fuji, I think your premise (that all of our thought etc. "all exist only to serve the sexual relationship") is going to be very hard to justify. Nevertheless, I would like to see you try. Is there any chance you might answer my question above?
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Sorry, I missed your message earlier. Anything that gives us a survival advantage ultimately contributes to our ability to reproduce. Social advances and technological advances, like friendship or calculus, serve the sexual relationship in this secondary sense. They are all things that enable us to survive, the point of survival being reproduction.fuji, I think your premise (that all of our thought etc. "all exist only to serve the sexual relationship") is going to be very hard to justify. Nevertheless, I would like to see you try. Is there any chance you might answer my question above?
When it comes to specific mating choices women will generally seek out the most successful men. Those men will have achieved their success through their mastery of friendships/calculus/coal mining whatever. For individual men the choice to excel in those things often is explicitly tied to a desire to attract a better woman. Even for those who claim to pursue such things for their own sake, their success tends to attract mates, so their intention isn't really relevant--the effect is still there. It's still in service of the sexual relationship.
Here's an overview of some of the data, it's on a blog--the study itself is not online: http://amusinghistorymusings.blogspot.com/2009/11/male-promiscuity-genetic.htmlShow me the evidence that we are hard wired to have as many sexual partners as possible.
There is very, very strong data that males desire multiple sexual partners. There is also a lot of reason to believe that women are the same, which is discussed in that blog posting as well.
Still common enough to be normal behavior, so no real impact to any argument there.1) the latest study on infidelity carried out through the Kinsey Institute via two large universities, one in the US and one in Canada pegs the rate of infidelity at less than 25% for both sexes (23 and 19 IIRC).
The rest of your post didn't touch either of the main points:
-- People are hardwired to want to have many sexual partners
-- People are hardwired to want to limit infidelity by their partners
You haven't disputed either point, which are the only points that are necessary for the argument to proceed.
The next step is to point out that there are only a limited number of strategies that affirm both those desires.
Her belief as to what I'm doing differs from reality, so of course she says "have a good night".when you are going out every saturday night, does your imaginary wife say "Have a good night" or "give it to her to good in a life affirming way"?
This boils down to the power dynamic in sexual relationships which I discussed previously. If you are the weaker party in the sexual relationship you will not be able to resist controls being put on your life that would interfere with infidelity. Similarly, you would not be able to impose controls on your partner that would limit their infidelity.
I have generally been successful in arranging things so that I always have a clear idea of where she is, and what she is doing. Meanwhile I have been able to resist her demands that I behave in a way that would make my behavior more transparent to her.
Thus your ability to commit infidelity is greatly enhanced if you hold more of the cards in the relationship, and can therefore dictate more of the terms. If you hold fewer cards then your partner absolutely will impose controls on you, and if they hold enough cards they will prevent you from reciprocating that--and then they will cheat.
Not when what he produces are conclusions like it's legal for Canada to invade the United States. He actually managed to persuade himself that one was true by an overly literal reading of some law on the subject, subsequently confusing himself over some ambiguities in it, losing sight of common sense, and producing that gem.Well, one would think "the obvious" would be the most literal reading of what was actually said when giving definitions and statements.
Again you misrepresent me. I did not say that our ancestors were TRYING to produce us. It's much more likely that they were just trying to enjoy themselves. All I said that was their choices produced us, not that this was the intent of their choices. But of course we all know by now you are incapable of responding to my points without misrepresenting them.Well that makes every evolutionary biologist on the planet a clown, because despite any differences they might have about the process of evolution leading to homo sapiens, they all agree that teleology is wrong. Whatever choices were made by human ancestors were not choices trying to produce us, as that would be a teleological explanation of their choices and of us, each of which is wrong. Of course Fuji will now wiggle away claiming he meant some special meaning of "product" not grasped by us humans restricted to conventional language. But even if he does reword without saying he is rewording, he is still conceptually wrong. Which ancestors? Which choices? Were there always choices? Apes and bonobos are in each in our line and ape males basically have patriarchy- based subservient females, whereas bonobos have matriarchal female choice systems. Fuji's statement is just one of those sentences so vaguely worded it ends up having no real meaning.
Specifically those who (for their own enjoyment) had multiple sexual partners reproduced more often and resulted in us tending to be the descendants of people who chose to have multiple sexual partners.
There's no reason to think that there would be any less cheating under a "slow historical strategy". It would just mean the cheating is carried out more judiciously. So a woman who is married to the best provider in her village is still going to have a strong incentive to mate with the healthiest male. Unless they're the same individual she has an incentive to cheat. Similarly, any male in that village has an incentive to cheat with the woman married to the best provider, maximizing the resources available to his own offspring. Moreover, she has an incentive to have her multiple children with multiple males--greater genetic diversity benefits the survival of her own genes. The slow model just means there's an incentive to produce children at a slower rate, it does not mean that there is an incentive to have them all with the same person!3) Many people who study in this area (which is a not well understood area) are now suggesting that what is called the "slow historical strategy" is the one that has been adapted by primates for perhaps millions of years now, and seems to include humans. It includes having less children and less partners but more resources to take care of the ones you do. Most of the current modelling and evidence supports this conclusion.
i don't buy any of your weaker party stuff and so I will just ignore it. I have only been married twice ( i mean really married not just internet pretend) so I can only surmise based on my experience, but I find it very odd that any woman, especially with both parties working full time, would not want to spend saturday night with her husband, and that any real woman would not find it odd/suspicious that her husband goes out saturday nights without her. it strains credibility. it strains it alot.Her belief as to what I'm doing differs from reality, so of course she says "have a good night".
This boils down to the power dynamic in sexual relationships which I discussed previously. If you are the weaker party in the sexual relationship you will not be able to resist controls being put on your life that would interfere with infidelity. Similarly, you would not be able to impose controls on your partner that would limit their infidelity.
I have generally been successful in arranging things so that I always have a clear idea of where she is, and what she is doing. Meanwhile I have been able to resist her demands that I behave in a way that would make my behavior more transparent to her.
Thus your ability to commit infidelity is greatly enhanced if you hold more of the cards in the relationship, and can therefore dictate more of the terms. If you hold fewer cards then your partner absolutely will impose controls on you, and if they hold enough cards they will prevent you from reciprocating that--and then they will cheat.
Specifically there is a desire for multiple sexual partners, and a desire to prevent infidelity. Cheating is ONE resolution that actualizes both of those desires. Another are social structures in which powerful/successful people explicitly have multiple exclusive partners. Both behaviors are commonplace around the world.So when Fuji says cheating is complex, but not hardwired, he means there is not a biological imperative to cheat even if there are basic desires providing strong incentives to cheat.
You're reaching in outrageous, unsupported ways. There is no reason to think that's "the most plausible factor" and anyway that argument fails. Norms-as-moral-codes plainly won't work here for reasons I've previously given you, so you can't make that leap.And the most plausible factors that come to mind are social and psychological factors contributing to cheating. And the most plausible, though not only, way to conceive of those factors is to see them group-based norms and conventions.
I've proposed an evolutionary explanation for why people want multiple partners, but really, if you want to propose a different explanation that's fine. My argument prevails so long as it winds up being true that people universally desire multiple sexual partners (whether or not they act on that).Where is the evidence for 'B', the biological imperative to have multiple partners? It can't be from surveys of people saying they want to have sex alot with alot of different people. That would be to infer cause from effect...
As for your long spiel about monogamy, dimorphism, etc.--plainly we live in nominally monogamous relationships. There's no point in talking about "cheating" otherwise. Your argument concluded that we have moved to "more" monogamous relationships, which clearly does not preclude the possibility of cheating, and it's an empirical fact that we cheat.
You seem to have forgotten that my argument asserts there are TWO imperatives:
-- A desire for multiple sexual partners
-- A desire to limit infidelity by those partners
Your argument did not account for the impact of the 2nd.
I've been quite clear. It's your poverty that you continue to behave in such a pedantic fashion.And that is the problem. You say things very vaguely just so you can say everyone misrepresents you. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would not say things so vaguely.
Sw1tch I am beginning to think you are mentally crippled.
"Do you think you are in a position to say evolution was driven more by cheating behaviour than other forms of sexual behavior?"
You asked that question and I pointed out that I never made that claim and my argument doesn't depend on it. You then completely idiotically go on to claim it contradicts this:
"those who (for their own enjoyment) had multiple sexual partners reproduced more often and resulted in us tending to be the descendants of people who chose to have multiple sexual partners."
Where the hell in the 2nd quote do you find any claim that choosing multiple partners had MORE of an impact THAN ANY OTHER behavior? My argument depends only on there being a desire to have multiple partners, which depends only on that having been ONE factor in selection historically. Nowhere do I claim that it is the largest, most important, or only factor.
You are a moron.
Are you dumb enough to think that you can get away with this sort of misrepresentation? Do you think I'm not going to call it out???
"Do you think you are in a position to say evolution was driven more by cheating behaviour than other forms of sexual behavior?"
You asked that question and I pointed out that I never made that claim and my argument doesn't depend on it. You then completely idiotically go on to claim it contradicts this:
"those who (for their own enjoyment) had multiple sexual partners reproduced more often and resulted in us tending to be the descendants of people who chose to have multiple sexual partners."
Where the hell in the 2nd quote do you find any claim that choosing multiple partners had MORE of an impact THAN ANY OTHER behavior? My argument depends only on there being a desire to have multiple partners, which depends only on that having been ONE factor in selection historically. Nowhere do I claim that it is the largest, most important, or only factor.
You are a moron.
Are you dumb enough to think that you can get away with this sort of misrepresentation? Do you think I'm not going to call it out???
No you didn't. In each instance where you claimed that you relied on misrepresenting my position. For example, your claim of "naturalistic fallacy" was concocted by you when I said that sexual cheating was normal behavior, and you misrepresented that as "cheating happens" and then pretended that I had ever claimed that because "cheating happens" that "cheating is good". It was a pure fabrication on your part, responding to arguments I never made, and you used that fabrication to claim "naturalistic fallacy".As I noted, along the way to trying to justify these claims, Fuji repeatedly fell into logical errors: naturalistic fallacy, falsified inductive inference, special pleading, and begging the question.
You either failed to comprehend what I wrote, or you intentionally misrepresented it.
You can't now repeat these assertions that are based on lies, deceit, and misrepresentation! You are a fraud.
Again your stupidity and your dishonesty is on full display. There has been LOTS of evidence on this thread demonstrating that cheating is commonplace. Empirical evidence. It's a fact on the table. I put forward the evolutionary theory not to prove that assertion is true but rather as an explanation for the fact in evidence.There is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
Your complete and utter inability to comprehend basic English is the problem here.
Absurd. All that implies is that we should expect human society to be organized around monogamous principles. And lo and behold, we do. You've said nothing interesting.If the evolution of our species followed reduced sexual dimorphism, the concealment of ovulation, and proportionately small testes size, well all of these evolution produced biological realities are at odds with the biological realities found in promiscuous and polygynous primates. We are just not like them.
The whole point of this thread, if you are too dumb to grasp it, is that we are not perfectly monogamous. We cheat. We organize ourselves into monogamous relationships and then we cheat on them.
Therefore it's completely unsurprising that we would have many of the attributes of monogamous species. What point you hoped to make here I don't know.
You seem to be one of those stupid people who thinks in black/white terms. You think that evolutionary traits must imply we are wholly monogamous or wholly promiscuous, and you apparently want to misrepresent my argument into being the "wholly promiscuous" variants so you can argue for wholly monogamous.
But we are not wholly monogamous nor are we wholly promiscuous. We organize ourselves in a monogamous fashion, but then we behave promiscuously anyway.
Which is a wholesale misrepresentation. To say that people who had more sexual partners reproduced more often than those who didn't DOES NOT imply that this is more important than any other factor. There are going to be a variety of factors which result in people having more descendants, for example it's also likely going to be true that people who were better hunters had more offspring, or whatever desirable trait. Saying that having trait X makes you more likely to reproduce than NOT having trait X says NOTHING about the relative importance of trait X to trait Y.Well I got the MORE from...
