I knew it! You lot are all Bonobos!

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Promiscuous apes shout about sex

They obviously need to evolve to the point where they can develop a 'NSFW forum'...

[Eriku]

Or the bonobos just don't have memeplexes like religion that can impose shame on something as natural as sex.

A toss-up between the two, huh?

[mistermack]

I think our attitudes to sex are more deep-seated than the fairly recent phenomena of religions.
The big difference between Humans and other apes is the helplessness and long period of dependencey of the children, and of course our lack of tree-climbing ability.
This means that we need a strongly bonded family unit, with a faithful male (relatively) in attendance to protect his female and offspring, and provide food when the female has a very young baby.
Otherwise, the young would be too vulnerable, without the bonobos safety advantage of running up a tree to escape.
So if humans were as widely and publicly promiscuous as bonobos, these strong bonds would dissolve, and the young would stand far less chance of survival.

[Eriku]

How does that relate to promiscuosness outside of a fixed family unit? I've not read too many threads on here about the thrill of cheating on the mother/father of your child(ren)-

[Atheist-Lite]

I think we live on the better side of the river. No need to argue here.

[mistermack]

How does that relate to promiscuosness outside of a fixed family unit? I've not read too many threads on here about the thrill of cheating on the mother/father of your child(ren)-

It doesn't make sense in a dangerous world to put all your eggs in one basket. If your mate dies, or deserts you, it pays to have others who are already interested, so those liasons can pay off.
Also alliances are always a plus in a tribal society.

Additionally, males may father young by someone else's mate, and females might concieve by a fit male, and still get the protection of their own mate. If she's clever, she may end up getting protection from two males, as well as two options of bloodline.

In the end, with our young being so vulnerable for such a long time, the classic family unit is a successful model, but there are a lot of competing interests within that format, so it's never simple.
.

[epepke]

I'm a lot more like a bonobo than a chimp, and I like it that way.

[Atheist-Lite]

Human males are not very faithful to their life long mates. The only rule is don't get caught it seems? You can tell the worst philanderers since they are the most 'moral' on the surface.

[Eriku]

How does that relate to promiscuosness outside of a fixed family unit? I've not read too many threads on here about the thrill of cheating on the mother/father of your child(ren)-

It doesn't make sense in a dangerous world to put all your eggs in one basket. If your mate dies, or deserts you, it pays to have others who are already interested, so those liasons can pay off.
Also alliances are always a plus in a tribal society.

Additionally, males may father young by someone else's mate, and females might concieve by a fit male, and still get the protection of their own mate. If she's clever, she may end up getting protection from two males, as well as two options of bloodline.

In the end, with our young being so vulnerable for such a long time, the classic family unit is a successful model, but there are a lot of competing interests within that format, so it's never simple.
.

Now you're talking about Darwinism as it manifests outside the world of humans and our complex interactions, motives and the established rights shared by our enlightened lot that people have a right to do as they want (apart from the ones that tread on others' rights)... If you want to talk cost-benefit analysis there you have to invoke examples of a person impinging on another's rights, and whether you recognise those rights and which others you'd have in their place, if that's the case. It's not a matter of a woman having a bloke around, we've got civilisation which ensures stability for women and men alike, with a few discriminations currently permitted on account of our nature, which would account for short and bald people earning less, as well as women, in the work place.

The family unit is handy, yesh... but what of those without children? Promiscuity and a lack of shyness about sex doesn't really have any unjust ramifications when conducted between two adults, with little or no direct effect on those around them?

[mistermack]

Yes, I'm just talking about the reasons why we evolved those tendencies.
What we do with them in modern society is another thing entirely. We aren't totally guided by evolution any more, we think individually, and also collectively to arrive at accepted modes of behaviour.

Evolution tells us to attack and kill our enemies. Our collective reasoning tells us not to. The same applies to sex. Evolution gives us wishes and urges. Our reasoning minds can think ahead, and imagine the consequences of our behaviour. So there is a complicated coflict going on, which is extremely unpredictable.

It's the old conflict of head over heart.

[Eriku]

Yes, I'm just talking about the reasons why we evolved those tendencies.
What we do with them in modern society is another thing entirely. We aren't totally guided by evolution any more, we think individually, and also collectively to arrive at accepted modes of behaviour.

Evolution tells us to attack and kill our enemies. Our collective reasoning tells us not to. The same applies to sex. Evolution gives us wishes and urges. Our reasoning minds can think ahead, and imagine the consequences of our behaviour. So there is a complicated coflict going on, which is extremely unpredictable.

It's the old conflict of head over heart.

I'd agree with most of what you say, and I wouldn't say that the hedonistic abandon displayed by Rationaliaites (ee, unwieldy!) with regards to sexery is in conflict with good social behaviour, so long as its civil. And there're plenty of examples of collective behaviour rather than looking out for no 1 in nature, with bees and termites, e.g. So it's not so plainly a matter of mind over heart... reason over instinct, or however you'd put it.

[mistermack]

Yes, I'm just talking about the reasons why we evolved those tendencies.
What we do with them in modern society is another thing entirely. We aren't totally guided by evolution any more, we think individually, and also collectively to arrive at accepted modes of behaviour.

Evolution tells us to attack and kill our enemies. Our collective reasoning tells us not to. The same applies to sex. Evolution gives us wishes and urges. Our reasoning minds can think ahead, and imagine the consequences of our behaviour. So there is a complicated coflict going on, which is extremely unpredictable.

It's the old conflict of head over heart.

I'd agree with most of what you say, and I wouldn't say that the hedonistic abandon displayed by Rationaliaites (ee, unwieldy!) with regards to sexery is in conflict with good social behaviour, so long as its civil. And there're plenty of examples of collective behaviour rather than looking out for no 1 in nature, with bees and termites, e.g. So it's not so plainly a matter of mind over heart... reason over instinct, or however you'd put it.

The thing about bees and termites is that all of the workers have the same genes as the queen, so in working for the colony, you are working for the success of your own genes. So they really are looking out for number 1, even though it's not immediately obvious.

[JimC]

Does this imply that when Ratz get a little cranky with each other they need to smooth things over by masses of mutual genital rubbing?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hey, I don't even like U2.