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!