August 31, 2010

Is Monogamy Unnatural, Evolutionarily, Secularly Speaking?
— Ace

A new book is out claiming, for the eight millionth time, that it is.

Andrew Sullivan, who vowed that gay marriage would not change conventional marriage one iota and who further vowed that gay marriage would have the salutary effect of reducing and restraining gay male promiscuity, is championing the book, declaring, again, that heterosexual breeders really need to get over their hang-ups about having multiple partners and embrace polyamory.

By the way, he never, ever seems to notice that he's grossly contradictory or outright lying. It just never occurs to him there's an inconsistency here.

Megan McArdle has read the book, too. She writes:

I'm in the middle of Sex at Dawn, the book that's caught the attention of a number of commentators, including Dan Savage and our own Andrew Sullivan. I'm about halfway through the book, and so far, I'm disappointed to say that it reads like fucking cock-twaddle.

Actually, she said "horsefeathers," but I knew what she really wanted to write, so I changed it.

As someone who's wary of evolutionary biology stories which just happen to tell us that our dominant social structures are "natural", I should find the book interesting. Unfortunately, it reads like an undergraduate thesis--cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory. The language is breathless rather than scientific, and they don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory that people are naturally polyamorous.

For example, like a lot of evolutionary biology critiques, this one leans heavily on bonobos (at least so far). Here's the thing: humans aren't like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we're not like bonobos. There's no way observed human societies grew out of a species organized along the lines of a bonobo tribe.

She then links this gay guy over at Scientific American, who questions this evolution-says-we're-supposed-to-be-promiscuous thesis. If evolution and "nature" really want us to just have sex with as many partners as we like, why has evolution and "nature" given us such a profound check on such behavior -- sexual possessiveness of our partner's exclusive affection, heart-break over a partner's infidelity, and empathy for our partners making us not wish to hurt them in this very painful way?


Heartbreak is every bit as much a psychological adaptation as is the compulsion to have sex with those other than our partners, and it throws a monster of a monkey wrench into the evolutionists’ otherwise practical polyamory. It’s indeed natural for people—especially men—to seek sexual variety. My partner once likened this to having the same old meal over and over again, for years on end; eventually you’re going to get some serious cravings for a different dish. But I reminded him that people aren’t the equivalent of a plate of spaghetti. Unfortunately, we have feelings.

Unless you have the unfortunate luck of being coupled with a psychopath, or have the good fortune of being one yourself, broken hearts are not easily experienced at either end, nor are they easily mended by reason or waved off by all the evolutionary logic in the world. And because we’re designed by nature to be not only moderately promiscuous but also to become selfish when that natural promiscuity rears its head—again, naturally—in our partners, “reasonable people” are far from immune to getting hurt by their partner’s open and agreed-upon sex with other parties. Monogamy may not be natural, but neither is indifference to our partners’ sex lives or tolerance for polyamory. In fact, for many people, especially those naively taking guidance from evolutionary theorists without thinking deeply enough about these issues, polyamory can lead to devastating effects.

He quotes an anthropologist who outlines the basics of the phenomenon we know as heartbreak, and the clinical description of heartbreak is itself sort of heartbreaking.

There is little doubt that many of us, gun to our heads, would admit, "Sure, I'd like to see what that other person not my spouse is like in bed."

But the polyamory proponents conveniently forget about the directly contrary impulses -- inborn instinct and drive, it seems, every bit as "natural" and "Darwinian" as the spread-the-seed impulse -- that keep most of us monogamous at least most of the time.

There's no doubt that one of these two impulses must be suppressed -- either the impulse to cheat must be suppressed, or the impulse to not wish to hurt someone close to you must be suppressed.

It's not surprising that a confirmed malignant narcissist like Andrew Sullivan thinks it's the latter that's screwing up everyone's good time, and thrills over books that justify ("Science!") sexual sociopathy.

Via Instapundit, who notes a funny comment in McArdle's comment section.

How Sullivan Thinks... He's an extremely narcissistic guy -- he's always contriving some reasons why his personal preferences are morally required to be everyone's preferences.

Hence, his creation, as critics called it, a one-man political party, the Party of Andrew. And then later, when he found the 2000 year old church to contradict the Sacred Scrolls of Sullivan, the Church of Andrew.

So here's what's going on: He has a lot invested in the idea that gay marriage must be equal to, in every way, if not superior to, straight marriage, because he's in a gay "marriage." (Apparently one with a loosey-goosey policy on fidelity.)

Now, if he doesn't feel this same need that most straights do to be monogamous, that would imply that his marriage is deficient in some manner; that he is deficient in some manner. That would imply that gay marriage is... lesser than straight marriage, as it lacks (for him, at least) one of the main features of straight marriage.

He can't have that. He can't and he won't.

Thus, any heterosexual (or homosexual, for that matter) who retains a sentimental attachment to the ideal of lifelong exclusive commitment must be irrational and fundamentally broken in some manner. Science ("Science!") must endeavor to prove this.

And to prove that Sullivan is as he conceives himself -- the most superlative life-form on the planet Earth (and probably most other planets, too, but he'll get to them as time permits).

Posted by: Ace at 06:45 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 1039 words, total size 7 kb.

1 I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge (or Chesterton?) who said something to the effect that no rational man would enter into marriage.

Posted by: logprof at August 31, 2010 06:49 AM (BP6Z1)

2 I did not read that book, Sex at Dawn and agree with every word of it. I didn't touch it, I didn't use it to fondle myself, hell I never even knew it was under my desk giving me a blowjob.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at August 31, 2010 06:50 AM (cxGtL)

3 No rational man does!

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 06:50 AM (QbA6l)

4 Who would want to have sex with that guy?  Srsly. 

Posted by: Y-not is back from Vegas, Baby! at August 31, 2010 06:50 AM (osFsP)

5
This is regurgitated claptrap.

Humans are just animals -- just like chimps. We are nothing more than hairless monkeys.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 06:51 AM (uFokq)

6

"A man marries a woman hoping that she will stay the same.

A woman marries a man hoping to change him.

Both are inevitably disappointed."

 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at August 31, 2010 06:51 AM (8lCJT)

7 It sounds like whoever wrote this dumb book just read Brave New World and decided, yeah, that sounds like a fun time.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 31, 2010 06:52 AM (FkKjr)

8 Monogamy's great unless you've picked the doofus with the umbrella...

Posted by: Michelle Obama at August 31, 2010 06:52 AM (FcR7P)

9
Humans aren't special. We have no souls. We create these social constructs. We are simply members of the animal kingdom same as birds, whales, dogs, etc...

Bla bla bla bla...

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 06:53 AM (uFokq)

10

Hi from school... another fine day in organic chemistry.

Anyway, from a guy's perspective, sure, we're wired to bang everything in sight as a means of propagating the species. It's about now that you encounter the human condition known as conscience.

You can chalk it up to religion, societal construct, or what have you- from a purely biological standpoint, we are wired to propagate. The check comes from someone noticing that doing that didn't give them the same sense of guilt-free pleasure that it had in the past, and so they wrote down something about their urges being modified.

The other major hole in this militant guy's argument is the inability to account for fairly plentiful breeds like wood ducks- they mate for life, too. For those of us who hunt ducks, if you pop a wood duck, you want to make damn sure you get the mate as well, just for mercy's sake... it's sad to watch one look for the mate for the rest of its life.

Anyway, yeah, the guy's argument has more holes than a sieve.

Posted by: tmi3rd at August 31, 2010 06:53 AM (CuqQ1)

11 No comment

Posted by: Tiger Woods at August 31, 2010 06:53 AM (BP6Z1)

12 If evolution wanted us to be promiscuous, it would have made our skulls hard enough to with stand a seven iron.

Posted by: Tioger Woods at August 31, 2010 06:54 AM (xxgag)

13 Is there nothing they won't try to destroy? What happened to staying out of our bedrooms? When I have sex at dawn, I had a hot dream and woke up my husband. When Andi Sullivan has sex at dawn, it's because they kicked him out of the bathroom stall at the gay disco. Now I need a shower.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at August 31, 2010 06:56 AM (mHQ7T)

14
So romantic commitment isn't a natural human trait? Bull. Shit.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 06:56 AM (uFokq)

15 I have weighed in.

Ladies, I sent it as a text in your cell phones.

Posted by: Brett Favre at August 31, 2010 06:56 AM (BP6Z1)

16

Even if "biology" somehow "wanted" anything, the fact remains that human societies funtion better with one-man-one-woman arrangements.  Cuts down on the inbreeding, for one.  Better spreads responsibility and cost for child rearing.  Insures wider biodiversity among the population.  Keeps surplus males from causing all kinds of trouble.  Reduces tribalism.  And frankly, who could tolerate multiple wives unless those wives were kept in utter submission?  There would be no end of problems and misery in the home.  Only a fool wants more than one wife (or perhaps any, for that matter).

If there are idiots out there who want to try this crap, there really isn't anything stopping them.  They tend to be the sort who say "I don't need no scrap of paper to tell me I'm married."  So, since they don't need no legal recognition, let them go cohabitate with multiple "spounses" and see how it works out.  They can prolly find a subdivision somewhere in Utah where they'll fit right in.  It'll be a fun time when it comes to the point where alimony/child-support/child custody has to be worked out.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at August 31, 2010 06:57 AM (xUM1Q)

17 We're also violent, murderous, by nature.

Not really seeing the 'Go Murder!' movement, though.

And is Ms. Sullivan really going the 'yay, polygamy' route that they insist will not follow Gay Marriage (because that would be, of course, just ludicrous)?

Posted by: Rick Sanchez at August 31, 2010 06:57 AM (MMC8r)

18 Wait, what?

Posted by: Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, Celebrated Sociopaths at August 31, 2010 06:58 AM (poAzP)

19 When viewing a human living a solitary existence, the thesis may have some validity.  But humans don't live in isolation.  They are completely social animals, (except for the denizens of this site, of course.)   Ignoring that fact is like ignoring the hive for bees.  We have evolved to live in groups because it is advantageous. 

