Slashdot Mirror
Lack of Penis Bone In Humans Linked To Monogamous Relationships and Quick Sex, Study Says (theguardian.com)
The penis bone can be as long as a finger in a monkey and two feet long in a walrus, but the human male has lost it completely. According to a new report published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, the lack of a penis bone in human males may be a consequence of monogamy and quick sex. The Guardian reports: Known as the baculum to scientists with an interest, the penis bone is a marvel of evolution. It pops up in mammals and primates around the world, but varies so much in terms of length and whether it is present at all, that it is described as the most diverse bone ever to exist. Prompted by the extraordinary differences in penis bone length found in the animal kingdom, scientists set out to reconstruct the evolutionary story of the baculum, by tracing its appearance in mammals and primates throughout history. They found that the penis bone evolved in mammals more than 95 million years ago and was present in the first primates that emerged about 50 million years ago. From that moment on, the baculum became larger in some animals and smaller in others. Kit Opie who ran the study with Matilda Brindle at University College London, said that penis bone length was longer in males that engaged in what he called "prolonged intromission." In plain English, that means that the act of penetration lasts for more than three minutes, a strategy that helps the male impregnate the female while keeping her away from competing males. The penis bone, which attaches at the tip of the penis rather than the base, provides structural support for male animals that engage in prolonged intromission. Humans may have lost their penis bones when monogamy emerged as the dominant reproductive strategy during the time of Homo erectus about 1.9 million years ago, the scientists believe. In monogamous relationships, the male does not need to spend a long time penetrating the female, because she is not likely to be leapt upon by other amorous males. That, at least, is the theory.
who, for another 5, will do everyone in the room.
Considering the fucking-around I've been doing lately, this research seems plausible.
Wife is not amused.
This isn't related to the article, but you can't comment on sponsored content, so I'm posting here.
The following ublock rule kills sponsored content DEAD:
article[class*="ntv-sponsored"]
So, the homo erectus lost the penis bone?
"Scientists are crap in bed: official."
Certainly lines up with my experience.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
I'm not so sure I agree. I can't say I have accurate statistics off the top of my head, but I have a hard time believing the majority of people copulate for less than 3 minutes a session. Furthermore, the whole group thing is also improbable - in many tribal cultures, people traditionally engaged together, and even in monogamous societies, humans have sex together an awful lot more than we like to admit.
It probably has more to do with intelligence and social communication, to be honest. The point of it is to help keep your appendage in place, and while I already think it's unlikely it really works that well in humans, it'd have virtually no use if both partners consistently agreed before hand. That's the say, the best use it has is when your partner is trying to get away from you - which probably declined quite a bit as people started to live in larger tribes and developed speech, and thus could decide when they did and didn't want to have sex. Combine that with increasing disapproval of rape, and I think sex simply evolved into more of a cooperative activity for people, and thus a (literal) boner was simply not useful anymore. Imagine if people only ever had each other for 2 minutes a session, from start to finish, how miserable that would be...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
Why is it moral to force people to stay together after they no longer want to? There's no virtue in misery.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We all know that these feminist have a political agenda of man-bashing. There's an all out war against masculinity by female marxist all around the world. ./ that I started reading in 1999, is now very inflitrated by left-marxist thinking.
This is some alt-right beta cuck incel talk, right here. Stop blaming other people for your, ah, "shortcomings".
And without this bone, the standard is much shorter? Fascinating.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Given the popularity of cheating by members of either sex, I'd say the penis bone isn't the only thing we've lost. Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
Blah blah blah, yeah things are so much worse than the days when being raped was considered utterly shameful by mainstream society and being moral meant opposing things like miscegenation or smacking your wife a bit if she got a bit too uppity.
This is why the more reactionary and religious flavors of conservatism have fallen by the wayside in favor of guys like Trump or Farage. I'm not on board with the self-flagellating left, and if you want to argue that society needs improving you'll get very little argument from most reasonable people of the left or right, but there is no golden age of morality in America that's significantly better than what we have now.
I'm against Big Government unless it's used to force people into behavior patters I approve of. People should be forced to stay together forever and have lots of mandatory children.
Bingo. It's not so much that moral standards have declined, it's just that people are less willing to put up with cheating partners or just prefer not to enter long term relationships in the first place because they see that their parents were miserable in marriage.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Studies by women about man issues warrants 0% credibility.
We all know that these feminist have a political agenda of man-bashing. There's an all out war against masculinity by female marxist all around the world. ./ that I started reading in 1999, is now very inflitrated by left-marxist thinking.
How is this a "man issue"? It is a scientific study regarding a particular piece of evolutionary history. Do you have an issue? Are you suffering from penis-bone envy?
Divorce speaks far more about how society has progressed, than it is a problem.
Divorce is generally low in places with high domestic violence, low women's rights etc. These places will claim they're better but totally ignore the views of the people who suffer in these societies by denying them equal rights. What's happen to the US, UK etc. is that apparently when you tell people they don't have to put up with this shit, that's exactly what they do, stop putting up with it.
So rising Divorce rate is a good thing in this context. Importantly after the surge on the 70/80s the rate of divorce is now dropping and has been for 20 years, as all those toxic relationships that had been held together by society what all fallen apart and we returned to a reasonable baseline. In the UK in the 80s rape in marriage was certainly not a concept let alone a crime, and I have more than one friend who was born out of what would now clearly be rape. Criminalising that and letting women out of those relationships means the 90s got better. This isn't even history, it's modern politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html?_r=0
Their dates seem off. I thought that monogamy in humans had emerged with agriculture: once you own a plot of land and invested lots of work into it, you pretty much want to limit access to it (and its production), so that means only to your kids, and to be sure the kids are yours you pretty much have to be monogamous. See all the still existing tribes of hunter gatherers that practice polygamy.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
the act of penetration lasts for more than three minutes
By that logic, all men should still have their bones. Cause, if you're lasting less than three minutes with the same woman for how many years I am so very sorry.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Yes, any woman who is engaged in the thought process or shows any curiosity must, of course, be a feminist. And that label alone should be enough to completely disparage her work and demonstrate why her argument has no merit. Now excuse me while I go and try to figure out how the idea of monogamy and a relatively short span for sexual congress as compared to other animals implies man bashing. (This may require copious amounts of alcohol so it may take a while.)
The hypothesis doesn't really make sense. Chimpanzees do not practice monogamy, yet sex between chimps lasts a few seconds. In a pack or herd animal, the difference between spending a few seconds and spending a few minutes penetrating a female makes a negligible difference to that female's general availability: the male is still not going to be inside her for hours of the day. Oh, and chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That sounds fishy. Someone needs to do a study to see if cheating females partners didn't last 3 minutes
From a biological standpoint, monogamy doesn't exclude cheating. I am quoting the Wikipedia article on Monogamy here, the numbers are references.
Monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with partners other than their primary mate. This is called extra-pair copulation.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.[83][84][85][86] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy.
You let words hurt you. Your weakness makes me sick.
The hypothesis doesn't really make sense. Chimpanzees do not practice monogamy, yet sex between chimps lasts a few seconds. In a pack or herd animal, the difference between spending a few seconds and spending a few minutes penetrating a female makes a negligible difference to that female's general availability: the male is still not going to be inside her for hours of the day. Oh, and chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Monogamy linked to the lack of boner!
I'm sorry, explain again the link between:
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong
and
monogamy: the habit of having only one mate at a time
And, please, don't confuse monogamy with marriage, many cultures have multiple-partner "marriages".
Just because you make the morally binding arrangement of a monogamous marriage, does not mean Morality and Monogamy are implicitly linked.
Yup, thats kind of the point!
um...
Kit Opie who ran the study with Matilda Brindle at University College London,
I hope they got a room. But Kit Opie is a male.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
Why is it moral to force people to stay together after they no longer want to? There's no virtue in misery.
The immorality of cheating is not always directly linked to dissatisfaction with a partner. It more speaks to the fact that the theory presented here is utter bullshit, and humans cheat because sex feeds basic human desire, and my first point stands. Morality and monogamy are both in decline. As humans realize that marriage is more likely going to result in divorce, I feel the concept of marriage itself will also become extinct.
This will not prevent children mind you. Celebrities start having kids well before marriage is brought into play (if ever), and no one gives a shit anymore if they do. That mentality will soon become infectious.
Still trying to hurt me with words. My IQ is probably higher than yours. I'm smiling right now. Does that anger you?
In monogamous relationships, the male does not need to spend a long time penetrating the female, because she is not likely to be leapt upon by other amorous males.
Spending less than 3 minutes penetrating the female pretty much guarantees she will seek penetration elsewhere. I don't think this study is credible.
That's the point of the erectile penis across the entire mammalian family, the existence of a baculum is irrelevant.
Normal human intromission is 2 - 5 minutes, suggesting most males offer 3 minutes without a baculum in sight. If you want to marvel at the human penis, ask why the shaft is covered in skin when other mammals expose areola tissue.
That's why I get boners all the time. Oh, wait...
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Stop discrediting the word "theory". This is hypothesis.
...B-b-b-b-bad to the bone
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The immorality of cheating is not always...
That doesn't explain why you think divorce is bad.
Morality and monogamy are both in decline.
No, you have presented no evidence that morality is in decline. Frankly I'm not that convinced about monogamy either unless you're very clear about a decline relative to what.
As humans realize that marriage is more likely going to result in divorce,
That's kind of tautological. You are certainly less likely to get divorced if you don't marry.
I feel the concept of marriage itself will also become extinct.
As far as I'm concerned marriage is basically a mechanism to stop the surviving partner getting massively shafted when the other partner dies. It's also a way to formally build assets as a pair such that a split is fair.
In both cases it's basically there to give some legal protections to someone if something bad happens. Personally I'd be happy for the whole thing to go away and be replaced with civil partnerships across the board.
Celebrities start having kids well before marriage is brought into play
Lots of normal people do too.
and no one gives a shit anymore if they do.
Good! Why should anyone give a shit? If two people have completely separate careers and assets, the legal protections that marriage give don't really amount to all that much: you won't get boned if your partner dies.
That mentality will soon become infectious.
That mentality has already become infectious. And that's bad why, precisely?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I wondered how long it was going to take for me to lose all faith and give up on this site. And now, in the new /. regime, I have to wade past a story about why we don't have BONES IN OUR DICKS to get to the actual technology news that's the only reason I ever kept coming here.
I'm done. Someone find me a tech news site that will treat me like I have a gorram brain, without clickbait bullshit. I'll support it. But I'm done here.
Cold may have something to do with the bone size as well. If I remember correctly, a polar bear had a bigger penis bone than a bear in a warmer climate. Walrus is a creature of the cold as well. The modern human was evolving in harsh, dry and hot areas of the world, of which the relative lack of hair is a good indicator. Prolonged copulation might also get you eaten in the warmer climates with more active and numerous predators.
I snapped it off in your mom. (oh, and my captcha was "outlast")
This is just one more article that proves that the old Slashdot I first joined is dead and buried. You know, the one with the motto "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
Because this surely isn't anything that is relevant to a true-blood mom's basement-dwelling nerd.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
about the sexual stamina of the researcher's husband.
Marriage is nothing more than a contract. And like any proper contract, it has a termination clause. This is the proper way to do it.
It used to be that divorce carried with it a heavy social stigma. This probably led to MORE social degradation, as frustrated partners - who stay together solely due to immense social pressure to do so, not because they want to - continuously "back-stabbed" each other at every opportunity, which leads to suspicion, accusations, denials and anger, which eventually leads to violence. Or worse: the violence is already present, but since asking for a divorce is a social death sentence, people staid together regardless, thinking that maybe things will get better with time (they won't). Sure beats becoming an outcast.
People have to get over themselves. Marriage is a social formalism - a completely artificial construct. There's nothing magical or special or moral about it.
I think it's a different selector.
Think about the biggest 'disadvantage' of having a squishy penis: Men under stress don't get a hard-on and thus can't reproduce. This could've emphasized and benefited populations with lesser stress and more room to develop higher skillsets to surpass a potential human branch with real boner.
It could also be for 'economic' reasons. Humans are built and optimised towards long-distance running. No other animal can sweat like we do. A bushman (or any other non-obese halfway trained human) can run an antelope to 'death by bodyheat and/or exhaustion'. That is a pretty awesome raw survival skill innate to homo sapiens. I suspect lugging a bone penis dangling between your awesome running legs might actually be quite cumbersome - since it's mostly men doing the running and the ladies nourishing big-headed babies (that need special attendance and culture as extended brain + serious actual brain nutrition) after laboriously squeezing them out of a notably narrow birth canal.
Also we only need our penis once in a while. Having a lightweight retractable one is generally quite practical from an evolutionary perspective. Also I suspect the squishiness prevents injuries and infections better than a true boner would. Wales float. They don't have to worry about their boner bumping and scraping on the ground or on rocks.
Bottom line:
You needn't go to far to get a handle on what's up with the squishy penis - the answer is probably quite simple.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The explanation given explain why it would not be selected FOR, but it does not explain why it would be selected against. My biology knowledge may be rusty, but IIRC to have something disappear like that, you need to have it selected against.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Every tabloid web site picked up and ran with this story. What's it doing on /.? It's click-bait garbage.
Your weakness makes me sick.
His weakness? What about yours? You're the one crying about man-bashing, a war against masculinity and left-marxist thinking (whatever that may be). You radiate insecurity that you try to blame on others, and apparently found it necessary to vote for racism and misogyny so you can feel important again. The sickening weakness here is yours.
As humans realize that marriage is more likely going to result in divorce
There are only two ways for marriage to end: divorce (or an equivalent, such as annulment) or death. If people live longer, marriages are more likely to end in divorce.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Come on, throw the man a bone.
So are you questioning Kit Opie's orientation? Which is a very valid question.
Stop and think for one moment. Do you honestly think that a man with a beautiful ex-model wife is someone who hates women? blah fucking blah racism misogyny you throw those words around like a 2 year old throws toys.
I bet you also know more about climate change and government than scientists and politicians too?
But, but, but the SKY GOD SAYS OTHERWISE!
Got wood?
Rape and domestic violence have always been treated seriously and punished severely. Certainly in western nations and even in backwards brutal shitholes ruled by Islam...
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
Congrats on the gratuitous Trump and Farage name drops. That just tips off everyone that you are a cretin.
Divorce has risen to such enormous numbers because our idiots societies give cash prizes, the kids and house to women who leave their husbands.
It seems to me that at least some Trump supporters have serious mental problems.
For natural selection to remove a feature there must be not only a reason it is no longer an advantage but also a reason that it is now a disadvantage in terms of fitness.
Morality and monogamy are both in decline.
So when was this golden age when people were more moral than they are today? Can you point to any actual evidence that morality is in decline? Crime and violence are at all-time lows, so by that measure we are getting more moral.
"Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside"
What does one have to do with the other, and do you have _any_ evidence to support these claims? (BTW, you will have to define Morality pretty clearly. It isn't the same for say Catholics, Mormons, and Pastafarians.)
"The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well."
Well, yes, it certainly does. US Divorce rates peaked around 1980, and have been dropping ever since; the numbers for 2015 are about two thirds of peak, and still falling, and if current trends continue, by the end of the 2020 Census, they will be about half; about the same rates as during the Fifties.
Geez, research ain't your strong suit...
Now if I was to surmise why this is so, I would have to guess that both Men and Women are getting married later these days, and are somewhat more mature and settled. Before 1950, first age for Marriage for US Women was around 20; now it is 28. For Men 24, now 29.
People, especially Women, are no longer getting married because they _have_ to.
from Ali G. See: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=yout...
Speaking out against unfair treatment is not a fucking "weakness", moron.
I just read the whole thing as "Monogamy leads to boring sex"
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
> Why is it moral to force people to stay together after they no longer want to? There's no virtue in misery.
The Bishop of Rome is preaching what the Apostles taught and the Apostles taught what Jesus told them. That is, there is no divorce and marriage is for life.
The Church is not particularly concerned with misery in this world, which is only a temporary phenomenon, lasting for a few decades for each person, but misery in eternal life is either long (Purgatory) or ever-lasting (Hell), therefore priests try to save people from those flames.
More to the point, it doesn't account for the fact that monogamy was a notion the Romans introduced into the mix from their ideas of inheritance. A practice, mind, that only the upper class really practiced.
Worse, if you think a horse, which has one, goes any longer at sex than a human, you'd be gravely mistaken.
This is not science....this is feels based thinking with no basis in fact other than we don't have 'em, the chimps have almost none of them. FAIL.
Both on the article... and /.
Those "scientists" are rationalizing in a highly theoretical way, or maybe they need hotter girlfriends.
It pops up in mammals and primates around the world.
I see what they did there.
Let's all remember, evolution is largely driven by women's choices in reproduction.
-Styopa
Moden man, not so much.
"penis bone length was longer in males that engaged in what he called "prolonged intromission.""
Humans have selected for monogamy with a higher level of sexual enjoyment than any other species because of our extremely long maturation time, with its need to keep couples together for the twenty years it takes to bring offspring to maturity. If a baculum were to help with this, we would still have one.
Down with all 'disadvantaged groups' then!
Do you really think that a man who discards women when their beauty expires has any regards for them? Flah fucking blah great Trump smart lock her up drain the swamp raaaah! Thump! Thump!
"The penis bone, which attaches at the tip of the penis rather than the base"
This is the real news here. That is CRAZY!
Other studies have shown that the shape of the human penis is designed to remove the previous male's sperm, arguing against monogamy. Some studies claim that the majority of human sperm is "killer sperm", designed to kill other men's sperm, again arguing against monogamy. /.!), indicating a very polygamous society.
Also recent DNA studies have indicated that back in the Ice Age only one in 10 or 12 males actually procreated (it was on
I think proving monogamy in human history would be very difficult.
Just posting this as a curiosity, but one of our Sunday School teachers at Church came along something interesting while preparing for a lesson. He somehow got sidetracked into some of the lesser known Jewish teachings (can't remember the Hebrew name for these,) and found this theory about Adam and Eve. The theory said that God took not a rib from Adam to create Eve, but rather Adam's penis bone. This explains not only the lack of a baculum in humans but also the reason the scrotum has a ridge of tissue in the middle to symbolize the scar Adam incurred from its removal. It at least made for a light-hearted start to Sunday School that morning.
I call bullshit. A mere 20 years ago, police would show up to a house where husband was beating wife and basically tell them to keep it down and move along.
You're an idiot.
As I said, read some fucking history books.
It's just geekmux. He's also a Space Nutter, research of *any kind* is not his strong suit, emotional beliefs are.
Clearly, having more than one "mate" (a mating partner) is *not* monogamy, by definition.
I suggest biologists adopt a new word, rather than a new meaning for an existing word, which [the new meaning] is the opposite of its already agreed upon meaning.
It does not make sense for a number of reasons. First off, and you touched on this.If you want to correlate a mammalian bone to some societal feature, you need to measure all mammals or a decent cross section.
Secondly, I am not sure how they came to their monogamy theory. All genetic evidence I have seen points to a few alpha males being the progenitors of every generation throughout pre-historic times. Humans like monkeys almost certainly lived in tribes where the alpha male theoretically got every female, but some snuck off with the runner up and because sex was rapid were able cheat. We see somethign similar to this in "monogamous" birds all the time. Where they may pair off, but they have single thrust sex because the entire point is to get every male in a 10 mile radius thinking the child might be his.
From what I understand the science is rather closed. The genetic data is irrefutable, and the physiological programming is clear. We are pre-programmed for harem style mating, women do not just pick some random available mate, they need men to compete for them. And are what is typically called hyper monogamous. The object is to get stable caregivers for your child, but the point like the birds is to get as many stable care givers as possible.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Studies by women about man issues warrants 0% credibility.
We all know that these feminist have a political agenda of man-bashing. There's an all out war against masculinity by female marxist all around the world. ./ that I started reading in 1999, is now very inflitrated by left-marxist thinking.
The fact that this is the reaction you have to this story says more about you than anything else. I'm not sure what studying penis bones has to do with feminism (or Marxism for that matter).
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Apparently you live in your own bubble wrapped world and see everything through rose colored glasses. I grew up watching my stepfather beating the shit out of my mother on a weekly basis for years. Broken arms, ribs, missing teeth. When the police were called, they typically just told him to keep things quiet. This is in America you fucktard, a place where a Roman Catholic asshole can go to church, be "forgiven", so that his conscience is clean for the next big fight next week. So, a big fuck you, to you!
The hypothesis doesn't really make sense. Chimpanzees do not practice monogamy, yet sex between chimps lasts a few seconds. In a pack or herd animal, the difference between spending a few seconds and spending a few minutes penetrating a female makes a negligible difference to that female's general availability: the male is still not going to be inside her for hours of the day. Oh, and chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
The idea, I think, is that prolonged intromission gives the egg time to be fertilized before the next dude jumps her. With a baculum, you can stay hard, and stay inside, after you've cum. The baculum of chimps is tiny for the reason you note - they don't need it. In other words it's evolving away, just as ours did, but for a different reason.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Speaking out against unfair treatment is not a fucking "weakness", moron.
When members of the dominant gender and race complain about unfair treatment, it doesn't carry much weight.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Just kidding. Not so much.
Personally, I think we evolved without it when we took to walking upright. A penis bone would have kept all male penises pointing up at the angle of optimum intromission. This would have forced all males to urinate in long rainbow arcs that got piss all over the place in a highly conspicuous way and would have made the penis, sticking out and up right up front, highly vulnerable to all sorts of weapons as tribal man fought one another. Hard to tuck the junk back and out of risk when you are standing if you have to break a bone to do it. Humans are also enormously mutually fertile (roughly 10% of the time) and live a very long time, so long intromission, short intromission, neither one is going to be effective at ensuring "monogamy" and of course arguing that human culture is monogamous even today is pretty much to make a RELIGIOUS argument as the best that can be supported empirically is some mix of serial monogamy, serial polygamy, serial polyandry, and just plain fucking around with a smattering of true "lifetime exclusive" monogamy mixed in, maybe 10 or 20%. Swans may mate for life, but humans are lucky if they mate for dinner, if one follows overt statistics, and even that is probably driven more by religious memes than by "nature". The memes are rather at war with the genes, and different cultures follow different patterns for optimizing mate selection worldwide.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Twas no rib Adam was forced to give up. Man's been payjng for it ever since.
Morality and monogamy are both in decline.
That has to be the oldest complaint in the World. It was probably voiced the morning after the World's oldest profession got its start.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
The notion that paleolithic hominids were in any sense monogamous is risible.
> the penis bone is a marvel of evolution. It pops up in mammals and primates around the world,...
[See what they did there?]
Preserving and defending honor and valuing virginity were real fucking things. I've seen color film of places in Europe where an ostensibly bloodied sheet was hung outside the window to prove the new wife was a virgin on her wedding night. This probably wasn't a widespread practice; it was a hick thing to do, surely, but it indicates a wider ideal that was prevalent for millennia beforehand.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
I push back against non-egalitarian feminism all the time and I'm a huge defender of western culture, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate this historical revisionism.
Defending western culture, to me, means pushing back against the reactionary conservative blowhards like the OP who pretend we've hugely regressed.
The only people who think otherwise are brainwashed feminists who've never read a history book.
What kind of history books do you read? A few generations ago, virginity was very much valued and rapists were despised in part because of the damage they did (virgin or otherwise) to a woman's honor.
Have you literally never heard a single story about a woman committing suicide rather than suffer the dishonor of being raped? Hell, it happened multiple times just a few years ago with young Yazidi girls. Fortunately, our culture has managed to at least partially outgrow this attitude.
Congrats on the gratuitous Trump and Farage name drops. That just tips off everyone that you are a cretin.
Wow, and you don't even understand the point of those name drops, do you? I mention it precisely because (despite what the hysterical regressive left wants you do believe), those two people did NOT build their careers or platforms on religious and social conservative ideas. I'm pointing out that the OP's arguments are dying out even among the right.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
"The penis bone can be as long as a finger in a monkey..."
One important factor not mentioned is female preference. It's entirely possible that our human female ancestors preferred the non-boned penis for variety of reasons, and selected those males and drove evolution.
No woman I have ever had sex with was monogamous, they all fucked around behind my back. They want guys who are monogamous, but they want the freedom to fuck whenever, whoever they wish and no consequences. Makes me wish I was asexual or gay.
So, in response to the article's statement, " ... she is not likely to be leapt upon by other amorous males.", I respond, "Don't you mean for the amorous female to leap upon whatever erect penis is in the vicinity?"
chimpanzees do have a baculum, so the correlation is simply not there between longer intercourse and existence of a baculum.
For an otherwise cogent and reasoned posting, you kind of lost it there. Correlation is not causation, or in this case, the correlation may not be perfect since you have identified an exception. Or, perhaps, the correlation is indeed graduated such that the larger the baculum, the longer the intromission (as just a wild-assed guess). Correlation does not need to be 100% in order to observe a valid link.
Indeed, if you read the article's abstract (despite the broken link in the summary), you'd find that the authors are EXACTLY correlating baculum length with intromission duration (emphasis added):
The extreme morphological variability of the baculum across mammals is thought to be the result of sexual selection (particularly, high levels of postcopulatory selection). However, the evolutionary trajectory of the mammalian baculum is little studied and evidence for the adaptive function of the baculum has so far been elusive. Here, we use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in a Bayesian phylogenetic framework to reconstruct baculum evolution across the mammalian class and investigate the rate of baculum length evolution within the primate order. We then test the effects of testes mass (postcopulatory sexual selection), polygamy, seasonal breeding and intromission duration on the baculum in primates and carnivores. The ancestral mammal did not have a baculum, but both ancestral primates and carnivores did. No relationship was found between testes mass and baculum length in either primates or carnivores. Intromission duration correlated with baculum presence over the course of primate evolution, and prolonged intromission predicts significantly longer bacula in extant primates and carnivores. Both polygamous and seasonal breeding systems predict significantly longer bacula in primates. These results suggest the baculum plays an important role in facilitating reproductive strategies in populations with high levels of postcopulatory sexual selection.
And in case the terminology used here seems odd, "predicts" in this context means they have fitted a model (that's the Markov chain, Bayesian framework stuff) that uses various parameters to understand underlying structure in the noisy data, and that if you vary a given parameter, like baculum length, the model will predict a values for another parameter, say intromission duration, with good correspondence to the actual data, suggesting the model has captured a link of some sort. The key to understanding this is that the data will of necessity be noisy (all biological data are noisy), and the model, if it's a good one, will reject that noise and capture the underlying structure, thus there will likely be deviations from perfection.
For me, educated as an engineer and trained as a biologist, it was a shock to discover that a model in biology was considered to be very good fit when it was only 30% off the mark, whereas in engineering a model was called good when it was only 1% off the mark. Engineering is a far more refined discipline than biology.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I call bullshit. A mere 20 years ago, police would show up to a house where husband was beating wife and basically tell them to keep it down and move along.
Ehhh... pretty sure that's not true (though there will always be isolated cases.) Severe domestic violence has been punished for hundreds of years in most western societies (although, as Othello demonstrates, society at large didn't always frown on it) and I'm guessing even mild domestic violence probably wasn't officially tolerated post-WWII... but I wasn't talking about law. And neither was the OP.
I was responding to the OP's claims about "morality", specifically intending to allude to the moral assertion that women should obey their husbands and the things that came out of that assertion, including tacit acceptance (regardless of legality) of mild 'corrective' violence.
It varied a lot by geography and subculture, though. The issues surrounding rape and sexual honor were more widespread.
ODE TO AN OOSIK
Strange things have been done in the Midnight Sun,
and the story books are full---
But the strangest tale concerns the male,
magnificent walrus bull!
I know it's rude, quite common and crude,
Perhaps it is grossly unkind;
But with first glance at least, this bewhiskered beast,
is as ugly in front as behind.
Look once again, take a second look -- then
you'll see he's not ugly or vile --
There's a hint of a grin, in that blubbery chin --
and the eyes have a shy secret smile.
How can this be, this clandestine glee
that exudes from the walrus like music?
He knows, there inside, beneath blubber and hide
lies a splendid contrivance -- the Oosik!
"Oosik" you say -- and quite well you may,
I'll explain if you keep it between us;
In the simplest truth, though rather uncouth
"Oosik" is, in fact, his penis!
Now the size alone of this walrus bone,
would indeed arouse envious thinking --
It is also a fact, documented and backed,
There is never a softening or shrinking!
This, then, is why the smile is so sly,
the walrus is rightfully proud.
Though the climate is frigid, the walrus is rigid,
Pray, why, is not man so endowed?
Added to this, is a smile you might miss ---
Though the bull is entitled to bow --
The one to out-smile our bull by a mile
is the satisfied walrus cow!
(Anonymous)
Have you literally never heard a single story about a woman committing suicide rather than suffer the dishonor of being raped? Hell, it happened multiple times just a few years ago with young Yazidi girls. Fortunately, our culture has managed to at least partially outgrow this attitude.
Not so much. Rape has attained a status where it's considered worse than other violations. This serves to reinforce the view that there's some special moral code that should override logic, and sets back any chance of true equality and progress from a world view where women are valued for their bodies, not their minds. And quite possibly cause some women to tip over into suicide, after having society reinforce the notion of how their lives now are ruined forever, unlike someone who was, say, beaten up.
But, but, but the SKY GOD SAYS OTHERWISE!
Let the sky God speak for him/her/itself on the subject otherwise STFU and GTFO!
As opposed to other room-temperature IQ fucktards being loud? Oh no! stop the presses! Big Red and Triggly-Puff have competition of fucktarditry.
I think we need a UN special meeting to discuss online first world problems because it is super serious.
Crime and violence are at all-time lows, so by that measure we are getting more moral.
This likely has more to do with the aging of the overall population than with anything else.
#DeleteChrome
OTOH it may help with at least the first penetration, not requiring foreplay or so just to get hard, but always ready to jump on the opportunity. With the bone in it you always have a boner, so to say.
When the most privileged, affluent, protected people complain about online "violence", unfair treatment in media or vague 'systems of oppression', it doesn't carry much weight.
When the most privileged, affluent, protected people complain about online "violence", unfair treatment in media or vague 'systems of oppression', it doesn't carry much weight.
So we are in agreement then?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Rape has attained a status
I'm not quite sure if this is what you're alluding to, but yes it is an unfortunate fact that some people on the left are picking up where the right left off but from a more victim-centric perspective... slut-shaming, but disguising it as genuine concern for all those poor phallocratically-oppressed women. That's a rant for another day.
But I object to any insinuation that this 'status attainment' is a recent thing. It's morphed in character somewhat, but it is in fact a very old concept that continues to be propped up by sexual authoritarians of both sexes.
But despite that we've made advances, very significant advances on this front over the span of just a few generations. That's the main thing I'm objecting to here; this ludicrous appeal to a nonexistent golden age of American public morality.
Rape and domestic violence have always been treated seriously and punished severely.
I don't think that came out the way you thought you said it. In my state, spousal rape was legal until a few years ago and you could beat your wife with a stick as long as it wasn't longer than your forearm or bigger around than your thumb.(partially a hoax, partially true) It appears it is still legal to some extent in some places (or just not pursued as it should be):
http://www.womensafe.net/home/...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/so...
My bet goes to pants. A bone would make wearing pants so very uncomfortable.
When the most privileged, affluent, protected people complain about online "violence", unfair treatment in media or vague 'systems of oppression', it doesn't carry much weight.
I have no sympathy for Trump either.
Yup
So when was this golden age when people were more moral than they are today? Can you point to any actual evidence that morality is in decline? Crime and violence are at all-time lows, so by that measure we are getting more moral.
Trump was elected?
I remember as a little girl in primary school getting into rather a lot of trouble when I found a picture of a skeleton, pointed to a suggestively located bone (probably the coccyx) and gleefully, repeatedly, and loudly announced to my classmates "IT'S THE WILLY BONE!!!", going round the classroom with the picture to share knowledge of my thrilling discovery. My teachers apparently didn't see the amusement of a little girl so gleefully sharing this erroneous notion, and their response was simply to tell me off rather than explain my misconceptions... which of course just made little me all the more adamant about making sure everyone in my class knew I'd found the willy bone.
When the "man bun", skinny jeans, man makeup and other crap came around.
It pops up in mammals and primates around the world
Is it just me, or does every evolution-based hypothesis -- and I do mean, literally, every, single one I've ever read -- seem like nothing more than an effect in search of a satisfactorily matching cause? When did we start coming to scientific conclusions first, and then go shopping for facts that "prove" them? These aren't even testable, now that I think of it. How could you possibly verify the truth or falsity of something like "monogamy caused the penis bone to disappear"? Shouldn't a requirement of a scientific hypothesis be that it can be experimentally demonstrated? Let's leave metaphysics and theology to the theoretical disciplines.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Is it just me, or is every evolution-based hypothesis -- and I do mean every single one I've ever read -- just a conclusion shopping for facts that may or may not support it, but cannot ever be proved experimentally? Shouldn't scientific hypothesis at least be testable? Let's leave metaphysics, philosophy, theology and all the other theoretical disciplines out of scientific inquiry. There's no experiment you could ever devise that would prove or disprove the hypothesis that monogamy caused the male penis bone to disappear, it's ludicrous on its face. Science is just ONE system of thought, not "the" system of thought. Not every darn square peg has to go through the round hole. No pun intended.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I guess you have never had to hold a crying five-year-old who misses his mommy who left her family.
Mind you. I'm not complaining. Looking in the rear view mirror, divorce was the absolute best thing that could have happened to me. I am way happier being rid of a woman who devolved over the years into a bipolar nut case who refused to stay on her meds. However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one. Therefore, all parties suffer financially when resources are spread thinner. Many cases of divorce result in bankruptcy of one or both parties. The result is a drain on society. Too many single parent homes are living below the poverty level. In my particular case, I received very minimal child support ($200 for four kids) and I suddenly had to find daycare and swallow all the associated expenses. We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Divorce is not a simple boyfriend/girlfriend break up where everyone walks on their merry way, free and clear, when kids are involved; it gets way messier. Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
And having to wake up next to the same chick, year, after year, after year.......geez, that gets boring, and with no penis bone, you need something new and fresh to keep you excited and interested!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I agree with all your points.
I just think we still have a long way to go towards true equality and (both sexes) not valuing women for their bodies.
Wait a minute. There's no penis bone? Then how do you explain THIS?
https://keimiller.files.wordpr...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Depending on the subject matter, and the Trollarenas in here, I heartily suggest taking that little bar right before the comments start, and moving it to hide anything below +2. I don't always do it, but when the assholes are out in full force, I will.
Because Pepe' Trollarena had a successful posting when it pissed you off. Don't feed Pepe'.
Regardless, there is something about the logic of the story that seems odd. I think most of us married/coupled men in here have some idea of what our sex life would be if all we engaged in were quickies, at least half of us have sex with wimminfolk other than our monogamous partners, and a normal human male can engage in sex a lot longer than a whole lot of animals who do have bones in their boners.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Also note that it sounds like his STEPdad was taking care of this fucked up family, he may have had a gripe or two to begin with
If you are playing the other team. impregnating is probably not your top priority?
Why oh why would you ever want sexes to be equal? Or all "men"? Unable to lift the lowest, the inescapable result is to tear down the higher until we're all ... right ... at ... the ... bottom. We've been on that road awhile, you like?
Given the popularity of cheating by members of either sex, I'd say the penis bone isn't the only thing we've lost. Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside. The divorce rate tends to speak volumes as well.
The notion that humans are or have ever been genetically suited to monogamy is a dumb one. We have built societies around monogamous relationships specifically because that ain't so, but they offer certain substantial advantages. Monogamy is more common in more-developed societies, and more-developed societies have different sets of problems to deal with, like more STDs. Some if not all of them entered human populations initially due to animal husbandry... whether taken a bit too literally or not. Some of them can be contracted without actual sexual contact. And then there's the issue that males without mates are just dangerous. A social system that permits some men to monopolize all women is inherently harmful to itself.
Of course, a system which prohibits cohabitation outside of monogamous standards of behavior causes its own problems, such as encouraging abuse. Monogamy is only one solution to these problems, and it brings its own problems. The social censure which occurs when someone acts outside of a relationship model which may be at odds with their physical reality has its own harmful secondary effects.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think people are confusing mating with fucking. One is a long-term uh term. The other falls off after you've mated.
Hey maybe THAT'S what happened to my penisbone! Yep, sure enough I found a stiff penis shaped object under the bed over on my wife's side, I'll go in to get it reattached this afternoon!
A more simple explanation would be rape.
A bone would make it much easier to be hard enough to force your way in... which would also explain why it is hard at the tip, not the base.
Cheating is so much easier if sex is quick. This leads to more genetic diversity even if you are pretending to be monogamous.
While Gronk goes to the latrine, Gronk's wife gets impregnated by someone else.
We have a new candidate.
In shorter sex, women don't have to fake an orgasm for as long a time. This saves a lot of wasted energy on the women's part!
As we all know, the oldest profession in the (western) world, is breewing beer.
What is immoral with that?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm not the one you replied to but I believe that poster meant equal in opportunity and rights; equal as in egalitarian.
There's a sane middle ground between social conservativism and self-flagellating SJW 'neo-Marxist' crap and it's really, really simple: people don't get treated differently based on whatever they happen to have between their legs.
While I don't call my wife a "chick", I wouldn't want to wake up next to anyone else. Married 22 years.
I do wonder if the US is actually peaking... LGBTQ rights, women's rights, the way immigrants are treated and more are all deteriorating it seems.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
No problem. We'll just ban divorce, and you'll be forced to live with your bipolar nut-case ex-wife until you die (probably by suicide). How does that sound?
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one.
And how exactly is this worse than staying with someone who makes you miserable, who is reckless with family finances, etc.?
I'm sorry, but you can't magically make people be great relationship partners, and that's what the whole anti-divorce sentiment boils down to. People don't get divorced on a whim, they get divorced because they're extremely unhappy with the situation and it's the only rational alternative.
We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Again, would you prefer having your bipolar nut-case wife back?
Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
And what's your solution here? Obviously, your ex has the reverse Midas touch; anyone who marries her ends up in financial misery. Women like that aren't uncommon; they badger their husbands into satisfying their big spending habits, and the husbands end up going bankrupt. How does discouraging divorce help this? It can't. Divorce is a good thing: it keeps unfortunate men like your ex's new ex from becoming completely homeless, and letting them break free of a toxic relationship. Better yet would be to eliminate marriage altogether, because it encourages asset comingling and enables gold-diggers to ruin these men's finances.
What? Are you saying that some guy with a holy book in his hand who claims to speak for the sky God might not be telling the truth? How could that possibly be?
you need to measure all mammals or a decent cross section.
Did you read the scientific article? They measured a large number of species, but limited their study to primates and carnivores, as it says in the title of the study:
Postcopulatory sexual selection influences baculum evolution in primates and carnivores
within the scientific article they give the details as to how many:
A supertree phylogeny of 5020 extant mammals was used to reconstruct the ancestral states of baculum presence across the mammalian order.
That sounds like a decent cross-section. Five thousand species.
Secondly, I am not sure how they came to their monogamy theory.
Did you read the scientific article? It's pretty well explained there. They correlated the mating strategy of each species with baculum length. The homo erectus link was done by the Guardian article reporter, though.
Primates in polygamous mating systems were found to have significantly longer bacula than those in other mating systems (n = 65, p = 0.032).
and later
Two more phylogenetic t-tests showed that primates in polygamous mating systems and seasonally breeding primates had significantly longer bacula than primates in other mating systems and those without a seasonal breeding pattern, highlighting the importance of postcopulatory sexual selection as a driver of bacular evolution.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
I guess you have never had to hold a crying five-year-old who misses his mommy who left her family.
You still haven't said why divorce is bad. You've said why abandoning children is bad, and you have implicitly equated divorce with abandoning children but that's a false equivalence.
I am way happier being rid of a woman who devolved over the years into a bipolar nut case who refused to stay on her meds. However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
Sounds to me as if divorce has had little to do with it. The bipolar disorder sounds like the big factor. If anything divorce helped. If you were all forced together as a family, not only would they have a mother with severe mental problems but they'd also have a dad who was in no great place either.
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one.
I'd say that qualifies as "has some disadvantages" rather than being bad in some absolute sense. Still better to be hard up than forced to live with someone you don't want to live with.
Many cases of divorce result in bankruptcy of one or both parties.
That sounds like a problem of fighting bitterly than one of divorce per-se. I wonder how those people would behave if they were forced to stay together. My guess is "not well". And...
The result is a drain on society.
So how do you evaluate the relative drain of people divorcing and some going bankrupt versus people being checked out of life for 40 years until death. You're only looking at the easier to see side.
Too many single parent homes are living below the poverty level. In my particular case, I received very minimal child support ($200 for four kids) and I suddenly had to find daycare and swallow all the associated expenses.
But if you didn't get divorced, you'd not have to pay daycare because you'd be happy leaving your kids to be looked after by someone with severe bipolar disorder and off her meds? I don't get it. Surely that wasn't an option either so again divorce had little to do with it.
Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems
But the alternative is having no remedy.
Seriously though your objections are basically along the lines of "sometimes people are crap". I agree with that. Divorce is not bad because people are crap: people are going to be crap either way. Divorce is simply the escape hatch. The alternative is being stuck.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Divorce rates for first marriages are only around 30% now. Not super high honestly. The divorce rates of further marriages are what make this stat seem higher than it is.
(Trump's anti-abortion stuff being a slight exception here, but there is plenty of room for reasonable people to have secular and rational debates on that issue.)
Not only that, but it remains to be seen how much of Trump's rhetoric was simply to get votes. It's pretty obvious that Trump wasn't religious in the slightest, and couldn't even recite a bible verse, and probably hadn't steeped foot in a church in ages, yet he cozied up with some religious leaders like Falwell and tried to claim he was a Christian during the campaign, quite obviously to assuage the religious people on the left and get their votes.
It's quite possible the anti-abortion stuff is the same, but who knows.
...And that's bad why, precisely?
And you sit here and dissect all this, and then try and claim that morality is somehow not in decline, or ask for proof. Your entire answer is the proof in defending immoral actions taken by humans today, because humans simply don't give a shit anymore about traditional morals. It's literally become socially acceptable, as you've clearly pointed out the infectious mentality has spread. Oh look, another app that helps me get laid, complete with GPS-enabled pussy radar.
The entire concept of marriage is built around a religious construct that champions and fosters a moral code of ethics between two people who love each other. You've managed to gloss over that for the only other real reason marriage still exists; for the fucking tax breaks.
And you ask why immorality is bad, as if the STD impact somehow isn't evidence enough? Crimes of cheating passion resulting in murder, children growing up without a father figure, abusive step-parents, living with STDs, I can cite countless examples of the impact of immorality.
Much like applying sound security towards IoT, I guess the moral effort isn't worth it in this IDGAF world we live in now.
Morality and monogamy are both in decline.
So when was this golden age when people were more moral than they are today? Can you point to any actual evidence that morality is in decline? Crime and violence are at all-time lows, so by that measure we are getting more moral.
Are crimes of passion in decline? STDs at an all-time-low? Divorce rates due to unfaithfulness? Pregnancy rates for 4th-graders? Sexting not popular anymore? The availability of every type of porn you can't even imagine streaming from a teenagers cell phone?
This golden age of immorality is now app-enabled, complete with GPS-enabled come-fuck-me radar, so even the marketeers know the rate of morality today, backed by statistical demand.
'Nuff said.
The Republican version of Big Government In The Bedroom allows people to have lots of children without having to stay together. Their ideal goal is that children should be the result of both a lack of sex education combined with no access to birth control or ability to terminate pregnancies.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I said something very similar a couple months ago but the last I heard he was doubling down on the abortion stuff (when talking about appointing SCOTUS justices specifically), which surprised me, as I'd assumed it would be one of the many issues he'd walk back. I was wrong, but in retrospect it's easy to see why he'd stick with this one point.
I mean, it was obvious during the campaign that this was a cynical ploy, very possibly suggested to him by establishment Republicans, to try to lock down the Republican evangelical base. A lot of people in this country are single-issue voters on abortion alone, and there's a lot of stuff Trump has alluded to (...or done in his personal life) that alienated these people. Talking tough on abortion was and is the one straightforward way of winning them back.
Why stick with it? Well, I think I correctly judged Trump's stance on this, but I underestimated the importance of the issue to the Republicans and the Trump-Establishment alliance... those strategic discussions and agreements that have been going on behind closed doors. Trump desperately wants to be loved, after all. He doesn't want to see his own party reject him. While I do think it would be a bad thing to reverse Roe v. Wade, from Trump's point of view it's a relatively small issue and small price to pay to keep the lion's share of the social conservatives / evangelicals singing his praises and not grumbling about his sexual immorality or his more liberal-sounding policies.
It fails the sanity check when it says we are monogamous as a species.
Sure we see lots of morality "science" that says that but when we look back (our out our window) our species is not monogamous.
The article this article links to, says that all women are straight (The male will have many partners but the woman will have one) which is pretty much the opposite of their nature.
Through out much of our evolution the strong males had many partners.
Monogamy is a religious business decision. You can get those men who women find to be unacceptable, to join your religion if you promise each of them the right to a woman.
Kind of awful for women but it paid out huge for the powerful religions of the west.
Also terrible for our species as the genes that women in the past would have decided should not go forward are now passed on.
lol wut, you think those idiots weren't trolling people with this crap before Trump's election? What lala land do you live in?
Let us address this one little item before going much further. First marriages only end in divorce about 30% of the time in the US, and the trend line over the past 20 years has been towards fewer divorces.
Also, while the percentage of Americans in first marriages has declined, the rate of decline is slowing. Serial monogamists inflate the divorce rate statistics, and I'd wager that most of the decline in recent marriages is due to millennials postponing marriage while they go to college and start careers.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf#x2013;2010%20National%20Survey%20of%20Family%20Growth%20[PDF%20-%20419%20KB%3C/a%3E
And you sit here and dissect all this, and then try and claim that morality is somehow not in decline, or ask for proof.
That is correct. I don't believe morality is in decline.
Your entire answer is the proof in defending immoral actions
Except the actions I defend aren't immoral.
It's literally become socially acceptable, as you've clearly pointed out the infectious mentality has spread.
There's nothing immoral with having kids out of wedlock. Being married doesn't guarantee a stable home life for the kids and neither does being unmarried preclude it.
Oh look, another app that helps me get laid, complete with GPS-enabled pussy radar.
You are presupposing that there is something immoral about having sex. I don't see why.
The entire concept of marriage is built around a religious construct that champions and fosters a moral code of ethics between two people who love each other.
There was perhaps a period of 200 years where that was the case for a reasonable fraction of people. But even then people got married for all sorts of reasons, sometimes for love, sometimes for strategy, sometimes because they wanted to bang, sometimes because they already did and didn't have effective contraception. Before 1753, marriage in England wasn't even de-facto religious. Rich people got married in Church, poor people didn't.
Marriage has cropped up all over the world in all sorts of cultures with enormous variety.
So, basically cherry picking here.
And you ask why immorality is bad
No, I'm asking why you think these actions are immoral. Immorality is bad by definition. What I don't see is how puritanical Christian ideals are synonymous with morality.
abusive step-parents
Because real parents can never be abusive. True story.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
MRAs assert that, but that's not the truth. Women should "get" 50% of what was earned in the marriage, same as the man. Yes, the MRAs can find odd exceptions, but that doesn't prove a trend.
The kids go with the wife because the husband doesn't want them (in most cases). Yes, that gets inappropriately extrapolated to the few men that try to fight for the kids, but for every man that fights for the kids for a better life for them, there are the men that fight for the kids because they don't want them, but want to make sure he doesn't have to pay to support them.
Learn to love Alaska
Morality isn't in decline. It has changed and maybe even gotten better in some ways. Just your type of morality from a gone-by day. The morality from the 50s was rather loathsome. Treating minorities as basically sub humans, rape in marriage was allowed, interracial marriages not allowed, women treated like they couldn't do equal work, and so on. So cram your version of morality any day.
Maybe it's just because we walk in an upright position...
there was a study saying recently, that compared to animals, we do it is waaay more positions. That can explain the bone stuff too.
I mean: we lost our hair due to clothing and other; we changed our guts because of the food we eat (cooked).
my 2 cent.
What I don't see is how puritanical Christian ideals are synonymous with morality.
Perhaps because history of morality is buried solidly within, which also resonates within our laws and rules governing right from wrong.
I can see that this has essentially turned into the philosophical argument that it has always been, which has resulted in standard "rules", or codes of ethics in the past that help truly define the difference between moral and immoral actions.
To demonstrate how distorted the argument has gotten, it's no longer a matter of getting off one's proverbial moral lawn; those who wish to question morality today go so far as asking why the fucking lawn exists, in utter defiance of the impact of immorality.
Regardless of failed attempts by religion or culture, society has clearly shown that this concept will continue to be an argument that cannot be easily defined within any framework, much less common sense.
But hey, screw all those facts around impact. Three cheers for teenagers dealing with STDs imitating the unimaginable porn streaming from their cell phone! Damn, did my DVR forget to record that Bachlorette fuck-em-all shopping show? Gosh, I sure hope it didn't record over 16 and Pregnant.
Morality on the decline? Nope, guess not. Clearly nothing to see here but entertainment these days as lawns turn to asphalt.
Whether or not the male looks for other females is irrelevant to the evolution of the penis bone.
It is when the females are likely to look for another mate that the penis bone is relevant.
Okay, he might be attractive enough, that with a large sum of money, he *might* be able to get laid at a whorehouse if he doesn't speak a word.
I did detect a bit of sarcasm in your post. But clearly it is about keeping a base that is controlled by christian leaders.
Conservatives want the church to be in charge of sex, and sex education. Their goal isn't to reduce casual sex, abortion, etc. The goal is that those remain a sin with punishments, that you feel the need to go to church and ask for forgiveness and tithe; That people see their personal happiness are in the hands of the church (provided by/in charge.) That will give the strongest connection to religion, and the easiest to suppress and manipulate. If they allow science to drive sex education and to remove the punishments, and social media to take over socialization, then christian churches and the republican base will not be strong.
Different bones, different skeletons. Humans and primates are completely different.
Just like Darwin couldn't accept genetics because it was proposed by a guy who was a deeply committed Christian, modern biologists cling to evolution more for their own religious aversion than anything else.
Evolution is a theory in crisis. How many neanderthal bones do we have that are not completely contested even by the neo-darwinists themselves? None. How many fake/hoax intermediate species have we hard about? Many (Piltdown man, Java man, etc)! What percentage of Americans believe we evolved from primates? Not much more than 40-42%.
Evolution is a story told by scientists to let other scientists know how professional they are. Just like the grown ups in The Emporer's New Clothes who say, "Oh, those robes! How exquisite!" When there was nothing there.
You should see some of the recent interviews Ben Stein has done with evolutionary biologists. They account for the HUGE improbability of their theory by positing special rays from aliens or fantasy (i.e. not science) like that.
I feel sorry for people who think we evolved from primates. They are completely out of touch with the question of whether or not they believe what they say and are a moral hazard to themselves and others.
Coincidentally there is no vagina bone.
I think the pelvis counts.
Men have vagina bones too?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is the ProTip the type with or without a baculum?
If you think that everyone is monogamous, you are delusional.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
"It pops up" hehehehe
I would totally love to be polyamorous [what some people call nonmonogamy].
But the thing is, the trendy thing these days is to NOT be exclusive in who they love and fuck.
They want it to be all about them and their free loving free fucking.
Problem with that is if I fuck someone I have NO IDEA who the fuck they're fucking and what fucking DISEASE they're bringing me.
Testing isn't perfect, incubation time windows and all.
The risk is just too damn much.
And with all the dating sites catering to the lefty whiny LGBT ALT activist SJW weirdo crowds who SUE them if they dont provide options for them,
plain old vanilla monogamy LTRs, or even a nice dedicated trustworthy hubby/wife swap is hard to find.
