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?