Posted by: pep at August 31, 2010 06:59 AM (YXmuI)

20 /sock

Posted by: nickless at August 31, 2010 06:59 AM (MMC8r)

21 In Communist societies people have no value as individuals.  Reducing them to mere animals serves to reinforce this illusion and facilitates foisting a Communist system on the populace.

That is why books like this are written.

That and the fact that the authors probably couldn't get laid in a whore house with a fist full of Franklins.

Posted by: Nighhawk at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (OtQXp)

22 The moment anyone uses the idea of "natural" as the basis for a social or political argument, you know they're most likely full of crap. They're assuming that "natural" is synonymous with "desirable", when it's not necessarily the case.

Malaria, cholera, and a whole host of other common diseases are natural. The idea of "might makes right" is natural. When a male takes another mate, it's actually quite natural for him to slaughter his new mate's existing children (common behavior in animals). Yet no sane person would claim any of these things as desirable or good in a civilized society.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (P9+0W)

23 Marriage worked for me and all of my wives.

Posted by: Joseph Smith at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (lUV0r)

24 Even with polyamory on the rise, proponents of gay marriage scoff at the suggestion that polygamy could be on the table soon.  Turn back the clock 30 years and see how many people scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (fLHQe)

25 Not only do I reject polyamory, even monogamy is too much for me. The only sex I engage in is autonomous.

Having sex with another person would feel like cheating on myself.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (9cbd0)

26 And yes, you walking petri dish crossed with a hair trap, my love is more special than yours.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (mHQ7T)

27 "Fucking Cock-Twaddle" is so much more descriptive than "Horsefeathers."

Posted by: Sharkman at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (Zj8fM)

28

Now if they can only work out that little wrinkle of the STDs, we're down to the short strokes...

metaphorically speaking of course.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 07:00 AM (RkRxq)

29
How do the same cocksuckers who promote this sophomoric claptrap foist so-called cultural progressiveness such as the "public option" on us?

Last time I checked I didn't see any groups of animals forming governments, a tax system, and socialized medicine.

It's funny how we're 'just members of the animal kingdom' only when it comes to undermining Western traditions and the church.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 07:03 AM (uFokq)

30 This is the kind of thinking that springs forth when people don't respect any higher moral authority than themselves.  Even the ancient pagans often had more moral sense than today's Liberal.

Posted by: Reactionary at August 31, 2010 07:03 AM (xUM1Q)

31 In my human evolution classes, we referred to this type of thinking as the "Naturalistic Fallacy". Just because something is "correct" according to nature and biology, it doesn't automatically apply to human practices and culture. Unlike other animals, we can overcome our biological programming (instincts) with reason.

Feminists fall for this often, when they assume that all men are potential rapists, because male reproductive instinct and biology dictates that they should be.

Posted by: Pyrocles at August 31, 2010 07:03 AM (cv5Iw)

32 The other major hole in this militant guy's argument is the inability to account for fairly plentiful breeds like wood ducks- they mate for life, too.

Male praying mantises don't get around much, either (...well, not the heterosexual ones).

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:03 AM (1+AMA)

33

"Marriage is like a slurpee.  You buy it and it taste so good until eventually you get that braini freeze headache.  Ouch Ouch Ouch. I'm not doing that again!   Then the brain freeze goes away.  You quickly forget how much it hurt and go back and take another sip."  

Until you've sucked all the flavor out of it and are left with an amorphous blob of ice.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 31, 2010 07:04 AM (fLHQe)

34 So if we guys all just copulate and take off, does that mean it really is the village that raises the kids?

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 31, 2010 07:04 AM (0GFWk)

35 Well, uh, uh... Samoans or something.

Posted by: Margaret Mead at August 31, 2010 07:04 AM (SCcgT)

36

 "The moment anyone uses the idea of "natural" as the basis for a social or political argument, you know they're most likely full of crap."

It's kind of like when someone is ready to shove a big lie upon the public, they precede it with "Studies have shown..."

Posted by: Burn the Witch at August 31, 2010 07:05 AM (fLHQe)

37

Now if they can only work out that little wrinkle of the STDs, we're down to the short strokes...

metaphorically speaking of course.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 12:00 PM (RkRxq)

I guess evolution was vacationing in Martha's Vineyard when STDs were created.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 31, 2010 07:06 AM (xxgag)

38 Pseudo-science is still science, wingnuts!  Why are you so anti-science, you haters?

Posted by: anotehr liberal who isn't gettin' any at August 31, 2010 07:06 AM (MMC8r)

39 Any post that contains the words "how Sullican thinks" should also mention LSD, ritalin, and large amounts of fantasies about Palin's vagina.

Posted by: Mr Pink at August 31, 2010 07:06 AM (lsJMg)

40 Interesting that libs seem to be the ones pimping the idea of polyamory/polygamy and yet, look at their reactions to prominent Mormons.

Posted by: Darth Randall at August 31, 2010 07:07 AM (oLULt)

41 If it's natural, why is it that every human civilization has had some kind of control on human sexuality, and in the vast majority of those cases, the rule has been one-to-a-customer? It might have been "natural" to a distant ancestor. But I thought those guys believed in evolution.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at August 31, 2010 07:07 AM (g9neE)

42 Lying's natural too.  So's arsenic.

Posted by: mama winger at August 31, 2010 07:07 AM (677gh)

43 In my human evolution classes, we referred to this type of thinking as the "Naturalistic Fallacy".

Ace calls it fucking cock twaddle but to each his own.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 31, 2010 07:08 AM (xxgag)

44 Ownership is one of the most deeply ingrained aspects of the natural human personality.  Marriage is an expression of that concept of ownership (not just among the mates, but extended to the family generated under marriage) with it being a one-sided ownership relation in more primitive societies and a two-sided ownership relation (though differences between men and women are taken into account) in advanced societies.  Those who have been at the "advanced" level, but disliked the natural human concept of ownership took off into an unnatural social lunacy where they believe that ownership, as a concept, is bad and evil, and they have taken to destroying any meaning that marriage might hold. 

Those who oppose the concept of ownership are among the most "unnatural humans" one can find; truly twisted and perverted personalities that generally serve only to increase entropy.  And they revel in their "unnaturalness", thinking themselves representatives of some superman who is bound to nothing physiological or logical ... humans released from all ties to reality.  They are, clearly, insane.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 07:08 AM (Qp4DT)

45 35 So if we guys all just copulate and take off, does that mean it really is the village that raises the kids?

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 31, 2010 12:04 PM (0GFWk)

Not so much the village as the government- we need another billion for HHS!

Crap arguments like this that attack traditional families are also attempts to increase the power of the state.

Posted by: Nighhawk at August 31, 2010 07:08 AM (OtQXp)

46

ace, something else it leaves out is that if nature wants us to have as many partners as possible then why are so there so many sexually transmitted diseases, which often cause infertility or even death?

it seems that nature is doing everything it can to warn against such behavior.

 

Just ask AIDS riddled Andrew Sullivan if nature rewards promiscuity.

Posted by: Ben at August 31, 2010 07:09 AM (wuv1c)

47 By the way, when is McArdle going to wash her hands utterly and totally of liberalism? Has she weighed in on Globull Warmening yet? We could use a hard-headed liberal apostate, especially a girl who likes math.

Posted by: arhooley at August 31, 2010 07:10 AM (zmV6V)

48 So here's what's going on: He has a lot invested in the idea that gay marriage must be equal to, in every way, if not superior to, straight marriage, because he's in a gay "marriage." (Apparently one with a loosey-goosey policy on fidelity.)

--All the male-male "marriages" I know among friends are the same.

Posted by: logprof at August 31, 2010 07:10 AM (BP6Z1)

49

Question:

Were climate scientists involved in this in any way?

I'm just sayin' because...

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 07:11 AM (RkRxq)

50 Better to copulate than never.

Right? Am I right? 

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 31, 2010 07:11 AM (Hj0nA)

51

Seems like two reproductive/survival strategies at work.  One is spread your seed far and wide.  The other is hang around and actually help raise the young.  Both seem to have merit from a purely amoral biological functional perspective.  Obviously hanging around and rearing a bunch of children with one woman, forming a strong family unit which takes care of itself, is a good way to not only reproduce but protect the fruits until they're old enough to reproduce. 

While we're taking examples from nature, male lions which gain domanance over a pride of females will kill the young of the defeated and ostracized  males so the females go into heat more quickly and to guarantee only their young will survive. 

So there's that.  Oh, and bonobos are good eatin' in the lion world.   Humans have rifles.  Lions make nice rugs in the human world.       

Posted by: Beagle at August 31, 2010 07:11 AM (sOtz/)

52 Fine, but this still doesn't explain why I want to have sex with Ralph Macchio wearing a kilt.

Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at August 31, 2010 07:11 AM (HaYO4)

53 I guess schools teach homosexuality is "natural" and genetic, but if there was any one trait that would be quickly removed from the gene pool, wouldn't it be homosexuality?

Survival of the fittest also means reproduction and survival of the progeny.  That probably happens better with "mates", and not in the Aussie sense ...these have to be opposite sex mates.  I just wish the liberals would get their story "straight", and not amend evolution to fit their sensibilities.  Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, but if it is genetic, it sure must be a double recessive or something, since it can hardly add to survival of the blood line.

Of course religion and social constructs have also evolved to protect children of bonded couples ... until recently at least.  As you move down the evolutionary scale, you get more free love.  The free love of the 60's hippies seems more about the destruction of the establishment than any higher evolution.  (though they did sing "teach your children well")

Posted by: bill at August 31, 2010 07:12 AM (9AIt+)

54 It's good to be the Alpha.

Now pick my nits and groom me.

