# "We know how to treat a lady."



## CoryKS (Sep 18, 2009)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/18/hofstra.case/index.html

18-year-old college student pulls a train for a number of young men.  For fear of telling her boyfriend, she claims she was raped.  The men are arrested, but all charges are dropped after she recants her story when cell phone video of the encounter shows it to be consensual.  CNN runs a story about the ordeal of the men as they stand charged of a crime they didn't commit.  One makes this comment:



> "We respect women," he said. "We know how to treat a lady. The thing they said with the rope, come on. That's disgusting. That's what we were looked at as: disgusting men."


 
Come on now, we would _never_ use ropes while we take turns having sex with a woman in a bathroom.  What do you think we are, degenerates or something?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 18, 2009)

Lol!


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

Yeah, I like how these guys are being portrayed as the "poor innocents". DUDE! you had group sex and video taped it. Yeah it was consensual but come on you are still scumbags.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah, I like how these guys are being portrayed as the "poor innocents". DUDE! you had group sex and video taped it. Yeah it was consensual but come on you are still scumbags.


 
I'll play the Devil's advocate...

Why? 

Why are these guys scumbags for participating in a consensual sex act? 

Why isn't she the scumbag for alomost ruining their lives because she didn't want her boyfriend to think _she_ was a perv?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'll play the Devil's advocate...
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


 
Youre correct in my opinion.

She consented, and then lied about it to the police. She came very close to ruining the lives of these men because she was too embarrassed to admit the truth.

Sadly Ive seen this before, someone lies to protect themselves over something stupid, and the lie snowballs, and the innocent people who are in the way get run over by the system.

She should be prosecuted.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 18, 2009)

> Authorities have not released the accuser's name.


The men were locked up, their names published, their reputations forever damaged, and yet, the woman, who actually committed a crime, her name hasn't been released. That's nice.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> The men were locked up, their names published, their reputations forever damaged, and yet, the woman, who actually committed a crime, her name hasn't been released. That's nice.


 
Here ya go.

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that the woman was faultless, and I hope she is prosecuted for what she did.  But the quote I posted stuck out to me because of the indignance that someone might think poorly of him.  CC, you go ahead and play devil's advocate but, consensual or not, I think that participating in a gangbang is low-rent.  YMMV.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> go ahead and play devil's advocate but, consensual or not, I think that participating in a gangbang is low-rent.  YMMV.



Thats all I was saying too.

My wife and I were just discussing this case. Some talking head was saying "how come the police didnt do a better investigation? Why did they arrest them right away?

Well...to be 100% That is the way it works sometimes. A victim comes forward and claims "those guys raped me". We send her to the hospital for a rape kit that shows there was intercourse. She names names, she signs depositions/statements and we make an arrest. There was sex involved and it's "he says she says". 

Minus an outright brutal attack, rape cases are tough. Either he is getting a raw deal or we dont do justice for her.

If it wasnt for the video coming out...


----------



## KELLYG (Sep 18, 2009)

I think that the female involved needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  This type of accusations is an insult to every female that has been sexually assaulted and has had to prove that she did not ask for it.  This does not even take into account what the men have had to endure because of this.  Don't take me wrong group sex in the bathroom is distasteful and none involved are innocent as the pure driven snow.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 18, 2009)

It's one of the things I hate about how this society views sexual encounters and how out of proportion something can get when a lie is told. The men were lucky that they were video taped and it was deemed consensual sex and not rape by the authorities. 
Reputations were damaged true but it's IMO a helluva lot better being in prison... reputations can be rebuilt. They're young and have time to do so. 

As far as the ropes go... look in your bedroom closet and chest of drawers under all the stuff on top of it and then judge... one person's kink is another's perversion. There are women who have rape/gangbang fantasies, as long as rules are set and safewords used lots of folks find it fun. I don't but I do know of some who do.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

The men freely jumped at the chance and took the risk. They got lucky. They almost paid a very high price to indulge in a fantasy. 

If I have any contempt for anyone in this, it's for the female and that's only because she lied and almost ruined the lives of those men. 

What people do is their own business. As long as they aren't harming anyone against their will...whatever... I may find it distasteful but it ain't my place to tell others how to live when it doesn't affect me or an "innocent"... so to speak.  

If I expect the same respect in turn, then I must give it. 

Had she been raped it would be different. She volunteered and I find it hard to believe that anyone is really surprised that these guys took advantage of the situation.  

Now, if you want to discuss/debate the ethics of group sex... that's another topic. 

BTW, I do want to clarify that I do see the irony in the statement "We know how to treat a lady." lol


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

Just dont confuse"it isnt my place to tell other people how to live" with "you shouldnt say that you dislike what someone does".

Confusing imposing your way on others with simply saying you dont like what others do is at the root of all PC ******** IMO.

I have "contempt" for her and "distaste" for them all.


----------



## MJS (Sep 18, 2009)

Whats that old saying...one that I usually say on here...think before you speak...well, in this case, the young lady should have thought before she acted.  A 'heat of the moment' thing, she realizes that she pretty much ****ed up, and then lies about it.  

I can't get the link to open from work, but I'll say this...if the males involved didn't do anything to her other than sex, ie: hit her, force her to do something against her will, etc., then I don't see how they're scumbags.  They're scum because they engaged in group sex?  Well, so did she.  I'm not seeing how we can say the males are scumbags but the girl is innocent.

Now, as its already been said...had this been a forced rape, then yes, my tune would change, but in this case, I'm sticking with what I said.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

I dont think anybody said the girl is innocent. She should be prosecuted for falsely reporting. Im just saying it's kind of funny how these guys are on the news in their suits doing interviews as if they are these upright, "god fearing" kids talking about their "gang bang".

Like I said.."contempt" for her "distaste" for them all IMO.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

And I do see the humor in these guys saying "we know how to treat a lady" on the news.

It's not they way I would want any guy trying to date my daughter to define "how to treat a lady". 

Funny how we each look at the "declining of our society" in different ways.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I dont think anybody said the girl is innocent. She should be prosecuted for falsely reporting. Im just saying it's kind of funny how these guys are on the news in their suits doing interviews as if they are these upright, "god fearing" kids talking about their "gang bang".
> 
> Like I said.."contempt" for her "distaste" for them all IMO.


 
So "god fearing" kids would never take part in a gang bang? Is that your point? 

Or is it that anyone that would participate in a gang bang loses the right to defend their character when falsely accused? Or perhaps you feel that these fellows have no character at all so what's the point in defending their reputation? Is rape and consensual group sex the same in your book?


----------



## zDom (Sep 18, 2009)

Man, all I can think about in this story is how the boyfriend felt.

That poor guy needs some prayer:

FIRST he is tormented by the thought of his girlfriend being gang-raped;

and 

THEN he is confronted with his girlfriend being a complete SLUT and the mental images of a half-dozen other guys taking turns in sequence with his _willing_ girlfriend.

The boyfriend is the real victim in this story, twice over.

For HIS sake I hope they throw the slut in jail.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with being a slut, but hurting someone (her boyfriend) like that should be felonious.

I'd rather be beaten to a pulp physically that endure what the boyfriend must have gone through.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

zDom said:


> Man, all I can think about in this story is how the boyfriend felt.
> 
> That poor guy needs some prayer:
> 
> ...


 
Great point! 

...but then you're assuming he minds one or the other. Granted, I think it very likely the boyfriend would be bothered by his girlfriend being raped but people get off on some pretty sick things. 

That being said, you're assuming the gang bang would bother him as well. 

I admit that I wouldn't be too keen on either one! But we don't know the boyfriend and know nothing of his character or what gets him off. We're assuming. 

Now, if it was me ...I know for sure 110% she wouldn't be my girlfriend any more.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> So "god fearing" kids would never take part in a gang bang? Is that your point?
> 
> Or is it that anyone that would participate in a gang bang loses the right to defend their character when falsely accused? Or perhaps you feel that these fellows have no character at all so what's the point in defending their reputation? Is rape and consensual group sex the same in your book?



I think their "character" is plain for all to see. Its an issue of if you think their behavior is distasteful of not.

Lets not confuse being "innocent" in the eyes of the law and "equal justice" with being a person of character.

I believe I have probably done more to uphold justice for ALL regardless of my opinion of their beliefs or behavior than you probably have. I obey, uphold and enforce the law impartially for everybody. So DONT go assuming I dont know the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Yes I do think that their choice of sexual behavior is "low rent".."distasteful"..." and a sign of a decline in values. So what? Where have I said she is "innocent" or shouldnt be prosecuted? Or that these guys (regardless of my opinion of their behavior) were not wronged?

They should sue her and she should be arrested. I have said that numerous times but you seem to be focused on my distaste for ALL of their behavior.

At what point in our society did stating a dislike for a persons behavior AUTOMATICALLY imply some sort of bias when it comes to doing what is right? Just because some people decide to let their opinions of someones lifestyle influence their decisions when dealing with them doesnt mean that EVERYBODY does. 

If you want to participate in this stuff FINE. I will still treat you like everybody else but I will still dislike what you do.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Great point!
> 
> ...but then you're assuming he minds one or the other. Granted, I think it very likely the boyfriend would be bothered by his girlfriend being raped but people get off on some pretty sick things.
> 
> ...


 
A fair assumption, given that she accused 4 men of rape to keep him from finding out the truth.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think their "character" is plain for all to see. Its an issue of if you think their behavior is distasteful of not.
> 
> Lets not confuse being "innocent" in the eyes of the law and "equal justice" with being a person of character.
> 
> ...


 
Whoa Hoss! Settle down! I'm not attacking you or your beliefs. Aside from this forum you don't know anything about me and what I've done or do; therefore, you really have no basis for comparrison. 

I had thought we might drill down a bit deeper regarding the issues of this story, but I can see this strikes a personal chord so I'll let it go. 

Peace. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Is rape and consensual group sex the same in your book?



We were fine till that line which I find both "offensive" and "distasteful". What gives you the impression that I think anything of the kind?

Im one of the guys who's job it is to figure out which is which and hope that I am doing justice for the right side. It doesn't mean that I am not allowed to think that all their behavior was distasteful.


----------



## MJS (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I dont think anybody said the girl is innocent. She should be prosecuted for falsely reporting. Im just saying it's kind of funny how these guys are on the news in their suits doing interviews as if they are these upright, "god fearing" kids talking about their "gang bang".
> 
> Like I said.."contempt" for her "distaste" for them all IMO.


 


Archangel M said:


> And I do see the humor in these guys saying "we know how to treat a lady" on the news.
> 
> It's not they way I would want any guy trying to date my daughter to define "how to treat a lady".
> 
> Funny how we each look at the "declining of our society" in different ways.


 
I chalk up the guys behavior to just being cocky punks.  Technically, they know they didn't do anything wrong, per se, but on the other hand, bragging about it...I think they need to grow up a bit.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I Yes I do think that their choice of sexual behavior is "low rent".."distasteful"..." and a sign of a decline in values. So what? Where have I said she is "innocent" or shouldnt be prosecuted? Or that these guys (regardless of my opinion of their behavior) were not wronged?
> .


 
Oddly enough, in this thread, you almost insist that there is no decline in society, which, I presume, would include a decline in "values," since they are societal, after all. You also point out that the things many use as an indication of that decline have always been present, and are just more advertised, and this is a valid point.

Of course, "gang-bangs" have existed as long as mankind has: it&#8217;s a biological mechanism and impulse.



zDom said:


> THEN he is confronted with his girlfriend being a complete SLUT and the mental images of a half-dozen other guys taking turns in sequence with his willing girlfriend..


 
You weren&#8217;t the only one to make this kind of comment, and certainly not the only one to make that sort of judgement, and I&#8217;m not criticizing what is, essentially, a value judgment hardwired by millennia of conditioning.

