what about the effect of victorian england on hindu mores regarding sexuality? surely this would have disturbed the continuum?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Mahesh Murthy <[email protected]>wrote: > > I love your sense of humor. > > > Inadvertant, but always glad to entertain :-) > > > > No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to > > have > > sex with their females. If there is a a difference please tell me. > > > The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males don't stop > them from doing so or indeed from continuing to nest and have sexual > relationships with their nest-providers. They merely continue to access > these nesting females - (actually it's the other way around - the females > access them) - at will. The females may adopt subterfuge to do this so > their > current nest-partners don't savvy up to it, but they still do so. > > > > > I am referring to groups, not individuals. There are species that are > > primarily monogamous but observations show that members of the species > are > > not invariably monogamous. Some members are and some are not. In some > > species - most appear monogamous but not 100 percent > > > If you were to look at numbers, whether from an individual or group or any > other convenient point of view as long as you subscribe to > commonly-accepted > mathematical and statistical notions of the word "most", the opposite is > more accurate: "most appear polygamous, but not 100%". I will refer > you here< > http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236853661&sr=1-21 > >among > a multitude of other places if you'd like some data. > > > > Marriage means fidelity by definition, during the duration of that > > marriage. > > > Oh, absolutely not. As we have said so earlier, this is true only in > Christian and Islamic societies or in individuals trained in such Christian > / Islamic concepts through school or upbringing, who are a minority on this > planet. > > Legally this may also be true in many societies that have derived their > laws > from Christian / Islamic societies. Indian law, derived from British law, > may define infidelity as a reason to end marriage - but Indian society by > large does not, and more relevantly, has never done so in the past. > > > > > By saying "Lets not confuse marriage with fidelity" you are fudging the > > definition of marriage. > > > I am not. I am clarifying it. You are defining marriage as only 15% of > humans on earth would. For the other 85%, marriage is togetherness without > the encumbrance of fidelity. > > > > Marriage too is an instituton that has evolved over > > time in human societies. It might not be perfect, but I think you are > > jumping > > the gun in dismissing it for reasons that suit your viewpoint. > > > The discussion was not about perfect or imperfect marriages. And I do not > dismiss marriage. > > I distinguish and dismiss fidelity as an institution of significant value. > To repeat, the most evolutionarily preferred state of being is marriage > unencumbered by fidelity. If you follow the thread of logic closely, you > will find that no firearm has been pole-vaulted. :-) > > > > You are choosing to interpret the facts you write to suit your viewpoint. > > > Only inasmuch as that I am interpreting the observation of water boiling to > form a viewpoint that H2 O can remain in multiple physical states. Science > is about observations and inference - and you may claim that all inferences > are personal and hence all science is non-objective and judgemental. This > is > a specious line of reasoning. > > > That > > is quite alright except that you fail to view the same data in another > way. > > Fidelity to one partner is maintained after mating in many species. > > > Nope, it is not. Again, subject to reasonable mathematical and statistical > definitions of the word "many". Though I note that you may choose to > re-define English at will here. > > > > While the > > female is pregnant or bringing up young from one male she does not > randomly > > mate with other males, and the male himself is often around to eliminate > > that > > possibility. That is fidelity. > > > Perhaps you have not followed the line of debate. One talked of the > evolutionary need for infidelity for species to procreate and create > offspring with a higher chance of survival. Once a female is pregnant, the > deed is done and sex during pregnancy, if any, is recreational. As is > post-partum sex. > > Once again, it is not just the alpha male that raids the nesting females > here - but the females who seek out the alpha males and all subsequent acts > are co-volitional. > > You can call it marrage too. What happens > > later is comparable to divorce followed by remarriage. > > > Convenient. So now we define a female having sex with seven males in a week > as a female getting married 7 times and divorced six times. Reminds one of > the modus operandi or legal justification of prostitution in Afghanistan > :-). > > > > > > > It is certainly not free communal sex in which males are randomly mating > > and > > impregnating any available female and females are randomly available for > > mating whether or not they are carrying children from other males. > > > No one talked of free communal sex. Perhaps this is what you really fear: > wine, cheese, tomato sauce and orgies in the living room, OMG! :-) > > Worry not - toga parties and some clubs at the Cap d'Adge aside, this is > not > particularly evolutionarily indicated :-) > > > > > > > > > The facts you have yourself noted seem to indicate that animals marry, > stay > > married for a bit, then divorce and remarry someone else. The only > question > > is whether such a scheme or repeated marriage, divorce and remarriage is > > advantageous to human adult males, females and children. I am saying that > > it > > probably is not and nothing you have said seems to contradict this view. > > > Hmm, let's see. I'm saying that many millions of species and many billions > of members of said species follow the model of non-fidelity and it has led > to the earth being what it is today, obviously advantageous to all life on > the planet. > > And what you are saying is that a minority of current homo sapien society, > of one species, apparently follows or aims to follow fidelity, which > admittedly results in more broken marriages and single parenthood and all > of > this is apparently a good thing for the young. > > I don't think I need to contradict much here - the job seems somewhat done > already. :-) > > > > > > > > The animal model of multiple serial marriages followed by divorce is > > unsuitable for humans. > > > And this is because unnatural fidelity must be followed? We have agreed > that > the social pressure for fidelity is a large cause of divorce. In short: > fidelity causes divorce. > > And a logical mind would hence determine that it's not multiple serial > marriages followed by divorce but fidelity that is unsuitable for humans. > At > least, as far as non-patrilineal and non-middle-class humans go, to be > somewhat more exact. :-) > > > > > And most animals, unlike humans, do not attempt to > > indulge in, allow or justify free communal sex all year round. > > > You do have this bugbear about free, communal sex :-) > > Wonder why :-) Worry not, we all missed out on the age of Aquarius :-) > > My $0.02, > > Mahesh > > > > >