Posted by: Alpha Bonobo at August 31, 2010 07:12 AM (Hj0nA)

55 Lying's natural too.  So's arsenic.

And crude oil.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:13 AM (1+AMA)

56 I've seen the argument advanced that monogamy is a social adaptation to increase social stability.

In polygamous societies you end up with many young men who won't be able to get female attention, since it is better to be the chief's third wife then a serf's first.

These frustrated "lower class" men in turn are likely to fight within the tribe especially since biologically they have *nothing* to lose.

With monogamy, you guarantee almost all men one wife presuming they work within the tribe, so even the lowest class males have some reason to support the tribe.

You can see this in practice in fact, as one of the notable differences that came out during the conflicts between Islam and Christianity is that the latter formed more stable societies, whereas the former faced endemic internal conflicts until this very day.

Posted by: 18-1 at August 31, 2010 07:13 AM (7BU4a)

57 If G-D had wanted me to copulate left and right when I was younger he would have made women more cooporative

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 31, 2010 07:13 AM (0GFWk)

58 How dare you murdering neo-cons kill the children of the earth! Typhoid wants to live too! It is just as natural as polyamory.

Maybe that's why Andi is HIV+; he simply wanted to embrace the joys of the natural world, in the form of a few thousand men.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (formerly NJConservative) at August 31, 2010 07:14 AM (LH6ir)

59 a one-sided ownership relation in more primitive societies and a two-sided ownership relation (though differences between men and women are taken into account) in advanced societies.

Dude, all societies are equal and have equal validity.  Get with the program!

Posted by: pep at August 31, 2010 07:14 AM (YXmuI)

60 Does this mean that Hollwood celebrities really are at the cutting edge?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 07:14 AM (RkRxq)

61
speaking of Megans and fucking chimps...

Why was Meghan McCain on GMA this morning with George Stuffitupmyass?

Oh, that's right: to talk shit about Palin and Conservatives.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 07:14 AM (uFokq)

62

Thus, any heterosexual (or homosexual, for that matter) who retains a sentimental attachment to the ideal of lifelong exclusive commitment must be irrational and fundamentally broken in some manner. Science ("Science!") must endeavor to prove this.]

It's a profoundly dangerous and foolish leftist notion that acting against your nature is unhealthy and fundamentally wrong. All of human self-improvement comes about from acting against one's nature.

Posted by: Randy at August 31, 2010 07:15 AM (zQKSr)

63 Andrew Sullivan, who vowed that gay marriage would not change conventional marriage one iota and who further vowed that gay marriage would have the salutary effect of reducing and restraining gay male promiscuity

Is there any person that actually believed that twaddle? Gay marriage is supported for two reasons - to increase acceptance of homosexuality and to decrease the respect the institution of marriage is held in.

Posted by: 18-1 at August 31, 2010 07:15 AM (7BU4a)

64 but if there was any one trait that would be quickly removed from the gene pool, wouldn't it be homosexuality?

Not necessarily; a gay man with siblings can have nieces and nephews and they will have some genes in common.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:15 AM (1+AMA)

65 Now that Bristol will beon, Dancing With the Stars is just ruined for him

Posted by: beedubya at August 31, 2010 07:15 AM (AnTyA)

66 hominids also ostracize and kill "different" hominids from rivaling tribes. Sorry lefty twatwaddle peddlers, your arguments are self-defeating and stupid. btw tits evolved to promote monogomy and sex-based selection in homo sapiens- mainly because they gave off pheremones and altered in appearance through the first 10 years to keep the male "interested" so evolution provided its own physical checks and balances to the desire to run around and bone anything that doesn't say no loudly enough.

Posted by: CAC at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (lV4Fs)

67 I think monogamy is as unnatural as is the peculiar human habit of not flinging four eces at each other.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (HqpV0)

68 "That puts Sullivan where he wants to be -- as the most superlative life-form on the planet Earth."

That being defined as someone who suppresses their natural emotions so vigorously and profusely that emotions themselves become a crutch for the weak in his perception. This helps deal with not only the heartbreak of losing a love, but with the confusion of his lifestyle choice (and I'm not just talking about his homosexuality). Feeling nothing means no pain, no heartache, and the ability to tell himself (and the world) that he must be the greatest, most evolved being on the planet...which is why he feels so constantly alone; "marriage" or no.

Posted by: g at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (J97b8)

69

Hey, our approach to marriage / poly-whatzits worked out well for our old guys.

 

For a while.

 

Until the everyone else complained and the society dissolved.

 

But for a while there - Cowabunga!

Posted by: The Oneida Society at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (2g2ex)

70 Well, typically, the hoi polloi have always had a single wife, while the Royals and the Rich can have multiple wives and/or mistresses.


Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (YorKH)

71 Gay marriage is supported for two reasons - to increase acceptance of homosexuality and to decrease the respect the institution of marriage is held in.

The biggest reason is financial gain.  Cash in on someone else's health insurance/pension/Social Security benefits.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (1+AMA)

72 I guess schools teach homosexuality is "natural" and genetic, but if there was any one trait that would be quickly removed from the gene pool, wouldn't it be homosexuality?

--There was a very old, classic study that found homosexuality among rats as a product of overpopulation.  It seemed an "altruistic" trigger that kicks in to limit population without the need for mass starvation or violence.

Which makes me wonder if homosexuality in people is something of a product of modernity rather than modernism.

Posted by: logprof at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (BP6Z1)

73 Not to mention the fact that humping everything that moves tends to result in some form of nasty disease...and of course possibly legal troubles and violence too.

Posted by: Chainsaw Chimp at August 31, 2010 07:16 AM (pLTLS)

74 Andrew Sullivan reminds me of the old haggard queens that hang out at colleges and tell their friends they are 25.  These people will never embrace monogamy unless their current partner tells them to.

Posted by: ryukyu at August 31, 2010 07:17 AM (MOHSR)

75

speaking of Megans and fucking chimps...

Why was Meghan McCain on GMA this morning with George Stuffitupmyass?

Oh, that's right: to talk shit about Palin and Conservatives.

some website did a parody on chapters that didn't make it into her book. it was pretty funny.

She is part of the new class of Politards. People who are on TV and talk about politics because they a related to a politician, good looking, or are  willing tools of the MFM against conservatives

Posted by: Ben at August 31, 2010 07:18 AM (wuv1c)

76

It's a profoundly dangerous and foolish leftist notion that acting against your nature is unhealthy and fundamentally wrong. All of human self-improvement comes about from acting against one's nature.

Posted by: Randy at August 31, 2010 12:15 PM (zQKSr)


But excessively going against one's nature causes problems.

Examples: Vegan diet, Communism.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 07:18 AM (YorKH)

77
If monogamy isn't natural then why did Gaia create diamonds?

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 07:19 AM (uFokq)

78 She is part of the new class of Politards. People who are on TV and talk about politics because they a related to a politician, good looking, or are  willing tools of the MFM against conservatives

Two outta three ain't bad. 

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:19 AM (1+AMA)

79 60 If G-D had wanted me to copulate left and right when I was younger he would have made women more cooporative

Posted by: nevergiveup at August 31, 2010 12:13 PM (0GFWk)

No, not really.  It's a built in self defense mechanism for protecting the gene pool.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 07:19 AM (RkRxq)

80

log prof

just imagine China if 25 years.

the one child policy has resulted in 1.25 men per 1 woman.

so in 25 year about 50 million chinese men are either going to have to be gay, use mail order russian brides, or get married to Japanese body pillows/

Posted by: Ben at August 31, 2010 07:20 AM (wuv1c)

81

One of the PowerLine guys noted that bonobo chimps are liberals' favorite animals because their behavior affirms everything the juvenile leftist mind wants to believe about people.

I riffed on that point at the link above.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at August 31, 2010 07:20 AM (niGh7)

82
yeah, i'll admit it: Meghan looked good today.

Still wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire, though.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 07:20 AM (uFokq)

83 #80 Well, you idiot/stupid/racist/dangerous/rightwing/teabagger OBVIOUSLY so that people like us can parade around in it while chastising those who foolishly peddle this "capitalism" stuff around. By the way can someone help me figure out what "hypocrite" means?

Posted by: Hollywood Lefty at August 31, 2010 07:20 AM (lV4Fs)

84

ya see, marriage is like a car, sometimes it gets stuck in a ditch, and then this hot little neighbor with a ferrari comes home and the "stick shift" gets put into D, and then the "car" gets put into the "garage"....

I got nothin

Posted by: Barry Poppins at August 31, 2010 07:22 AM (FkSQ7)

85
If monogamy isn't natural then why did Gaia create diamonds?

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 12:19 PM (uFokq)

Gaia created diamonds, but DeBeers created the "tradition".

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 07:22 AM (YorKH)

86

Interesting how the institution survived, actually.  Kind of makes one question the whole basis for the theory of evolution, doesn't it?

These people just can't get enough of having it both ways.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 07:22 AM (RkRxq)

87 I spent much of my youth studying Mandrills, especially Barbara. 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at August 31, 2010 07:23 AM (8lCJT)

88 Well, these people studied bonobos.

If they'd studied the TheEdgebos or the JohnnyRottenbos we'd have an entirely different data set to test the hypothesis.

I'm guessing the bonobos also are in favor of third world debt relief.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 31, 2010 07:23 AM (Hj0nA)

89 Why is it that social scientist are all hopped up about how evolution works so well in other species, but somehow it needs to be "fixed" in ours?


Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 31, 2010 07:24 AM (HqpV0)

90 Bunch of squares around here.  If I want to get married to more than one bonobo, male or female, that's between me and my bonobo partners.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at August 31, 2010 07:26 AM (+lsX1)

91 90 If nature wanted us to fuck around we wouldn't have venereal diseases that can be contracted from one single exposure. Some are pretty nasty and can linger for years, maybe even are the cause of some cervical cancers in women.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 31, 2010 12:23 PM (IhHdM)

1. Perhaps modern people have significantly weakened immune systems ?

2. Perhaps it would be worth it, evolutionarily speaking, if you have a bunch of kids with different mamas, but then proceeded to get sick from STDs and die ?

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 07:27 AM (YorKH)

92 Three words, Nature:

Opposable.
Muther-Fuckin'
Thumbs.

-

Posted by: Humans at August 31, 2010 07:27 AM (Hj0nA)

93 When do we get Toby the Beagle's take?

Posted by: logprof at August 31, 2010 07:27 AM (BP6Z1)

94 The two largest (in current, common knowledge) social structures that support polygamy ( old-line LDS and Islam) are both virulently anti-gay and not to enlightened on womens rights. I don't pretend to understand where these guy are heading with this; but historically - human societies that go with multiple partners, don't necessarily end up in happy Athenian orgys and participatory democracy.

Posted by: Jean at August 31, 2010 07:27 AM (Hx1qz)

95 No need to read the book, guys.  There was already a summary... from about ten years ago. 

"You and me, baby/ain't nothing but mammals
so let's do it like they do/on the Discovery Channel..."

If they want a justification to behave like animals, let them go right ahead... But when something goes wrong, maybe they should call their veterinarians.

Posted by: newton at August 31, 2010 07:28 AM (q5ZJk)

96

As it turns out, utopian socialism and religious authoritarianism combined with celibacy doesn't work.  

Posted by: The Shakers at August 31, 2010 07:29 AM (sOtz/)

97

These people just can't get enough of having it both ways.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at August 31, 2010 12:22 PM (RkRxq)

Liberals lose both sides of just about every argument in trying to get everything that their damaged personalities demand.  Liberals are like Aesop's dog staring at his reflection holding the "other bone" in its mouth ... except that liberals are quite a bit dumber.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 07:29 AM (Qp4DT)

98 I'm guessing the bonobos also are in favor of third world debt relief. Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 31, 2010 12:23 PM __________________________________________ Sonny Bonobo was a noted conservative.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at August 31, 2010 07:30 AM (yQWNf)

99 Perhaps it would be worth it, evolutionarily speaking, if you have a bunch of kids with different mamas, but then proceeded to get sick from STDs and die ?


Death gets you out of child support...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 31, 2010 07:30 AM (1+AMA)

100 Three words, Nature:

Opposable.
Muther-Fuckin'
Thumbs.

-

Posted by: Humans at August 31, 2010 12:27 PM (Hj0nA)

And liberals love soccer.  'Nuff said.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 07:30 AM (Qp4DT)

101

2. Perhaps it would be worth it, evolutionarily speaking, if you have a bunch of kids with different mamas, but then proceeded to get sick from STDs and die ?

I have six kids with eight different baby's mamas

Posted by: Men Without Hats at August 31, 2010 07:31 AM (wuv1c)

102

But excessively going against one's nature causes problems.

Examples: Vegan diet, Communism.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 12:18 PM (YorKH)

Yes, though it is I don't think it is the excess that is the problem. One has to evaluate what is good by a standard apart from what is natural. At least according to the values that built the west, and most civilizations.

Posted by: Randy at August 31, 2010 07:31 AM (zQKSr)

103

2. Perhaps it would be worth it, evolutionarily speaking, if you have a bunch of kids with different mamas, but then proceeded to get sick from STDs and die ?

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 12:27 PM (YorKH)

STFU

Posted by: Antonio Cromartie at August 31, 2010 07:32 AM (BP6Z1)

104 2. Perhaps it would be worth it, evolutionarily speaking, if you have a bunch of kids with different mamas, but then proceeded to get sick from STDs and die ? I have six kids with eight different baby's mamas Posted by: Men Without Hats at August 31, 2010 12:31 PM __________________________________________ Wow. That must have been tough to do.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at August 31, 2010 07:33 AM (yQWNf)

105 If y'all stop randomly doing it with every moistened bint you come across, we'll be doomed to extinction.  What about the Prime Directive and our right as a species to survive?  Thank nature for the college years.

Posted by: The Crabs at August 31, 2010 07:33 AM (2g2ex)

106 Evolutionarily speaking,

Humans are the only species that have doubled, possibly tripled their life expectancy.   At least we're the only species that has published peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject.

The evolutionary adaptations that make the bonobo lifestyle good for the bonobos does not take into account what would happen if the bonobos were, somehow, able to live two to three times longer and have their females extend the time frame in which they can reproduce.

An adaptation that makes the most of a limited time frame is not the optimal solution for one that isn't as constricted. 





.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 31, 2010 07:33 AM (Hj0nA)

107
ahhh, now it's coming back to me...

This bullshit is in WALDEN TWO by BF Skinner.

B.F. is short for Buf Foon, by the way.

Posted by: i got a girl in kalamazoo...zoo...zoo...zoo at August 31, 2010 07:34 AM (uFokq)

108 So is a reach around considered cheating or not?

Posted by: Fritz at August 31, 2010 07:34 AM (GwPRU)

109 heather said "Not necessarily; a gay man with siblings can have nieces and nephews and they will have some genes in common."

but that is true with any trait that harms "survival of the fittest" ... unless it is somehow linked to some benefit, it would quickly disappear.

Rats turning gay to diminish population ... interesting, though it seems starvation would be the quicker cure.  It still strikes me as a recessive trait, if it is indeed genetic. 

Are rats monogamous ... human rats are not ...

Posted by: bill at August 31, 2010 07:35 AM (9AIt+)

110 83

log prof

just imagine China if 25 years.

the one child policy has resulted in 1.25 men per 1 woman.

so in 25 year about 50 million chinese men are either going to have to be gay, use mail order russian brides, or get married to Japanese body pillows/

Some anthropologists believe that monogamy developed to ensure that all men had a chance at marriage, to create more peaceful societies. Polygamous cultures feature more perpetually-single males with the wealthy and powerful men hording all the women. This apparently correlates to more violence and war *cough*Islam*cough*.

Imagine China with such a huge supply of frustrated males with no hope of ever getting laid...

Posted by: Pyrocles at August 31, 2010 07:36 AM (cv5Iw)

111 At least we're the only species that has published peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject.


You stupid monkeys think you're so smart because you can type.

Posted by: Dolphins at August 31, 2010 07:36 AM (1+AMA)

112 Imagine China with such a huge supply of frustrated males with no hope of ever getting laid...


The one-child policy was enacted in the 70s.  That China exists NOW.

Posted by: Dolphins at August 31, 2010 07:37 AM (1+AMA)

113 Individualism is the natural progression of Man.  The proof of this is in the great creative and productive forces that are unleashed with individualism, thereby making that attitude evolutionarily advantageous.  Individualism is intimately tied to ownership, which is expressed as marriage in relationships.  Those raised in solid families absorb this concept of individualism and ownership and carry on the strongest social organization we have seen. 

Leftists who rail against these natural qualities of Man, and Man's progress, are just suicidal self-haters.  But, it's always been obvious that suicidal self-hate is the main motivation behind leftist ideas.  Of course, that's just part of the danger of individualism (generating suicidal self-haters) ... and we have to take the bad with the good.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 07:38 AM (Qp4DT)

114 We are but life support and transportation systems for the virus.

Posted by: Andi Sullivan at August 31, 2010 07:38 AM (aHvE8)

115 Aside from AIDs Dementia Syndrome this could be the answer for Andi's mental chaos: Cognitive Dissonance created by a desire to believe in a monogamous Gay relationship while kneeling in front of a Glory Hole.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at August 31, 2010 07:38 AM (c3i/K)

116 I think if someone were to study human societies instead of those of apes, it would be apparent that predominantly monogamous societies out-compete non-monogamous ones in the long run.

Posted by: Socratease at August 31, 2010 07:38 AM (nF+Eo)

117

What about the Prime Directive and our right as a species to survive? 

 

ya see, captaining a starship is like driving a car, sometimes it gets stuck in a class 11 nebula, and then this hot little blue chick  with a shuttle beams down  and the "stick shift" gets put into D, and then the "Enterprise" gets put into the "space dock"....

nope,still got nothin

Posted by: THE captain at August 31, 2010 07:42 AM (FkSQ7)

118 Andrew Sullivan, who vowed that gay marriage would not change conventional marriage one iota and who further vowed that gay marriage would have the salutary effect of reducing and restraining gay male promiscuity, is championing the book, declaring, again, that heterosexual breeders really need to get over their hang-ups about having multiple partners and embrace polyamory.

Thanks for pointing this out, Ace. This is what same-sex marriage opponents are talking about when they say that state recognition of SSM will weaken marriage. Proponents of SSM often (mockingly) ask "how will my marriage do anything to yours?" The question is meant rhetorically, but Milky Loads has unwittingly supplied the answer.

SSM applies the "marriage" label to a significantly large set of relationships between people who have little interest in temporary monogamy, much less lifelong monogamy. The more people who enter into "marriage" without insisting on monogamy, the less we as a culture will understand "marriage" to involve monogamy. "Marriage" then becomes just a basket of rights, like survivor benefits or visiting your spouse in the hospital. It loses the ancient, normal, and overwhelming understanding of marriage as involving monogamy, and reduces it to a partnership based on legal rights and obligations.

That's what the unmarried are going to understand: that marriage is about getting to visit the person you love in the hospital, and automatically inheriting her shit when she dies. It isn't about sexual exclusivity, and the related guarantee that all children born of or fathered by each partner belongs equally to the other partner. It's about a mutual agreement for benefits, like any other contract. If that's what everyone understands, then the institution of marriage is weaker for it.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at August 31, 2010 07:45 AM (9cbd0)

119 I don't think I will ask my wife if it's ok to step on out.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 31, 2010 07:45 AM (L8kaT)

120
The idea that there is a natural impulse in mankind to do things like, for example, have many different partners is nothing new.  So if that is what this books is simply stating... then I suppose I agree with it, but it is hardly groundbreaking.