And yet, somehow, if the roles were reversed,, and some guy had managed to have sex with more than three willing partners in succession, and pictures were taken, and the dalliance became known, _you_ might call that fellow a "complete slut" and a "skank," but most probably would not. He&#8217;d be the object of envy, admiration and speculation, perhaps offered contracts for porn and a guest spot on Maury Povich or Jerry Springer, _for doing exactly the same thing that girl did...._ Hell, he&#8217;d be a hero to some just for getting four women disrobed at the same time, never mind having sex with all of them....

....though it would be more difficult for most guys to accomplish, physically......it&#8217;s still indicative of a conditioned double standard, though....



CoryKS said:


> Come on now, we would never use ropes while we take turns having sex with a woman in a bathroom. What do you think we are, degenerates or something?


 
On the one hand, yes, there is some humor in the "we know how to treat a lady" comment. There&#8217;s irony as well, and it certainly indicates what others have expressed, that,somehow, _*this* was no lady._

Interestingly, there&#8217;s nothing in the story to indicate that the woman lied to conceal events from her boyfriend-there&#8217;s no mention of a boyfriend at all. It&#8217;s just as likely that she made the accusation to conceal the truth from _herself_, such is the social conditioning attached to such behavior. 

Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace. If a woman had sex with multiple partners, because sperm is competitive, she would have a better chance of receiving "the best", biologically speaking, from a larger and more diverse pool from which to_ select_ genetic material. This is why, biologically speaking, women are, compared to men, slow to arouse, slow to orgasm, and capable of having multiple orgasms..

Men are fast to arouse, fast to orgasm, and normally have a refractory period between orgasms. We&#8217;re also complete sluts, biologically inclined to have sex with as many women as much as possible, This ensures a diversity in the spread of _our _genes. Thus, the sexual tendencies of each gender are predetermined effects of biology, and natural selection at it&#8217;s best. 

We also have thousands of years of societal conditioning-part of adaptive strategies like _marriage,_ whereby a woman can ensure the protection of her offspring and a man can ensure that they are, in fact, _his_ offspring, by forming a family unit, rather than the sort of tribal units that existed in primitive times, when this sort of sexual behavior was probably the norm. Because of this social conditioning, rather than recognize that the woman involved has-whether because of drugs, alcohol,ovulation, _the simple desire to truly scratch that itch, _or some combination thereof-slipped free of her social conditioning and regressed to an earlier mode of sexual behavior driven entirely by biological impulses- we label her a "slut" and a "skank" and say "how terrible for her boyfriend." 

And it's likely that after the night's festivities were over, there reverted back to their social conditioning, and, oddly enough, _treated her like a lady_: maybe helped her clean up, got her clothes for her, got her a drink or a cab ride, or escorted her back to her dorm/dorm room. Odd and uncomfortable, but probable.....


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2009)

From the article:



> "Her actions and her demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help," Rice said.


 
In more ways than one, it seems. 

The men in this scenario are pathetic, but the woman obviously has her own problems. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> On the one hand, yes, there is some humor in the "we know how to treat a lady" comment. There&#8217;s irony as well, and it certainly indicates what others have expressed, that,somehow, _*this* was no lady._
> 
> Interestingly, there&#8217;s nothing in the story to indicate that the woman lied to conceal events from her boyfriend-there&#8217;s no mention of a boyfriend at all. It&#8217;s just as likely that she made the accusation to conceal the truth from _herself_, such is the social conditioning attached to such behavior.


 
This was a followup story, so it didn't have all the details. Read the link I gave Don:



> Investigators said that a video of the sexual encounter shows Ndonye consenting to the sex romp. Ndonye later recanted her allegations of rape, confessing to police that she had made up the charges because she had been afraid to tell her boyfriend about the illicit bathroom encounter.


 




elder999 said:


> Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace. If a woman had sex with multiple partners, because sperm is competitive, she would have a better chance of receiving "the best", biologically speaking, from a larger and more diverse pool from which to_ select_ genetic material. This is why, biologically speaking, women are, compared to men, slow to arouse, slow to orgasm, and capable of having multiple orgasms..


 
Yes, and now we flatter ourselves as being civilized. The very meaning of which is that we don't act on every animilistic urge that we get. You don't get to call yourself civilized _and_ go reptilian everytime you catch a whiff of something. _Are we not Men?_ Yet that is the nature of Taveras' complaint. 



> "We were treated like animals," he said.


 
Well, dude, if the shoe fits.

I agree that he's perfectly within his rights to engage in any sort of consensual act with whomever he wants.  Doesn't mean I can't point and laugh.  He wants it both ways - he wants to indulge his base animal instincts, but expects people to see him as a gentleman.  Um, no.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 20, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, and now *we flatter ourselves as being civilized.* The very meaning of which is that we don't act on every animilistic urge that we get. You don't get to call yourself civilized _and_ go reptilian everytime you catch a whiff of something. _Are we not Men?_ Yet that is the nature of Taveras' complaint.


 
"Flatter ourselves," indeed. The notion that we're "civilized" is a conceit, no more. 

And the fact is, it's not "going reptilian"-it is, in fact, going _primate_.


_Are we not primates? _:lfao:


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> "Flatter ourselves," indeed. The notion that we're "civilized" is a conceit, no more.
> 
> And the fact is, it's not "going reptilian"-it is, in fact, going _primate_.


 
Yeah, I thought about going back and changing that but, **** it, as long as I spelled it right. I hate typos. :rofl:

I agree, it's a conceit. But if you want to score points ("I am not an animal"), you have to play.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

As a rule I've generally found that men will treat a woman how she treats herself.


----------



## grydth (Sep 20, 2009)

Individuals who falsely report crimes are pond scum, and cannot be condemned forcefully enough. Somebody who would subject 4 innocent people to felony prosecution as a reputation saving ploy deserves a long stay in the concrete motel. If one is so very concerned about reputation and boyfriends.... how about just not doing that with 4 guys at a time?

It is interesting that authorities have not released the woman's name due to, "concerns for her safety."  How about concerns for the safety of the 4 men (and their families) who were falsely accused of rape? Given that the woman in question is clearly *not *a victim of a sexual crime, her name should be released as well. It seems there are two sets of media rules here...... perhaps it would be better to wait a bit longer *in every case* before releasing names......

I can see where the police had to move out quickly. With evidence of a violent group rape, had they not made quick arrests, they faced the prospect of additional women being attacked.

As far as recording this historic event on a cell phone camera..... the best that can be said is that it is like Monica Lewinski's dress - who saves things like that - but then, having done so seems to have saved them...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace.


 
Interesting. Where do you get this information? Is it proven or is it a theory?

I'd be very interested in seeing proof for this assertion, as well as some timeline about when in the evolutionary process all of these dionysian romps occured. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Interesting. Where do you get this information? Is it proven or is it a theory?
> 
> I'd be very interested in seeing proof for this assertion, as well as some timeline about when in the evolutionary process all of these dionysian romps occured.
> 
> ...


 
I'll take you for a sight seeing trip around the training area here, that sort of behaviour is commonplace around here rofl!


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 20, 2009)

> Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace.



Really. Do our primate cousins do the same? Conceit or not, Civil society/behavior (enforced by law..another civil "conceit") is what allows us to live in peace 99% of the time.

The "Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace."..thing smacks of the typical over-intellectualized explanations for criminality I hear from criminologists and sociologists. Yeah, yeah we are all "animals", but THIS animal is interested in maintaining the "conceit" of civilization for the good of us all.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2009)

Gang bangs when taking place in private by consenting adults is hardly criminal behaviour. reckless perhaps, immoral more than likely but it's not criminal.
Bt the way 'domestic' cats do indulge in multiple partners, a female cat will mate with as many males as possible. This means the male cannot kill the kittens as he isn't sure if they are his or not, lions of course when a male takes over a pride will kill all cubs not his then impregnate the females to make sure the offspring are his. So the theory of  a human female taking multiple partners to stop dominant males killing her offspring is a very feasible one. It's not a situation where morals are concerned its a pragmatic solution to ensure the survival of offspring. We tend to forget I think the sex between two people is generally intended to perpetuate the species rather than give the preachers something to make people feel guilty about. For many discussing sex in this aspect is uncomfortable.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2009)

No one is (or has) calling it "criminal behavior". No one here has said that this "woman" is innocent or not deserving of punishment. Nobody has said that these guys were not "wronged" or deserve any punishment.

My personal opinion is that its "base behavior". Apparently some people dont like that.

Tough.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> No one is (or has) calling it "criminal behavior". No one here has said that this "woman" is innocent or not deserving of punishment. Nobody has said that these guys were not "wronged" or deserve any punishment.
> 
> My personal opinion is that its "base behavior". Apparently some people dont like that.
> 
> Tough.


 
A lot of what humans do is 'base' behavior'. Many decry martial arts because they consider fighting to be base.

This in your post gave the impression you considered 'bang ganging' to be criminal behaviour though.
" _The "Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace."..thing *smacks of the typical over-intellectualized* *explanations for criminality* I hear from criminologists and sociologists............ ." _


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2009)

I could just as easily said that it _*smacks of the typical over-intellectualized* *explanations for base behavior like....*_



> A lot of what humans do is 'base' behavior'. Many decry martial arts because they consider fighting to be base.



Same Same


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I could just as easily said that it _*smacks of the typical over-intellectualized* *explanations for base behavior like....*_
> 
> 
> 
> Same Same


 
Well that gives a different impression.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Really. Do our primate cousins do the same?


 
In fact, our closest ones-chimpanzees and bonobos-do. Bonobos actually copulate regardless of whether they're in estrus or not, and are thought to be our closest primate relatives. Their sexual behavior is rather extraordinary-in fact, it's quite a bit like ours, without going into more thread drift.




Archangel M said:


> Conceit or not, Civil society/behavior (enforced by law..another civil "conceit") is what allows us to live in peace 99% of the time.
> 
> The "Once, when we all lived in the forest, "gang-bangs" were commonplace."..thing smacks of the typical over-intellectualized explanations for criminality I hear from criminologists and sociologists. Yeah, yeah we are all "animals", but THIS animal is interested in maintaining the "conceit" of civilization for the good of us all.


 
And I'm not interested in gang bangs, or excusing such behavior, but regression to type is an_ explanation, _not an excuse, and hardly "over-intellectualized." To say that it's "base behavior" is not far off the mark, and it's outside _societal_ norms, but-once one overcomes the "ickiness" factor-is neither inexplicable, nor, for those who choose to practice it, _wrong_-or outside _their_ norms. 

The girl was wrong to participate if she was in a "committed" relationship that made no provision for such behavior, and wrong to falsely accuse the young men of rape to try and conceal it. Participating in a gang-bang, though, is not "wrong"-as evidenced by the charges against the young men being dropped when it was determined to be consensual. 

The young men, of course, did _nothing_ "wrong." 

And yes, while we like to maintain the conceit of civilization, we *all* act like the animals _we are_ from time to time.


----------



## blindsage (Sep 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> As a rule I've generally found that men will treat a woman how she treats herself.


I would like to agree with this, but it doesn't really explain the continuing high incidence of sexual assault in our societies.


----------



## KELLYG (Sep 21, 2009)

Face it if you wanted sex it is easy to get.  Sexual assault in my opinion is less about sex and more about domineering and control of the individual that is perpetrated on.


----------



## crushing (Sep 21, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I would like to agree with this, but it doesn't really explain the continuing high incidence of sexual assault in our societies.


 
Maybe this is another area for a 'regression to type' explanation, as certain non-human primates also engage in aggressive and coercive mating with unwilling females?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I would like to agree with this, but it doesn't really explain the continuing high incidence of sexual assault in our societies.


 
It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault. 
Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet. 
I tend to think there isn't actually any more 'real' assaults than before more that they are being reported now. 
We've had similiar situations in the past to the one in the OP, girls have come into barracks, had a good seeing to by a few soldiers then claimed rape when it becomes public knowledge, ah the mobile phone! I can bet anything we'll get the situation again fairly soon.


----------



## zDom (Sep 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
> In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault.
> Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
> Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet.
> ...




I think there are also cases of consent in which the woman may not have really wanted to have intercourse  even said "No" and then later relented to continued attempts at seduction  but then, based on having said no at some point and not really wanting to have had sex, declare it was rape.

I know I have consented to do things (not necessarily sexual) that I really did NOT want to do but got pressured into doing only to have serious regrets after the fact. It doesn't change the fact that I did indeed consent.

But change the context to a woman agreeing to have sex even if she didn't really want to, and you are going to find law enforcement willing to arrest ("Well if you didn't WANT to, you were forced, weren't you, honey?"), juries willing to convict and judges willing to sentence for RAPE.

Mind you, I am NOT making excuses for rapists  but where does persuasion end and rape begin?

Something for both women AND men to think about.

I suggest women who are NOT consenting to make it crystal clear  and FIGHT your way out of the situation if pressed.

As for me, I'll not enter any grey areas: if I hear "No" it's pretty much time for me to leave the situation lest there be any misunderstandings. (Better to be rejected by one than judged by 12? )


----------



## blindsage (Sep 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
> In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault.
> Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
> Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet.
> ...


All these things may be true, but I'm not really talking about the increase in reporting, or false claims, I'm talking about the general high incidence of actual sexual assault.  It was there more than was discussed in the past, and it is high today.  Your proposition that men treat women how they treat themselves runs into a significant problem in light of this.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 21, 2009)

This article seems to have caught a lot of people's attention.  Taranto weighs in at the WSJ:



> *Four Times a Lady?*
> CNN reports on a sordid story that almost became an injustice:
> Four young men falsely accused of raping an 18-year-old student at Hofstra University were trying to return their lives to normal Friday after an ordeal that two of them described as traumatic. . . .​Authorities dropped charges and freed the four men hours after their accuser changed her story about having been forcibly tied up and sexually assaulted in a dormitory bathroom.​"The woman admitted the encounters with each of the men were consensual," Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice told reporters at a news conference Thursday.​The woman recanted her story Wednesday after authorities told her that part of the incident was recorded on a cell phone video, Rice said.​"That was when she began to tell the truth," she said.​If the acts were consensual and the young men are innocent of any crime, we're certainly glad this didn't go any further. But this quote is disturbing:
> CNN affiliate WABC-TV of New York spoke with another of the accused, Stalin Felipe.​"We respect women," he said. "We know how to treat a lady. The thing they said with the rope, come on. That's disgusting. That's what we were looked at as: disgusting men."​It took four of them to treat her like a lady? *Not committing rape is a necessary condition for respecting women, but it is hardly a sufficient one*.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2009)

The number of false rape reports is one of LEs dirty little secrets. Sometimes you have to guard against too much skepticism.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Bt the way 'domestic' cats do indulge in multiple partners, a female cat will mate with as many males as possible. This means the male cannot kill the kittens as he isn't sure if they are his or not, lions of course when a male takes over a pride will kill all cubs not his then impregnate the females to make sure the offspring are his. So the theory of a human female taking multiple partners to stop dominant males killing her offspring is a very feasible one. It's not a situation where morals are concerned its a pragmatic solution to ensure the survival of offspring. We tend to forget I think the sex between two people is generally intended to perpetuate the species rather than give the preachers something to make people feel guilty about. For many discussing sex in this aspect is uncomfortable.


 
Sex between two people is a means of maximizing the reproductive success of those two individuals. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual, not the group. Which may serve as an explanation for why truly altruistic behavior is rare.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 22, 2009)

We have a joke here...a young lady goes to register the birth of her newly born offspring, on the line where it says father she puts 1 Para. The Registrar reads this and tells her she can leave it blank if she doesn't know who the father is.The young lady says she does know, it's 1 Para, the Registrar says she can't just put down what the father does for a living. The young lady says she hasn't so the bemused man asks her what she means. The young lady patiently explains that it's  "1 Parachute Regiment''. 


My shift partner is ex 1 Para, he smirks everytime he hears that joke!


----------



## teekin (Sep 22, 2009)

zDom said:


> I think there are also cases of consent in which the woman may not have really wanted to have intercourse  even said "No" and then later relented to continued attempts at seduction  but then, based on having said no at some point and not really wanting to have had sex, declare it was rape.
> 
> I know I have consented to do things (not necessarily sexual) that I really did NOT want to do but got pressured into doing only to have serious regrets after the fact. It doesn't change the fact that I did indeed consent.
> 
> ...


 
How bout with your fist hitting my face? Tearing my clothes, palm accross my mouth so I can't scream? So I can't breath ?  Issuing a threat while holding a gun, a knife, cracking a rib? I don't know, where does persuasion end and rape begin. Dude, I say "NO!" one time, just once and that's it. After that it's not persuasion it's coercion. If I fight or not it's my choice but You Will be going to jail. :flammad:

I wish there was a "Murderous Rage" icon

Your personal philosophy is the only sane way to go, IMVHO.
lori


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'll take you for a sight seeing trip around the training area here, that sort of behaviour is commonplace around here rofl!


 
If I lived in your area I'd move.

Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.

I'd also be interested in some proof that if such behavior did occur it was considered normative and not aberrant.

Thanks in advance, elder. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 22, 2009)

Most mammals seem to be of the "males chase off other males for breeding rights" sort. The "dominant male" meme.  Or they "hook up with one  mate for the season".


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 22, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> If I lived in your area I'd move.
> 
> Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Chris,

For evidence as to what sorts of sociosexual behavior our ancestors engaged in, we have 2 sources:

1. Sociosexual behavior of our closest living relatives, which are bonobos and common chimpanzees;

2. Morphological traits in hominids, which includes Homo sapiens and their evolutionary pre-cursors (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc).

3. I'm excluding as a source the sociosexual behavior of modern human societies considered by laypersons to be "primitive", eg. tribes of Amazonian Indians, African Bushpeople, etc...many people in these sorts of arguments use them as examples of what humans must have been like before the development of permanent settlements, but this is a fallacy. They have been developing and changing just as long as industrial societies have.

So with respect to source #1, (and others in this thread have mentioned this already), both bonobos and common chimps (as well as many, many species of mammals, birds and fish) engage in promiscuous mating behavior. The common evolutionary argument for this is that it is a strategy to avoid infanticide. Interestingly enough, female common chimps also trade sex for meat, when males have made a kill and are reluctant to share.

With respect to source #2, biologists have demonstrated a clear association between 3 morphological traits and sociosexual behavior/social organization: when males compete directly with other males for mates, there is a reproductive advantage for large body size and larger weaponry (read large canine teeth). When the competition is foiled by females mating with more than one male, we see an increase in testicle size in relation to body size, because this provides an advantage in "sperm competition". Let's compare humans and chimps, our closest living relatives: male chimps fight each other over females, and they patrol the boundaries of their territories looking for strange males to kill, hence there is strong selective pressure to maintain large bodies and large canine teeth. However, the females mate promiscuously, so males also engage in sperm competition, so male chimps have absolutely enormous testicles for their body size. When hominid evolution is considered, there is a clear reduction in canine size and a slight reduction in sexual dimorphism (the difference in body size between males and females). Soft tissue is not preserved in fossil remains, so we don't know anything about testicle size of our extinct ancestors, but modern human males have VERY large testicles in relation to their body size. This indicates that human males may not compete directly for females (compared to chimps) but they still have the equipment to engage in sperm competition. This is strong evidence that our ancestors did indeed have gang bangs in the forest.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 23, 2009)

They may know how to treat a lady.  A woman in this situation can hardly be defined as a lady...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 23, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> For evidence as to what sorts of sociosexual behavior our ancestors engaged in, we have 2 sources:
> 
> 1. Sociosexual behavior of our closest living relatives, which are bonobos and common chimpanzees;


 
Is there anything in our direct evolutionary history?



> 2. Morphological traits in hominids, which includes Homo sapiens and their evolutionary pre-cursors (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc).


 
Any sort of actual evidence the behavior in question was engaged in? Any evidence that it was normative? 



> 3. I'm excluding as a source the sociosexual behavior of modern human societies considered by laypersons to be "primitive", eg. tribes of Amazonian Indians, African Bushpeople, etc...many people in these sorts of arguments use them as examples of what humans must have been like before the development of permanent settlements, but this is a fallacy. They have been developing and changing just as long as industrial societies have.


 
Yes, it is a fallacy to make such an argument.



> So with respect to source #1, (and others in this thread have mentioned this already), both bonobos and common chimps (as well as many, many species of mammals, birds and fish) engage in promiscuous mating behavior. The common evolutionary argument for this is that it is a strategy to avoid infanticide. Interestingly enough, female common chimps also trade sex for meat, when males have made a kill and are reluctant to share.


 
Interesting but irrelevant as these are not members of our direct evolutionary history. 



> With respect to source #2, biologists have demonstrated a clear association between 3 morphological traits and sociosexual behavior/social organization: when males compete directly with other males for mates, there is a reproductive advantage for large body size and larger weaponry (read large canine teeth). When the competition is foiled by females mating with more than one male, we see an increase in testicle size in relation to body size, because this provides an advantage in "sperm competition". Let's compare humans and chimps, our closest living relatives:


 
No, let's not compare them as chimps are not part of our direct evolutionary development. The statement was made that when "we lived in the forests" that the behavior in quesiton was commonplace. We weren't chimps at any point in our development. I'm interested in seeing proof that human ancestors engaged in such behavior, not that animals that exist today do so.  



> hominid evolution is considered, there is a clear reduction in canine size and a slight reduction in sexual dimorphism (the difference in body size between males and females). Soft tissue is not preserved in fossil remains, so we don't know anything about testicle size of our extinct ancestors, but modern human males have VERY large testicles in relation to their body size. This indicates that human males may not compete directly for females (compared to chimps) but they still have the equipment to engage in sperm competition. This is strong evidence that our ancestors did indeed have gang bangs in the forest.


 
Or not. It's certainly possible that other genetic mutation is responsible for the development of these physical characterists. And, as I said, I'm not interested in theories. I'm interested in proof. The original statement was made as if it was a matter of fact that such things occured. You've simply supplied a theory as to why it might have happened. I am interested in seeing the proof. Otherwise elder's original statement should really only be read as "it's my opnion that..." 

So, anyway, I'm more than happy to see the scientific journal articles in which proof for the claim is conclusively presented.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 23, 2009)

There is no proof in science, Chris. Only evidence to support a particular hypothesis. You want proof, become a mathematician.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> *If I lived in your area I'd move.*
> 
> Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.
> 
> ...


 
Why? the girls are willing and the soldiers may only have a short time to live before being blown to bits in 'Ghan, no ones being hurt here. You might not like it but who are you to judge?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 23, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> There is no proof in science, Chris. Only evidence to support a particular hypothesis. You want proof, become a mathematician.


 
That's debateable. But you didn't even offer evidence.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Why? the girls are willing and the soldiers may only have a short time to live before being blown to bits in 'Ghan, no ones being hurt here.


 
Speaking as someeone who used to counsel people who were sexually abused I'd seriously question whether or not anyone in that situation is being hurt. 



> You might not like it but who are you to judge?


 
I didn't say I was judging anybody. Nor did I say anything which even implied that I was doing so. Please stop projecting your own judgementalism onto others, Tez. Who are you to judge me?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Speaking as someeone who used to counsel people who were sexually abused I'd seriously question whether or not anyone in that situation is being hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You said that if you were me you'd move, thats plenty judgemental.

Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's _her_ right, people who don't approve (though it's fine for men to do it) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads. 
I wouldn't project anything on you, couldn't be bothered.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You said that if you were me you'd move, thats plenty judgemental.


 
Read my post again. I said if *I* lived there, I'd move. I didn't say if I were you. There's a difference. The latter implies that you should do something. The former does not.

But be that as it may, there's nothing judgemental about what I said. Unless you think it's being judgemental to prefer living in one locale to another. 



> Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's _her_ right, people who don't approve (though it's fine for men to do it) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads.


 
Where in my post did I say anything about anyone, women or otherwise, being "free with [their] favours"? Please point it out to me. Simply quote it in your next response. I reread my post and didn't see anything in it that mentions such things but perhaps I missed it. Can you help me out here? Just repost the part of my comment that you saw that mentions what you said.

I also point out that you seem fine with women using men. I won't ask if you think two wrongs make a right, too.



> I wouldn't project anything on you, couldn't be bothered.


 
Would that this were true. It's obvious that, barring you producing proof of your claim, you're projecting your judgementalism onto me. I said nothing besides that I would choose to live elsewhere than the locale you mentioned. I made no further comments. The only one who has been making judgements about people is you, Tez. 

Please refrain from judging me with your narrow ideas of right and wrong. Who are you to pass judgement on others?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 23, 2009)

A most interesting read, ladies and gentlemen.  In the end I stopped dropping 'Thanks' on posts because I found something I agreed with in almost all of them.

Now, it is time for all posters to ponder for a second exactly what they are writing and how they are addressing each other.  Sexual morality is a volatile issue and is one where national and cultural characteristics can vary greatly; which is something to bear in the forefront of our minds when being affronted by generalisations.

In plainer form, please maintain a suitable amount of politeness and regard for the codes of conduct expected in this forum.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's _her_ right, people who don't approve (*though it's fine for men to do it*) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads.


 
It's interesting, that's the second time in this thread that the "double standard" in judging the behavior of men and women has been noted. I believe Elder mentioned it above as well. And yet, this thread is mainly about pointing out the contradiction between the men's words and the actions that got them here. In other words, it is a criticism of _their_ behavior. The woman was not even mentioned, which led to a number of posts by folks who seemed concerned that she was being held blameless.

In my opinion, all the participants are equally repugnant. And again, that is only _my opinion_. There are many like it but this one is mine. YMMV.

Update:  Should clarify that I meant "equally repugnant, until she falsely cried rape."


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

Being totally honest I really don't care what people get up to, the only way I get involved is if it's illegal, I'm on duty and have to deal with it. I don't find the idea of gang bangs either repugnant or attractive, doesn't bother me either way, none of my business.
The issue to me is that she alleged rape where there was none, therefore the lads were innocent of that crime. I don't care what they were doing with her or even each other so I'm not going to say their behaviour was good or bad, I'm indifferent. I expect she was the good time had by all until she made the allegations up.

Cory I wasn't pointing out the double standards in this case, I was pointing out, in reply to a particular post, that often people won't accept that some women have a strong sex drive and chose to do things that are acceptable in men but are deemed unlikely things for a woman to want to do therefore she must have been coerced.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 23, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> That's debateable. But you didn't even offer evidence.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Hi Chris,

Respectfully, it is not debateable. That is how science works. A hypothesis can be supported by overwhelming evidence, even to the point where they are considered "laws" (such as Newton's 3 laws of motion), but they are not considered "proved". The scientific paradigm is that we accept a hypothesis only as long as it is supported by evidence, and that when contrary evidence is provided we re-evaluate that hypothesis. That is what makes science recursive. When one is trained as a scientist (and I am) this is drilled into one's head again and again and again.

With respect to your arguments, the only way that we could offer overwhelming evidence would be to jump in a time machine and travel to those ancient forests and jungles and observe directly. This being impossible, our only recourse is to use the scientific tools at our disposal to examine this question. 

When evolutionary biologists are trying to discover when a particular morphological or behavioral trait evolved, the primary approach they use is the comparative phylogenetic method. They build a "tree" which depicts the evolutionary relationships of species which possess the trait, and include those species which are thought to be basal, or at the "root" of the tree. If the basal species possesses the trait, and all but one of the offshoot species possesses the trait, then any offshoot species that does not possess the trait is considered "derived". The most parsimonious explanation is that the trait disappeared in that single species, rather than disappearing and then re-appearing in all the species except that one. The situation becomes more complicated when the basal species condition is unknown, or when more than one species exhibits the derived condition. The hypothesis encompassing the fewest mutations which explain a particular pattern is the one we cannot reject.

The situation we are talking about at present is very complicated. We can measure this trait directly in chimps, by observing female sexual behavior. But assessing this behavior in human females is more challenging, because there is so much variation in the trait when humans are considered. Thus arises the very real possibility that the trait has been heavily influenced by culture. So we ask the question "Before the advent of cultural distortion, what might this behavior have looked like?" Our goal then becomes identifying the trait in a currently extant species, but it it's evolutionary past. Another complication is that the trait is not discrete (sexual promiscuity vs. monogamy), but instead lies on a contiuum. 

So our goal is to determine whether a species exhibited a behavior sometime in its evolutionary past. Using the phylogenetic method, we normally would identify the basal species, and the offshoot species, and figure out which species exhibit the behavior and which don't. Thus chimps, even though they are not in our direct evolutionary history, are indeed relevant to this discussion. Hominids split off from the lineage which led to modern common chimps about 6 million years ago, so the last common ancestor we shared with them is the basal species. Two problems with this: we haven't identified that ape species in the fossil record, and behavioral traits don't fossilize, so we don't know if the basal species or any species which evolved after that possessed the trait. So we can't even determine if the trait is basal or derived, which is frustrating. 

We are left with falling back on our knowledge of how morphological traits are associated with sociosexual behavior. That evidence I presented to you earlier. There is a continuing debate in paleoanthropology about this very subject (there is a huge literature), and scientists have come to the tentative conclusion that there is strong evidence to suggest that modern humans did (and perhaps still do) engage in sperm competition, which in turn is linked throughout the animal kingdom to female promiscuity. Testicular tissue is expensive to maintain, and there would be strong selective pressure to reduce the size of the testicles if the extra sperm (and different types of sperm associated with multiple matings) was not needed. For instance, gorilla males have huge bodies (twice the size of females), because they compete directly with other males for territory, but the mate competition within a group is reduced because there are only one or two sexually mature males in it. Thus gorilla males have really tiny testicles. It is therefore not a parsimonious explanation to suggest that humans lost the trait (big testicles, associated with sperm competition), and then re-evolved the trait but use it for something else, as you suggested.

Perhaps the original poster would have been wiser to put a "maybe" in front of the assertion that ancient modern human females engaged in promiscuous sexual behavior. Because that is what science is saying...maybe they did, *probably* they did, but we don't know for sure because we don't have a time machine. Now, if you want to continue this dicussion further, let's do so in a private message, so this thread isn't derailed any further. 

Jen


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think their "character" is plain for all to see. Its an issue of if you think their behavior is distasteful of not.
> 
> Lets not confuse being "innocent" in the eyes of the law and "equal justice" with being a person of character.
> 
> ...


 

ArchAngel,

I am confused on some points. I know you are trying to make some very fine distinctions. But, it is coing across as you are passing judgement on people. It comes across as they are guilty because you dislike them. 

You post was left intact above, but I would like to also bring forth a couple of comments:



> I believe I have probably done more to uphold justice for ALL regardless of my opinion of their beliefs or behavior than you probably have. I obey, uphold and enforce the law impartially for everybody. So DONT go assuming I dont know the difference between rape and consensual sex.


 
What does you upholding the law have to do with anything about this discussion? Celtic Crippler said he was playing Devil's Advocate and asking the hard questions. You here make it sound like that becuase your are in Law enforcement that you are better and able to pass judgement on people, even though you may protect them legally. 

I understand being upset or taking the Rape and Consensual Sex comment, but address it separately. Brake down your arguement from above that lead to that question and then brake down his points and show where the misunderstanding occurred and clarify it. 

Do not get all holy then thou and "I am THE LAW" aka Judge Dread on us here. 

Personally, I think the guys were dirt bags. I think she should be presecuted to make a point, but she has already done the damage to those who are really assaulted. I would not want to date her. But, as you stated in you post as well form above:


> If you want to participate in this stuff FINE. I will still treat you like everybody else but I will still dislike what you do.


You can dislike them, but your word choice and presentation has come across as something more than dislike. Which is why I believe there have been hard questions put to your posts. 

Good Luck and Thanks


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> We were fine till that line which I find both "offensive" and "distasteful". What gives you the impression that I think anything of the kind?
> 
> Im one of the guys who's job it is to figure out which is which and hope that I am doing justice for the right side. It doesn't mean that I am not allowed to think that all their behavior was distasteful.


 
Are you a LEO or a Prosecutor or Judge? 

I thought LEO's enforced the law and or made their initial judgement call and then the Detectives did further investigation and the Prosecutors took it to trial to use the Justice System to make an attempt at Justice, while Judges make sure that the legal process in court is followed and all is valid.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 23, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Respectfully, it is not debateable. That is how science works. A hypothesis can be supported by overwhelming evidence, even to the point where they are considered "laws" (such as Newton's 3 laws of motion), but they are not considered "proved". The scientific paradigm is that we accept a hypothesis only as long as it is supported by evidence, and that when contrary evidence is provided we re-evaluate that hypothesis. That is what makes science recursive. When one is trained as a scientist (and I am) this is drilled into one's head again and again and again.


 
So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.

That sounds like something I have heard of before, but I can't place it... Can you help me out here?



> With respect to your arguments, the only way that we could offer overwhelming evidence would be to jump in a time machine and travel to those ancient forests and jungles and observe directly. This being impossible, our only recourse is to use the scientific tools at our disposal to examine this question.
> 
> When evolutionary biologists are trying to discover when a particular morphological or behavioral trait evolved, the primary approach they use is the comparative phylogenetic method. They build a "tree" which depicts the evolutionary relationships of species which possess the trait, and include those species which are thought to be basal, or at the "root" of the tree. If the basal species possesses the trait, and all but one of the offshoot species possesses the trait, then any offshoot species that does not possess the trait is considered "derived". The most parsimonious explanation is that the trait disappeared in that single species, rather than disappearing and then re-appearing in all the species except that one. The situation becomes more complicated when the basal species condition is unknown, or when more than one species exhibits the derived condition. The hypothesis encompassing the fewest mutations which explain a particular pattern is the one we cannot reject.


 
You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here, right? Sure, it might make things easier, but it's not necessarily going to give an accurate explanation. 



> The situation we are talking about at present is very complicated. We can measure this trait directly in chimps, by observing female sexual behavior. But assessing this behavior in human females is more challenging, because there is so much variation in the trait when humans are considered. Thus arises the very real possibility that the trait has been heavily influenced by culture. So we ask the question "Before the advent of cultural distortion, what might this behavior have looked like?" Our goal then becomes identifying the trait in a currently extant species, but it it's evolutionary past. Another complication is that the trait is not discrete (sexual promiscuity vs. monogamy), but instead lies on a contiuum.


 
And yet the species you're using isn't human. It isn't even directly related to humans. Nor is it in the same temporal situation as when said trait developed in humans. I also point out that there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition.  



> So our goal is to determine whether a species exhibited a behavior sometime in its evolutionary past.


 
This is something you'll never know given your own statements at the start of your post. 



> Using the phylogenetic method, we normally would identify the basal species, and the offshoot species, and figure out which species exhibit the behavior and which don't. Thus chimps, even though they are not in our direct evolutionary history, are indeed relevant to this discussion. Hominids split off from the lineage which led to modern common chimps about 6 million years ago, so the last common ancestor we shared with them is the basal species. Two problems with this: we haven't identified that ape species in the fossil record, and behavioral traits don't fossilize, so we don't know if the basal species or any species which evolved after that possessed the trait. So we can't even determine if the trait is basal or derived, which is frustrating.


 
Frustrating to say the least. It's more accurate to say that your statistical probability of arriving at an accurate answer is rapidly approaching zero given then number of missing links (pardon the pun) and rather expansive temporal difference in situations today and that 6 million years ago. 

How does one even measure statistical probability when there is a time differential of 6 million years?



> We are left with falling back on our knowledge of how morphological traits are associated with sociosexual behavior. That evidence I presented to you earlier. There is a continuing debate in paleoanthropology about this very subject (there is a huge literature), and scientists have come to the tentative conclusion that there is strong evidence to suggest that modern humans did (and perhaps still do) engage in sperm competition, which in turn is linked throughout the animal kingdom to female promiscuity.


 
Since we're talking about modern humans now can I assume that there is something concrete on which they based this conclusion? I have seen various figures for the emergence of modern homo sapiens (between 55,000 and 100,000 years ago). Or do you mean something else by "modern human"? In any event 100,000 years is a lot less than 6 million so perhaps there's more evidence for what you're talking about. Or perhaps there's some actual _record_ of this behavior once writing developed? That way we wouldn't have to rely on hypotheses that are untestable. We'd only have to worry about the anecdotal evidence of the written record. 

I also note that even here you can only refer to scientists having a "tentative conclusion." That's rather less than I would hope for given the absolute statement that was made by elder999.



> Testicular tissue is expensive to maintain, and there would be strong selective pressure to reduce the size of the testicles if the extra sperm (and different types of sperm associated with multiple matings) was not needed. For instance, gorilla males have huge bodies (twice the size of females), because they compete directly with other males for territory, but the mate competition within a group is reduced because there are only one or two sexually mature males in it. Thus gorilla males have really tiny testicles. It is therefore not a parsimonious explanation to suggest that humans lost the trait (big testicles, associated with sperm competition), and then re-evolved the trait but use it for something else, as you suggested.


 
This is only even possibly true if you have a denuded concept of human sexuality. I don't even have to step outside the merely biologicsal to posit that your explanation here is unnecessary since the emotions are, properlly speaking, part of the biological make-up of an organism. Sexual characteristics can develop, in other words, to enhance the emotional aspect of sexual intercourse not just the procreative aspect (although that would certainly be primary). In other words, it's completely to be expected that species that can engage in sexual congress without the need for the female to be "in heat" would have these characetristics because they're going to spend mroe than a bit of time engaging in that behavior. The procreative aspect remains, of course, and those traits are passed on because they are beneficial to procreation. But the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them (which is why you'll often see women with guys who are complete losers, I might theorize LOL). 



> Perhaps the original poster would have been wiser to put a "maybe" in front of the assertion that ancient modern human females engaged in promiscuous sexual behavior.


 
Yes, now that you mention it he might have said that instead of making a blanket statemet and expecting people to blindly accept it. 



> Because that is what science is saying...maybe they did, *probably* they did, but we don't know for sure because we don't have a time machine.


 
Actually it would be more accurate  to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true. 

In fact, now that you mention it, I do wish more scientists would add those two statemets whenever they are saying anything to the media. It would save so much time and prevent many otehrwise fine people from making complete asses of themselves, IMHO. 



> Now, if you want to continue this dicussion further, let's do so in a private message, so this thread isn't derailed any further.
> 
> Jen


 
I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## KELLYG (Sep 23, 2009)

From a different point of view.  Most parents that send their children to college have sacrificed a lot to get them there.  This behavior is a slap in their face.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 23, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.



Yeah, I'm totally not buying this "oxygen" in the "atmosphere" theory. What next? Biological pathogens and elementary particles too small for the human eye to see?



> You realize that you're talking about using an unproven axiom here


 
That's rather the point of axioms, as it turns out.



> And yet the species you're using isn't human.


 
Yes, it's as absurd as testing cosmetics on rats or medicines on pigs or smoking effects on mice.



> How does one even measure statistical probability



How does one even define "statistical probability"? It isn't a term used in statistics (or probability).

There's a lot to criticize in evolutionary psychology (though I think they're on to something). But no empirical science proves things beyond all doubt--that's the province of mathematics. Even cherished "laws" like F=ma can fall.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm completely fine with continuing it here. Thread drift is inevitable. If you desire to take things to PM, though, you can.


 
Thread Drift may indeed be a force rampant throughout the Net but it is one that it is attempted to keep under control here at MartialTalk.

Threads in the Study are expected to cleave to the original topic as much as is possible.  

If drift occurs, then first there is a nudge (like this one), then an official warning.  If that warning is not heeded, then the thread is either locked or the Moderation Team attempt to split it as logically as they can.

So, interesting as the exchange maybe and as blase as individual posters may be about 'Drift', it would be best to take the discussion encapsulated by a couple of posts above to another thread.  

That in turn is preferable to taking the talk 'private'.  As long as the topic is truly not a 'private matter' and things that are undeniably personal are not being disclosed, all posters are urged to make discources open for all to contribute to.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 24, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Thread Drift may indeed be a force rampant throughout the Net but it is one that it is attempted to keep under control here at MartialTalk.
> 
> Threads in the Study are expected to cleave to the original topic as much as is possible.
> 
> ...


 
Well, like I told *Jenny_in_Chico* she can PM me if she wants. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 24, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, I'm totally not buying this "oxygen" in the "atmosphere" theory. What next? Biological pathogens and elementary particles too small for the human eye to see?


 
Way to miss my point. If you have a problem with what *Jenny_in_Chico* said regarding the nature of science I suggest you take it up with her. I was completely willing to say that science can, in fact, prove things (but that there was no proof offered in this particular instance). She was the one who said it cannot do so, strictly speaking. 



> That's rather the point of axioms, as it turns out.


 
Sure. But if you're again missing the point of what I was saying.



> Yes, it's as absurd as testing cosmetics on rats or medicines on pigs or smoking effects on mice.


 
No, it's not even in the same ball park. Animal experimentation certainly has its place, particularly in the areas you mentioned. But if we're talking about tracing the development of physical characteristics in human beings I'd think you'd want to actually do that, at some point. It's not a matter of testing drugs to see if they are harmful to the subject, it's a matter of getting accurate information on the subject you're talking about.



> How does one even define "statistical probability"? It isn't a term used in statistics (or probability).


 
Yes, it's used in statistics. But it deals with the probability of an event occuring over a period of time. I'd think that would be of some interest when dealing with the passing along of genetic traits over millions of years of evolution. Or do things like that not interest people in scientific fields?



> There's a lot to criticize in evolutionary psychology (though I think they're on to something). But no empirical science proves things beyond all doubt--that's the province of mathematics. Even cherished "laws" like F=ma can fall.


 
That was my point, despite that fact that you obviously ignored my post and instead chose to reply with your snarky comments. elder999 made a blanket statement, which I questioned. *Jenny_in_Chico* gave an explanation as to why it was possible (but to be honest offered no actual evidence for her position). I then pointed out a counter explanation that I would say is at least as likely as hers. This is especially true since there is no way to actually observe the behavior you're trying to prove. All that you can do is identifiy the presence of a genetic trait and offer theories as to why it's present. You can't test these theories. Using parallels in non-human subjects is interesting but ultimately fails to convince since, well, it's not dealing with human subject (which was the original topic of conversation).

So, if you have any evidence to offer in support of elder999's comment I'd gladly see it.

If, on the other hand, you have only snarky comments that result in your ignoring the point of my post, I'm not all that interested.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 24, 2009)

Hi Chris,

It wasn't my plan to respnd to this post, because I don't invest a lot of energy in debating people whom I think are wrong on the internet. I am losing interest in this debate primarily because it seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that you have difficulty in extracting information from written material. But it also seems weird not to respond when there is conversation which includes references to me. I encourage the moderators to split this thread since it has drifted so far off topic. 

I'll do my best to respond to each point, but I haven't figured out how to separate your quotes in response to my previous quotes, so my comments have been removed and readers will have to refer back to your last response for them.



chrispillertkd said:


> So, scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen.
> 
> That sounds like something I have heard of before, but I can't place it... Can you help me out here?
> 
> ...


 
In response to "scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen"...regrettably, there are many natural objects or phenomena that simply can't be measured or observed directly. For instance, there is evidence for "dark matter" in astrophysics. At this time we dont have the ability to directly observe it, but its gravitational influence on visible matter can be observed and measured. The presence of dark matter answers a lot of questions that have bothered physicists concerning how galaxies behave. Not all physicists support this hypothesis, but most do, until something better comes along which explains these phenomena more adequately. In the same vein, evolutionary biologists often cannot observe directly the evolution of particular traits, because of an incomplete fossil record or an unresolved phylogenetic tree. At this point, we can either throw up our hands and run home crying to momma, or we can use the tools at our disposal to try and address the question. Those tools are based both in logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) and in technology (statistics, genetics, functional morphology, reproductive physiology). Because the recursive scientific method is an effecient way to reduce big confusing questions down to testable hypotheses, and because science is subject to hyper-critical peer review, science is the best approach available for learning about the natural world. It is not at all like religion, where people are asked to accept things on faith. In this case, I argued that sexual promiscuity in our evolutionary past was probable, because the *well-documented morphological correlates to that behavior* are present in modern humans and in our closest living relatives. You suggested a less parsimonious explanation for that trait being present in humans, ie. I believe you suggested (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that human males have large testicles because they need to service their female partner throughout the month (no visible signs of estrus). This is actually a clever idea, and I give you full props for it.  However, human males could have testicles the size of grapes and accomplish this chore on a regular basis throughout the month, just as monogamous gibbons do.  Large testicles are required when a very high rate of sperm production is required, ie. several matings a day. Also, in species where the male engages in sperm competition with other males, they make different types of sperm...some sperm impregnate the female, while other types are evolved to form a glutinous "sperm plug" which prevents entry by ejaculates deposited by later males. Human sperm does this.

Later, you argue that my non-human primate examples are bogus, because they are not in the human evolutionary lineage. I stand by what I stated earlier, that this is a common comparative phylogenetic approach. I cannot give you a crash-course in phylogenetics. I respectfully suggest that you do some reading in this area, and perhaps we can talk again later. At this point however I feel that you don't have the background to assimilate my arguments. Please don't take this as an insult or an evasion, it truly is not intended that way. 

You then make the point that "there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition." However, I think that both I and the original poster have been referring to a period during hominid evolution when culture was not developed, in the sense that you and I and anthropologists view "culture". There are some indications of cultural idiosyncracies with respect to tool use in pre-human hominids, and then an explosion of cultural artifacts when modern humans were fully established. But there is a muddy area in there, between 200,000 and 40,000 years ago, when the anatomical differences between Homo sapiens and other sympatric hominids were not pronounced, and some anatomically modern human sites don't have culturally significant artifacts associated with them. So it may or may not be true that the human condition is a cultural condition. 

Later you mention that "perhaps there's some actual _record_ of this behavior once writing developed?" My response to this is to look at modern human societies. Formal polyandry is rare, but extra-pair copulatory behavior is common in every society that has been studied, and this is supported by genetic parentage assignment. This, of course, is not identical to the "gang bangs" that we've been discussing, but it does suggest that human monogamy is just as rare as it is in the animal world.

You also state that "the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them." I absolutely agree with this, and with your argument that human psychology plays a huge role in the expression of sexuality. Off the cuff, I think that human sexuality is equal parts culture, biologically-based mate choice, psychological perception of the current situation, and chance. There are factors (biological or psychological) which may encourage a human female to be faithful to her mate (he is "sexy" to her and she wants to have offspring with him; she doesn't want to violate her own self-identity; she is afraid of disease or discovery), and there are factors which may encourage a female to cheat (her mate is a good provider but not "sexy" to her; she feels like she never had a chance to sample other males; she is feeling old or unattractive and wants the thrill of sexual attention from a new conquest).

You then argue that "it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true." I would rephrase the caveat to state "Perhaps modern humans had gang bangs in the forest; there is evidence to suggest human female promiscuity, but the jury is still out until the fossil record is more complete and extensive behavioral genetic research has been accomplished in the area of human sexuality and mate choice."  Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered a gene (the receptor gene for the neuropeptide arginine vasopressin) which is associated with infidelity in human males, based on previous work done on monogamous and polygamous species of voles. So we may be closer than we think to answering this question, because phylogenetics can be performed with single genes just like morphological traits, and the "record" is preserved in our genomes. 

I can't believe how much time I've spent on this discussion. Frankly, I wish it would die, not because it isn't interesting but becuse it takes time away from other things. For instance, my yellow belt test in kenpo which is happening this Saturday!

Jenny


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> For the record, I wasn't suggesting that the woman was faultless, and I hope she is prosecuted for what she did. But the quote I posted stuck out to me because of the indignance that someone might think poorly of him. CC, you go ahead and play devil's advocate but, consensual or not, I think that participating in a gangbang is low-rent. YMMV.


 I'm sure it will slip out eventually.
sean


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 24, 2009)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic, and please keep the discussion polite and respectful, as well.

jks9199
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 24, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> It wasn't my plan to respnd to this post, because I don't invest a lot of energy in debating people whom I think are wrong on the internet. I am losing interest in this debate primarily because it seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that you have difficulty in extracting information from written material. But it also seems weird not to respond when there is conversation which includes references to me. I encourage the moderators to split this thread since it has drifted so far off topic.


 
Thanks for insulting me. I guess all that work on my doctorate has been wasted sinc e I don't know what I've actually been reading. Bummer.



> I'll do my best to respond to each point, but I haven't figured out how to separate your quotes in response to my previous quotes, so my comments have been removed and readers will have to refer back to your last response for them.


 
I thought about writing you directions on how to separate quotes but as I read my own description I was unable to extract the information on how to do it so I just figured you were so much smarter than me you could figure it out yourself. One day. 



> In response to "scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen"...regrettably, there are many natural objects or phenomena that simply can't be measured or observed directly.


 
Yes, I know that. You have missed my point. Apparently you didn't do a good job at extracting information from my written material.  



> For instance, there is evidence for "dark matter" in astrophysics. At this time we dont have the ability to directly observe it, but its gravitational influence on visible matter can be observed and measured. The presence of dark matter answers a lot of questions that have bothered physicists concerning how galaxies behave. Not all physicists support this hypothesis, but most do, until something better comes along which explains these phenomena more adequately.


 
All of which I know and is rrelevant to this topic. 



> In the same vein, evolutionary biologists often cannot observe directly the evolution of particular traits, because of an incomplete fossil record or an unresolved phylogenetic tree. At this point, we can either throw up our hands and run home crying to momma, or we can use the tools at our disposal to try and address the question. Those tools are based both in logic (deductive and inductive reasoning) and in technology (statistics, genetics, functional morphology, reproductive physiology). Because the recursive scientific method is an effecient way to reduce big confusing questions down to testable hypotheses, and because science is subject to hyper-critical peer review,


 
"Hyper-critical peer review." Yeah.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/47477/title/Peer_review_No_improvement_with_practice 



> science is the best approach available for learning about the natural world. It is not at all like religion, where people are asked to accept things on faith.


 
Me thinks that 1) you don't have a very informed definition of faith, and 2) you didn't read what I wrote in my last post and which you actually quoted in your response. I guess you just aren't that great at extracting information from written material.

Let me ask you again, and I'll see if you get the message this time, it appears that _scientists want people to accept evidence for things not seen_. Does that sound familiar at all? 



> In this case, I argued that sexual promiscuity in our evolutionary past was probable, because the *well-documented morphological correlates to that behavior* are present in modern humans and in our closest living relatives. You suggested a less parsimonious explanation for that trait being present in humans, ie. I believe you suggested (please correct me if I'm mistaken) that human males have large testicles because they need to service their female partner throughout the month (no visible signs of estrus).


 
Technicsally speaking, it isn't a "need." People do a lot of things they don't need to do. My explanation took into account something yours did not: human nature.  



> This is actually a clever idea, and I give you full props for it.


 
Aww, gee thanks. I'm "clever"! I don't feel talked down to at all. For a minute I thought you'd be patronizing towards me. 



> However, human males could have testicles the size of grapes and accomplish this chore on a regular basis throughout the month, just as monogamous gibbons do. Large testicles are required when a very high rate of sperm production is required, ie. several matings a day. Also, in species where the male engages in sperm competition with other males, they make different types of sperm...some sperm impregnate the female, while other types are evolved to form a glutinous "sperm plug" which prevents entry by ejaculates deposited by later males. Human sperm does this.


 
None of this actually argues against my theory or for yours, of course, since my theory doesn't rest on mating only several times a month as you mentioned before. 

I did know about the "sperm plug" before you mentioned it, btw. Heard about it several years ago, in fact.  



> Later, you argue that my non-human primate examples are bogus, because they are not in the human evolutionary lineage. I stand by what I stated earlier, that this is a common comparative phylogenetic approach.


 
I'm not suggesting it isn't a _common_ practice.  

_I cannot give you a crash-course in phylogenetics. I respectfully suggest that you do some reading in this area, and perhaps we can talk again later. At this point however I feel that you don't have the background to assimilate my arguments. Please don't take this as an insult or an evasion, it truly is not intended that way. [/quote]

You don't need to give me a crash course. And since I have trouble extracting information from written material such time would obviously be wasted anyway, right? 

On the other hand, you might do well to familiarize yourself with the basics of logic. That was a skill you mentioned that was necessary when dealing with problems such as the one we are discussing, viz. interpreting evidence of things not seen.




			You then make the point that "there's no reason to talk about "cultural distortion" when referring to humans or our ancestors as culture can be considered part of the human condition." However, I think that both I and the original poster have been referring to a period during hominid evolution when culture was not developed, in the sense that you and I and anthropologists view "culture". There are some indications of cultural idiosyncracies with respect to tool use in pre-human hominids, and then an explosion of cultural artifacts when modern humans were fully established. But there is a muddy area in there, between 200,000 and 40,000 years ago, when the anatomical differences between Homo sapiens and other sympatric hominids were not pronounced, and some anatomically modern human sites don't have culturally significant artifacts associated with them. So it may or may not be true that the human condition is a cultural condition.






			Parts of the human condition certainly are culturally conditioned. But even these things already exist in human nature at least logically prior to culture. In other words, something needs to exist before a culture can influence it. Indeed, human nature is inherently gearedto forming cultures. 

But, again, you miss my point. My comment was meant to indicate that it isn't necessarily a "distortion" when you are dealing with humans. Cultures influence traits, certainly. But cultures also spring from traits that man possesses. 

You seemed to miss, however, that if the species we're talking about is pre-human than culture isn't going to exist in the first place. So then you have to take into account the behavior of a pre-cultural species which results in a trait which is passed onto man via evolution which may or may not be influenced by various cultures across time. Good luck. 




			Later you mention that "perhaps there's some actual record of this behavior once writing developed?" My response to this is to look at modern human societies. Formal polyandry is rare, but extra-pair copulatory behavior is common in every society that has been studied, and this is supported by genetic parentage assignment. This, of course, is not identical to the "gang bangs" that we've been discussing, but it does suggest that human monogamy is just as rare as it is in the animal world.
		
Click to expand...

 
You are apparently not so good at extracting information from written material as my comment about written records was meant to illustrate the difficulty of gathering evidence for your position even after the evolution of modern man (to say nothing of his pre-human ancestors). I would've thought you would be better at such a skill given that you insulted me for what you took to be my shortcoming in this area. 




			You also state that "the emotional aspect of sex motivates the behavior in the first place and gets reinforced by it in the second place. The more you have sex with your mate the stringer the emotional bond you have with them." I absolutely agree with this, and with your argument that human psychology plays a huge role in the expression of sexuality. Off the cuff, I think that human sexuality is equal parts culture, biologically-based mate choice, psychological perception of the current situation, and chance. There are factors (biological or psychological) which may encourage a human female to be faithful to her mate (he is "sexy" to her and she wants to have offspring with him; she doesn't want to violate her own self-identity; she is afraid of disease or discovery), and there are factors which may encourage a female to cheat (her mate is a good provider but not "sexy" to her; she feels like she never had a chance to sample other males; she is feeling old or unattractive and wants the thrill of sexual attention from a new conquest).
		
Click to expand...

 
And yet you apparently ignore or cannot see that given this fact the explanation you give (or at least present as others are giving) seemingly takes no account of this. Any such ommision runs a high risk of completely misunderstanding human nature and thus offering an explanation that can only be called "inaccurate" at best.




			You then argue that "it would be more accurate to add the caveat "and we'll never know," if your statement at the beginning of your post is true." I would rephrase the caveat to state "Perhaps modern humans had gang bangs in the forest; there is evidence to suggest human female promiscuity, but the jury is still out until the fossil record is more complete and extensive behavioral genetic research has been accomplished in the area of human sexuality and mate choice." 

Sure. And then end it with "... but we'll never know." Because we won't.




			Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered a gene (the receptor gene for the neuropeptide arginine vasopressin) which is associated with infidelity in human males, based on previous work done on monogamous and polygamous species of voles. So we may be closer than we think to answering this question, because phylogenetics can be performed with single genes just like morphological traits, and the "record" is preserved in our genomes.
		
Click to expand...

 
Yes, we may be. Or we may not be.  




			I can't believe how much time I've spent on this discussion. Frankly, I wish it would die, not because it isn't interesting but becuse it takes time away from other things. For instance, my yellow belt test in kenpo which is happening this Saturday!

Jenny
		
Click to expand...

 
Good luck.

Pax,

Chris
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...

_


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 25, 2009)

I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good". 

I dislike the "well its human nature" excuse for bad, crass, disgusting or aka "base" behavior. It could be argued that it's "in my nature as a male" to kill another male for mating rights with his female (willing or not), and that trait has reared it's ugly head on many battlefields. 

When "Human Nature" trumps "right and wrong" we are truly lost.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good".
> 
> I dislike the "well its human nature" excuse for bad, crass, disgusting or aka "base" behavior. It could be rgued that it's "in my nature as a male" to kill another male for mating rights with his female (willing or not), and that trait has reared it's ugly head on many battlefields.


 
It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, _breaks no laws_,  and doesn't harm anyone else.




Archangel M said:


> When "Human Nature" trumps "right and wrong" we are truly lost.


 
"Human nature" *is* _human nature_, while "right and wrong" are largely social constructs.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, _breaks no laws_, and doesn't harm anyone else.
> .


If this is the case, maybe it's not for us to judge the people who judge such things....just saying.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If this is the case, maybe it's not for us to judge what people judge....just saying.


 

Not really sure that I've done that-or that what took place to initiate this thread, _or *this thread*_, really qualify as "in private,"
anymore.

In fact, I'd say that if you're posting in this thread (or any other), you're submitting your ideas for _judgment_........

......just saying. :lfao:


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good".


 
Which is why I asked in a previous post for some evidence as to the prominence of such behavior and whether it was considered normative or aberrant.  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Which is why I asked in a previous post for some evidence as to the prominence of such behavior and whether it was considered normative or aberrant.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
And, without risking further thread drift that we've been warned on (you wouldn't like my in depth answer much, anyway) why don't you try substituting "_formative_" for " _normative_?"

I mean, it's hardly _normative_* now*, is it? :lfao: (Though likely more prevalent than you're prepared for.....:lfao: )


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, _breaks no laws_, and doesn't harm anyone else.


 
 This, of course, is not true. People do it all the time here and elsewhere. It's part of what leads people to, amongst other things, change the laws to either outlaw what was once allowed or repeal laws allowing what was once forbidden. 

People make judgements aboutr _behavior_ all the time. That is quite different from being "judgemental," i.e. making judgements about a person's final destination after death. 



> "Human nature" *is* _human nature_, while "right and wrong" are largely social constructs.


 
Saying something is a social construct and not a result of human nature simply ignores the fact that society is also a result of human nature. 

In the mean time, scientists are finding some interesting things about morality: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/46747/title/Morality_Play

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, _breaks no laws_,  and doesn't harm anyone else.



I sure as hell CAN judge people if I so choose. This whole "judge not" thing has been taken WAY out of context IMO. It's not my place to demand, force, punish or mistreat people if they are not harming anybody, but JUDGMENT is definitely within my rights.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> This, of course, is not true. People do it all the time here and elsewhere. It's part of what leads people to, amongst other things, change the laws to either outlaw what was once allowed or repeal laws allowing what was once forbidden.


 
Just because it happens, doesn't make it necessary, or just.

