 'natural' inclinations by some silly laws?
You really don't understand most men at all do you?

Trying to put down all women who don't agree with your Neanderthal views
as rabid feminists is very childish of you.
We don't have to be feminists or even female to disagree with your distasteful views.

The fallacies on which Suzieonline’s argument rests being blown away, she has nothing to answer but to degenerate like a schoolchild into ad hominem argument.

If what Suzieonline has been arguing were correct, there would no need for the laws against rape or enforcing child support, because it wouldn’t make any difference, and it is only a failure to understand men to think otherwise.

“Are you seriously suggesting that if there were no legal constraints, 'virtually all men' would be out there raping all the women?”

Occasions when there are no legal constraints are very rare, but when they happen, such as when the front of war passes over a district and troops are given the licence, there is good reason to fear for the general chastity. A notorious example was the Russian advance to Germany in World War 1 – read about it - and history supplies countless other examples. Not just in mass public phenomena, but also in private, *where there are no legal constraints* it happens all the time – that’s why the legal constraints are there! And that is to speak only of non-consensual sex. But men’s drive for casual consensual sex is no doubt far greater, as witness the perpetual custom of prostitution, including in countries where it is illegal, in which a small number of women service a large number of men. And that is to say nothing of the vast amount of casual sex without cash payment – the disco and club scene etc. etc. etc. To say that men have no drive for casual sex, or no more than women, is just obviously palpable nonsense

More to the point, why do women as a group tend to find distasteful the idea that men like casual sex without making financial contribution to any resulting offspring? Well it’s obvious, isn’t? There is a direct conflict of interest as between male and female in this case. Nor is it a matter of “gender”: women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex. These women want the privilege, backed by brute force, to treat men as machines for paying women for the babies they have. Otherwise they’d have no objection to repealing the laws forcing men to pay for women’s babies, wouldn’t they?

Women *would * talk of men having ‘responsibility’ to pay the women, wouldn’t they? But they deny that they have any reciprocal ‘responsibility’, or obligation, to provide whatever the man may require in exchange in order for him to consent. To bully and threaten women into providing services that men typically want is a serious crime; but to bully and threaten men into providing services that women typically want is a human right. Thus their argument is sexist hypocrisy, and when confronted with this fact, all we get is childish facile snivelling in reply.

I'm afraid PH is right. Social norms and rules are enforced because without them men would act according to appetite and whim. However men 'represent' themselves, according to custom, if you were privy to the visceral drives that seethe beneath the surface, immanent and threatening to erupt, you'd discard what I call "the white picket fence mentality". Hence Freud's model I mentioned above, wherein the ego is perennially conflicted with the vicious demands of the id and the hyperbolic morality of the superego. Do the ladies really imagine their husbands are perfectly contented? As Vidal amusingly says, the vast majority of men settle "into an acceptable if dull social role where the husband [fantasises] while pounding the old wife", who lies their fantasising herself.
To subscribe to genteel cultural norms, as though they were more than pretence, or came naturally from within, is childish--much as I might wish I could argue otherwise.
Man must be tempered by civilising concepts, but these are 'never' unconflicted; and sex is without doubt the most demeaning (culturally) drive we possess. I've urged people before to read Shakespeare's 129th sonnet, it's a wonderful illustration of the fraught position the ego finds itself in.

Of course I've only talked about men; women are just as tormented! Ah, God works in mysterious ways.

Peter
You talk about making financial contributions to any offspring as though the offspring only come from one set of genes.

There is really no such thing as casual sex - in that there is always a risk of pregnancy. If you enter into a that relationship you also make a contract to accept risk as well as responsibility.

I may have misunderstood the following:
"Women *would * talk of men having ‘responsibility’ to pay the women, wouldn’t they? But they deny that they have any reciprocal ‘responsibility’, or obligation, to provide whatever the man may require in exchange in order for him to consent."

But, what are you suggesting is reciprocated in return for a father's financial contribution to raise his own child?

Do you mean sex on tap?

Men have no more or less responsibility than a woman for raising a child. The desire to see progeny raised is not related to the amount of sex one receives in return. Both women and men have the same desire to ensure children are raised appropriately without attaching conditions to that goal.

The way you wrote this implies that only women have responsibility for raising a child - men only if they get some sex into the bargain - but I may have misinterpreted.

Squeers, good thing you added:

>> Of course I've only talked about men; women are just as tormented! <<

Else Antiseptic, Rstuart, Formersnag and Vanna would be out gunning for your blood.

As for the idea that men (and women) are only civil due to such artificial abstracts as law - that is quite a generalisation you and PH are making.

Given the size of our populations compared to the percentage of those who do behave like savages, where is your evidence that if rape (for example) was not illegal, all men would be rapists?

Maybe some people are held in check from their personal 'Hydes'; I don't hold such a dismal view. Most people are actually naturally decent and civil - it is only the minority, be they religious fundamentalists through to the garden variety bigot, who make our lives fraught. The rest (the majority) muddle through without committing murder or robbing banks.

Most people are inherently good.

Severin: <Most people are inherently good.>

I don't disagree with your comments, but the point of my post is that common decency is artificial rather than inherent. We are all held in check, more or less, by our compliance to social norms, not only actually, but 'ideologically'. We believe in them despite all the evidence! This is so patently obvious, to me, that I'm surprised anyone wishes to contest the issue. I'm not evil or anything; I just prefer to recognise how things are.

Pelican,
if I may respond to your comments to PH. The matter of parentage is far from equal, indeed it's stacked in women's favour (which is fair enough since this is a recent phenomenon).
If a couple engages in casual sex and she falls pregnant, she can say "I'm having this baby and you're going to pay" (though she's under no obligation to form an alliance). Conversely, she's at liberty to say "I'm going to terminate this pregnancy", and she need not ask his permission. Supposing it was real casual sex, in a car park. He reaches for a condom and she says, "it's cool; I'm on the pill". But she's not and gets pregnant. The same rule applies: "I'm having this baby and you're going to pay". Or, despite his protests, "I'm getting an abortion".
The man has no say; her body and his responsibility, whatever state her morals are in.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. Men had the running for far to long.
There's a great line in Scott's 'Rob Roy', put in the mouth of the villain of course: "Love is a dung heap, and I am but a cock who climbs atop to crow"

Dear Squeers,

We all get it. Certainly, some people are
quite happy having sex for sex's sake
with nothing else to it. That may be how
they are "built" or how they are "wired."
Other people, though, are more sensitive or
they have their genital centre connected
to their heart centre, so sex and emotions
go together.

Some people like frequent sex while others have
a lower libido. Some people are happy to "bonk"
while others like to "make love." It's just
that the people with higher libidos who are happy
simply to have physical sex fit the current
culturally accepted sexual stereotype. They then
think it's OK to bully others into thinking there's
something wrong with them if they don't want the same
type of sex.

It takes two to tango as the saying goes. If a child
is the result of the sex act - it should be up to
the two consenting adults involved to work out
what they're going to do next. Most women I know
would never pressure the father for any sort of
"maintenance" if he was unwilling to do so.
However one would hope that if he was happy to "go in"
he would be equally happy to support whatever "comes
out." After all nobody forced him to "go in" in the
first place - right?

Dear Foxy,
You're not a nun, are you?
Forget sonnet 129; watch Julianne More's splendid film, "Far From Heaven", and then report back. Note the use of colour, just like in "Edward Scissorhands".
Sorry m'dear but no, monogamy is not 'natural'.
It's not my fault; I'm just trying to answer your question. Blame God.

P.S. The most exciting sex I ever 'nearly' had was when a wanton female was on the point of copulating with me at the end of a dead-end street, on the bonnet of my car--despite all my protestations! Unfortunately, a bus pulled up at the point of entry (empty, fortunately) and we were obliged to go to a motel room instead. True story!

Pelican
Your argument is, in essence, that biological causation automatically justifies moral and legal obligation.

Women biologically cause sexual desire in men: so does that automatically and necessarily give rise to a moral and legal obligation on women to provide even involuntary services in satisfaction of that interest?

We need to deconstruct the sexist stereotype by which women have a supposed “need” for services coerced by violence and threats from men so that the women can do what they want to do.

The issue is whether there is a moral and should be a legal obligation, which you haven’t established, except by assuming what is in issue.

>There is really no such thing as casual sex - in that there is always a risk of pregnancy.

There may be no such thing as casual sex *for women*, but there clearly is for men or we wouldn’t be having this discussion – that’s the whole point!

Thus women are rushing to affirm, what they have just now been rushing to deny, that men have a greater interest in casual sex than women.

&#61656; If you enter into a that relationship you also make a contract to accept risk as well as responsibility.

That is the quintessential fiction underlying patriarchy, and it’s just that - a fiction.

Contract requires consent. In *contract* a women gets whatever consideration she requires to accept a man’s offer to have sex.

But by your logic, if a woman places herself in a position where she *biologically causes* a man’s sexual desire for her, she has made an enforceable “contract” to give him satisfaction of his desire for her services, whether she consents or not.

Thus we see that western feminists advocate the same bullying proprietorial self-righteous chattel-morality towards men that the Taliban do towards women.

>But, what are you suggesting is reciprocated in return for a father's financial contribution to raise his own child? >Do you mean sex on tap?

It depends on what consideration the individuals offer and accept, and that’s as it should be.

(cont.)

If she stipulates for paternal contributions, then she is morally entitled to it; and if not, not. End of moral issue.

The principle is no different to what women rightly require in agreeing to sex. He can’t just use violence or threats or claim a higher social purpose like the good of the species. He must actually do what she individually requires in order to obtain her acceptance. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. She needs to offer whatever consideration he requires in order to obtain his acceptance. But if she doesn’t, then there is no moral obligation on him to be her chattel or slave; and no valid appeal to a higher social purpose in the good of the species.

> Men have no more or less responsibility than a woman for raising a child.

Of course *women* say that. They would, wouldn’t they? But the alleged ‘responsibility’ is nothing but a cipher for women’s self-interest, double standards, and readiness to use force.

> The desire to see progeny raised is not related to the amount of sex one receives in return.

If that is true, then the woman should have no problem getting contributions from the father.

But it’s not true: - and the value of *his*contribution is not determined by what *she* wants to use it for; but by what *he* does.

> Both women and men have the same desire to ensure children are raised appropriately without attaching conditions to that goal.

If that is true, then there is no need for forced payments from men is there?

Suzie in her first post said: “I am not really a strong supporter of the need to be married though.”

Would you feel the same way if you had to obtain the man’s consent to contributions to offspring?

Severin
I have not argued what you attribute to me.

Foxy
Just because someone has casual sex, doesn’t mean it’s ‘just physical’, or that ‘sex and emotions’ don’t go together. People can and do have happy, genuine and intimate casual sex.

Dear Squeers,

What a bizarre question.
Why would you think that I'm a nun?
Simply because as a female, I refuse to be pressured
to have sex? I assume that you're an older man,
from the way you need to brag of your sexual
conquests. Well your age is showing.

True sexual freedom today means you're free to explore
and define your own sexual choices for yourself,
free from cultural or peer coercion. There is a sexual
smorgasbord available now, but this doesn't mean you
have to stuff your plate high with everything on the
table. It should be acceptable even to you to realize
that women can peruse the selection and choose only
those tasty morsels that appeal. It can still be
acceptable to have as much as you like, just as it
should be fine to have nothing if you don't feel hungry.

Dear Peter H.,

Sexual standards have changed enormously in the past few
decades. In the 1950s (older generation) women were
supposed to be virgins until marriage. A woman was meant
to have sex with only one person her whole life.
Orgasms, masturbation, the clitoris and the G-spot were
unheard of. Women were chaste and were called whores if
they weren't. Sex wasn't really about enjoyment, for women
anyway. Men had a lot more choices about how they conducted
themselves sexually. It was understandable and necessary
that there was a "sexual revolution" in the 1960s and
onwards. Since then women have been able to explore and
enjoy their sexual nature. But today there has been a
180-degree shift with no middle ground. In the past,
women were not free because they had to be sexually
repressed. Today, many are still not free because now
they are pressured to be sexually promiscuous.

I however, am not one of them! I never have, nor ever will,
let any one decide for me - and neither will most of the
women I know - so you can argue until you're blue in the
face - anyway, whatever works for you -
Good-luck with that!

Dear me, Foxy, you're so busy being indignant that I don't think you've really considered the weight of the argument. But never mind.
I'm only 49, btw, and sadly have very few sexual exploits to brag about. Indeed most of the females I've known were far more promiscuous than I ever was (How can that be, I wonder?); indeed they were almost all the instigators---and 'married' too!

The nun question was an allusion to an earlier post.

You've finally been told the facts of life, Foxy; I really think a little gratitude is in order!

But then, you remain one of OLO's most charming correspondents, and we wouldn't want you any other way.

Dear Squeers,

I don't need you to educate me.
Thanks for the offer though,
and for the compliment that you
paid me in your post unless of course
you were teasing me.

What most people want is a relationship.
They're usually sick of the meaningless
pairings and want something more.

It's completely acceptable however, essential
actually, to put up a boundary and say what's
right for you. And it's equally important that
you define your standards for yourself. You
shouldn't let others reality dominate yours.

If we follow this path, we are much more likely
to attract people and experiences that are a
better match for ourselves.

Anyway, enough said.

Each of us is built differently. What works for
one, may not work for another. Monogamy may not be
everyone's preference. However, it happens to be mine.

49?

Nice age!

Squeers
I agree partly with your analogy but not wholly and I know you are playing devil's advocate. The use of the phrase 'women have it their way' assumes that it is all tiptoeing through the tulips for women and downhill for men. Is this really the case?

It is really 'nobody's way' if the child is unwanted. Different if of course both participants in the sexual act agree to raise the child even if living apart.

Both partners don't get it 'their way' as both have financial and practial responsibilities for the raising of the child.

I don't know what the answer is for men, in terms of decisions about pregnancy because yes, I agree that women have more say over the future of the baby they are carrying. It is sad sometimes that men who might want to raise a baby might not get the chance if the decision to terminate is taken. Men have little say in that regard. Anything different to that would mean forcing women to have children they don't want and losing control over the rights to their own bodies. This is not a feminist viewpoint, if men were to become pregnant I am sure they would not want to give up rights over their bodies either.

Now that child custody arrangements are changing to include fathers more, the act of raising a child is seen today as not only the domain of the mother but a joint enterprise.

In saying all that there is nothing that is completely equal in this world or even always fair. We can all think of areas where men and women lose out either in policy or in social stigmas and expectations etc. All we can do is muddle along the best we can striving always to be as fair as is possible.

PeterH
You must be a technical person - you are highly analytical in regard to sex and any resultant progeny (babies). Reading your posts are exhausting because you make me really think.

"Women biologically cause sexual desire in men: so does that automatically and necessarily give rise to a moral and legal obligation on women to provide even involuntary services in satisfaction of that interest?"

Women also feel sexual desire even if perhaps men are more driven. Women don't force men to have sex with them, they are not responsible for the decisions of others.

Having a baby is not an 'involuntary service' which is essentially your analogy. It is always a possible outcome of a sexual encounter.
The 'biological imperative' and responsibility falls to both participants.

What happens if that outcome eventuates has to do with the best interests for the child. Who should take responsibility if not those involved in the sex act?

As for women who falsely claim they are on birth control - if one is into casual sex this is always a possibility. Should men take no responsibility for ensuring they possess a condom just in case. It is a bummer for men should this happen or if they feel they have been duped, but the fact is a baby is on the way and will need to be cared for.

People are not forced into sexual liaisons. Some women might find out their 'new; partner is married, these risks are always present in an imperfect world. At best we learn from our mistakes.

Birth control is not fullproof (nor foolproof for that matter). There are many reasons why the pill does not work including antibiotics, gastro, missing a day and general bad luck. It happens.

I know it is not always easy to simplify, people and situations can be quite complex and emotional but I would like to know how it could work better any other way.

Pelican you are a voice of reason in this debate!

Peter H (sigh) <" These women want the privilege, backed by brute force, to treat men as machines for paying women for the babies they have. Otherwise they’d have no objection to repealing the laws forcing men to pay for women’s babies, wouldn’t they?"

Paying women for the babies they have? What about both paying for the babies that BOTH parents have. There is no (and has never been) immaculate conception involved in these pregnancies.
.
Two consenting adults have unprotected sex (I call unprotected sex that which couples have without using condoms and spermicide), and a baby results.
BOTH are equally liable to support this baby after birth.

The laws 'forcing men to pay for women's babies' were enacted in a predominantly male parliament weren't they? They were brought about because the Government did not want to pay for the upbringing of many babies abandoned by their fathers financially in the past.

Where do the nasty feminists come into the picture here, other than supporting the fact that men who play around with energetic sperm-loaded fertility equipment without protection need to pay for the maintenance of the resulting babies, along with the women who agree to play?

Hey, if any man definitely doesn't want a baby to pay for, then keep away from sex altogether.

If they would rather not be celibate, then use condoms, or deal with a pregnancy. It is as simple as that.

Dear Pelly,

Well said.

Dear Suze,

Spot on.

Foxy
No-one’s talking about forcing anyone into sex they don’t consent to.

Suzie and Pelican
You are just circularly insisting on your premise as your conclusion.

Yabby and Squeers
I don’t know whether morality amounts to no more than subjective opinion, but I like the way religious people make up whatever they like, and lay it all to God. Mohammed of Islam was especially good at this. While he decreed a limit of four wives for his followers, he had a special revelation from God allowing him fifteen. “God is great!” he ejaculated.

So why is it morally noble of me to have sex with many, various and beautiful young women? Let me count the ways.

1. I endow the woman with the boon of my seed: may all the little critters thrive. May the earth be covered with our progeny, as different and distant from us as we are from our primitive fishy ancestors. Did they have any contribution from the sire other than his seed? No, and yet they peopled us.
2. I reject the bigotry of dead monks and patriarchs enjoining mouldy tomes of moral nonsense, and the selfish hostility of matrons and feminists motivated by hypocritical greed, and by sexual jealousy of younger women’s charms.
3. I affirm the value of life, and the delights of the bedroom; they gladden the heart and put a smile on the dial; sexually satisfied people are healthier and happier, and this redounds to the benefit of the general population, discouraging crabby war – what price can you put on that?
4. a young woman is far better off being deflowered by a man such as me, who knows what he’s doing, than by some young and clueless jack who has no appreciation but that of a brute for the treasures he destroys;

5. the woman has the choice whether or not to consent, and whether or not to abort, which I cannot veto, and that is as it should be; so it is only right that the pleasure and benefit of rearing the child should be entirely her own, while selflessly and altruistically I claim none myself
6. there are loads of people who want to look after a baby – far more than there are babies to go around. This has the benefit of providing to people who most desperately want children the wonderful experience of looking after them; and a fuller contribution to the child than it could enjoy from me, given my noble priorities.
7. I leave wrinkled older women, in their flats, to look after cats, which is a boon to the population of cats.
8. feminists have just spent the last 40 years telling us how dreadful and terribly unfair patriarchy and marriage are to women. The woman can always obtain contributions the way women did in the absence of the dreaded patriarchy. This will promote female independence, and strike a blow against paternalism.
9. if more men were to follow suit, it would most likely have the effect of increasing the supply of sexual services for still other, more sexually disadvantaged men. Thus it will promote the social justice of assuring to the disadvantaged a more equitable distribution of resources that “we as a society” should guarantee as a basic right;
10. by deconstructing the stereotype of female “need” for male subjugation I promote the cause of *real* gender equity;
11. I provide a good example for the liberation of men from the obligations of the patriarchy which women have hitherto demanded unequally and unfairly for themselves;
12. God, in a personal communication to me, has revealed the urgency, and the importance, of my divine mission, and specifically commanded me to bring sexual pleasure, or ecstasy, to the fragrant, silken, tight young blossoms of the flowery battlefield, and to drink in the music of their sweet sighs and panting.