However, the attempt to attribute things like heartbreak and true love to evolutionary patterns is silly.  These are a couple of the particular things that differentiate us from the animal in kind, and not in degree.

G.K. Chesterton addresses this very well in his book The Everlasting Man, especially in the 1st chapter:

"... indeed it is in the highest sense childish; and that is why I have in this apologue in some sense seen it through the eyes of a child... suppose the boy had not been taught by a priest but by a professor, by one of the professors who simplify the relation of men and beasts to a mere evolutionary variation. Suppose the boy saw himself, with the same simplicity and sincerity, as a mere Mowgli running with the pack of nature and roughly indistinguishable from the rest save by a relative and recent variation. What would be for him the simplest lesson of that strange [paintings in prehistoric man's cave]? After all, it would come back to this; that he had dug very deep and found the place where a man had drawn the picture of a reindeer. But he would dig a good deal deeper before he found a place where a reindeer had drawn a picture of a man. That sounds like a truism but in this connection it is really a very tremendous truth. He might descend to depths unthinkable, he might sink into sunken continents as strange as remote stars, he might find himself in the inside of the world as far from men as the other side of the moon; he might see in those cold chasms or colossal terraces of stone, traced in the faint hieroglyphic of the fossil, the ruins of lost dynasties of biological life, rather like the ruins of successive creations and separate universes than the stages in the story of one. He would find the trail of monsters blindly developing in directions outside all our common imagery of fish and bird; groping and grasping and touching life with every extravagant elongation of horn and tongue and tentacle; growing a forest of fantastic caricatures of the claw and the fin and the finger. But nowhere would he find one finger that had traced one significant line upon the sand; nowhere one claw that bad even begun to scratch the faint suggestion of a form. To all appearance, the thing would be as unthinkable in all those countless cosmic variations of forgotten eons as it would be in the beasts and birds before our eyes. The child would no more expect to see it than to see the cat scratch on the wall a vindictive caricature of the dog. The childish common sense would keep the most evolutionary child from expecting to see anything like that; yet in the traces of the rude and recently evolved ancestors of humanity he would have seen exactly that. It must surely strike him as strange that men so remote from him should be so near, and that beasts so near to him should be so remote. To his simplicity it must seem at least odd that he could not find any trace of the beginning of any arts among any animals. That is the simplest lesson to learn in the cavern of the colored pictures; only it is too simple to be learnt. It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man. "

For this same reason, attempting to explain human love and commitment through the lens of evolution is a silly, quixotic act.  But for the secularist this is a common thing, because when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Posted by: dan-O at August 31, 2010 07:47 AM (bRLuD)

121 As others have observed in this thread:

(1) gay relationship is bad for the survival of the species. In the limit, the species will be extinct in one generation.

(2) Monogamous hetero marriage is the foundation of a healthy society.

(3) "Evolutionary science" tells us that human is simply an "animal" in the evolutionary food chain. So what is wrong with bestial relationship?

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 07:48 AM (R4ub4)

122 And if they believe in evolution, why don't they let some of these slugs and snails and bottom feeders go extinct, rather than destroy productive and self sustaining humans?

Or why do we have to have government redistribute wealth, if they think nature should take its course?   Look at the president we got from "affirmative action".  Affirmative action helps the weak not just survive, but to dominate the strong ... till the most powerful thugs rule.  Chavez in Venezuela is the case study in the results of breeding dictators.

Posted by: bill at August 31, 2010 07:48 AM (9AIt+)

123 This bullshit is in WALDEN TWO by BF Skinner.

B.F. is short for Buf Foon, by the way.
I always thought of of him as Buttfuck Skinner, although Bornagain Fascist Skinner is more accurate.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 31, 2010 07:50 AM (ujg0T)

124 To elaborate on the Scientific American guy's comments:

The problem lies in assuming that what you have an evolutionary inclination to do is actually what you would have done thousands of years ago, before current religions, laws, and traditions.

Tossing aside all the civilizations besides Christianity where the population at large (not including the nobility) were monogamous, which everybody with the most basic understanding of history should know about--there's this idea going back to Rousseau that there was a ancient past where everybody acted freely according to their inclinations and was happy.  Bullshit.

Many people did have an inclination to cheat.  They also had an inclination to steal.  They had an inclination to lie.  They had an inclination to kill.  Your inclination does not equal how you would have acted thousands of years ago (at least without facing serious or even more severe repercussions than you do now).

As this guy points out, just as you might have an inclination to cheat, your wife has it built in her to stop you.  These don't both win out.  Nature is not just what your inclined to do.  Nature subverts what your inclined to do.  I may have an inclination to lie, but somebody has an inclination to stop me from lying--you will have the urge to do many things, but the more damaging urge (to your family, friends, and future generations) will eventually lose.

Posted by: AD at August 31, 2010 07:50 AM (UnMRd)

125

Yes, though it is I don't think it is the excess that is the problem. One has to evaluate what is good by a standard apart from what is natural. At least according to the values that built the west, and most civilizations.

Posted by: Randy at August 31, 2010 12:31 PM (zQKSr)

Sure, but we need to have the insight to recognize when the standard deviates too far from reality, and enforcing the standard becomes impossible ...

Examples: Anti-homosexuality laws(not marriage), drug war.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 07:51 AM (YorKH)

126 Many people did have an inclination to cheat.  They also had an inclination to steal.  They had an inclination to lie.  They had an inclination to kill. 

Posted by: AD at August 31, 2010 12:50 PM (UnMRd)

And mohammed formalized the permanent call to do all of these things.  Islamic culture has been locked in a primitive state and the key thrown away.  Yay!!!

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 07:55 AM (Qp4DT)

127 Nature is not just what your inclined to do.  Nature subverts what your inclined to do.

Damnit, "your" = "you're"

Posted by: AD at August 31, 2010 07:56 AM (wTSvK)

128

"why has evolution and "nature" given us such a profound check on such behavior -- sexual possessiveness of our partner's exclusive affection, heart-break over a partner's infidelity, and empathy for our partners making us not wish to hurt them in this very painful way?"

------------------------------------------

Certainly not everyone has such profound checks. I don't, for example, and neither do a whole lot of people I know. Certainly some of these "checks" are cultural. Thousands of years of having monogamy pounded into your head is bound to have an influence.

Posted by: Roswell Ripper at August 31, 2010 07:58 AM (+pyyc)

129

 I think Ted Nugent expressed it very eloquently in this song.  The sheer poetry of the lyrics combined with the musical score created one of mankind's preeminent works of art.

Wang Dang  

Posted by: Count de Monet at August 31, 2010 08:01 AM (2g2ex)

130 And if they believe in evolution, why don't they let some of these slugs and snails and bottom feeders go extinct, rather than destroy productive and self sustaining humans?

Or why do we have to have government redistribute wealth, if they think nature should take its course?   Look at the president we got from "affirmative action".  Affirmative action helps the weak not just survive, but to dominate the strong ... till the most powerful thugs rule.  Chavez in Venezuela is the case study in the results of breeding dictators.

Posted by: bill at August 31, 2010 12:48 PM (9AIt+)

Liberals love to claim they believe in evolutionary theory, and will scream bloody murder if anything less than "biological evolution is a pure fact" is taught in school, but liberals have never seen an evolutionary pressure that they didn't think they knew better than.  Liberals can tell you exactly what should live and what should die and how the world shoud look 50 years, or 1000 years, from now.  Typical for liberals (staticist thinking).  I excuse many of them on this because they don't know jackshit about evolutionary theory, anyway - though I still make fun of them and mock them, because they need to know exactly how stupid and retarded they are.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 31, 2010 08:01 AM (Qp4DT)

131 Of course it's unnatural! That's the whole point. If monogamy was natural it wouldn't mean anything.

Posted by: Tommy V at August 31, 2010 08:05 AM (qU57d)

132 Certainly not everyone has such profound checks. I don't, for example, and neither do a whole lot of people I know.
-
Of course not. That 's why the emperors of old and new have/had their "harems" with thousands of wives and concubines for their own "natural pleasure". Wonder why kids yearn for a "stable family" when all the adults are out for their "natural impulses".

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 08:08 AM (R4ub4)

133 Ace, why do you hate Science? Don't you know there's a consensus?

Posted by: JohnJ at August 31, 2010 08:11 AM (LIiDi)

134 Again, this is another example of the "gay marriage" farce! What is so special about the monogamous gay relationship that the marriage privilege should be extended to that relationship alone? So on to polyamorous and bestial relationships as well!

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 08:11 AM (R4ub4)

135

Nice post.

By the way, he never, ever seems to notice that he's grossly contradictory or outright lying. It just never occurs to him there's an inconsistency here.

Pet theories department.

Smells like working memory overload.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 08:12 AM (LutGd)

136 That analysis of Sullivan was great.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 08:20 AM (LutGd)

137 Lengthy articles about Andi Sullivan (among others) is a good reason to take a blog off the "Must Read" list.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at August 31, 2010 08:21 AM (mMcLI)

138 Explication de Sullivan.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 08:21 AM (LutGd)

139 but if there was any one trait that would be quickly removed from the gene pool, wouldn't it be homosexuality?

It's very, very hard to eliminate completely those traits caused by recessive genes.

Remember, for a trait to be eliminated through natural selection, it must somehow prevent the creation and successful rearing of fertile offspring. Same-sex attraction, although less than optimal for producing offspring, is not an absolute impediment. Gays can close their eyes and think of dudes; women can close their eyes and think of, uh, the Sybian. And as the "closet" experience shows us, plenty of gays and lesbians are willing to do just that. If they have gay genes to pass on, they're doing it.

But all of this assumes that same-sex attraction is determined by genetics, and I remain unconvinced that it always is. I'm not saying that anyone actually chooses to be gay.** What I'm saying is that there might not be a "gay gene," and gayness may be caused by other factors.

For example, we know that the brains of gay men tend to be anatomically similar to those of women. Sure, that could be caused by a particular gene, but it's also possible that it's the result of exposure to particular quantities of hormones in utero. This could be caused by the hormones produced by the mother, or by the fetus's own hormones. An improper quantity of hormones, for whatever reason, could cause a male brain to develop along the lines of a female brain.

I think that this is probably correct, and that we'll never see a true "gay gene." That doesn't make gayness any more of a choice than if it were caused genetically, but it does help to explain why we haven't been able to find any easily charted patterns of gay phenotypes.

**
For the vast majority of gays, I don't think they can choose to be attracted to women any more than I could choose to be attracted to men, but I do think there is some plasticity around the edges of attraction. I'm not biologically disposed to the idea that big hairy 1970's bushes are gross, but they gross me out nonetheless. That's absolutely cultural. It's absolutely a function of what I've been exposed to during my life, and what has been considered sexy by our culture. So I like my girls smooth. If I were born twenty years earlier, I'd like them hairy. Can that extend all the way to gender preferences? I don't know. Probably not for everyone, but for some people, I don't see why not.

Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at August 31, 2010 08:22 AM (9cbd0)

140

Well, Larry, it's also about people like Sullivan.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 08:22 AM (LutGd)

141 "who further vowed that gay marriage would have the salutary effect of reducing and restraining gay male promiscuity"

... because its worked so well with the straight males.

Posted by: slug at August 31, 2010 08:26 AM (n8Nln)

142 It still strikes me as a recessive trait, if it is indeed genetic.

Actually, you're thinking about the wrong kind of genes -- this isn't about a gene that'll make a flower white or red; it's like a gene that makes you susceptible to Type II Diabetes.

Continuing the parallel, 40% of the U.S. population have genes that make them likely to get diabetes, while 30% have a gene that protects them from it. The other 30% can get diabetes, but have to go out of their way to inflict it on themselves.

That's the best explanation that fits the results of the twin studies that have been conducted on sexual preference. The theory is that there something environmental that'll make you go gay (if you have the gene) that can be avoided. But since no one knows what that event is (yet), you can't; nor is it a simple choice to stop being gay.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at August 31, 2010 08:33 AM (vEhUz)

143 Heh. Masterbatin' Pete is faster.

Which isn't really surprising, when you think about it.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at August 31, 2010 08:34 AM (vEhUz)

144

Sure, but we need to have the insight to recognize when the standard deviates too far from reality, and enforcing the standard becomes impossible ...

Examples: Anti-homosexuality laws(not marriage), drug war.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 12:51 PM (YorKH)

Well, I'm not too big on enforcing the standard, rather than encouraging it. Simply pointing out as others have that "natural" is not well correllated with good or right or civilized or even healthy.

Posted by: Randy at August 31, 2010 08:38 AM (zQKSr)

145 Larry, this is your warning: You only post on this blog when I post about Sullivan, in order to demand I not post about Sullivan. This post wasn't mostly about him -- it was about a book. You are a troll, and, for all I know, only a sockpuppet of Sullivan. You have posted here 60 times -- and all sixty times to criticize me for mentioning sullivan. Your next comment which mentions Sullivan gets you a permanent ban. See, Larry, get this: Your Johnny One Note act takes you off my "Must Allow to Comment" list.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 08:41 AM (QbA6l)

146

Number of big shits I had this morning thanks to last night's Anaheim-enchilada with shrimp: 3

Number of shits I give for Andrew Sullivan: 0

Posted by: Zimriel at August 31, 2010 08:41 AM (9Sbz+)

147 Actually I'm going to go ahead and ban you now.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 08:42 AM (QbA6l)

148 I have read numerous papers that agree that the male of the human species is "naturally" bound to cheat and have multiple partners because he is biologically adapted to do that. Evolution favors those that are able to spread their genes the most.

Meanwhile woman are the exact opposite. Once impregnated they are out of the gene spreading pool for at least 9 months and then they are bound up to take care of the child for many years as well, therefore it benefits them to have the male stay with them.

Early societies recognized this and there was a compromise. Most early societies allowed multiple wives. However, even with that allowance most practiced monogamy because they simply could not afford multiple wives.

I suspect that our laws against polygamy are due to the influence of the Roman Catholic church more than anything else. And the Roman Catholic church derived that more from Roman law than it did from the biblical canons. The Romans were against polygamy because they were big on clear inheritance laws which poligamy complicates.

Note that evolution does not favor Andi Sullivan because homosexual acts do not spread the gene pool.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 08:43 AM (/jbAw)

149 Incidentally, this is the tenth time this cocksucking jerkoff has told me I'm off his "Must read list" due to a sullivan post: http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=303166#c10146318 Check out the unending complaints: http://tinyurl.com/2698xuv Here's how I express my disapproval with you, Sheldon: You're banned. Fuck you.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 08:48 AM (QbA6l)

150 I suspect that our laws against polygamy are due to the influence of the Roman Catholic church more than anything else. And the Roman Catholic church derived that more from Roman law than it did from the biblical canons. The Romans were against polygamy because they were big on clear inheritance laws which poligamy complicates.

By our laws I am assuming you do not mean America's laws but Christian tradition.
American polygamy laws were made to thwart the Mormons by people who disliked Catholics almost as much as Mormon's. As to Christian tradition yeah that is from the Church but it's from Jewish tradition not Roman law. Yes there was polygamy in the old testament but it was never okay for the average Joel.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 08:58 AM (Q1lie)

151 154 I have read numerous papers that agree that the male of the human species is "naturally" bound to cheat and have multiple partners because he is biologically adapted to do that. Evolution favors those that are able to spread their genes the most.

Meanwhile woman are the exact opposite. Once impregnated they are out of the gene spreading pool for at least 9 months and then they are bound up to take care of the child for many years as well, therefore it benefits them to have the male stay with them.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 01:43 PM (/jbAw)

Nah, women cheat too. They're just quiet about it. Something like 30% of those paying child support are learning they are NOT the father of the children.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 09:01 AM (YorKH)

152 So, Larry, your sixtieth repetition of the same insistence that I write my blog the way you wish it to be written has finally gotten some positive, constructive action: You will no longer be permitted to read it, or comment here, thus sparing us both the disappointment that neither of us is who we wish each other to be. Thank you for bringing this to my attention a full sixty times-- had you stopped at 59, perhaps I would have, as is my wont, let the problem go without a definite resolution.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 09:01 AM (QbA6l)

153 I think the ban keeps it from appearing at an IP address.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 09:05 AM (QbA6l)

154 Thank you for bringing this to my attention a full sixty times-- had you stopped at 59, perhaps I would have, as is my wont, let the problem go without a definite resolution.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2010 02:01 PM (QbA6l)

You really need to work on that. I'm the same way but the shit just festers most of the time.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 09:06 AM (Q1lie)

155 Biologically, the goal of a male is to further his genes by having many children.

Biologically, the goal of the female is to make sure her child is given the best care possible- this usually means that it is beneficial to have the father around.

From a biological standpoint, there is a conflict here, since a man cannot protect dozens of children by dozens of women.

So.... society came up with a plan. I think it works well.

Posted by: shibumi at August 31, 2010 09:08 AM (OKZrE)

156 Larry Sheldon = Andrew Sullivan?  That one-trick pony thing...  More probable that one might initially think. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 09:09 AM (LutGd)

157 Posted by: shibumi at August 31, 2010 02:08 PM (OKZrE)

That really isn't complete though. There is a biological imperative for males to be monogamous also and that is to insure the child is indeed theirs. Most socieites until recently were very homogeonous racially so the only way to be relatively sure was to be present as much as possible from conception to birth.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 09:13 AM (Q1lie)

158 Rather than removing Ace from his must-read list, it seems Sullivan is more like Sheldon's AceDinnerBell.  Pavlov's dogs couldn't spit on cue more than this guy.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 31, 2010 09:16 AM (LutGd)

159 By now Sullivan's continued popularity is principally based on the Right's obsession with reading him. I long ago gave up visiting this website. He is an irrational ranter. Perhaps worse, he appears to have read a lot but unfortunately his inferior intellect allows him to only partially understand and therefore misapply much of what the untold study hours could have taught him. His apparent curiosity and reading talents could be better used as a researcher for someone who could quietly bring him in off the reservation as he continually goes astray. My advice to the right is to ignore him. It's better that way, including for him.

Posted by: WhiskeyJim at August 31, 2010 09:20 AM (MFUgK)

160
That really isn't complete though. There is a biological imperative for males to be monogamous also and that is to insure the child is indeed theirs. Most socieites until recently were very homogeonous racially so the only way to be relatively sure was to be present as much as possible from conception to birth.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 02:13 PM (Q1lie)

Huh ? Not really. That only makes sense if you're limited to the one woman. It may indeed be useful (for a knave) to spread his seed far and wide, if he can get away with it. After all, some of those will find fertile ground.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 09:26 AM (YorKH)

161 Yes there was polygamy in the old testament but it was never okay for the average Joel.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 01:58 PM (Q1lie)

If I am not mistaken polygamy was banned in the Jewish faith by rabbinical action in the 11th century, not by any specific prohibition in the Torah.  

It was already banned by the Roman Catholic church at that time. That was passed down to the other Christian faiths at the time of the reformation. There was a brief period when Martin Luther gave permission for polygamy and he said then that it was not actually covered under the biblical texts.  

But that "permission" was only for specific instances involving royals and only for a brief time.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 09:27 AM (/jbAw)

162 Nah, women cheat too. They're just quiet about it. Something like 30% of those paying child support are learning they are NOT the father of the children.

I suspect that is a product of our modern times from the availability of the "pill".

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 09:28 AM (/jbAw)

163 I suspect that is a product of our modern times from the availability of the "pill".

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 02:28 PM (/jbAw)

Whats that got to do with the pill ? Presumably the baby-mamas weren't on it when they had their flings.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 09:34 AM (YorKH)

164

If I am not mistaken polygamy was banned in the Jewish faith by rabbinical action in the 11th century, not by any specific prohibition in the Torah.  

It was already banned by the Roman Catholic church at that time. That was passed down to the other Christian faiths at the time of the reformation. There was a brief period when Martin Luther gave permission for polygamy and he said then that it was not actually covered under the biblical texts.  

But that "permission" was only for specific instances involving royals and only for a brief time.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 02:27 PM (/jbAw)


I don't remember mentioning the law but tradition. Polygamy for the average person was considered weird and frowned upon unless called for. Even before outright banning polygamy was mostly seen as a way to protect family groups and provide child support due to the death of a father. Even the persons described as practicing it usually due so out of some need and not simply because they can.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 09:34 AM (Q1lie)

165

Huh ? Not really. That only makes sense if you're limited to the one woman. It may indeed be useful (for a knave) to spread his seed far and wide, if he can get away with it. After all, some of those will find fertile ground.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 02:26 PM (YorKH)


And unless he hangs around a bit he won't ever know if there wasn't already seed in the ground or if what he planted is what sprouts.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 09:37 AM (Q1lie)

166 Gay marriage is supported for two reasons - to increase acceptance of homosexuality and to decrease the respect the institution of marriage is held in.

No, the main impetus behind gay marriage is the desire of the gay left for an in-yer-face to the Christian Right.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 31, 2010 09:40 AM (PLvLS)

167

Irenaeus of Tyre got excommunicated for digamy ("bigamy") in the Second Council of Ephesus. Polygamy is to this day a no-no in Greek Orthodoxy, the Coptic faith, the Jacobites and the Nestorians.

I suspect that when the Muslims legalised polygamy (tetragamy, technically), Eastern Christians had to get even more serious about it; treating it as a stepping stone toward apostasy...

Posted by: Zimriel at August 31, 2010 09:47 AM (9Sbz+)

168


And unless he hangs around a bit he won't ever know if there wasn't already seed in the ground or if what he planted is what sprouts.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 02:37 PM (Q1lie)

Like he really cares ?

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 09:48 AM (YorKH)

169 Yeah, why would a stable family structure be part of the plan? It's not like human offspring are basically defenseless until they hit like 12 or 13. It's not like a baby deer that starts trotting around immediately after birth. I'm sure that the best bet in the survival-of-the-fittest random darwinian evolution was a women completely alone tugging along basically a mewling infant for a decade through the primitive wilds. Why is she alone? Because what orgy-loving caveman is going to bother parenting when he can have fun at Cave 54. And yeah I can totally see those orgy-loving cavemen with their various lubes and smoking jackets.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 31, 2010 09:49 AM (WZFkG)

170 And yeah I can totally see those orgy-loving cavemen with their various lubes and smoking jackets.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 31, 2010 02:49 PM (WZFkG)

Heh.  A caveman Hef with a Grotto.  Pipe and smoking jacket over PJs

Posted by: Count de Monet at August 31, 2010 09:53 AM (2g2ex)

171 #178 - I cannot write that well, but agree with the point. Wonder why we would want to become a more civilized society. I guess it would be good for the society to have our boys grow up to be orgy-loving  cavemen and out girls act out their "slut" instincts.

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 09:56 AM (R4ub4)

172 Whats that got to do with the pill ? Presumably the baby-mamas weren't on it when they had their flings.

I meant for women cheating, not the pregnancy thing. I guess I wasn't clear. However, I don't think "cheating" by women was very common 100 years ago.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 10:01 AM (/jbAw)

173 178 I'm sure that the best bet in the survival-of-the-fittest random darwinian evolution was a women completely alone tugging along basically a mewling infant for a decade through the primitive wilds.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 31, 2010 02:49 PM (WZFkG)

It's actually a decent strategy for a knave. If he knocks up say 10 women, odds are atleast a few of the kids will live.  It's the old quality vs quantity argument. The knave would probably get more surviving kids than the guy who took care of his kids too.

The big problem ? Society can deal with more than a small fraction of knaves.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:02 AM (YorKH)

174 Whoops that should have been: Society can't deal with more than a small fraction of knaves.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:02 AM (YorKH)

175 It's actually a decent strategy for a knave. If he knocks up say 10 women, odds are atleast a few of the kids will live.  It's the old quality vs quantity argument. The knave would probably get more surviving kids than the guy who took care of his kids too.

This is a good argument for communism/fascism and any other variations of statism. Why not have reproductive farms, where males and females can mix around in the most glorious poyamorous fashion. Then the state can choose the fittest kids to raise as they wish. The rest of the infants can be left in the wild to fence for themselves.

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 10:06 AM (R4ub4)

176

Like he really cares ?

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 02:48 PM (YorKH)


Protecting the bloodline has been a chief obsession for men throughout history. To use you farm analogy it's as bad as someone using your field, and depleting it's resources, for his crops. HE has always cared.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 10:11 AM (Q1lie)

177
I meant for women cheating, not the pregnancy thing. I guess I wasn't clear. However, I don't think "cheating" by women was very common 100 years ago.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 03:01 PM (/jbAw)

And you know this how ?

Unfortunately, we don't have good statistics on cuckoldery, even for the present. (No, asking the women does not yield good statistics)

According to this, it's under 4%. 

http://tinyurl.com/33xxw4c

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:11 AM (YorKH)

178 This article only seems to further my disdain of Darwinian evolution. I have this notion that people have used this seriously flawed theory since Darwin squeezed it out to further their own twisted agenda thus keeping the theory popular. It always seem to be a cudgel against anything of value and a defense of the most bestial and evil acts of men.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 31, 2010 10:11 AM (WZFkG)

179

Protecting the bloodline has been a chief obsession for men throughout history. To use you farm analogy it's as bad as someone using your field, and depleting it's resources, for his crops. HE has always cared.

Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2010 03:11 PM (Q1lie)

Sure, for some chief maybe. Not for some guy who just wants to have a good time.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:14 AM (YorKH)

180 I don't remember mentioning the law but tradition. Polygamy for the average person was considered weird and frowned upon unless called for. Even before outright banning polygamy was mostly seen as a way to protect family groups and provide child support due to the death of a father.

True, but the "law" is an outgrowth of religion and the tradition.  Contrary to the popular myth, we do have a lot of laws on the books that are based on religion.

BTW, if the gays are ever successful in getting "gay marriage" through the court system those laws against polygamy will be the very next thing to go. I am surprised that some of the fundamentalist Mormon groups like the one in TX haven't challenged them already.

Posted by: Vic at August 31, 2010 10:15 AM (/jbAw)

181 This is a good argument for communism/fascism and any other variations of statism. Why not have reproductive farms, where males and females can mix around in the most glorious poyamorous fashion. Then the state can choose the fittest kids to raise as they wish. The rest of the infants can be left in the wild to fence for themselves.

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 03:06 PM (R4ub4)

It's not a good argument. Your idea is completely wasteful of people and resources, it would not work. (Well, maybe it might work for elite societies like Sparta)

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:18 AM (YorKH)

182 Sure, for some chief maybe. Not for some guy who just wants to have a good time.

This makes sense according to "evolutionary science".  Human is a simple an animal in the long evolutionary food chain. One 's existence is simply accidental. Why bother with your bloodline or children or anything. Having a good time or your own pleasure should be the natural direction of your life. There is nothing wrong with Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They simply exercise their own pleasure at gettting rid of the lest fit of the human species. Why share your pleasure with other subs?

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 10:18 AM (R4ub4)

183 BTW, if the gays are ever successful in getting "gay marriage" through the court system those laws against polygamy will be the very next thing to go.

Of course this should be the logical consequence of "gay marriage". What is so special about monogamous gay relationship compared to bisexual or polyamorous relationship that the marriage privilege should be extended to that relationship alone? Under the name of fairness, "marriage" should be extended to polyamorous and even bestial relationships.

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 10:28 AM (R4ub4)

184

If we mainstream line-marriage, it wouldn't be "cheating." It would be as dull as gheydom has become. Let's not spoil such an important perversion.

Guilt-ridden, furtive, furious cheating is an important part of our lives. Cheapen straight monogamy, and you'll just ruin that thrill for everyone. Obviously, by the number of examples the evolutionists cite, there's plenty of cheating going on. There's really no genetic reason to create new social institutions just to maximize it. These peudoscience dweebs could limp-dribble a wet dream. 

Posted by: comatus at August 31, 2010 10:33 AM (hrwMe)

185 In an evolutionary sense, mating could beat out "let's just have fun" since leaving a woman to raise her kid alone might not survive so well.  Of course the mother has to develop the mother instinct, or the kid would just be tossed out at earliest convenience.

So at least enough bonding to keep the male providing and protecting might work from the evolution view.  But now we are breeding weakness since government provides for everything.  But those that mate and provide a strong foundation for the kids can work and succeed, while the weaker can leave the kids to government to provide for.  The strong becoming the "worker bees" that provide for the rest, until the communist experiment fails.

Of course this is a US/Europe phenomenon ...

Posted by: bill at August 31, 2010 10:37 AM (9AIt+)

186 191 This makes sense according to "evolutionary science".  Human is a simple an animal in the long evolutionary food chain. One 's existence is simply accidental. Why bother with your bloodline or children or anything. Having a good time or your own pleasure should be the natural direction of your life. There is nothing wrong with Hitler or Stalin or Mao. They simply exercise their own pleasure at gettting rid of the lest fit of the human species. Why share your pleasure with other subs?

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 03:18 PM (R4ub4)

"should be" is a value judgement. People like this exist, whether you like it or not, whether it is moral or not.

You know,  Hitler, Stalin and Mao were intellectuals who wanted the best for their people. Hardly pleasure seekers.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:40 AM (YorKH)

187 "should be" is a value judgement. People like this exist, whether you like it or not, whether it is moral or not.

Good point. We are simply acting out for our own pleasure. There is no right and wrong. IT confirms the point that there is nothing wrong with what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did. Mao had his own quasi-harem! He was known for seeking evolutionary pleasures. Anyway, people are simply acting out their own evolutionary instincts. People like Stalin, Mao, Hitler exist whether we like it or not. There is nothing wrong with it. They maximize their own pleasure by having power over other people. What 's wrong with getting rid of the lest fit of the human species?

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 10:47 AM (R4ub4)

188 Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 03:47 PM (R4ub4)

You're putting words in my mouth. Such people exist, and will continue to exist. Therefore we must take steps to discourage such behavior, because it's not good for society.

Posted by: CyclopsJack at August 31, 2010 10:58 AM (YorKH)

189 #197, thanks for the clarification. I am just trying to follow the logic. Of course, nothing is perfect. We will always have such people. But as a society, we are talking about the norm here for a healthy society. There are bad apples in any group/country etc... But there is a huge difference between the percentage of the bad apples (eg 5% vs 50%)!

Posted by: LAI at August 31, 2010 11:02 AM (R4ub4)

190

Some retard actually wrote a book about it?  And other retards are actually buying it?

Wow.  Any woman can tell you that men want to fuck around.  But of course they also want someone to cook and do their laundry, and maybe to have their kids someday.  That's why they get married.   And then they have to give up the fucking around, because women really hate that shit and you do not want to be around a woman who has figured out you are fucking around behind her back.  Seriously.  Men who really, really don't want to give up the fucking around should not get married.  And that includes homos.  If you can't find another guy who will be your "wife" and stick with him, what the hell is the point?  Just be gay and fuck around.

I've told people this before - as soon as we get same-sex marriage shoved down  our throats, teh gheys are going to start agitating for some new kind of marriage that lets them fuck around without feeling guilty about it.  So of course they are going to have to convince straight people to abandon monogamous marriage.  I'm sure they'll get some sympathy from men, but women?  Forget it!  We don't want to fuck aroumd after we get married, and we don't want our husbands to either.  We're not about to change just so Andi Sullivan can feel better about his not-really-a-marriage.

Posted by: rockmom at August 31, 2010 11:09 AM (w/gVZ)

191 If evolution and "nature" really want us to just have sex with as many partners as we like, why has evolution and "nature" given

....our wives a trigger-finger AND the ability to buy guns?

Posted by: dad29 at August 31, 2010 11:11 AM (3PS1w)

192 A previous comment in this thread mentioned how Bonobos were a liberals favorite animal, "because wild bonobos are such happy pleasure loving creatures."
Well  ... coming next the bonobo diet. There is a restaurant in New York that specializes in food that bonobos eat because they are so healthy and live long lives.  The menu involves a lot of seeds and coconuts. They have warm soup but nothing over 118 degrees. I guess bonobos don't like hot soup. Bonobo Restaurant
I wonder if you go there with your multiple sexual partners and just screw on the tables you know like bonobo's do?

Posted by: Long Island at August 31, 2010 12:00 PM (TiURi)

193
Unfortunately, it reads like an undergraduate thesis--cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory. The language is breathless rather than scientific, and they don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory that people are naturally polyamorous causing global warming.

FIFY. Damn if this critic of a different book fits anthroprogenic global warming awfully well...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 31, 2010 12:37 PM (1hM1d)

194
How Sullivan Thinks...

This can be reduced to the following: Excitable Andy thinks with his little head, not the big one, when it comes to what the heart wants.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 31, 2010 12:44 PM (1hM1d)

195 78 speaking of Megans and fucking chimps... [ ... ] some website did a parody on chapters that didn't make it into her book. it was pretty funny. Posted by: Ben at August 31, 2010 12:18 PM NewsRealBlog: 11 Chapters Meghan McCain’s Editor Axed From 'Dirty Sexy Politics' 9. Tea Partiers Are Racist and CPAC Is, Like, Totally For Old, Unhip Dudes. To Meghan McCain, a self-avowed “Progressive Republican,” anyone who doesn’t jive with her self-aggrandizing and limited world-view is beneath her. Yeah, that’s where the Progressive part comes in, clearly. She’s not only Smarter Than Us, she’s also Better Than Us. She’s too cool for we drooling rubes, you see. Of course, she bases this solely on fantasy and not on reality, much as she based her assertion that the tea parties have an “innate racism.” She obviously sees what she thinks is cool to see, as a proposed chapter of her book indicates quite clearly: For reals, that Rand Paul dude shows that those tea party people are totally racist. And weird. I mean, some don’t even listen to Lady Gaga! And they drink beer instead of cosmopolitans or sex on the beach! Probably because they are so uptight about sex. Did I tell you all that I love sex? I’m super progressive like that. I mean, you can’t like sex if you don’t talk about it all the time and shout it out to all who will listen or who are forced to listen, right? As if. I totally talked about it in one of my cutting edge The Daily Beast essays: But when the movement was given the opportunity to present specific solutions and answer real questions, its leaders nominated someone who -- yet again -- revealed weird, racist undertones, no matter how he wants to spin it. Spin is one of those fancy political terms some of you who aren’t as cool and, like, worldly as I am might not know. But, whatevs. It’s totally true. Like, CPAC, too. You know they are full of homophobes, right? They totally bashed gays. My friend, Alan Colmes, said so. He said “CPAC insults gays” and he’s, like, a moderate and all. Plus, he’s ON TV! So, you know, it’s fact. I’d never set a Christian Louboutin-clad foot at CPAC until they get hip and change the P part to Progressive. We are the future and stuff. Also, Christian Louboutin is the only kind of cool Christian. The racist part was laughable, because it’s been shown time and time again that it is Meghan McCain’s “progressive” buddies who are the ones who only see things in black and white. Literally. It was also easily discerned, by anyone who can watch a YouTube video, that CPAC booed the sole protester of GOProud off the stage. CPAC took GOProud as a co-sponsor of the conference, and the crowd booed the protester off the stage. They defended GOProud. But, naturally, Miss Meggie Mac had assumed that it was CPAC who bashed GOProud. She tweeted something to that effect, but, of course, deleted it once it was shown to her that she was, in fact, an idiot. It’s obvious to all thinking people that she only takes such positions so she can be perceived as the only voice -- the oh-so-hip savior -- who’s got “the gays” back. It’s her “thing”, otherwise there is nothing Maverick-y about her. Once again, a “progressive” using people for their own ends. Final result? Chapter omitted due to Meghan McCain being a huge boob. Oh wait. We aren’t supposed to mention those or we are H8ers. Because, as everyone knows, someone who doesn’t want to be noticed at all posts pictures of her boobs pushed up beyond the bounds of normal gravity.

Posted by: Bryan Mills at August 31, 2010 12:53 PM (NITzp)

196 Its been my observation that most evolutionary theory consists of someone with a pre existing conclusion trying to jam evolution into it somehow like a rather dull child who wants that circle shaped piece to fit in the star-shaped hole.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 31, 2010 01:03 PM (61b7k)

197 28 "Fucking Cock-Twaddle" is so much more descriptive than "Horsefeathers."

Posted by: Sharkman at August 31, 2010 12:00 PM (Zj8fM)

 

Maybe, but it was an altogether inferior Marx Brothers movie.

Posted by: Black Mamba at August 31, 2010 02:59 PM (tSxym)

198 My witty remark drifts unread for all eternity, its only companions the mindless, predatory spambots which infest the cold infinity of cyberspace.  *sigh*

Posted by: Black Mamba at August 31, 2010 06:06 PM (tSxym)

Posted by: lingerie at March 19, 2011 04:59 AM (kEK0D)

200 I right be in bed with your weblog! Rattling keen job! Nevertheless you can do various things to enrich it, and i faculty be backward

Nice
swimwear

air charter los angeles

Posted by: gloeaws at June 15, 2011 02:04 AM (UZuOw)

201 I enjoyed indication this

Luberon Villa

home security systems

Posted by: waksid at June 16, 2011 02:40 AM (0JKgm)

202 Hmm freaky this stake is totaly extraneous to the explore ask I entered in google but it was traded on the ordinal page.

driveway gates

auto insurance San Diego

Posted by: oeawsd at June 17, 2011 09:17 PM (RmLXE)

203 I right be in like with your weblog! Very intellectual flyer! Still you can do individual things to enrich it, and i testament be indorse

business for sale

auto insurance Alpharetta

Posted by: siaksol at June 18, 2011 12:45 AM (H66h0)

204 I go to your website every erst in a spell and I right hold to say that I same your templet!

planers moulders

Roswell Roofer

Posted by: sopelw at June 19, 2011 11:07 PM (CF5vm)

205 A good post indeed! That’s the sunny side of your writing, you write in a lucid manner and I have no difficulty to understand what you have said, even though I am a novice. Keep the good work going by continue blogging new and entertaining posts. I have already subscribed to the RSS feed of your weblog and look forward to reading more of your blog posts in the future.

Nice


Movers Brooklyn

Posted by: inuerol at June 21, 2011 10:56 PM (n2KeY)

206 You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post.

Real Estate Attorney Denver
frozen yogurt franchise for sale

Posted by: prince0007 at July 07, 2011 01:28 AM (fiRuG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
209kb generated in CPU 0.19, elapsed 1.3134 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1639 seconds, 442 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.