*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.