Promiscuity

[Øjeblikket]

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.

I have no idea what you're on about.

If a person writes either a favorable account or an unfavorable account of a people then neither account should be called an accurate account. Because of a bias.

There is no historical contradiction of Tacitus' account of the ancient Germanic tribes, and the origin of the word German also speaks volumes. - Norsemaiden

The etymology of a word does not credit a people with whatever significance is given to a word with which they're identified. Should I have you believe that because my "real" name means seller of small wares that I am therefore a small ware seller? I think not. As far as contradictions go, let's observe the following:

...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. - Freanan

and you yourself, Norsemaiden:

Tacitus was making more a philosophical point than a political point.

Out of scorn for his fellows, some chap compares his folk to another folk, giving one folk favorable likeness to impress and perhaps persuade the other folks. Surely the fond one's received favorable recognition.

What this means, Norsemaiden, is that it's not an actual account because it's been tampered with through fondness. A philosophical account is not without opinion, see? Or how about, a philosophical point is not without an agenda.

My personal opinion of virtue does not matter, that's not what I'm saying. It's interesting to consider the word in the context of this topic, which has given rise to female enduced male characteristics. Odd context to consider virtue in, because it could amount to little more than mating habits.

Neither am I motivated to discredit the notion that any people were not of a virtuous nature. It makes no difference to me. The sorting of facts, does.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It could be said that some mating habits are more virtuous than others. Virtue can be a product of instinct and genetics as well as a choice of how to behave. Actually I think our genes set strict perameters on the degree to which we are monogamous or promiscuous. Those (very rare) species of animals that are monogamous for life did not make a choice - they could be no other way. Similarly with the promiscuous ones. If I point out that a species of animal is monogamous you might as well say that I am not being accurate because I plainly am inclined to say that being monogamous is superior to being promiscuous. So you might say I am making a point, and I have a bias, therefore there are NO monogamous animal species. That seems to be your logic. That suggests a bias on your part against monogamy just as strong as my approval of it.

There is evidence that there are far fewer monogamous species than at first it seemed, because in many birds that pair for life, the females will have a sex with another male infrequently. (Still nothing like full on promiscuity). There are some mammals, like some species of bats, and beavers that are still observably monogamous.

Tacitus must at the very least have been accurate in observing that there was a massive gap of difference in Roman sexual behaviour compared to the Germanics.

 

[MURAI]

"Studies of bats and other mammals have found that the average brain size is 36% bigger among monogamous males than promiscuous males researchers say."

They should test this directly on human males.

Monogamy is advocated in Judeo-Christianity. I don't think it is wrong for some societies to allow polygamy. Rules for monogamy or polygamy can work to have some sensible control for behavior but fitting for different societies I guess.

 

[Norsemaiden]

They should test this directly on human males.

Monogamy is advocated in Judeo-Christianity. I don't think it is wrong for some societies to allow polygamy. Rules for monogamy or polygamy can work to have some sensible control for behavior but fitting for different societies I guess.

I would SO like to know if human physiology reflected this (brain size being larger in the monogamous males)! And testicle/penis size as well. Wouldn't that be interesting to know! Many of the famous male intellectuals had no children or only one and I wonder whether this was because of some kind of trade off between sex drive and intelligence. The trouble is it is hard to research this kind of thing on people, partly because men are very reluctant to discuss their sexuality with total honesty and partly because it is a subject that may reveal politically incorrect data. I think it would be a shame though, if intelligent men were assumed to be less sexual by women unless it was conclusively proved. I prefer intelligent men and haven't noticed any deficiency in sex drive (or size). But then I'm never going to sample enough to get any statistically significant data!

Polygamy is generally eugenic. The most inferior males don't get a woman, but then again the rich ones can afford several wives and wealth is not at all a proof of being the best breeding material. Obviously the men who get left out feel resentful and that can lead to violence such as rape. One reason for monogamy is to avoid this situation. A plausible theory suggests another reason is that in Northern Europeans there was less genetic variation and they needed to know that their partner was not a close relative so as to not have inbred, disabled kids. This is less of a problem in Africa as they have more genetic variation and don't have the same risk of breeding with someone too closely genetically similar to themselves. When there was a disabled child due to incest it soon became thought of as a curse - or a punishment from a god for having sex with a close relative - and then a custom had to arise whereby people had to be sure they only mated with someone they knew not to be a close relative. Therefore monogamy became entrenched in their culture. It was just practicality in its origin, rather than some kind of moral belief in faithfulness to one partner if that is really how it came about.

 

[Øjeblikket]

If I point out that a species of animal is monogamous you might as well say that I am not being accurate because I plainly am inclined to say that being monogamous is superior to being promiscuous. So you might say I am making a point, and I have a bias, therefore there are NO monogamous animal species. That seems to be your logic. That suggests a bias on your part against monogamy just as strong as my approval of it.

you clearly have no idea what I'm saying. Your logic is clearly non-linear. Just so you know (i hope) where I'm coming from, you are only inaccurate in the example you cited when you claim that monogamous practices in animals is superior to promiscuous practices in animals because you find monogamy more virtuous. If you wanted to objectively prove that monogamous animals fare better in survival than do promiscuous animals you'll most certainly have to do a lot more than present an opinion.

If a person writes either a favorable account or an unfavorable account of a people then neither account should be called an accurate account. Because of a bias. - me

how could anyone misconstrue that comment?

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MONOGAMY, OK? I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH VIRTUOUS BEHAVIOR, OK? NEITHER MAKE ONE SPITTIN' LICK OF DIFFERENCE TO ME BECAUSE I HONESTLY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT HOW SOME OTHER PEOPLE LIVE AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT BOTHERING ME.

Since I cannot at this time fathom a simpler way of saying what I've previously stated in this thread, I'll just leave it at that. Jeeze.

If I quoted this:

One must also remember that for Nietzsche the word "German" is distinctly pejorative. [...] His loathing for the Germany of his age is virtually unparalleled. Nationalism, he says, is "desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics" GS 377. Nazi Germany embodied the nationalism and race hatred that Nietzsche warned against time and again. Nationalism, for Nietzsche, is a sickness that must be overcome.

- http://www.uta.edu/english/apt/fritz/anietzschenazi.html

would you understand what I'm trying to communicate, or will you fly off on some other odd tantrum? If the correspondence that has occurred in this thread is any indication of your typical means of discussing subjects, I'll place high bets on the latter.

 

[infoterror]

If I quoted this:

- http://www.uta.edu/english/apt/fritz/anietzschenazi.html

would you understand what I'm trying to communicate, or will you fly off on some other odd tantrum?

Consider:

Even in The Birth of Tragedy, long before any falsificatin by his sister, Nietzsche emphasizes the opposition between Aryan and Semitic: tragedy is the sign of Aryan patriarchal dignity in contrast with the "feminine frailties" of the Semitic:

"The legend of Prometheus is indigenous to the entire community of Aryan races and attests to their prevailing talent for profound and tragic vision. In fact, it is not improbable that this myth has the same characteristic importance for the Aryan mind as the myth of the Fall has for the Semitic, and that the two myths are related as brother and sister. . . . Man's highest good must be bought with a crime and paid for by the flood of grief and suffering which the offended divinities visit upon the human race in its noble ambition. An austere notion, this, which by the dignity it confers on crime presents a strange contrast to the Semitic myth of the Fall--a myth that exhibits curiosity, deception, suggestibility, concupiscence, in short a whole series of principally feminine frailties, as the root of all evil. What distinguishes the Aryan conception is an exalted notion of active sin as the properly Promethean virtue; this notion provides us with the ethical substratum of pessimistic tragedy, which comes to be seen as a justification of human ills, that is to say of human guilt as well as the suffering purchased by that guilt." (Section 9) - source

 

[Øjeblikket]

ok, but how does that tie in to the current discussion?

am I to assume that since Nietzsche allegedly finds the Aryan patriarchal dignity rooted in tragedy that his belittling of his fellows was somehow his way of demonstrating tragedy?

ok, so, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[infoterror]

am I to assume that since Nietzsche allegedly finds the Aryan patriarchal dignity rooted in tragedy that his belittling of his fellows was somehow his way of demonstrating tragedy?

