Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Mike Miller wrote:
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.
I see this argument in every argument men give to cheat on their wives
and visa versa and in every argument that the Bible must be
re-interpreted for today's culture to allow for evolution. Oh those
restrictions against adultery are obviously for the culture in that
day. They couldn't possibly apply to our more modern, advanced, evolved
culture.
You know there are billions of men across millenniums who managed to
be faithful.
How do you know that?
Anecdotal, and what I believe is common sense. I'm certain that there
is a certain percentage of a population that remains faithful be it low
or high at any given time, or any given culture, or ever. There have
been billions of people born across history, and large portions of the
world subscribe to man-women relationships that are grounded in
antiquity. Even were the percentage low, it would still be a
significant amount, and I believe there are likely to have been periods
where it was indeed not low. How do you know otherwise?
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.
And you cannot prove otherwise, yet your hypothesis was exactly that.
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"?
No. I'm stating that it is not in any way a new phenomenon. You seem
to claim some ownership, and I'm afraid there is previous art.
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.
Yes Mike. The lack of absolute proof to the contrary means that it
cannot be so. You don't accept this foolish argument from others, why
should I accept it from you. Btw... ES was in no way an example of a
paragon of virtue... There was quite a lot of public opinion that he
was an absolute jerk and skepticism of his holier than thou veneer.
Just because those opinions don't travel in your circles doesn't mean
that they didn't exist.
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.
You mean this poor man who is trapped in a culture that "We" developed
that stops powerful men from having multiple sex partners? The sheer
amount of self-control it has taken thus far to control his prodigious
urges must surely be to his credit. Poor man. He just faced an
obstacle that no mere mortal could overcome.
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?
Any arguments that allowances must be made for the difficulties and
strictures and evolutionary advancements of today's culture.
--
Christian M. Cepel - Thistledowne Productions - http://thistledowne.org
Computer Support Specialist, Sr. - University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Education - School of Info Science & Learning Technologies
VRCbd, KidTools & StrategyTools Support Systems Projects, and Truman,
Library Whistlestop Project - Web Design & Programming - 573.999.2370
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact