The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
To start, a small point, as humans haven't been around for millions of years. Your point about the ultimate imperative is to insure the survival the species/family/clan is a good point. The hardwired cheating is FUJI's claim, certainly not many others in this forum. The rise of moral/social/civil codes comes hand in hand with the rise of empires and religions, ~7000/5000 years ago, commonly called the start of the copper age.The desire to cheat is not hardwired into us, but neither is the desire to construct elaborate moral codes to regulate behavior. For millions of years humans didn't cheat they had intercourse for the sole purpose of insuring the survival of the species. In the face of daunting man made and natural challenges we fucked to make sure there was always some of us around. With some pleasurable physiologic effects to motivate our need to keep fucking we have plastered the planet with people. The decision to place moral strictures on our behavior came very late in the game and are easily overwhelmed.
When you see the pictures of infants suffering in Somalia it is clear that they were conceived long after conditions had started their descent into hell. Why in the face of such suffering would people continue having sex and risk bringing children into the world unless the need for sex was so ingrained it prempted rational thought.
Of course we have seen that catholic priests with their faith are able to resist the temptations of flesh and deny their hardwiring. They live happy and celibate lives. In the face of all temptation they easily resist their desires and can be trusted with our young.
This essential part of human nature doesn't mean cheating is desirable but rather begs for an honest discussion of how powerful these desires are. But I bet certain self indulgent, narcissistic, smug individuals enjoy the selfish enjoyment of a double standard more than an honest relationship.
I don't know what machismo is called in Jamaica, South Africa, or Thailand, but it exists big time. I don't claim it's unique to 3rd world countries as I have read studies that the country with the most chauvinistic attitude amongst its male population was FINLAND, way ahead of other obvious European cultures like Italy, France, or Greece. You could have blown me over with a feather when I read it. The Finnish communities that I've experienced certainly don't come across as wild rabbits, but hey, who knew.
Which is all nice in your mind, the only problem is current evolutionary science disproves your theory.In any case at least 25% of us do it in our society, likely many more than that, and a much higher percentage than that here on terb. Of those who haven't done it it, many would like to. Our own society does not impose any penalty whatsoever on it.
The reality is that we're a society of sexual hypocrites: We disapprove of OTHER people doing it, but we all do it ourselves.
That's just a fact weather you like it or not. As to the nature/nurture aspect of it, plainly it's going to be a little of both. Our sexual desires are going to be hardwired, and our behaviors are a socialized outlet for our hardwired desires.
You may like to fuck around, and you may need some fraudulent theory to make peace with your actions. More power to you.
But to sell your idea as "hard wired" and part of all human nature, is just factually wrong.
That all FUJI's left with. One word retorts that almost every member laughs at.ah- what came first - the bull or the cow?
To answer you question, we hope they both did.
Then I again issue the fact v. fact evolutionary challenge that you ran from before.Bull.
Time to put or shut up little fella.
You pulled or usual stunt of posting something irrelevant and claiming it meant something it didn't. In particular you went off on this tangent about the "slow historical" theory, and then claimed this meant people didn't cheat. It was a typical RLD post--start out with something factual, then make a wild leap that defies common sense. You simply made up the claim that the "slow historical model" is incompatible with cheating. You invented that. Then you pretended you'd made an argument.Then I again issue the fact v. fact evolutionary challenge that you ran from before.
Time to put or shut up little fella.
I did respond to you and pointed out that whether you have 2 children or 20 children you have the same incentive to cheat, both for men and for women.
I did not invent the slow historical model. Unlike yourself I have no need to lie about such things.You pulled or usual stunt of posting something irrelevant and claiming it meant something it didn't. In particular you went off on this tangent about the "slow historical" theory, and then claimed this meant people didn't cheat. It was a typical RLD post--start out with something factual, then make a wild leap that defies common sense. You simply made up the claim that the "slow historical model" is incompatible with cheating. You invented that. Then you pretended you'd made an argument.
I did respond to you and pointed out that whether you have 2 children or 20 children you have the same incentive to cheat, both for men and for women.
But I note that as before, you refuse to enter into a facts based discussion, because you like to live in a fantasy world.
I didn't say you did you dishonest twit, I said you made up the claim that it's incompatible with cheating.I did not invent the slow historical model. Unlike yourself I have no need to lie about such things.