What could be more noble-minded than that?

PeterH
If nothing else you are hilarious. I guess if you define noble as that pertaining to a 'superior' class in terms of self-bestowed privileges, then you are indeed noble as the day is long.
:)

Dear Peter H.,

This one's for you:

"I blow my pipes, the glad birds sing,
The fat young nymphs about me spring,
The sweaty centaur leaps the trees
And bites his dryad's splendid knees;
The sky, the water, and the earth
Repeat aloud our noisy mirth...
Anon, tight-bellied bacchanals,
With ivy from the vineyard walls,
Lead out and crown with shining glass
The wine's red baby on the grass,

I blow my pipes, the glad birds sing,
The fat young nymphs about me spring,
I am the Lord,
I am the Lord,
I am the Lord of everything!"

Ah Peter, some interesting points!

However your ideas are not new, we can learn much from nature,
as I often point out.

The bonobo is very similar to a chimp, but they only occur in
the DRC, in very small numbers. Like chimps, they are our
closest relatives. They are essentially a matriarchal society.
Sex is their way of solving conflicts, rather then violence.
If a bonobo tribe meets another tribe, rather then fight, they
all have sex. Sex is common between various members, at any
old time, much as you describe. Their societies seem to function
pretty well, for I'd say that will all that sex, males are
far too buggered and content to worrying about fighting and
quite content to let the females run the show.

So they would be as noble as you, you would fit right in,
only you would have to get used to having your partners
slightly hairier then in the past :)

Foxy
LOL

Yabby
LOL, thanks for that. I'm doing this for you too, brother.

Pelican
It’s you who stand for self-bestowed privileges, otherwise there should be no issue that consent is both necessary and desirable; the rest of your argument only assuming what is in issue.

All
Okay well I submit that we should conclude so far THAT:
1. Monogamy is natural in that most people marry, even if only serially or imperfectly or de facto
2. On a promiscuity/monogamy scale, people in general are at neither extreme, but in a range in the middle somewhere, towards the monogamy end of the scale
3. This is probably so because, as a matter of evolution, both monogamy and casual sex successfully reproduced offspring
4. the reason we are at the monogamy end of the scale, is because monogamy was relatively more successful, because of the great benefit to the child of the paternal contribution
5. Men generally show a greater drive for, and initiation and sponsorship of casual sex.
6. This is the occasion of a direct conflict of interest between male and female, the female side claiming on account of their offspring the male’s contribution of resources, which he might otherwise put toward inducing other women to agree to have sex with him.
7. neither contending party can point to an intrinsic ‘natural’ or divine morality in their support.

The issue are
Whether the consent of the man should be required for the paternal contribution; the women in here maintaining, in effect, that threats of fines, tasers, handcuffs, shooting and imprisonment being all the moral justification they need; while decrying the immorality of the violence in rape; and
Whether the paternal contribution is systematically undervalued in the status quo, in that it can be obtained without the man’s consent.

Now, kindly entertain the following hypotheses.

This discussion is only possible because people understand what physical paternity is.

But the eons of evolutionary time when our ancestors did not understand it (4 billion years), are much longer than the relatively short time since people have understood it (c. 10,000 years).

It was during the eons when our ancestors did *not* understand it, that the general patterns of human sexual and reproductive behaviour evolved, including the greater male proclivity for casual sex.

In that case, the social role of the man in the family was not as the children’s father, since no-one knew what that was, but as the mother’s sexual partner.

It was in the woman’s interest to seek a longer-term relationship, since otherwise she would have to obtain the consent and contribution of multiple men, which women don’t like doing for one, let alone for many, as the women in here are proving.

Then, paternity is discovered. But a woman still needs to obtain the consent of the man to get a legal right to his paternal contribution.

She can get his consent either with witnesses, or without. What would she be best advised to do? It would be to get him to give her a solemn undertaking in front of witnesses, wouldn’t it? Preferably his parents, her parents, all her brothers and cousins, and the local druid or priest.

Now the name we have received from Latin for this exchange of undertakings, matrimony, is in English, “mother-money”. And the name we have received from Greek for the corresponding order of society in which *paternity* is thus formally instituted as an obligation on men is patriarchy, or “father-rule”.

Why? It’s obvious. Men and women are *not* equally liable to the consequences of pregnancy, and it’s nonsense to say they are, or that they should be. The consideration that she must give, in order to get his consent, is commensurate with the high value to him of what he must forego. Women universally *wish* men were equally liable, which is why women were the prime movers in setting up patriarchy as the price of mother-money in the first place. Patriarchy was the first feminist revolution.

And what is the response of the monks and feminists to the men? JUST DON’T WANT TO HAVE SEX!

Well that’s great isn’t it? But sorry, it just won’t do.

Peter H. <"... a young woman is far better off being deflowered by a man such as me, who knows what he’s doing, than by some young and clueless jack who has no appreciation but that of a brute for the treasures he destroys;"

One moment please- I just have to go and fetch a bucket.....

Hmmmm....where to start with the above long diatribe from HE WHO IS WISE AND KNOWS IT ALL! (You must have RSI by now?)

Sorry, your version of monogamy still doesn't make sense to me at all. I always learnt that back in ancient times, women depended upon a male mate for protection for herself and their children from wild animals and other tribesmen etc.

The man would go out hunting for big game and bring home the meat for the family/tribe. In return that woman would bare that man's children, keep a clean campsite, cook his food, make his clothes, keep him warm in bed at night, and yes, provide mutual pleasure in the form of sex.

Peter H. <" It was in the woman’s interest to seek a longer-term relationship, since otherwise she would have to obtain the consent and contribution of multiple men, which women don’t like doing for one, let alone for many, as the women in here are proving."

I am assuming by 'consent' you mean agreeing to have sex with the man?
Do you not know that many women like to have sex with a man?
Aren't you making monogamy sound a bit one-sided here?
Maybe the women in your life have been like that, but not any I know.

Maybe you need to review some of your suggested 'conclusions' you outlined above, because 'we' might not all agree with them!

Well which ones do you agree with, if any?

> One moment please- I just have to go and fetch a bucket.....

Do I detect a hint of hostility to men's desire to have sex with many and young women there?

> Sorry, your version of monogamy still doesn't make sense to me at all.

Do I detect a blank uncomprehenstion of the concept of requiring the guy's consent to hand over his income and equity?

> [primitive domestic scene etc.].... and yes, provide mutual pleasure in the form of sex.

Is there a problem with that?

If both parties agree, no issue arises. The issue, is what happens in they don't?

Peter H. <" It was in the woman’s interest to seek a longer-term relationship, since otherwise she would have to obtain the consent and contribution of multiple men...."

> I am assuming by 'consent' you mean agreeing to have sex with the man?

I mean his consent to contribute to the offspring that she had borne.

Unless the deal is to be that he will undertake to contribute all his income and equity, but she won't undertake to have sex; then it is safe to assume it means agreeing to sex.

Notice how this idea is coming with incredible difficulty to the women in this thread?

> Aren't you making monogamy sound a bit one-sided here?

Aren't you? The woman's consent should be required, but not the man's?

I can't improve on PH on all this I'm afraid, he cuts through the crap just as well as his namesake (David Hume) did; I'm all admiration, Sir!

Pelican,
apologies for not having responded sooner; I've been very busy.

Pelican:
<It is really 'nobody's way' if the child is unwanted. Different if of course both participants in the sexual act agree to raise the child even if living apart.

Both partners don't get it 'their way' as both have financial and practical responsibilities for the raising of the child.>

The obvious reply is; if the man has no say in the matter, why should he pay? The woman still holds all the cards. She was just as dissolute as he was--indeed she waived the condom. So what's wrong with a morning-after pill or an abortion? If she decides, the morning after a random bonk, "Oh, I think I'll have it. And he can pay!", when the night before it was just, "F--- me!", How is that fair?
If it's casual, consensual sex, and the woman decides to go ahead with the unexpected pregnancy, then he's absolved of all responsibility! After all, the man gets no say whatsoever, whereas the woman does as she pleases.
The sad thing about feminism is, it's seething with resentment rather than idealism. The conclusion that women are the ultimate conservatives is compelling.

Dear Squeers,

So, in other words,
it's all the reasonable child can expect is -
if its dad is present at the conception?

And, I take it then that
Australian men think feminism means treating
women as sequels...

Foxy,
sorry for dragging you back; I know you've been trying to quit this thread for a while.
I love kids; I have the most adorable one year old twins, and four other kids, and a wife I adore, and a monogamous relationship. But I'm not blind to injustices, on either side of the gender divide.
In my specific scenario it's simply not fair for the woman to make all the decisions on the father's behalf. If no long-term commitment was agreed to, was even ruled out, and is still, why should the man be subject to the woman's whim or change of heart? If the woman decides on an abortion, the man equally has no say. So far as I'm concerned, if the woman is intent upon enforcing her privilege (it is after all her body), regardless of his wishes, she takes full responsibility. Don't forget there are men who would love to form a monogamous relationship and rear the child with her in these circumstances, but he is subject utterly to her will. Is monogamy only a celebrated institution then when it suits the lady's passing fancy? Monogamy is more like expediency, in that case, than how it's been idyllically portrayed by its defenders in this thread.
There are plenty of mothers, also, who were merely there for the conception!
As for feminism, the only sort I have any respect for (and I have infinite respect for 'it') is that which is intent upon radical reform, and not simply securing a larger portion of the greedy pie. It seems to me that the puerile feminists we're currently stuck with are just men in drag!

*So, in other words,
it's all the reasonable child can expect is -
if its dad is present at the conception?*

Foxy, there are a number of women who have turned
to the baster, to inseminate themselves. How fair
is that on the child? Its not illegal.

PH and Squeers do in fact make some valid points.
IMHO from an ethical point of view, both men and
women should stick to whatever they agreed to in
the first place, whatever that be. But legally women
have indeed won out, they get the choices, men pay
the bills. Clearly women have outmanouvered men on
this one and society accepts it as gospel.

Yes, pairbonding and serial monogomy evolved, but
so did polygamy, for very good reasons, which I don't
think have yet been mentioned.

If we examine various tribal cultures, certainly
amongst the Arab tribes and others, there was
usually a surplus of women, due to men spending
alot of time fighting with other tribes, so widows
were common. There was no pension and no Centrelink,
single women had it tough without a partner who had
died in battle.

So those men who survived taking multiple partners,
indeed had evolutionary benefits. For women there
were benefits too. They had constant female company,
even if they had a "headache", it was not an issue
and they had no threat of desertion by the husband.

So would you share your husband with your best friend,
or let her starve ? Its an interesting question

So the argument is from a male POV:
1. Women should be solely responsible should a pregnancy occur
2. Women don't want sex unless for financial gain
3. Men want sex with numerous partners but hold no responsibility
4. Patriarchy was orchestrated by women for financial gain
4. For some reason women get lots of headaches

Men are just as instinctively protective and wedded to the idea of family as women. Even primitive men, as Suze said, went out and hunted food for the tribe. Fatherhood was not 'invented' as such but you don't need to define in modern terms for what might have come naturally to various tribal groups. Regardless whether primitve man knew how children were born, there appears to exist an innate or biological predisposition to protect women and children who were not as physically able to fight off marauding tribes or predators.

Supporting a child out of wedlock (or shared responsibility) is a relatively new phenomenon despite your views about the origin of patriarchy (talk about an interesting historical re-write). Up until the 70s most out of wedlock babies were adopted out, often the man unaware that he had conceived a child. The women made to feel shameful and unchaste.

I have never had casual sex but if I had and ended up pregnant I would frankly not involve the man at all. However some might accuse me of being unfair ie. the man has a right to know he has a child etc. The woman might say, well not if he does not take responsibility in helping to raise the child if your rules were to apply.

Women can't win really. We are either needy parasites that feed off men (according to some) who are just after the money or we are selfish cows who deny the rights of a father to know his child. This is all pretty old fashioned stuff given that these days both partners are usually employed for the most part except for a period of time for some when children are very young.

A side issue but a relevant one - studies about adoption reveal that there is more often than not, even with a happy upbringing with non-biological parents, a need for us to know our roots.

Sometimes adoption might be the best option where there is no other support but it is not always the right option often leading to feelings of abandonment by the children and loss by the mother (and father if he was aware).

I don't know what the answer is to be absolutely 100% fair or even if it is possible to discern what is fair and what is not. Because the issue is the child and how it will be raised, by whom and with what support.

If I got a man pregnant (hypothetically of course) I would want contact with my child and some influence on their life, for them to know their grandparents and for them to know they are loved. Men are not that much different from women. If they were, there would not be the brouhaha over Family Law if men were not equally invested in their children.

Peter Hume: <"spermatozoa* with *men*">

No I'm not - I did mean sperm; nor am I "confused". I was demonstrating that we are all capable of constructing some sort of rationale to support any behaviour we choose, out of what we accept as 'natural'. My rationale is just as viable as yours.

Peter - one thing I wonder about is, if so much of yourself is vested in whether or not you can fertilize lots of females. What else are you?

Who will you be when you can no longer achieve an erection (assuming that anyone wants your erections anyway). Viagra might help you hang on to your identity for a while - but what about when that finally doesn't work?

If men (as you portray them) are only interested in merry copulation - not family; not relationships or intimacy - where are the men placed who can't get sex; are impotent; are infertile?

What's the plan for the bloke of 60 or summin whose health is deteriorating; whose kith and kin will grant him the same amount of consideration, effort and care as he gave them (ie: none).

Peter and Squeers, I don't believe many men just 'bonk' indiscriminately with no thought to the consequences. Are they so blinded by the urge for sex?

For goodness sake, can't men who DEFINITELY' don't want to give money to support their children just say 'NO, wait a minute honey while I just put on this condom-"? If not, why not?

You seem to have no trouble trying to exert your control over women in all other ways!
And I think we all know some men who do agree to take the risk because they don't like wearing condoms.
A few seconds of pleasure for a lifetime of consequences.

No more crying now boys. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

This is the funniest thread i've seen in a long time. The girls are all in a tizz because Peter H has suggested some personal responsibility for their own decisions. Pelican you'r the funniest of all.

Noone has said "Women should be solely responsible should a pregnancy occur", simply that as the woman is the "gateleeper" it's up to her to ensure the portcullis is properly secure before lowering the drawbridge. Women now have control, thanks to the pill, IUDs, and the clear and obvious presence or absence of a condom, so pregnancy is nearly always either intentional or due to a woman's irresponsibility. If she is irresponsible, why should he be held to account? Why is it his responsibility to say "open wide and hand me the speculum, I want to check your diaphragm's in place"? If they hit it off at the nightclub and go back to her place, there's obviously no intent to have kids. If she knows she's ovulating (and who better to know) why is it not her responsibility to exercise restraint?

It's that whole notion of personal responsibility that is so hard, isn't it girls? what you want is authority (the right to determine who you have sex with) but no responsibility for the outcomes produced by exercising your authority. That pretty much sums up why feminism as it's done today is such a contemptible ideology. It doesn't foster self-determination it fosters a demand for handouts and special treatment and lots of "support", but never, ever, ever personal responsibility for women. "Girls can do anything" except take personal responsibility.

Well I am glad I continue to provide some amusement Anti.

Men are also the gatekeepers of their sperm. It has to be released somewhere with the man's permission, it is not a random event out of your control.

You mention personal responsibility but put the onus solely on women.

I am all for personal responsibility which includes who is responsible for the care of the baby - which is at the end of the day is a joint responsibility.

But I suspect this debate will continue to go around in circles as is the nature of these gender based discussions.

Personally, I think that adherence to the "if it's not on, it's not on" rule would sort out those men who wish to engage in casual sex without any responsibility for the consequences. It would also deal with the STDs and STIs that tend to also be unwanted consequences of promiscuous sex.

Whatever happened to 'safe sex'?

Pelican:"You mention personal responsibility but put the onus solely on women."

Don't be silly. Peter H has already shown why the responsibility is clearly the woman's unless the man has expressly "opted in" or has somehow compelled her. Your attitude is a hangover from the days when the woman was unable to meaningfully control her fertility or even to understand when she was fertile and when she was not. Women are not always fertile and most women are aware of their cycle. Many women become especially horny around ovulation. Men are unable to detect a woman's cycle (except on the grossest level), especially when perfumes and makeup enter the picture, so they are unable to make an informed decision not to participate on that basis. Women are.

Does that mean that men should "just say no" on the off chance that she's fertile tonight, or does it mean that if she's fertile and doesn't tell them that the men are somewhat absolved of responsibility? Peter H has expressed it well as you know.

Putting things in perspective on the subject of motherhood, the Courier-Mail yesterday published this http://tinyurl.com/26rvygt from the Save the Children mob. It claims: "AUSTRALIA is the second best country in the world to be a mum but it's a different story for children, a new report has revealed.

On the eve of Mother's Day celebrations, the annual Save the Children report places Australian mothers second only to Norway on key economic, education and health scores.

With an average life expectancy of 84 years and an expected average 21 years of formal schooling, it says Australian women are well placed to give their children the best chance of survival, at least by international standards."

No wonder you lot are so keen to defend your "special", protected, responsibility-exempt status...

When is PH publishing his book on the origins of fatherhood? lol
I thought Peter's summary of the sustainability of marriage was a good one - but beyond that, now , I think he's getting carried away ! After all, most of us live in cities - not caves and centrelink free zones.
Are we all in this family of bloggers committed to deterministic gene programming here ? not me! I think its a bit limiting to see physiological pressures as " without a choice component". Lots of Testoterone can do lots of things other than drive a little bit of fun - boys will be boys, but they can be men too --if you remind them of how to be so ! (http://knowlove.blogspot.com ). Adrenalin and anger , the same.
Moving on - The problem we really share,I think, is that we haven't got a easy socially acceptable way to promote marriage anymore . ( monogamy as i said before. was not early civilized mans' focus, family was - still is the proper focus )
I Pity the poor kids in this country who have only "experiment" as the best bet on offer . Tell me, if you have children, if you think thats OK . This careless subscientific talk doesn't even get past first base ( not objective ,too many variables - like this discussion ) If we can learn much from nature, Yabby, spit it out clearly! I am not against observing and learning , but the Animal instint Analogies used over these 33 pages are to my mind too superficial and artificially connected to animals I have little identification with!
If you use all the new and old pressures of environment and sexual diffentiation and diversion, you still end up with too many variables to make "the experiment" or "the speculation" worthwhile.
The result- most experimentation is out of control and leads to one big headache when you try to think about it .
Take a leap and prove the statistical best bet can work.... by working with it. Your children might appreciate it .

Pelican
It *is* an interesting re-write of history, because the history was writ wrong.

Feminist authors in criticising patriarchy have wrongly assumed as without question that under the new liberated dispensation, men would continue to be obliged to provide for their offspring. It never occurred to them that this was the keystone of the arch they were intent on pulling down.

Firstly let’s clear away all the women’s misrepresentations that I am arguing:
• men are only interested in copulation,
• men bonk
• men aren’t interested in relationships, intimacy, family life, marriage, or children;
• women have no interest in sex but for financial gain
• ‘deterministic’, ‘no choice’ etc. The boot is on the other foot.

Please stop arguing by these repeated misrepresentations; and try to address the issue.

Are men equally liable to the consequences of pregnancy?

As a matter of fact, no. If they were, there would be no issue.

The question is, should they be as a matter of morality?

Given that it is not a fact, those who assert the moral value that men should be, need to show reasons. But so far they haven’t done that; they’ve just endlessly argued in a circle that the facts necessitate the values. They don’t, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But if they do, then the same argument is equally available to men.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose a man’s consent was required. Well, what’s wrong with that? Why should that not be the rule?

What would be the downside if men’s consent was required? Well firstly if a woman wants a man’s contribution she would have to give fair value for it. So? What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t she have to?

It may be said that the child might be worse off without his contribution. No doubt that’s true, but that is to argue that the value of the man’s contribution is *higher*, not lower; and should be more respected, not less.

No-one is saying women should be solely responsible for looking after children. I am saying that those who want to, those who voluntarily undertake the obligations and the pleasures, have every right to do so - but not a “right” to threaten others for involuntary contributions. The mother doesn’t have to look after the child herself. To say the child would be worse off is to re-affirm the value of men, who should be honoured, not despised therefore.

If the mother has decided to look after the child she can make the living herself; and get help in other ways for example from the grandparents.

But even with all the restrictive occupational licensing these days, there is always one well-paid occupation with flexible hours that needs no licence - a highly valuable service in which women have a peculiar advantage. Why should not the woman earn the money by her own abilities?

It never seems to have occurred to feminist authors that, without the dreaded patriarchy, a woman might placed be in the position she was in *before* patriarchy and its premise of paternal responsibility.

But why not? What’s wrong with that? Aren’t the women in here coyly assuming that men should be forced to pay money, so as to save the women from having to earn the money by providing sexual services to other, more numerous, men? Well what’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t they?

A woman can *consent* to have sex she doesn’t *want*; just as a man can *consent* to do work that he doesn’t *want* to do. The argument of some feminist authors that unwanted sex is rape, is wrong. Unwanted sex that a woman consents to, is no more rape, than men’s ordinary employment is slavery.

No doubt most women thought that, if they were going to providing unwanted but consensual sexual services for supplementary provision, they would be better off doing it for one man, than for many.

The Taoists maintain that “monogamy is mutually injurious”; and *near* monogamy is the human norm. It is bad enough for a man to have to forego the sexual favours of all other possible women, for the familiarity and monotony of one, without being unsure even of that one!

It is not an equal compensation to him, as it is to her, to know that the child is provided for because he, but not she,
a) can beget other children where she can’t, and
b) has a greater interest in casual sex than she does.

Thus men for their part, took care to stipulate for “obey” in the woman’s vows – meaning, have sex when he wants. But this is not because the women is being wronged or oppressed by her agreeing to such an undertaking. It is because, without it, he is!

Thus I maintain that patriarchy was the first feminist revolution.

Feminist authors have mistakenly argued that prostitution was morally despised under patriarchy, because men are so beastly and women so oppressed etc. I maintain that explanation is facile and wrong. Men actually like, and tend to be favourably disposed to women who favour them with their charms. It’s women who most despise and vilify prostitutes, and castigate them as sluts, because under patriarchy the prostitute represents scab labour as against the women’s cartel for driving up the price of sexual services, namely, marriage. That is why prostitutes are called ‘cheap’, even though they earn more than most other women.

Pynchme
> My rationale is just as viable as yours.

Thank you for conceding the general issue. There is no more justification for forcing men to submit to being treated as money objects, than there is to force women to submit to being treated as sex objects.

And I’m not arguing in favour patriarchy mind you. Nor am I arguing that people should be forced to do anything, as the conservatives and as the feminists are. People should be free to do what they want, so long as they are not aggressing against others. What’s wrong with that?

Truish PH. Just as Vidal's assessment is true--though treated as satire by those who condemn free thought from their absolute vantage of moral superiority. Even the 'Romantics' were against the institution of marriage, deeming it a 'mind forged manacle'. Let's not forget too that one of the Romantics' seminal thinkers was the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who lived in sin with William Godwin and died after birthing Mary Wollstonecraft/Godwin/Shelley. Mary got the latter surname from Percy Shelley, with whom she lived a life of free love (having several babies). They only married, eventually, so as to appear 'respectable,' and to secure the adoption of Percy's kids by his first wife. They were deemed unfit.
Among other things, in her 'A Vindication of the Rights of Women', Wollstonecraft argued that femininity, over-refinement, sensibility, concern with appearances and seductiveness were parts of a false consciousness fostered by males. Among other 'cultivations' of the women of her day she listed: "reputation over genuine modesty; looks over reason and understanding; sensibility over physical and mental vigour; and deceit and cunning over love".
William Godwin said it was absurd to think the inclinations of two human beings should coincide over long periods of time, deeming marriage as inevitably leading to some 'portion of thwarting, bickering and unhappiness'. The 'evil' of marriage imposes a yolk upon the romantic delusions of youth, after which each is obliged 'to make the best of an irretrievable mistake'. They become the 'dupes of falsehood' and 'shut their eyes upon reality'. 'The institution of marriage is a system of fraud', whose crippling effects spread to all other aspects of judgement. We ought to unceasingly 'search after virtue and worth', but we must 'check our inquiry and shut our eyes upon the most attractive and admirable objects'. Moreover, while we deny ourselves, we must strain perennially to perceive those attractions we forego in the gossip and grim visage of her to whom we're bond! Marriage is a bad habit with all the accoutrements of respectability, so that its very inmates wax sanctimonious in its defense, and take spurious comfort from their conventional entrapment.

*but the Animal instint Analogies used over these 33 pages are to my mind too superficial and artificially connected to animals I have little identification with!*

Ah Hanrahan, because you live out of touch with nature, you might
think yourself very different, but you could also just be kidding
yourself. I remind you that just 500 grandmothers back, which
is a blink in genetic terms, your ancestors did live in caves!

What we notice, if we look closer, is many things that are common
amongst many species, including ours. You share something like
98% of your dna with chimps and bonobos, so like it or not,
they are your long lost relatives :)

Nobody is claiming that genes determine behaviour, simply that
they have a huge influence on behaviour, including sexual
behaviour.

The urge to have a baby, thus a change in sexual habits, the feelings
of gushes of oxytocin bonding mothers and babies, etc, they
are all common amongst many species and they sure do affect womens
actions! Motherly love is not just about choice. Have you never
heard a mother saying that she doesen't like her children but
that she loves them? Its not magic, but hormones and genes at work.

Similarly males are commonly born with an urge to penetrate and
impregnate vaginas on a regular basis, some more then others,
but its still a natural urge. Its probably more difficult for
married guys, when that vagina happens to be a few inches away,
but is not available.

If women regularly had swollen clitorises and could not sleep,
because hubby was not in the mood, perhaps their perceptions of
what it is like for some males, might be a little different.

PH I thought I was addressing the issue but am obviously missing some vital point.

Most sex happens in the passion or heat of the moment and sometimes contractual arrangements are not entered into prior to penetration ie. Do you all solemnly swear should a child result from this liaison that all parties share responsibility, or if (say) the man says no I won't and the woman still proceeds with that knowledge and signs the contract. I wonder if the men would still like that arrangement if most of the time it meant casual sex was no longer available.

Humans tend not to be business like about sex - it might even ruin the moment but even if they were and a pregnancy occurs would a man really feel comfortable with leaving the mother with the burden of responsibility?

I know PH is talking about his discomfort with the idea of forcing a man to make a contribution rather than it being a voluntary decision, but do we really want taxpayers to foot the bills for others' casual sexual liaisons? That is the reality - in the end someone has to foot the bill and what is fairer than the parents of the child.

Yabby
It might be the same for women whose husbands are no longer interested in sex or sex with them. Or who become impotent for medical reasons.

One has three choices, stay under those conditions, stay and have affairs or leave. Perhaps it is easier for women to be celibate - having not been in the shoes of a man I could not say.

No-one is forced to remain in an unsatisfactory arrangement.

Pelican,
the trouble is that women can and do deny the father any meaningful role in the child's upbringing, contenting herself with his fortnightly cheque! What if the man had that kind of power; "I'll take the baby dear, and here's my bank account number". How would that be?

But this is getting boring.
I'd just observe, en passant, that it's interesting how this debate is utterly polarised along gender lines. Which would suggest that none of us are thinking objectively--or even subjectively! Both sexes are thinking cohort thought, identity politics. What a dreary race we are!
Adieu

Are we done yet?

I think we can all agree that there is
likely to be a wide range of alternatives
that will be tolerated in the future to
traditional marriage and family arrangements
in the context of the growing individualism
of our society. Such as single-parent families,
cohabitation, serial monogamy, reconstituted
families, childless couples, communes, "open"
marriage, gay couples and gay-parent families,
and of course - remaining single.

As for navigating sexual territory - the choice
is (as it's always been),
up to each individual, to do what is right
for them.

I can only speak from my own experience. I was
lucky enough to find a grown man who was capable
of loving fully, with all of his heart. The most
vital, playful, joyful human being, with an
energetic life force born of a strong family
upbringing. His honesty, devotion, and unconditional
love bound us together in an inseparable state of
familial bliss that has been unshaken to this day.
We've worked alongside each other from day one.
And I'm grateful for that, because I know that's
a tough thing to do for a lot of people because,
for some, there always has to be a chief.

Anyway, I think that I've said all I really wanted
to on this thread - and once again - Thanks to you
all for having contributed.

Thanks for an interesting thread Foxy. It certainly was an interesting if not predictable debate.

Squeers
I was assuming equal access to the child concerned. I have always said that while a man has a financial responsbility (as does the woman) he should not be curtailed from the experience of fatherhood by a recalcitrant mother (excepting any abuse issues on either side in which case a different story).

We are a dreary race, but there is very little new in human experience (maybe space travel is one). :)

Pelican:"do we really want taxpayers to foot the bills for others' casual sexual liaisons?"

That is largely what happens now. The chils support scheme doesn't actually recover much monet from those who are not willing to pay, or who are not in a position to, such as the unemployed including the wilfully unemployed. What it does do is to create a great deal of conflict between parents through misadministration of the scheme. It also gives a vindictive woman an easy tool, since all she has to do is ring tham and say "he owes" and watch him scramble to prove that he doesn't for the next several weeks, all with no possible negative consequence for her.

It causes people to remain tied together financially in the worst possible circumstance, often when they simply can't stand the sight of each other and it is responsible for thousands of men suiciding ove the past 20 years. All that and it isn't even necessary in 75% of cases, based on the CSA's own figures for "private collect" arrangements.

Far better to make the child support cost a levy on all taxpayers. It's about time the Severins of this world were held to account for their selfish decision not to contribute to the future generation that is going to be needed to care for them in their dotage, as well as the men who simply wanted to get a leg over but managed to plant a baby.

The CSA boasts that it administers the transfer of $2.6billion each year, which works out to about $250 per taxpayer per year. About $5 per week. Isn't that a cheap price to pay to see an end to the conflict, violence, suicide and depression that is a considerable consequence of the current scheme's administration?

Or are you ideologically wed to the idea that if the woman must carry the child, the man must pay, even if he took her word that she was not fertile at the the time? I suspect the latter - to do otherwise is simply too large a step away from patriarchal protection.

Anti
Fertility is not an exact science which is why even those good Catholics following the rhythm often become pregnant. I wouldn't really have a clue when I was fertile, I seemed to be fertile most of the month (seemingly) and fell pregnant as soon as my husband looked at me. I am not seeking patriarchal protection merely equally shared responsibility. There is a difference.

The issue is complex. I can understand a man who was out for a quick one nighter, finding himself a father, would be bewildered by the sudden responsibility. The woman feels the same. The fact is if the child has been born who takes care of it?

Perhaps if we go down your route of a tax levy, we could use some of those mining taxes to support these one night stand babies. :) (That was for Yabby)

I am all for supporting families but ideally people should take at least some financial responsibility for their own actions, women and men included, even if there is some government support to back it up.

The suicide rate for men is indeed deplorable. Often men were in a no win situation, paying CS, only being able to afford a one bedroom flat, meaning no visitation by his own children. I agree it was a situation that needed changing.

As for the comment about Severin - totally uncalled. My talked about a levy they paid for retirement via taxes and suddenly ...wallah...what happened to that money? I don't subscribe to the idea that we should all have children just to support us in old age. There are plenty of other worthy economic measures that only needed careful forethought and planning to ensure a retirement income.

Those who choose not to have children have also paid taxes, probably in most cases for longer than those who took a break to raise their children. And even if this wasn't the case, we are not a developing nation, a universal safety net protects us all in the event of illness, disability or other unforseen circumstances.

Sorry bad editing on my part. I should have written "my parents talked about a levy".

Anti

>> It's about time the Severins of this world were held to account for their selfish decision not to contribute to the future generation that is going to be needed to care for them in their dotage.. <<

WTF?

I have paid taxes ALL my life.

I am moving home to a regional area to care for my frail mother.

BTW. I didn't even notice this absurd little comment of Anti's until reading Pelican's stream of reason.

I also provide care for my niece and nephew when needed.

Anti - questions for you.

Are women wrong for having children and expecting men to share in responsibility for raising them?

Or

Are women wrong for NOT having children and relying on their taxes and super to provide for them in their frail old age?

Anti - women are just plain wrong in everything, right?

pelican,

'The issue is complex. I can understand a man who was out for a quick one nighter, finding himself a father, would be bewildered by the sudden responsibility. The woman feels the same. The fact is if the child has been born who takes care of it? '

Nice how you fast forward past the stage where the woman has had all the rights in deciding what will happen.

At the moment, a woman has full 'reproductive rights' (ie abortion rights), but a man has no reproductive rights.

To solve this, a man should be able to sign up for a pseudo-abortion. ie. he signs a declaration saying he does not want the child, and can not be involved at all in the child's life, and bares no financial responsibility at all. He cant kill the child, but he can be dead to the child.

This gives men the right to abortion that women have exclusively held.

This choice must happen before the same deadline of gestation for women to abort. Then the woman can either abort or continue with the pregnancy with all the facts. The flaw of course is for women who decide to keep it a secret until after this time, but there would have to be a law of disclosure for her if she wants child support later.

So, a man and woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. At this stage...

a) The woman may choose to abort, regardless of the wishes of the man.
b) A woman may have the baby, regardless of the wishes of the man.
c) The man may pseudo-abort regardless of the wishes of the woman.
d) The man wants the child, but the woman still aborts regardless of the wishes of the man.

So, even though women will still have more 'reproductive rights' than men, this would be a small step in the right direction.

Of course this ignores the vast vast majority of cases where the man and the woman both want the child and happily accept their responsibility for that choice.

Bravo! Houellebecq

Dear Houellebecq,

Apparently your suggestion has already
been tried in the US and was not accepted
by the Court of Appeals. I refer you to the
following website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights

I suggest you start your own thread on
the subject of "Men's Rights."
I'm sure that it would be of great interest
to quite a few people.

*Perhaps if we go down your route of a tax levy, we could use some of those mining taxes to support these one night stand babies. :) (That was for Yabby)*

Sorry but the idea would be a dismal failure, for good reasons.
Just imagine if all of us sensible fellas started charging out
there, filling you girls up with grog and knocking you off with
impunity. Babies everywhere! Even robbing the mining industry
could not pay for it :)

I say again- if all men who didn't want to impregnate women just wore condoms at all times when having sex, we wouldn't have this supposed problem of all these money mad women rushing out to have babies.

How come none of you aggrieved, anti single mother brigade haven't answered that question?

We all know that the bulk of fathers in the family court system have had their children willingly before their relationships broke up.

They are then asked to financially continue to provide financial assistance in bringing up the children after the relationship breaks up.

That's not quite the same as all these men supposedly rushing out to have loads of casual sex without condoms and regardless of any contraception the women may or may not be on, the women become pregnant and then demand financial support.

Keep it on or don't do it- it's that simple for all you boys who want to act like man-whores out there!

Suze, for once and for alltimes, finally get it through your head,
condoms ruin great sex. So people commonly avoid using them.

Perhaps your vagina has never noticed that, but I assure you
that many penises do.

>> condoms ruin great sex. So people commonly avoid using them.

Perhaps your vagina has never noticed that, but I assure you
that many penises do. <<

Then be responsible for the consequences.

Ever heard of "vasectomy"?

Oh I forgot - it's all about you, isn't it Yabby? I guess you don't concern yourself with your partner's sexual satisfaction either if you're not too concerned about her getting pregnant. Sex is about far more than just penises and vaginas - I guess you never realised that, being stuck out in the bush with only sheep for company.

___________________________________________________________________

To those whose maturity stopped at learning to stick their thumbs in their mouths - start research into genetic engineering for males to become pregnant and bear children. Clearly you believe women are completely useless at pregnancy and raising children. Until then, restart your arrested development, and act like most adults (male and female) do and deal with the reality.

Whether one is monogamous or not, access to to contraception and family planning is a necessity and finally, what really matters is that children are wanted, loved and cared for.

*Oh I forgot - it's all about you, isn't it Yabby?*

No Severin, its about explaining to people like you and Suze,
the very basics of human behaviour, which happens globally.

If you still don't get it, when I put it in very plain
language, then you never will.

