Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
Mike Miller wrote:
If you think about it, probably the major reason why men have evolved
to strive for power is that having power gave access to females, but
today a powerful man is expected to have sex only with his 50-year-old
wife or not at all. No wonder that they "slip up" and fall into
extra-marital affairs or prostitution. I don't see it as hard to
explain.
Oh for goodness sakes. This old argument again.
Where did you see it before? Let me know because I want to read more
about it. It's a pretty obvious idea, isn't it? But some people still
don't even believe in evolution after 150 years of data collection and
analysis by thousands of scientists around the world.
You know there are billions of men across millenniums who managed to be
faithful.
How do you know that?
I'm sure they were all powerless undersexed men... or perhaps they just
felt that their marriage vows were just that. Vows. People did and do
have honor... an internal drive to make their word as concrete as though
it was exactly that.... concrete.. or something even more immutable.
Another claim that you cannot prove.
The thing that is hard to explain is why we have developed a culture
that stops powerful men from having multiple sex partners. Why is
that? It doesn't work that way in a lot of other places, like Saudi
Arabia -- Osama Bin Laden was one of something like 51 children of his
father.
We developed it?
Are you asking what I mean by "we"?
Last I heard there's a long history of powerful men who weren't so weak
as to succumb to their own "overpowering" sexual urges despite having
given their oath not to. I mean wow.
Last you heard? The problem with this claim, like the others, is that you
don't know what people are doing. Either they are monogamous or they
haven't gotten caught yet. Last week you could have used Elliot Spitzer
as an example of a paragon of virtue who would never do such a thing.
If you're powerful and cannot be monogamous, you're practically a
victim.
According to whom? I haven't heard anyone yet say that Elliot Spitzer is
a victim.
There's also a long history of men _not_ honoring their word or not
living in cultures that prompt them to make this promise. There's a
long history of cultures where this 'promise' is mean to be word
only.... thus a lot of criticism by our European neighbors. There's
nothing new under the sun and these arguments of 'today' are utter
nonsense.
I'm not following you here -- which arguments are nonsense?
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact