"We know how to treat a lady."

[elder999]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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:

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..........

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 immoral!

So much for moral judgements.

 

[chrispillertkd]

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 immoral!

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]

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]

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 together-something neither of us could consider, 30 some odd years ago. While neither of us actually feels the sentiments expressed about the other’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’s a local Christian school here in New Mexico-their girl’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’m more than willing to concede that a component of “morals” is inherent to “human nature.” 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’t discount the fact that while it’s unethical and immoral for me to go over to my neighbor, kill him and take his wife or daughter, it wasn’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 “human nature.”

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

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

While it won’t constitute what you asked for as “proof,” 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 –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’d wager that there isn’t a single sexually active woman on this board who isn’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’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’d likely welcome him with open arms-her biology dictates as much, just as her partner’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’re more than just our biology. We’ve established marriage-in various forms-as an adaptive trade off, one in the form of a contract at it’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’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 “morals’ are generally social constructs, and not predominantly a function of biology.

I’d suggest, if you’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]

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 immoral!

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]

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:

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 moral-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]

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