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