- reproduced more often...
You're just an idiot for drawing that conclusion. It's a very basic error implying very limited intellect on your part.
Now I'm convinced you misrepresent me out of stupidity rather than out of malice.
You were refuted in post #385.As I noted, the genus homo has evolved minimal sexual dimorphism, proportionately small testes, and a concealed ovulation, all of which are associated with pair bonding mating systems
Whereas the norm is monogamous pair bonding with cheating, which also is fully in line with the traits you gave.But against those who argue we have all these powerful biological drives that give us strong incentives to cheat, so much so that human systems to stop or negatively evaluate cheating are just leaves in the wind, well saying our biology actually strongly suggests monogamous pair bonding would be the norm is a knock down argument.
Wrong. We engage in BOTH monogamous pair bonding AND cheating. In fact, cheating is a nonsensical concept without the monogamous pair bonding being there in the first place. Were you too stupid to notice that?If we have many of the attributes of monogamous pair bonding species, which is what I have pointed out is supported by biological facts, then what follows is that saying cheating is life affirming is either inconsistent with biological fact
You are once again misrepresenting my claims: I *never* claimed we as a species had or should have or ever had fully promiscuous relationships. It has always been my view that open relationships are JUST AS LIFE DENYING as fully monogamous ones. Those open relationships deny the human desire to limit infidelity by our partners. We're just not made that way. We are sexual hypocrits--we want to be promiscuous, while imposing monogamy on our partners.
The natural human condition is to form monogamous relationships and then cheat on them.
Crikey! The more things change the more things remain the same.
I hit the road for a few days and it's taken me about a day to go through e-mails and such, then graze over the various posts on the BB and to my surprise, or maybe not really, the 2 FUJi threads are still alive and well.
This thread is quick read as 1/3 are FUJI and therefore blanks, but the other members posts express everything that is important.
I don't have to add much to what has been posted recently by SW1, Narg, RID, Aartie, FatOne, Blue Sphere, FruitHare, Malibrook, red, and a string of others; I'm hard pressed to find anyone in this thread who supports FUJI's point. The psychopathy and fantasy angle are becoming more obvious. The HVA and 5-HIAA must be going squirrelly.
It doesn't matter though as I suspect FUJI doesn't care what others thinks of him, yet he's spent a tremendous amount of time defending the indefensible, especially since his credibility has approached the level of Woodie, Gryf', Groggy/fb and those are proud cellmates for sure.
I hit the road for a few days and it's taken me about a day to go through e-mails and such, then graze over the various posts on the BB and to my surprise, or maybe not really, the 2 FUJi threads are still alive and well.
This thread is quick read as 1/3 are FUJI and therefore blanks, but the other members posts express everything that is important.
I don't have to add much to what has been posted recently by SW1, Narg, RID, Aartie, FatOne, Blue Sphere, FruitHare, Malibrook, red, and a string of others; I'm hard pressed to find anyone in this thread who supports FUJI's point. The psychopathy and fantasy angle are becoming more obvious. The HVA and 5-HIAA must be going squirrelly.
It doesn't matter though as I suspect FUJI doesn't care what others thinks of him, yet he's spent a tremendous amount of time defending the indefensible, especially since his credibility has approached the level of Woodie, Gryf', Groggy/fb and those are proud cellmates for sure.
Just stick to potty humour. Anything else and you're likely to be caught out saying something dumb.
It's been a very long thread with the predictable tangential arguments.
In the end, Fuji has yet to defend his desire, intention, and practice of exploiting vulnerable women for his personal sexual thrills.
Yes, Fuji is a "talented" at exploiting the weak. Truth is, most of us could if we wanted to. The fact that most of us are somewhat decent sets us apart from Fuji.
In the end, Fuji has yet to defend his desire, intention, and practice of exploiting vulnerable women for his personal sexual thrills.
Yes, Fuji is a "talented" at exploiting the weak. Truth is, most of us could if we wanted to. The fact that most of us are somewhat decent sets us apart from Fuji.
