RAGE OF CONSENT / sexuality related cultural phenomena

[Glarundis]

"Our testicles aren’t as big as those of chimps and bonobos, but our ejaculation is about four times as big in terms of volume. The theory is that when males compete on the level of the sperm cell, they develop much larger testicles, because in promiscuous animals, the sperm of the different males is competing with the sperm of other males to get to be the first to the egg. And the fact that our testicles are not as small relative to our body as the monogamous gibbon or gorillas reinforces the idea that we have been non-monogamous for a long time.

Plus the design of our penis strongly suggests that it evolved to create a vacuum in the female reproductive system, thereby pulling out the semen of anyone who was there previously. There are all kinds of indications of sperm competition in the human male. And one of the things that we suggest in the book that no one else has suggested is that because the testicles are genetically the part of the body that adapts fastest to environmental pressure, it’s quite possible that our testicles are much smaller than they were as recently as fifteen or twenty thousand years ago, to reflect the historical cultural imposition of monogamy. And of course we all know that sperm count is dropping precipitously even as we speak."

and lol, wtf is this? this should immediately discredit the whole thing. what kind of fucked up assumptions are these?
this is manipulating the speech through using half knowledge while "forgetting" about the other half

[Basil Brotheamus]

Plus the design of our penis strongly suggests that it evolved to create a vacuum in the female reproductive system, thereby pulling out the semen of anyone who was there previously.

:D
I'm not a biologist but I dare to say it would be a bit late at that point ahah. Funny idea.

[samuel reco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Ynt0mNSwo

[Maximilian Lhoth]

but going from there to assume that in the future we'll be infertile and assexual is wrong.

Scientists are seriously suggesting humans are going to become infertile and that eventually in vitro fertilization will replace natural fertilization.

why do we give so much importance to kids having or not having divorced parents and how it influences their growth?if it didn't matter jack shit, we wouldn't be wasting our time talking about it, because being a couple or not wouldn't mean jack shit.

Do the parents stay together because of the kids or because they actually feel monogamous inside?

"People would never fall in love if they had not heard love talked about." —La Rochefoucauld
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/NWL1.html

[Glarundis]

Scientists are seriously suggesting humans are going to become infertile and that eventually in vitro fertilization will replace natural fertilization.

if that happens, it's because of environmental problems, not because our genders are starting to hate eachother. to say that natural selection will take care of developing the species into infertility is wrong. the aim would be to do exactly the opposite. those that are more fertile reproduce more, and therefore fertility increases. the only way for this to work the way you said is that we all are forced to stop having sex and give birth to children and ONLY the already infertile ppl will have babies through in vitro. why would humanity do that? we don't use in vitro to replace normal reproduction, we use it to help infertile couples. i don't see humanity plotting against themselves to assure the all the ppl will become infertile in the future

Do the parents stay together because of the kids or because they actually feel monogamous inside?

many times it is because of the children, but not always. perhaps it's time to think _why_ are we not feeling monogamous inside, why should we feel monogamous, or why shouldn't we feel monogamous. that many many ppl are not feeling monogamous is a fact, but then we have to ask ourselves why. be it right or wrong.


as to that link you posted, i cba to read it now, although from the chapter's titles it's true that some of those things are like that, romantic love yada yada. but i'm religious, so my definition of love is not the bullshit that you see in hollywood movies.

i would simply quote this part from the opening

"All in all, anthropologists consider it
one of the most difficult human relationships ever attempted;
just as certainly, it is also one of the most appealing."

[Mike]

many times it is because of the children, but not always. perhaps it's time to think _why_ are we not feeling monogamous inside, why should we feel monogamous, or why shouldn't we feel monogamous. that many many ppl are not feeling monogamous is a fact, but then we have to ask ourselves why. be it right or wrong.

Part of it is cultural and part of it is genetic. Historically the cultural reasons for monogamy in the west are religions emphazising monogamous marriages, shaming of polygamy and promiscuity, a social and civic order revolving around the "nuclear family" and a strong tendency towards individualism in partnerships. Individualism in this sense is to be understood as opposed to clan-based societies where high-status men typically had several wives and low-ranking men would be left without one.

Genetically the levels of sex hormones of europeans are relatively low, with asians as the only population having lower levels. More testosterone in a population means more promiscuity, on average. On a higher level of genetic reasoning, strong partnerships are necessary for high investment parenting. That is, having relatively few children who are provided for in terms of education and chances of social advancement. This has been an adaptive behavior in european societies where high investment in children means they in turn are more likely to reproduce successfully. So the genetic factors of high investment parenting would be selected for over time from an evolutionary viewpoint, creating people more inclined towards monogamy.