Suze,

Just to clarify.

I'm only talking about 'reproductive rights' (ie abortion rights), a common feminist issue where women are 'disadvantaged'.

'We all know that the bulk of fathers in the family court system have had their children willingly before their relationships broke up.

@'They are then asked to financially continue to provide financial assistance in bringing up the children after the relationship breaks up.'

As they should! I agree. My scenario is purely to bring equality into reproductive rights. Women are fighting for their rights, in a search for 'equality' in this realm, oblivious to the fact they have so many more rights than men.

'Keep it on or don't do it- it's that simple for all you boys who want to act like man-whores out there!'

Sounds like the advice to women on how to avoid rape that offends feminists so. Why is it so hard for you to accept men want the same reproductive rights as women? Women have all these rights and 'still have a long way to go' apparently to secure their 'rights' to abortion. Men have no right to abortion at all.

Foxy,

Good link..."after a woman has a baby, in Michigan and elsewhere, she has the right to give up that baby for adoption. If she exercises that right, she cuts off her own financial responsibility to the child, along with other parental rights and responsibilities. A man, by contrast, may not relinquish his financial responsibility for an unwanted child unless the biological mother shares his wish to give up the child for adoption."

Men are far behind women in reproductive rights. We have a long way to go before we have true equality for men in reproductive rights.

It's overdue!

Severin:"Ever heard of "vasectomy"?"

Ever heard of "tubal ligation"? What's sauce for the goose...

Besides, why get so dramatic? what's wrong with a diaphragm, IUD, spermicidal gels, even (gasp) the pill? why must the man submit to surgery or suffer unsatisfying sex so you can disclaim responsibility?

As for "I paid taxes", so have I. I've also fathered two kids to form the next generation and paid the cost of raising them, you haven't. why should you be exempted from paying part of the cost of raising the next generation when it's clearly to your benefit have that next generation available? What if everyone made that decision for their own selfish reasons, like you did? Would we just import it from somewhere else?

Pelican:"I wouldn't really have a clue when I was fertile, "

I bet you knew when you weren't "protected" though, didn't you?

Get off it anti, nobody has kids 'for the future of society'. That's a load of bollocks.

Breeders saying childless people are selfish, childless people saying breeders' kids are annoying and they're sick of paying middle class welfare for other peoples life choices. I'm sick of them all I tell ya!

It's a sad day when someone like me can rightfully say to so many people on this thread to grow up!

Dear Antiseptic,

To have a child or not is such a
personal decision and should only
involve the people concerned. Blaming
it on one gender or another is looking
at things through a very narrow lens,
and doesn't achieve anything constructive.
Each situation is different. The same goes
for birth control. Vasectomy, IUD or whatever,
that's an individual decision that should be
made by the people involved. Some women can't
tolerate an IUD, - their bodies reject
it or they end up with fibroids. Some men the
prospect of a vasectomy is totally abhorrent.
Again - it's a personal decision.

The same goes for having children. Whether to have
the child, or not, to raise it together or not,
is a decision that both the people involved
should make. If the father waives his responsibilities
by deserting the mother - then of course he has no
further rights in the matter if the mother decides to
go ahead with having the child. But if he accepts his
responsibilities and wants the child, then of course he
should have equal rights as a parent.

But then we all know that - I can't understand why
we're even discussing it - like it's some new
discovery. Why does gender even have to come into
these discussions? And why does it have to be so
predictably hostile? And often personal? We're
strangers - we don't really know each other -
so why does this have to happen - lighten up!

The standard of debate here is APPALLING!

@Severin: 'Clearly you believe women are completely useless at pregnancy and raising children.' WTF? WhoTF said that? Grow up man.

@suze: 'supposed problem of all these money mad women rushing out to have babies.' WTF? 'ggrieved, anti single mother brigade' WT? Where has anyone mentioned single mothers or women being money mad women?

Peter H spent a lot of time explaining his philosophical arguments about breaking down the patriarchy in places where men are constrained, they were interesting theoretical and unemotionally and reasonably put. I made a simple point about 'reproductive rights' for men.

But look at the pathetically childish waah waah responses.

It seems impossible for some to look at a topic in a purely objective, theoretical, non-emotional level. Just like benk asking quite reasonably 'how does someone taking pictures of clothed/semi-clothed kids in public hurt anyone regardless of whether he's a paedo.' on another thread.

He got crucified with all this emotional irrational hateful misrepresentations.

Not often you have to say this on OLO, but the women need to lift their game this time!

PS: anti also, but who's gonna hold their breath for that one.

To summarise the whole last part of the thread...

Women hold all the rights in the event of a mistake in the use of contraception in the decision of whether to abort or continue with a pregnancy.

Therefore they should rightfully hold more responsibility in the use of contraception in the first place, to match their superior rights.

Men should protect themselves from this inequality and their lack of power over failed contraception by accepting the reality of the situation. Just as women should not walk alone down dark alleys in lingerie and shout 'rape condoner' to anyone who tells them this is a dangerous thing to do, men should wear a condom.

Houellebecq:"nobody has kids 'for the future of society"

Talking about crap debating standards...

I didn't say they did. i simply pointed out that if everyone made the selfish decision not to have kids, there would be no next generation, therefore having kids is a public good which parents pay for. why should the wilfully childless not also have a share of the cost, since they will reap the benefit of having that next generation around?

BTW, do try to keep up in future.

Foxy:"Blaming it on one gender or another"

Have you been to the Houellebecq school of debating irrelevancies recently? I'm not "blaming it" on anybody, merely pointing out that the decision is a selfish one, whoever makes it. Dear me, Foxy, you used to be smarter than that. If kids are worthwhile and we as a community seem to think they are, then we as acommunity should be making sure they're properly provisioned. Why should only part of the community bear the cost while others feather their own nests?

Foxy:"Vasectomy, IUD or whatever,
that's an individual decision that should be
made by the people involved."

Not according to Severin. Apparently a amn has a choice between a condom, vasectomy and celibacy as far as she's concerned and women need not take any responsibility at all. Beats me how she's remained childless.

Ah anti, the childless are forever paying for schools and hospitals and FTB and childcare rebates and soon maternity leave. I say they do their fair share. Lets not forget a lot are not childless by choice.

'I didn't say they did. '
Yes but your argument is so close to that it doesn't matter. You're attempting to put up someone who doesn't have kids as selfish, so that, oh, that means...since I have kids.... man I'm not selfish.

'I'm not "blaming it" on anybody, merely pointing out that the decision is a selfish one, whoever makes it.'

How is someone who doesn't have kids more selfish. Having children is selfish. I had children for PURELY selfish reasons. I wanted kids.

Having kids or not is equally selfish, and claiming people who don't have kids are more selfish is claiming you're somehow taking into account the needs of society in some way when you choose to have kids. And that more than a little bit bullsh1t.

Such a weak, weak argument. Severin (Who I cant stand so I'm doubly pissed off to be defending her) also said she cares for others children and elderly people. Why do you see it as some sort of competition. Why do you feel the need to berate the childless or put breeders up as better people? What do you gain?

'Apparently a amn has a choice between a condom, vasectomy and celibacy as far as she's concerned '
She never said that. You're getting more like her every day with these over-emotive misrepresentations.

You two are like peas in a pod.

Dear Antiseptic,

"Oh, okay, so you believe my style isn't
suiting you and you feel that I'm not as
smart as I could be. Oh, gosh, okay.
Well, I'm happy to discuss it with you.
Um, it's Friday now, so how about some time
after the week-end, if you'd like it done
this week. Let's make a time now and then
we can get back to where we were." ...

Dear Houellebecq,

Thanks for your input.

Houellebecq:"Lets not forget a lot are not childless by choice."

And let's not forget many men are not fathers by choice, yet still they must pay...

The fact remains that the current generations require fresh generations in order that they may live their dotage in some comfort. The cost of raising a child is significant and those who do so are effectively subsiding those who choose not to or indeed are unable to.

Houellebecq:"Why do you feel the need to berate the childless or put breeders up as better people?"

I do neither, simply point out that people who raise children have additional costs and other burdens compared to those who don't. A truly fair society such as I'm sure Severin would claim to support, would ensure that those who could not or would not contribute through their reproductive organs could do so via their financial contributions.

Houellebecq:"She never said that."

she implied it - "Then be responsible for the consequences.

Ever heard of "vasectomy"?"

Dear me, the debating standards...

Dear Foxy, it seems that is Severin's preference, is it yours?

Anti

>> Not according to Severin. Apparently a amn (sic) has a choice between a condom, vasectomy and celibacy as far as she's concerned and women need not take any responsibility at all. Beats me how she's remained childless. <<

You don't ever read my posts do you? You just react.

I suggested a vasectomy to Yabby who is single, past middle age and has stated that he prefers to remain single. Therefore, a vasectomy would be basic common sense. Even so, to avoid STD's, condoms are the most ideal solution. Besides, no professional sex-worker would accept unprotected sex.

Contraception is the responsibility of both sexes. That you suggest that I think otherwise is what leads me to consider you do not think my (and other's) posts through at all.

My childless status would be understood by you if you had actually read my contributions over the past two years.

Houllie

If you don't like me, that means I must be going something right. You may be surprised (although you really should be more aware) to know that you are not someone I have the slightest interest in impressing.

Foxy

I am sure you never intended this level of vitriol. Incredible.

My final word, monogamy appears to work for most people, but not all. For those who do not wish to be in a monogamous relationship, it behoves them to take responsibility for their own contraception. All of which should be bleeding obvious, but apparently not for some.

