Promiscuity

[Norsemaiden]

http://www.joe-perez.com/2006/01/promiscuity-testicle-size-and-brain.html

"Studies of bats and other mammals have found that the average brain size is 36% bigger among monogamous males than promiscuous males researchers say. In bat species with promiscuous females, the male's body has been shown to use more of its energy to enhance the testes, costing the males the energy needed to further develop their brains. Promiscuity is also associated with big testicles among chimpanzees, whereas dominant gorillas with exclusive access to a harem of females are known to have small testicles.

"The implication is that males of some species make a trade-off between brain power and sex appeal. In promiscuous species, where there is heightened competition for male sexual success males are more likely to choose balls over brains compared to non-promiscuous species".

Joe Perez (who put the above on his site) is speculating about "choosing" balls over brains, but I don't think choice comes into it because it must be genetic and more energy is going into the development of the testicles whether the individual wants it to or not.

In chimps it is not just testicle size that is bigger but penis size too. This is thought to be for two reasons, firstly that the females are sexually selecting them and secondly that (as well as needing extra sperm to compete in impregnating females - hence the size of testicles) the penis works as a plunger to try and remove the previous sperm before it reaches the egg and deposite his own. Natural selection favours this development in the promiscuous species but not in the monogamous.
http://www.neoteny.org/a/testiclesize.html

What do you all think about the idea of the trade off between brain size and sexual activity? What are your views on promiscuity in general and how it affects human society?
The above is just one interesting aspect of the subject of promiscuity.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

I dont think monogomy is "natural." I think it is learned. Man, at his core, is an animal. We naturally have the need, not want, but need to eat, rest and procreate.


The interesting thing about promiscuity is the different levels that seem to be associated with it, as brought on by society and culture. A man who cheats on his wife or girlfriend and has sex with multiple women is looked upon as an asshole, but it comes as no surprise that this occurs. What's funny is how when someone famous gets caught in the act or their history is made public it's deemed a whole different thing. But this is getting off topic.


Promiscuity in general is obviously very dangerous, especially if people don't use protection and take all measures they're being as safe as possible. It's also dangerous on different stereotypical levels for males and females, and while some people say this double standard is wrong, I believe there should be two standards because there are two different sexes. It's clear that males are the aggressive species and they have more of an overall sexual appetite than females. A male who has multiple sex partners is looked upon by his friends as "cool." A woman is looked upon as a slut. I'm not going to say if this is a fair or accurate measurement because there are many variables in different cases, but I will say that I personally would never date or be with a girl who has had over X amount of partners.



As far as the brain measurement and testical size correlation...I don't know if I buy that. I'd have to read more about it.

 

[Neith]

I dont think monogomy is "natural." I think it is learned. Man, at his core, is an animal. We naturally have the need, not want, but need to eat, rest and procreate.

Some animals are naturally monogamous. Dolphins and Swans sometimes stay with the same partner for their entire life. Also, some Swans never find another partner if their first one died.

I think monogomy is a good thing, if the people involved are happy. Promiscuity is not a good thing, I don't think. But I guess it depends on what criteria this label depends on.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Some animals are naturally monogamous. Dolphins and Swans sometimes stay with the same partner for their entire life. Also, some Swans never find another partner if their first one died.

I think monogomy is a good thing, if the people involved are happy. Promiscuity is not a good thing, I don't think. But I guess it depends on what criteria this label depends on.

Right, but human beings are different. Obviously there are different kinds of animals, and humans show a stronger sexual drive than other types. Im not sure if dolphins cheat on their significant others...but humans do, and thats why I think it's a natural force within them to mate.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I wonder to what extent it is female behaviour that decides male behaviour. In the example of chimps, interestingly, it is female promiscuity that is making the penis size grow larger. The males display their genitals and the female judges it and decides if she likes the look of it. Unless human males took to similar displays (maybe they do in some cultures?) then this would not really have opportunity to change human psysiology that much. In fact, small penis size in humans is worryingly connected with hormonal pollution, eg. thalates from plastic.

If there is too much promiscuity in our society by males it could be that women are to blame, as they are not discriminating enough against such behaviour and are accepting promiscuous males as mates. Could it be that if women raise their standards men will have to behave better?

But it surely isn't exclusively in women's interests that males should be faithful to them. There must be something advantageous about monogamy to men also. For one thing men like to have more assurity that they are the father of their child, and they normally do care about the child and want to be both a role model and financially assist with the child. For another thing, monogamy is a protection against venerial diseases that cause infertility. And kids brought up with their biological father around are better balanced and more likely to successfully reproduce in turn. So from a selfish gene point of view it is more advantageous longterm to have only one partner - but she will have to have quite a lot of children if this is compared to the strategy of a competitor who is promiscuous and inseminates a number of women. (The rights and wrongs of increasing the population are irrelevant to this selfish gene argument.)

 

[Neith]

But then not every human does cheat on their partner. I guess it's just an individual thing, and it depends on a person's situation whether it is bad. But on a widespread basis I just don't think it is a good thing, nor do I think it is natural.

And Norsemaiden, is it an actual fact that children who are brought up with both parents are more balanced and more like to successfully reproduce?

 

[Norsemaiden]

But then not every human does cheat on their partner. I guess it's just an individual thing, and it depends on a person's situation whether it is bad. But on a widespread basis I just don't think it is a good thing, nor do I think it is natural.

And Norsemaiden, is it an actual fact that children who are brought up with both parents are more balanced and more like to successfully reproduce?

Children who are brought up in single parent families are more likely to also be single parents and on average single parents have slightly fewer children than couples who have children, also they tend to be more likely to catch the venerial diseases that give them sterility as well as things like drug abuse and alcoholism which affect the health of their offspring. There are always exceptions to the rule.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

^ is all that fact?

 

[speed]

^ is all that fact?

It probably is.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Monogamy is becoming less common in our society. As everyone knows, there are huge cultural differences. Monogamy evolved in some societies because it was a strategy that worked both in reproductive terms and in the way that it generally was good for everyone's relationships with eachother in the society. Tacitus (the ancient Roman historian) wrote about the ancient Germanic (pagan obviously) tribes. They were monogamous and faithful and there was no prostitution either. I will try and find a quote from him. Knowing their parentage was very important to them.

Here is the dictionary definition of "german". http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/g/g0101600
"Having the same parents or the same grandparents on either the mother or the father's side."

[Middle English germain, from Old French, from Latin germanus, from germen, "offshoot", see "gene" in Indo European roots.]

Edit: Here is some of what Tacitus had to say about probably the most monogamous society in the history of humanity. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html
"They therefore live in a state of chastity well secured, corrupted by no seducing shows and public diversions, by no irritations from banqueting. Of learning and of any secret intercourse by letters, they are all equally ignorant, men and women. Amongst a people so numerous, adultery is exceedingly rare; a crime instantly punished."

"For, to a woman who has prostituted her person, no pardon is ever granted. However beautiful she be, however young, however abounding in wealth, a husband she can never find. In truth no body turns vices into myrth there, nor is the practice of corrupting and of yielding to corruption, called the custom of the Age."

They married as virgins. I'm sure that worked well for the ancient Germanics, but I tend to think that it is not a bad thing to have a limited amount of sexual experience before a committed relationship. It makes it easier to know if you are sexually compatible before making any promises that you may later regret because of problems in that way. Most people nowadays would not call this promiscuity unless it involved a lot of meaningless copulation. Promiscuity is a bit of a subjective term in that everyone has different ideas on how many partners someone would have to have to qualify as being promiscuous. Mostly it is probably to do with intentions and lengths of relationships.

 

[Neith]

Children who are brought up in single parent families are more likely to also be single parents and on average single parents have slightly fewer children than couples who have children, also they tend to be more likely to catch the venerial diseases that give them sterility as well as things like drug abuse and alcoholism which affect the health of their offspring. There are always exceptions to the rule.

I guess this all depends on single parent families actually being the stereotypical working class, poverty and disease ridden creatures that the press would have you believe upto the 1990's. I, however, don't really agree with this. And statistics, if available, are often useless anyway as they can show whatever you want them to.

 

[Freanan]

I don't have anything usefull to contribute to the thread, but about Tacitus you should note that "Germania" was never intended to be a realistic account about the live of the germans, but more like a political statement that he wanted to use to show how decadent and degenerate his fellow romans were compared to the germans.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I guess this all depends on single parent families actually being the stereotypical working class, poverty and disease ridden creatures that the press would have you believe upto the 1990's. I, however, don't really agree with this. And statistics, if available, are often useless anyway as they can show whatever you want them to.

I was making an accurate generalisation about what single parent families are like (there will always be exceptions because that is what generalisation means). More single parents families are from the lower class because they have different behaviour from middle class (although of course lone parents are common in the middle class as well) and so it is not by pure chance Actually, what statistics say is even worse for a child's chances than being in a single parent family is actually having a step parent, or worse still, a series of step parents - boyfriends cohabiting with the child's mother. How could anyone imagine that could be good for a child? The more promiscuity there is, the more this happens.

