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.