But I note that as before, you refuse to enter into a facts based discussion, because you like to live in a fantasy world.
You resort to lying again. I never claimed it was "incompatible" with cheating. Just that the facts of evolution as we now understand them are incompatible with your view of cheating being required for human fulfillment.I didn't say you did you dishonest twit, I said you made up the claim that it's incompatible with cheating.
At the first whiff of facts you either run away like a little coward or lie. Well done. You have mastered consistency.
The evolutionary claim is that there is an advantage in cheating. It's just as true under the slow model as any other. You described the slow model and then simply MADE UP the claim that it's incompatible with cheating.Just that the facts of evolution as we now understand them are incompatible with your view of cheating being required for human fulfillment.
I didn't create any of it. Not a whit, even as it refutes your claim. While your evolutionary pronouncements have been factually wrong in a number of ways but you refuse to deal with facts. IF there is some reason you need this crutch, enjoy it, but don't try to make your crutch a universal truth.The evolutionary claim is that there is an advantage in cheating. It's just as true under the slow model as any other. You described the slow model and then simply MADE UP the claim that it's incompatible with cheating.
And how do your reconcile your theory with the fact that intelligent people have less sex with less partners. You simply can't unless you claim intelligence is not an evolutionary advantage...
Which is entirely compatible with the idea that we engage in monogamous pair bonding, and then cheat. Duh. You have NO point here.The primatology examples show just what evolutionary biologists claim they show, that decreasing dimorphism, concealed ovulation, medium testes size, and ovulation not tied to estrus, in humans, facilitated monogamous pair bonding.
Since when did something have to be done by >50% of the population to be normal? Is playing hockey normal? Is being an accountant normal? Behavior that is engaged in by 25% or more of the population is normal, this isn't a democratic vote, 50% is not some bar that has to be crossed for behavior to be normal. It's sufficient that a lot of normal people engage in it, for it to be normal. Plainly it's normal, ordinary behavior if 25% or more do it.So? What is your point? I had said the behaviour in question, cheating, is by your own statistical definition "minority", because out of 100% less than 50% cop to it.
No, I have been very clear all along, I'm not sure whether the problem is your intellectual poverty, or your maliciousness, or your dishonesty, but you misrepresented me. I have always been clear on this.You tried to slip in that sexual hypocrisy is hardwired. That's your sneaky implication, though of course you will redirect away and cry that I misrepresent.
What is hardwired is a desire for multiple sexual partners and also hardwired is a desire that our partners be monogamous.
The behaviors that resolve those conflicting desires are cultural adaptation. Plainly this gives us a strong incentive to cheat, but there are other possible solutions besides cheating. There's plainly a strong INCENTIVE to cheat here, but cheating is a cultural adaptation.
You keep repeating the same, tired, refuted arguments over and over again. It would be nice if you actually came up with something new to say.
Yes you did. The slow historic model simply says people choose to have fewer children. You made up the idea that it's incompatible with cheating. If you choose to have only 2 children it's STILL advantageous for women to conceive them with the strongest male, and raise them with the most successful. Even more so in fact. And for men if you have only a few children it's STILL advantageous to have them with different women, and to have other males support them.I didn't create any of it.
The slow historic model changes NOTHING about the argument and you simply made up this claim that it's incompatible with cheating. You literally made that up.
Are you implying then that if a behaviour is practiced by < 25% of the population, then the behaviour is "abnormal"? If that is the case, where does that leave homosexuality (which according to most sex experts is found about ~10% of the population)? Or playing soccer or cricket in Canada? Or being a mathematician? (All activities practiced by < 25% of the population).Since when did something have to be done by >50% of the population to be normal? Is playing hockey normal? Is being an accountant normal? Behavior that is engaged in by 25% or more of the population is normal, this isn't a democratic vote, 50% is not some bar that has to be crossed for behavior to be normal. It's sufficient that a lot of normal people engage in it, for it to be normal. Plainly it's normal, ordinary behavior if 25% or more do it.
Let me rephrase my question this way -- you have asserted that if a behaviour is engaged in by 25% or more of the population, then that behaviour could be considered normal. Conversely then, in your humble opinion, is there a threshold in which a behaviour is practiced by so few people that it becomes "abnormal"?Nowhere did I say that joe.
You won't get an answer. None of Fuji's opinions are humble.Conversely then, in your humble opinion...