My degree is in combined psychology and sociology.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't have anything usefull to contribute to the thread, but about Tacitus you should note that "Germania" was never intended to be a realistic account about the live of the germans, but more like a political statement that he wanted to use to show how decadent and degenerate his fellow romans were compared to the germans.

Tacitus was making more a philosophical point than a political point. If you have got a friend who you think is fairly corrupt, and you're trying to reform them, and you know someone else who is virtuous and you tell the corrupt one about the good points of the virtuous one, it doesn't mean that the virtuous one isn't virtuous. It means that you're using their behaviour to make a point, critically. Like a mother saying to her son who is messy, why can't he be more like his sister who always keeps her room tidy.

It is worth just adding that the modern Germans have little genetically in common with the ancient Germanics. In fact there are more ancient Germanic types amongst the British and Americans now.

 

[Øjeblikket]

If you have got a friend who you think is fairly corrupt, and you're trying to reform them, and you know someone else who is virtuous and you tell the corrupt one about the good points of the virtuous one, it doesn't mean that the virtuous one isn't virtuous. It means that you're using their behaviour to make a point, critically. Like a mother saying to her son who is messy, why can't he be more like his sister who always keeps her room tidy.

the point is that such lecturing does NOT portray a people in an unbiased representation and so the results of such lecturing should NOT be considered historically accurate, when the practice considers history, obviously.

Neither am I certain where "virtuosity" fits into a discussion of characteristics possessed by males which have been encouraged by picky females.

 

[speed]

What does everyone have to say about homosexual men and promiscuity? The average gay man infected with AIDS, in the 1980's, had on average, slightly over a thousand sexual partners. Surely it has declined today due to the AIDS epidemic, but still I think it is a highly interesting statistic. A heterosexual man, could only rack up such statistics by daily frequenting swingers clubs, pick up bars, prostitutes, and the back room of strip clubs. Even then, he would probably need to leave his town or city unless he lived in NYC, as there are a limited number of women into these kinds of things.

And for godsakes, all of you repressed juvenile homosexuals out there, please repress your desire to make copoius gay bashing and baiting comments, that only reveal your own innate fear of the topic.


Also, threads and posts around here reveal alot about the person starting them (and I can only imagine the image I have cultivated). Norsemaiden, you have from what I--in my non-expert opinon-- can tell from your previous posts, a deepseated fear of men, and sex--especially sex. I am sorry to bring this up-as it really is none of my business--but its just hard not to notice with your posts and threads. You make moral arguments against it with various scientific findings and theories, and other interesting references. You are a most intriguing person; again, sorry for bringing this up--I could be very wrong.

 

[infoterror]

I dont think monogomy is "natural."

Natural to whom?

It's a sliding scale. It's not natural to crackheads, but what about geniuses? The smarter people I know tend to favor monogamy because they're not slaves to their genitals.

 

[infoterror]

What does everyone have to say about homosexual men and promiscuity?

Norsemaiden, you have from what I--in my non-expert opinon-- can tell from your previous posts, a deepseated fear of men, and sex--especially sex.

Homosexuals seem to be promiscuous, but as said elsewhere, I think there's several types of "homosexuals." The first are genetic; natural process decided they shouldn't breed. These also have higher rates of congenital heart and brain disease, which supports the theory that homosexuality is nature's way of crimping the flow of possibly unfit sperm. Others are simply confused; about half of the college "homosexuals" will fall into this category. Still others are simply perverts who find homosexuality a useful cover.

I find the following sites hilarious:
http://www.gmad.org/
http://www.nambla.org/

 

[Norsemaiden]

the point is that such lecturing does NOT portray a people in an unbiased representation and so the results of such lecturing should NOT be considered historically accurate, when the practice considers history, obviously.

Neither am I certain where "virtuosity" fits into a discussion of characteristics possessed by males which have been encouraged by picky females.

There is no historical contradiction of Tacitus' account of the ancient Germanic tribes, and the origin of the word German also speaks volumes. It seems as if you have a real aversion to the thought of these people behaving as they did. "Virtuosity" is subjective to a large extent, but this behaviour fits in with traditional ideas of what is virtuous which I personally admire even while it is your choice to dislike it.

 

[infoterror]

Rushton's theory is based on an attempt to extend the r/K selection theory to humans. He explains the patterns in the table by arguing that while all humans display extremely K-selected behavior, the races vary in the degree to which they exhibit that behavior. He argues that Negroids use a strategy more toward an r-selected strategy (produce more offspring, but provide less care for them) while Mongoloids use the K strategy most (produce fewer offspring but provide more care for them), with Caucasoids exhibiting intermediate tendencies in this area.

http://www.answers.com/topic/j-philippe-rushton