*My childless status would be understood by you if you had actually read my contributions over the past two years.*

Basically she's on the shelf and of course menopause and all that :)

See the bright side Severin, you won't need to worry about the pill
anymore.

Well, I didn't even know severin was of the fairer sex before this thread! And I have no idea why she hasn't had kids (not that having kids should be de rigueur--the easiest accomplishment there is).
Severin, it's not vitriol and we're not all brutes; men seem to see dispassionate debate as a virtue, perhaps forgetting that it remains only pseudo-objectivity they prize so highly. It's all machismo, perhaps?
Anyway, I value your contributions.

Dear Anti,

I really don't have that much more to say.
Except that I was brought up with the
understanding that if you want to see
change, you can't sit around and wait
for someone to do it for you. You have to
make it happen. Personally I want to see
true active equality, not the practice of
accusing one gender while excusing the
other. I have two sons that I love deeply, and
I wished for them (the same as I would have done
if I had a daughter) and that was -
that they would grow into
decent human beings - (which they have done much
to my joy and pride).

As for my preference of contraception?
That - as I've stated previously
is a matter of personal choice for each
individual to decide. However, even school
children know about the dangers of unprotected sex.
The use of condoms would seem mandatory in
the current climate of STDs.
But I'm sure you already know this.

Dear Severin,

I must apologise for the uncalled for remarks
made against you on this thread. But don't
pay any attention. These remarks reflect more
on the person making them, then they do on you.
You always say what you think, which some people
may not like, but that's their problem, not yours.
I respect and admire you tremendously. And it's
always a pleasure reading your posts.

Houellebecq, <'Why is it so hard for you to accept men want the same reproductive rights as women? Women have all these rights and 'still have a long way to go' apparently to secure their 'rights' to abortion. Men have no right to abortion at all."

I have finally worked you out H! You have uterine envy!
Here's the thing H, no matter how equal men and women are in other ways- you men will never have a say in our uterine activity.
Get over it.

Yabby, I have never had to have harsh words with you before, but I am really disappointed in your nasty comments to Severin.

It is no one else's business why she or anyone else has not has children- least of all you. That's getting way too personal.

Suzeonline:"you men will never have a say in our uterine activity. "

and yet you women demand a "say" in our penile activity. Entitled much, lovey?

Foxy:"Personally I want to see
true active equality, not the practice of
accusing one gender while excusing the
other."

Yet you can't help jumping in whenever a woman is questioned by a man. Yabby would probably point out that this is simply a natural female response of "closing ranks" whenever one of those awful men comes around. It is that response which is at the heart of the gender wars, it seems to me. Any utterance by a man that is not gushing in its praise for women has only to be objected to by a woman and there'll be a flock of birds around all squawking indignantly, flapping their beaks and making an awful racket. It makes rational discussion about any subject relating to gender almost impossible and is why I started being actually vitriolic - may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

You see, I believe we reached equality in this country some time ago and all of the so-called "discrimination" is no more than the buffer in the system. Social structures are large and unwieldy and the people within them live for a long time. As we saw with the "baby boom", demographic changes take a long time to make their full effects known sometimes. Simply adding more feminist ideology to a society that is already saturated with it will not create a better society, since the response time is relatively slow.

It is time Western women stopped thinking about what their society can do for them and started thinking a bit more about what they can offer in return. It's that old responsibility thing that some seem to dislike so much.

Squeers (yup, it's true by accident of birth I was born a female), Foxy and Suzeonline - thanks for the kind words.

Apparently stating that both sexes are responsible for safe sex and contraception is an attack on all the good blokey blokes whose 'wisdom' is oft expressed on the pages of OLO.

However, I still believe in sex being a two-way kind of thing. In fact, I forgot to add that respect is an important part of the sex act.

Respect means that you use a condom to protect against STD's, take a contraceptive pill or (if not wishing to be a parent ever) have a vasectomy (a simple surgical procedure) or, indeed, have a tubal ligation (a major surgical procedure). None of these procedures are 100% effective, however humans have more options than now than at any other time in history.

Frankly, I don't understand the anger that erupts from the same group of posters every time sex is mentioned. I have my ideas, but, as I don't know any of them (apart from Yabby's age and marital status, Antiseptic's estrangement from his son) the assumptions I could make are simply that, assumptions based only on what I have read here.

Severin, I'm pleased to see you're starting to grasp the concept of a mutual responsibility. It makes a lovely change from "I'm a girl so you hate me" which is the usual drivel we've come to expect from you.

Severin: "Antiseptic's estrangement from his son"

Huh? the boy lives with me 50% of the time and I pick him up from school every afternoon, whether he's at my place or Mum's.

As my daughter says "nice try. bzzzt, fail"

Who's children are going to be looking after you when you're old and frail and even less rational?

I was bailing out of this thread but what the heck.

Anti said "I bet you knew when you weren't "protected" though, didn't you?"

You are the one that raised the issue of fertility - I simply responded.

Yes to answer your question, I imagine most participants in the sex act would know if they were protected or not except in the case of rape if one was drugged or paraletic. I don't participate in casual sex, never have - I prefer to feel something for my partner. Not that there is anything wrong with casual sex if it suits you (I feel like Seinfeld).

This thread is becoming typical of the usual gender issues - basically no-one wants to take responsibility and even those who normally denigrate government welfare and interference are quite happy for others to pick up the tab for their one night stands.

I am not unsympathetic to the man's position and to the men who end up paying CS for children that turn out not to be his, nor to a woman who finds herself pregnant and having to go it alone. I reckon if the man has done a bunk on responsiblity then the child is probably better off without him.

Thankfully most people do the responsible thing. Just goes to show we should all think carefully about the consequences of our actions.

Dear Antiseptic,

It seems that you really aren't reading
some of the posts on this thread. Taking
responsibility for your own actions has
been repeated over and over again.
Re-read what Pelican, Severin, myself,
and others, are actually saying.

As for who's going to look after us in
our old age? Are you seriously expecting
to burden your children with that
responsibility? That's extremely selfish
of you, and it's not something that would
have even occurred to many of us. I, like many
others, intend to plan for my old age - and
my retirement, and to ensure that I'm not a
burden to anyone. I'm surprised that you
would suggest anything else.

My wish for my children, and
your children, and other children,
is that they have the freedom to make their
own choices in life and that they be happy
in those choices. Also, that they will always
feel loved and safe.

It would be great if the world was a bit slower
for our next generation and that they had
cracked the nut of better work and life balance.
We need to redefine our definition of "success."
Not all people, including me, define themselves
through their careers - we need to create a society
where all choices are respected. Finally,
my advice to the next generation
would be to respect themselves,
and care about others and the world around them.

I'm now pulling out of this thread.
Thanks to everyone for your responses.
Perhaps Anti can start a new thread on either
"Men's Rights," or "Women's Rights," and call it
"Freedom of Choice?"

Anti

I recall you complaining on another thread that your son had been 'brainwashed' by your ex and was too afraid to see you. I am pleased to know that you have worked things out.

As for who will care for me in my dotage? Dunno. Am doing what I can and I come from a line of very astute and long-lived people - no history of dementia.

However, I do know that having children doesn't guarantee that the 'old man' will be cared for in his frail old-age.

I wish you luck.

Foxy, Suze et al, see you all on another thread. Have a wonderful weekend.

Severin:"
I recall you complaining on another thread that your son had been 'brainwashed' by your ex and was too afraid to see you"

then you recall incorrectly. some years ago my son was forced, by his mother, wfo was standing beside him, but just out of sight of me, to stand behind a locked screen door while I put his birthday present on the lamding and tell me "I can't open the door Daddy, becasue Mum says you might hurt me". That was at the height of her campaign to achieve sole custody, at which you might recall she was spectacularly unsuccessful, with the final decision being to increase my share of the custody to 5 days a fortnight from 4 and moving to equally-shared care from there.

You see dear, no matter how you like to try to paint me as some kind of monster, the fact remains that I am a father who my kids love deeply and you remain a bitter, childless crone, who blames men for a situation that you have engineered for yourself. Sad, but your problem. It's a shame you can't get over it, for your own sake.

Foxy, you have a very narrow view. Every old person, whether they are in care or living in their home, requires some support to live well. I ahve no doubt that I will end up in some form of care facility at some stage and when i do someone's kids will be looking after me. People like you and I have helped to make that possible for people like Severin to have that assistance available. We have spent a great deal of our own resources on that investment in the future, whilce Severin has spent all her resources on herself. Why should she get a free ride?

Dear Anti,

Are you for real?

Nobody gets a "free ride," as you put it.

People pay dearly for staff to look after them
in Aged Care Facilities. They end up selling
their family homes to be able to afford
Aged Care. A "Free-Ride,"
doesn't come into the picture. You need
to look into the costs involved of these places.
And you seriously need to have a re-think about
the burdens your children will have to face
unless you provide for yourself in your old
age, (for your funeral as well),
as any responsible person will do.

Antiseptic wrote in his post above to me, the following:

>> You see dear, no matter how you like to try to paint me as some kind of monster, the fact remains that I am a father who my kids love deeply and you remain a bitter, childless crone, who blames men for a situation that you have engineered for yourself. Sad, but your problem. It's a shame you can't get over it, for your own sake. <<

Anti, a question or few.

Now that you have released that festering piece of vitriol from your system, are you feeling any better?

Are you more compassionate?

Tolerant?

Understanding?

Empathic?

Even more considerate?

I hope so.