No, Nietzsche saw Germans as the remnants of Nordics interbred with some useless people, and lacking in spiritual direction. If I remember the quotation correctly.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ojeblikket, I would never say that the term "virtuous" could be applied to wild animals. All wild animals are pure and as nature intended. In human society, questions of virtuous behaviour are more relevant because we have a variety of different behaviours and we are domesticated by civilisation into having some abberant behaviours which are harmful. In non-civilised cultures which are promiscuous, that is fine as it is as natural for them as I said it is for wild animals (they are undomesticated). But the ancient Germanics and other northern European barbarians have no such history of promiscuity, and for them it was considered wrong. I think it is also bad for our society and that it is encouraged by the media as if it was the natural state of all humanity, when in fact most people get happiness from monogamy and get sadness and neurosis from promiscuity.

Studies have shown the immune response of married couples, even in unhappy marriages, is markedly stronger than that of a single person or even someone who cohabits with a partner. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-marriage/MH00108
And I'm not saying you have to be mad to be promiscuous (manic depression/bipolar disorder) but it helps. http://www.kcnami.org/illness.htm

 

[Øjeblikket]

No, Nietzsche saw Germans as the remnants of Nordics interbred with some useless people, and lacking in spiritual direction. If I remember the quotation correctly.

apologies, infoterror, for the presumptive and ill-minded retort.

 

[Demiurge]

I'm a bit confused. Is it so that humans trade intelligence for genital size and are, in fact, less intelligent than gorillas?

 

[RookParliament]

I'm a bit confused. Is it so that humans trade intelligence for genital size and are, in fact, less intelligent than gorillas?

Naturally you can't compare two different animal species with a study that sticks err... within species (fruit bats.) But I chuckled, if that was your intent.

 

[speed]

I'm a bit confused. Is it so that humans trade intelligence for genital size and are, in fact, less intelligent than gorillas?

Im more than happy with the trade.

 

[derek]

Im more than happy with the trade.

.

 

[Demiurge]

Naturally you can't compare two different animal species with a study that sticks err... within species (fruit bats.) But I chuckled, if that was your intent.

I am shooting blind here because the article about the study no longer exists. However, it appears to not be a study within a species, but is rather a study between species. I gathered this by reading the blog comments.

 

[Demiurge]

Im more than happy with the trade.

.

Guys, what trade are you talking about? Humans haven't traded genital size for intelligence. Humans have larger genitals than gorillas and are more intelligent.

 

[RookParliament]

I am shooting blind here because the article about the study no longer exists. However, it appears to not be a study within a species, but is rather a study between species. I gathered this by reading the blog comments.

Well I'll shut up then.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The study did refer to genital size within a species. It is unknown whether more intelligent humans have smaller testes than less intelligent humans. If it was perchance found that a certain race had larger testes and that they are allegedly less intelligent than a race with smaller testes it may be evidence of this, but as this would be politically incorrect I don't see such observations ever being scientifically analysed. Within a race maybe the men most sexually active have bigger testes and maybe there could be a future study of this. But there is also the problem that humans are affected by different upbringing and also some STDs can increase sex drive which would skew the results.

 

[derek]

Guys, what trade are you talking about? Humans haven't traded genital size for intelligence. Humans have larger genitals than gorillas and are more intelligent.

I just supported the idea of trade, I never bothered considering the actual reality of it

 

[crimsonfloyd]

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.

Actually of all hominids humans have the largest penis-body raito. It is not however, believed by most primatologists to be the product of female selection but either 1) intimidation factor between males or 2) some other enviornmental factor. Testicle size reflects sperm competition in chimpanzees. Because the males cannot monopolize mates, the strongest mode of increasing reproductive sucess is through increased sperm.

As for the original theory being discussed, I'm not buying it for humans or any other hominids for that matter. The brain uses far more energy then a penis so I don't see where there is a theoretical foundation for this argument in hominids. Second of all there are no tests in hominidss confirming this hypothesis. Third of all this thoery needs to take into account already strong, and highly supported evidence for the hypothesis male/female mate numbers are influenced by enviornmental conditions. Females, according to this theory are concerned with food and hence territory, as the females need extra food when prenant if they and the offspring are to survive. On the other hand males are concerned with females and shall try and maixmize mating opportunities or maximize territory. The more constricted the resoruces are the more likley females are to live by themselves and thus ecourage monogomy. This explains why gibbons for example, are monogomus in the resoruce-low habitat of the SE Asian rainforests while bonobos are polygamous in the resoruce rich environments in which they live. Of course, the brain-offspring phenomenon (if it even is a phenomenon) could be a side effect of this pattern but once again there is no evidence.