If it occurs in private, we have no business _knowing_. If we don't know, we have no reason to judge.



chrispillertkd said:


> Saying something is a social construct and not a result of human nature simply ignores the fact that society is also a result of human nature.


 
No, it doesn't simply ignore that fact-any more than stating that fact negates the fact that many of those social constructs are clearly counter to human nature-for the good of their particular _societies_, of course......


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I sure as hell CAN judge people if I so choose. This whole "judge not" thing has been taken WAY out of context IMO. It's not my place to demand, force, punish or mistreat people if they are not harming anybody, but JUDGMENT is definitely within my rights.


 
JUDGEMENT to what end, then? Will you "serve and protect" them any less? Use purel after shaking hands with a coworker you've judged to be "base, vile, bad, crass and disgusting?" Not shake hands with them at all?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Just because it happens, doesn't make it necessary, or just.
> 
> If it occurs in private, we have no business _knowing_. If we don't know, we have no reason to judge.


 
This is, of course, not true. Even things that occur in private can influence wider society. 



> No, it doesn't simply ignore that fact-any more than stating that fact negates the fact that many of those social constructs are clearly counter to human nature-for the good of their particular _societies_, of course......


 
Then let me spell it out for you. If society is a product of human nature and you say that morality is largely the product of society then it is human nature that determines morality.

You might want to browse that article I supplied a link to; it has some interesting information in it.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## arnisador (Sep 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think the thing being left out here is that we humans can and DO suborn our "base instincts" all the time for what we deem a "higher purpose" or "the greater good".



As Richard Dawkins said, a man goes against his evolutionary instincts every time he uses a condom.



chrispillertkd said:


> Saying something is a social construct and not a result of human nature simply ignores the fact that society is also a result of human nature.



Of course, human nature is a consequence of chemistry, which is itself a consequence of particle physics.

Society/culture is a complex system, and it can have emergent consequences "unintended" or unprovided-for by human nature.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 25, 2009)

arnisador said:


> As Richard Dawkins said, a man goes against his evolutionary instincts every time he uses a condom.


 
Thanks...something about your post sparked a memory...

Now I can't get Monty Python out of my head...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 25, 2009)

arnisador said:


> As Richard Dawkins said, a man goes against his evolutionary instincts every time he uses a condom.


 
I was going to say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But if this is the whole of Dawkins' statement he is only partially correct.



> Of course, human nature is a consequence of chemistry, which is itself a consequence of particle physics.


 
Well, the human body is certainly a consequence of chemistry. Human nature might not be so flat a construct as you make it out to be. 



> Society/culture is a complex system, and it can have emergent consequences "unintended" or unprovided-for by human nature.


 
I'm not sure I follow you here, possibly because of our different understanding of human nature. Strictly speaking, a human nature that is _solely_ the consequence of chemistry, which you seem to imply is the case, has no intentions what so ever. It's a bit like when my anthropology professors used to go on about how evolution doesn't have anything "in mind."

Pax,

Chris


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 25, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Not really sure that I've done that-or that what took place to initiate this thread, _or *this thread*_, really qualify as "in private,"
> anymore.
> 
> In fact, I'd say that if you're posting in this thread (or any other), you're submitting your ideas for _judgment_........
> ...


I have no problems with judgement. I judge people all the time and in turn, I am judged. It just seems to me that, for someone who espouses non judgemental rhetoric, you are just as (if not more) judgemental.....again, just saying


----------



## arnisador (Sep 25, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> I was going to say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But if this is the whole of Dawkins' statement he is only partially correct.


 
No, that isn't the whole of his argument(s). In fact, he wrote a whole book. Actually, he has written several books, plus technical articles. It's a lot more than a single sentence.



> I'm not sure I follow you here, possibly because of our different understanding of human nature.



I'm talking about complex adaptive systems. The culture produced by a number of independently acting social agents is something bigger than anything they could have intended...and then that culture affects them. 



> It's a bit like when my anthropology professors used to go on about how evolution doesn't have anything "in mind."



Indeed, I think that isn't a bad one-line simplification of the matter. Evolution happens in response to various pressures.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I have no problems with judgement. I judge people all the time and in turn, I am judged. It just seems to me that, for someone who espouses non judgemental rhetoric, you are just as (if not more) judgemental.....again, just saying


 

_"Espouses non judgemental rhetoric?"_

What I said was:



elder999 said:


> It's not for us to judge what people do in private as "bad, crass, disgusting" or "base behavior," if it's consensual, _breaks no laws_, and doesn't harm anyone else.


 
Hardly rhetorical, and just my point of view. Certainly, though, if you can find a post where I've judged what cosensual, law abiding people do in _private_ that doesn't harm anyone..........



chrispillertkd said:


> You might want to browse that article I supplied a link to; it has some interesting information in it.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
I read the article. Like the first poster on that page, I think the writer has confused "morals" with "ethics." No matter.

Two men were walking through WalMart together, looking at the televisions. One was a New Yorker, born and bred, and raised a Christian-the other, a Saudi, born and bred, and raised, naturally enough, a Muslim. As they were looking at the televisions, one had an image of a woman in a burkha. The New Yorker said, _Look at that-the way your culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and *immoral*!_ At that moment, another television showed Pamela Anderson on the beach in a bikini, and the Saudi said, _Look at* that*-the way *your* culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and i*mmoral*!_

So much for moral judgements.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 26, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I read the article. Like the first poster on that page, I think the writer has confused "morals" with "ethics." No matter.


 
Ethics deals with what is good and bad and what is one's moral duty and obligation. It can also be thought of as a set of moral values (this would be in relation to a more specific field; medical ethics, for example). As such, I don't see any sort of conflict between saying the article dealt with ethics rather than morals, although it obviously did not do so in the second instance I cited. 



> Two men were walking through WalMart together, looking at the televisions. One was a New Yorker, born and bred, and raised a Christian-the other, a Saudi, born and bred, and raised, naturally enough, a Muslim. As they were looking at the televisions, one had an image of a woman in a burkha. The New Yorker said, _Look at that-the way your culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and *immoral*!_ At that moment, another television showed Pamela Anderson on the beach in a bikini, and the Saudi said, _Look at* that*-the way *your* culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and i*mmoral*!_
> 
> So much for moral judgements.


 
Do you have a reference to when and where this event happened? I'd be very interested in knowing who the men were involved and what shows they were specifically viewing on television since you're using this _specific example_ as evidence to try to refute a scientific study. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Do you have a reference to when and where this event happened? I'd be very interested in knowing who the men were involved and what shows they were specifically viewing on television since you're using this _specific example_ as evidence to try to refute a scientific study.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Abdallah Faraqwi is a Nashqabandi Sufi.We've been friends for more than 30 years;I've known him since boarding school. This is how we've _always_ spoken to each other, and it happened last summer, in Santa Fe.

It was all we could do to keep from falling on the floor laughing. The woman in the burkha was on a news story, and I think Pam Anderson was in a commercial, though I didn't much care at the time.

While you seem to think I'm using it to refute _scientific study_, I'm not. I only used it to point out the relative gradations inherent in what we call "morals,"making judgements about them, and the *hazards* inherent in making judgements about them. (Though we were both kidding, it was conveniently ironic that Pamela Anderson appeared when she did....)


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2009)

Intertestingly, Abdallah and I could both be considered apostates from the moral framework of the religions in which we were raised. The Wahabist Islam in which he was raised considers Sufism to be heretical-to them,he *is* an apostate-one whose brother has sworn to put him to death for daring to become a heretic, and I am_ barely_ a Christian anymore, though I continue to enjoy the love and companionship of my family-yet another difference in the _morals_ of the two cultures we were raised within. Funnily enough, though, our apostasy has made it simpler for us to pray _togethe_r-something neither of us could consider, 30 some odd years ago. While neither of us actually feels the sentiments expressed about the other&#8217;s culture in WalMart, we are both well aware of those who do, and the gulf in moral judgements that divide us all-it was our way of joking about it, though as younger men getting to know each other we had similar arguments and discussions. Indeed, such gulfs exist within our own culture in the U.S., as evidenced not only by posts in this thread, but by the Amish, Mennonites and other sects, who choose a mode of dress and lifestyle that is apart from the dominant culture, because to do otherwise is considered to be_ immoral_. There&#8217;s a local Christian school here in New Mexico-their girl&#8217;s basketball team plays quite well in long skirts, though their inside game is constrained by the morality of the subculture they operate within.

I&#8217;m more than willing to concede that a component of &#8220;morals&#8221; is inherent to &#8220;human nature.&#8221; In fact, it was never my intention to state otherwise. After all, we have an almost universal aversion to incest, and the taking human life, a variety of societies where it is _immoral_ to do so under *any* circumstances, and a a variety of _ethics_ surrounding the taking of human life, both when it is not permissible, and _when it is_. Of course, this doesn&#8217;t discount the fact that while it&#8217;s unethical and immoral for me to go over to my neighbor, kill him and take his wife or daughter, it wasn&#8217;t for some of my ancestors (indeed, that was how they usually got wives), and may still not be for a Jivaro tribesman in the Amazon. The morals and ethics that a society establishes, though, are clearly variable-and outside of biology.*Man is more than his biology*, though, and so is &#8220;human nature.&#8221;

I was speaking of _*biology,*_ though, when I said this:



elder999 said:


> Of course, "gang-bangs" have existed as long as mankind has: *it&#8217;s a biological mechanism and impulse*.


 
While it won&#8217;t constitute what you asked for as &#8220;proof,&#8221; I have to point out that preponderance of scientific evidence backs up my assertion.

According to Masters and Johnson : _"if a woman who is capable of regular orgasms is properly stimulated after the first climax, she is capable of having a second, third, fourth, and even fifth and sixth orgasm within a matter of minutes." _Subsequent orgasms are even more satisfying and pleasurable than the first. Even women who are described as "frigid" by the strictest of standards, are capable of experiencing intense multiple orgasms following therapy. As determined by Masters and Johnson, the human female is capable of having_"20 to 50 consecutive orgasms*. She will stop only when totally exhausted*_."

More recent studies, however, indicate that only about 42% of women admit to experiencing multiple orgasms. Nevertheless, those who admit to experiencing multiple orgasms are generally more sexually assertive and willing to engage in a variety of sexual activities and tend to feel less restricted by societal norms. Thus, they are more likely to seek out multiple partners and to expect multiple orgasms.

Indeed, the more a woman enjoys sex, and the more open she is to her sexuality, the more likely she is to seek out multiple sex, and this includes those women in supposedly monogamous relationships. A common female fantasy even among married women is to have an affair. Thus, we have what some consider the _crude, base and low-rent_ subculture of "swinging."

The important thing, though, which has been pointed out before, is that other species of female primate capable of experiencing multiple orgasms are not monogamous, *and will aggressively solicit male after male for sex* &#8211;this has been observed repeatedly in the field, by no less than Jane Goodall, and many other leaders in primatology. A single chimpanzee or bonobo male is not biologically capable of providing the stimulation necessary for multiple orgasms and often is unable to provide sufficient stimulation for a single orgasm. In consequence, the sexually aroused female will aggressively seek sex with multiple males 

Unlike females, human males and other male primates quickly become drowsy and sexually unresponsive due to the experience of a "refractory period" following their own orgasm. The refractory period may last minutes or hours before the male is capable of getting a second erection, and the same is true of other species. For example, the male chimp takes
only 10 to 15 seconds to ejaculate before experiencing a prolonged refractory period in which he becomes drowsy and disinterested in sex.

In fact, primate males such as the rhesus, howler, gorilla, and chimpanzee, typically become unresponsive to the aggressive sexual solicitation of the female after three or four ejaculations in a single day, and cease to respond after three or four days of sexual activity . In these and other species, the sexual hunger of the multi-orgasmic female, and her capacity for copulation completely exceeds that of any single male which is yet another reason why she will stereotypically solicit male after male for sex .

_"A single estrus female may satiate, entirely... several sexually vigorous males,_"according to Clarence Ray Carpenter, one of the pioneers in the field of primatology, on his observations of the chimpanzee. Female chimps, baboons, gorillas, and monkeys, are capable of exhausting male and after male without showing any lessening of sexual desire. The same appears to be true of the human female, but, whil the female chimpanzee may have sex 50 times in a single day, the human female can have up to 50 orgasms in _just a few hours_.

Thus, it appears that the human female is biologically predisposed to have sex with multiple sex partners, which is why she has inherited the capacity to experience multiple orgasms as well as an enlarged derriere and prominent breasts which serve to continually signal her sexual status and attract male sex partners. However, as with other species, it is likely that she sometimes seeks out multiple partners not just for pleasure, but as multiple partners insure she will become pregnant and that she will be exposed to multiple males offering her diversity a of genetic material.

I&#8217;d wager that there isn&#8217;t a single sexually active woman on this board who isn&#8217;t familiar with the post-coital experience of thinking, _Is that it?_ as her partner starts to snore. :lol:

More to the point, though, if a woman is capable of overcoming the conditioning of society-the morals and ethics that regulate her sexual behavior: the notion that she&#8217;d be a slut, unfaithful to her husband, etc.-and another man that she found acceptable were standing at the foot of the bed waiting to take over from her sleeping partner, she&#8217;d likely welcome him with open arms-her biology dictates as much, just as her partner&#8217;s dictates he must sleep, or at least become lethargic. Indeed, there is an entire subculture built around just this sort of activity, though many would judge it to be _base, crude and low-rent._ 

I just say it's not for me, and leave it at that....

Of course, humans are somewhat unique, in that we&#8217;re more than just our biology. We&#8217;ve established marriage-in various forms-as an adaptive trade off, one in the form of a contract at it&#8217;s most basic. Women have been more than willing to trade the primitive erotic satisfaction of multiple couplings for the various benefits of having a single partner for quite some time-in fact, in that time we&#8217;ve also adapted ways of displaying our suitability as choices for exclusivity to each other. Men too, have traded the ability to couple with multiple partners for a variety of biological reasons, chiefly among them the ability to try and ensure that their partner's offspring is, in fact, sired by them.

Some marriages, though, are polygamous, which some cultures find immoral, and others do not. Some have a history of being more flexible about how a woman should behave sexually, as in Polynesian cultures. Just a clear reminder that what we call &#8220;morals&#8217; are _generally_ social constructs, and not _predominantly_ a function of biology.

I&#8217;d suggest, if you&#8217;re interested, that you read the following articles and books-_though Human Sperm Competition_ is very difficult to obtain these days.

Darling, C. A., Davidson, J. K., & Cox, R. P. (1991). _Female sexual response and the timing of partner orgasm._ Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 3-21.
Masters, W.H.; Johnson, V.E. (1966). _Human Sexual Response_. Bantam Books

R.R. Baker & M.A. Bellis , _Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation and Infidelity_ Chapman Hall

Jane Goodall, _Through a Window_,and _In the Shadow of Man_, Houghton Mifflin

Clarence Ray Carpenter, _Behavioral Regulators of Behavior in Primates_, Bucknell University Press, and _Evolutionary Interpretations of Human Behavior_, transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1942.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 27, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Two men were walking through WalMart together, looking at the televisions. One was a New Yorker, born and bred, and raised a Christian-the other, a Saudi, born and bred, and raised, naturally enough, a Muslim. As they were looking at the televisions, one had an image of a woman in a burkha. The New Yorker said, _Look at that-the way your culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and *immoral*!_ At that moment, another television showed Pamela Anderson on the beach in a bikini, and the Saudi said, _Look at* that*-the way *your* culture treats women is degrading, oppressive and i*mmoral*!_
> 
> So much for moral judgements.


 
Hmm..one culture mandates and enforces the Burkha through religious based laws and many cultures enact punishments as harsh as beatings or death if disobeyed.

The other is an exampe of a woman doing as she chooses. 

So much for moral relativism.

:rofl:


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Hmm..one culture mandates and enforces the Burkha through religious based laws and many cultures enact punishments as harsh as beatings or death if disobeyed.
> 
> The other is an exampe of a woman doing as she chooses.
> 
> ...


 
On the other hand, the one culture doesn't see those "morals" as particularly immoral, while it views "a woman doing as she chooses" as _completely_ immoral. The other culture sees those "morals" as completely immoral, while it views "a woman doing as she pleases" as _mora_l-as long as "as she pleases" doesn't include having sex with four men at the same time, apparently....:lfao:

"Morals" most certainly are not completely universal.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 27, 2009)

elder999 said:


> While you seem to think I'm using it to refute _scientific study_, I'm not.


 
Yes, that was the impression I got, especially given your comment of "so much for moral judgements." I'm glad to see you realize that your anecdotal evidence doesn't impact the validity of the scientific study. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 27, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Some marriages, though, are polygamous, which some cultures find immoral, and others do not. Some have a history of being more flexible about how a woman should behave sexually, as in Polynesian cultures. Just a clear reminder that what we call morals are _generally_ social constructs, and not _predominantly_ a function of biology.


 
The sexual "flexibility" of Polynesian cultures? I thought for sure you'd be familiar with _Margaret Mead and the Heretic_ by Derek Freeman. Pity you are not.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 27, 2009)

Interesting.

Ejaculation and orgasm are not synonymous terms in men. A man, with lots of practice and muscle control, can have an orgasm without ejaculation. Whereby he can keep up the love making process as there is no loss of erection.

Based on my research&#8230;Not all women can achieve multiple orgasms&#8230;
Actually it was an article I read, and it was on Oprah last year!! (I&#8217;m sitting here writing a paper, with sources coming out of my ***, and I quote Oprah&#8230. I believe they were talking about 30 &#8211; 40% of woman can and do have them.

A woman who can have multiple orgasms does not necessarily need multiple partners. Penetration is not the only way for a woman to achieve orgasm. As most women know, it may be the least efficient way to get there. 

I think it is unfair to compare humans with other primates in terms of sexual desire and responsiveness. Humans are unique in many ways. We are conditioned to form pair bonds, yes some stray from that for various reasons, but the vast majority do not. 

Some of your sources may very well be dated Elder.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 29, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Yes, that was the impression I got, especially given your comment of "so much for moral judgements." I'm glad to see you realize that your anecdotal evidence doesn't impact the validity of the scientific study.





chrispillertkd said:


> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Wasn&#8217;t really interested in impacting the validity of the scientific study. I&#8217;ll even concede (_again_) that a _portion_ of what we call morality seems to be inherent, and somewhat universal. The anecdote demonstrates, though, that morals are not necessarily universal-especially those that are entirely based on societal values.




chrispillertkd said:


> The sexual "flexibility" of Polynesian cultures? I thought for sure you'd be familiar with _Margaret Mead and the Heretic_ by Derek Freeman. Pity you are not





chrispillertkd said:


> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
Actually, I&#8217;m completely familiar with it. I was referring, however, to an earlier time than the 1930&#8217;s and 40&#8217;s. More like the time the South Pacific whaling grounds were discovered, and the times prior to that. 

From a Kinsey Institute Encyclopedia article on French Polynesia:



> While sailors on the early European exploring ships regarded Polynesia as a sexual paradise, the missionaries they brought viewed the same cultures as dens of debauchery. Oliver (1989) cites a 1778 report of J. Forster who stated: &#8220;The great plenty of good and nourishing food, together with fine climate, the beauty and unreserved behavior of their females, invite them powerfully to the enjoyments and pleasures of love. They begin early to abandon themselves to the most libidinous scenes.&#8221; Tahitians specifically, and Polynesians generally, became known for their sex-positive attitudes and open valuing of sexuality, although the cultural structuring and tacit rules for sexual expressions were not apparent to the Europeans. Sexual experience and expression for many Polynesians began early and continued throughout the life course.
> 
> Needless to say, the various explorers and colonial ship crews visiting the islands misunderstood Polynesian sexuality. For example, in the Marquesas, young naked girls swam out to the ships to engage in sexual trysts with the sailors. While the sailors took advantage of the sexual liberation of these young girls, they experienced some ambiguity, because their own Western sexual paradigm had no comparable framework or referent. While Polynesian girls were similar in some respects to the prostitutes or sex workers who typically greeted these sailors at other ports, they were also very different because of their youth, nakedness, and willingness to swim out to greet the boats. In addition, not all young women swam out to the boats or engaged in sex with the sailors. The young girls that came out to the ships were outside the tapu classes, so their relations with the visitors provided them access to status and wealth that they would not normally have. Foreign sailors and observers were not aware of the situational and contextual factors behind this behavior (Dening 1980).
> 
> ...


 



Ken Morgan said:


> Some of your sources may very well be dated Elder.


 

See above-not dated, so much as of a time before colonization and missionaries had altered the behavior of those peoples.

The material on so-called 'lesser primates," though, are all pretty much standards of the field-even Carpenter.



Ken Morgan said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Ejaculation and orgasm are not synonymous terms in men. A man, with lots of practice and muscle control, can have an orgasm without ejaculation. Whereby he can keep up the love making process as there is no loss of erection.


 
Quite so :




elder999 said:


> .*Man is more than his biology*, though, and so is &#8220;human nature"





elder999 said:


> Of course, humans are somewhat unique, in that we&#8217;re more than just our biology..


 
The adaptive alternatives, of course, run the gamut-though your option is the most satisfactory for all involved. I certainly never meant that a woman needed multiple partners for multiple orgasms-that would be putting the cart somewhat before the horse-I was making the point that multiple orgasms make it easier, and more attractive, for a woman to have multiple partners, and that there were valid biological reasons for such a practice, in terms of breeding diversity and protection of offspring.




Ken Morgan said:


> Based on my research&#8230;Not all women can achieve multiple orgasms&#8230;


 
Based on my &#8220;research&#8221; *all women can.*:lfao:



Ken Morgan said:


> I think it is unfair to compare humans with other primates in terms of sexual desire and responsiveness. Humans are unique in many ways. We are conditioned to form pair bonds, yes some stray from that for various reasons, but the vast majority do not.


 
See above, again-there were also various adaptive reasons for our being conditioned to form pair bonds-though this itself has done little historically to diminish the practice of polygamy. 

Again, man is more than his biology, but we have biological drives. The capacity to have multiple orgasms is one of them. Simply because a woman chooses to engage in sex with multiple partners-_even at the same time_ does not make her a total slut, skank or whore. More to the point, this particular instance is a good example of what can happen when we disregard our conditioning-afterwards, of course, for a variety of reasons, she was ashamed-though it&#8217;s hard to say what her reaction might have been if she weren&#8217;t in a relationship.


----------



## crushing (Sep 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Again, man is more than his biology, but we have biological drives. The capacity to have multiple orgasms is one of them. *Simply because a woman chooses to engage in sex with multiple partners-even at the same time does not make her a total slut, skank or whore.* More to the point, this particular instance is a good example of what can happen when we disregard our conditioning-afterwards, of course, for a variety of reasons, she was ashamed-though its hard to say what her reaction might have been if she werent in a relationship.


 
When I've heard the terms slut, skank, and whore they were used precisely to denote promiscuity (Not restricted to one sexual partner).


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 30, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Based on my research *all women can.*:lfao:


 

Man that hurts....really.... 

The trick is male multiple orgasms. Every male I've told this to lokos at me like I'm nuts, but they all want to borrow the book I have.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2009)

crushing said:


> When I've heard the terms slut, skank, and whore they were used precisely to denote promiscuity (Not restricted to one sexual partner).


 

When I've heard the terms _dinge, coon,and jungle-bunny_, in addition to a few others, they were used precisely to denote "race."

Doesn't make it _right,_ though.......


----------



## crushing (Oct 1, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Doesn't make it _right,_ though.......


 
Are you disagreeing with someone?  I must have missed where someone said it was right to use such derogatory terms.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Oct 1, 2009)

elder999 said:


> From a Kinsey Institute Encyclopedia [/quote]
> 
> :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
> 
> ...


----------