Perhaps because history of morality is buried solidly within, which also resonates within our laws and rules governing right from wrong.
That's patently false. People have been debating morals since long before the birth of Christ. Puritanical morals stem from controlling people's behavior for power, not from right and wrong. Your argument is nothing more than "it's right because the bible says so". Do your also wear tassels on the four corners of your clothes? It tells you to do that too.
those who wish to question morality today go so far as asking why the fucking lawn exists, in utter defiance of the impact of immorality.
Damn right. When some puritanical busybody plants a lawn right in the middle of my living room, dann right I'm going to question why the lawn is there especially when it's going to shrivel and die what with being stuck indoors.
Thing is you tried to argue that divorce was bad because it's bad for kids. You know I agree with you that if you have kids you should try to do right by them. However when I presented you with a point of view that it's not divorce that's bad, it's other things of which divorce is a mere symptom, you ignored me, dropped the argument and went on to bang the "puritanical Christian morals ate right because they are" drum.
Three cheers for teenagers dealing with STDs
So if teenagers were all vaccinated against stds then you'd be happy with them screwing around? I don't think so, you're concern trolling to rationalize your irrational distaste for sex. And you do know no system ever stopped teenagers humping, right?
And by the way, of course morals are a philosophical debate otherwise you've got nothing else except claiming you're right because some dude wrote a book a very long time ago.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> Morality and Monogamy have pretty much gone by the wayside.
I have been married monogamously for 40 years. My parents were happily married for 71 years. My grandfather was married 4 times.
It isn't that "Morality and Monogamy" are declining, merely that everything was less public in the past. You were certainly less aware of it.
You see, Adam had a penis bone. But he was lonely and wanted a mate. God took pity, and built him a woman from his penis bone.
The early Christian writers changed it to "rib bone" because think of the children.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Crime and violence are at all-time lows, so by that measure we are getting more moral.
This likely has more to do with the aging of the overall population than with anything else.
Nope. The decline has occurred in many countries, and in some other countries it has NOT occurred. It has occurred everywhere, and only, in locations that have banned leaded gasoline, with a lag of 15-20 years (the time for exposed infants to reach peak criminal age).
Aging populations likely helped, but reduction in environmental lead exposure was the primary factor. There are many crime "hot-spots" in places like Flint, Michigan, and East St Louis. The children in the hotspots nearly always have elevated blood lead levels. $1 spent on reducing lead exposure saves $100 on the costs of crime, including the construction of prisons. Yet no politician has won an election by promising to spend less on prisons and more on clean water.
Actually, divorce is declining and was never 50% for 1st marriages. Statistically your most likely to stay married until death. 2nd and 3rd marriages seem to fail more often and drive up the numbers.
citation (with plenty more on google): http://psychcentral.com/lib/th...
Cheap storage VM.
60 years ago it was common, 40 years ago it was frowned upon but ignored, 20 years ago it was still true in many isolated areas. Today, things are still improving.
http://www.womensafe.net/home/index.php/domesticviolence/29-overview-of-historical-laws-that-supported-domestic-violence
I grew up hearing stories about my grandfather, who used to get drunk and beat his wife regularly. Wife, children, etc... He was a migrant worker, so I don't think this relates well to middle class families, but there are still plenty of marginalized people who don't get the protection they need.
My Grandfather only stopped when his boys were old enough to stop him.
Cheap storage VM.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/625/135891.jpg
I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
I reckon there are two kinds of morality, which I call 'ethics' and 'morals'.
Ethics is a largely self-consistent system of guidance for social behaviour, more or less logically derived from the Golden Rule and other human considerations.
Morals is a rag-bag of prejudices, tribal customs, and rules arbitrarily selected from an old book which was allegedly dictated to some bronze age barbarians by their invisible sky-daddy.
Moralists often are not even aware of the existence of ethics.
That was the first mistake the 'scientists' made.
I'm not the suicidal type. During the worst parts of our marriage, it never once entered my mind. Then again, I'm not bipolar or depressive. Just FYI, I did not want the marriage to end at the time and I did whatever I could to save it, but as I stated before, it was the best thing that could have happened to me. As for the kids, the jury is still out on that.
There is an old adage that says "Men marry women believing that they will never change. Women marry men believing they can make them change. They are both wrong." The woman I divorced bore very little resemblance to the one I married.
Please re-read my original post. I believe I was clear on the point.
He did become homeless. Or rather, had to go live with his elderly father. She went through his finances and walked out on him just like she did me. She left him with nothing but debt. Shortly after that, she tried to convince me to take her in when her finances went to shit. I declined. My youngest would have been devastated when she left again even if it was only "a few weeks for getting on her feet." I had pity for her, but not enough to damage my kids any more.
I think my original post may have been confusing. Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Well, this is all a bit tangential to my original point (which you've agreed with: "things are still improving"). But just for the sake of clarification, there are some important distinctions here between the actual law vs. the law as enforced by the courts vs. typical behavior and biases of law enforcement officers vs. general cultural attitudes. I strongly doubt that a woman who called the police with visible injuries and other evidence (be it the man confessing or whatever) and an adamant desire to press charges would have been ignored by the police in most areas even 60 years ago unless they had some ulterior and corrupt reason to protect the man[1]. America is too much of a law and order society (relatively speaking) for that to happen.
That's not the same thing as the police being eager, proactive or supportive in the matter, nor does it mean the woman's friends and family would be supportive. (And I was referring to such cultural toleration in my original post.) Sometimes social progress happens officially and then mass culture has to play catchup (...and sometimes it's the other way around.) This is all tangential to my original point, but it's a distinction worth drawing if for no other reason than there are eras and modern cultures where the right doesn't exist either legally or culturally.
I seem to be a bit more keen to split these hairs than most, though.
1. And I didn't see anything in your link to refute that. "Still on the books... as recently as 1977" doesn't mean much of anything. There's all kinds of obsolete stuff still on the books that neither the cops nor the courts pay any attention to.
I just read the whole thing as "Monogamy leads to boring sex"
As most people you are confusing Monogamy with Pair bonding (something humans have formalized in the tradition and institution of marriage). Monogamy simply means having a sexual relationship with only one partner at a time. Technically one can have 100's of monogamous relationships in their lifetime
Apostles taught what Jesus told them
He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules.
Have gnu, will travel.
That is only one aspect. Yes. Abandoning children is bad. The woman I am dating has a working relationship with her ex and a 50/50 split on child rearing. I have seen the changes in her girls over time. There is no doubt that the divorce has affected them negatively. One of her girls has had very negative changes.
My son's best friend has a broken family. The mother has custody with the dad having visitation. Dad seems to be a great parent and never misses a visitation. I've seen him with his kids all over town taking them to events but I have seen the negative changes in this kid as a result of the divorce as well.
Bipolar has very little to do with separation anxiety. The kids had abandonment issues. My middle son had attachment issues with women. That's the result of a broken marriage, not living with a mom with mental health issues.
Bipolar != Schizephrenia. Bipolar people are functional. During a high, they go without sleep, have unrealistic delusions of ability and make poor judgment decisions especially with money and work. During a low, they mope around and sleep a lot. My ex is not Shelley Duvall crazy. She does do some real stupid shit when she is manic though.
I will say that my oldest expressed a relief that her mother was finally out of the house. Sure it was harder on all of us for many reasons, but the tension and arguments were finally gone.
Divorce is arguably bad. However, sometimes the alternatives are worse. I've seen divorces where one spouse does everything they can to hurt the person they vowed to stay committed to for the rest of their life. I've seen divorces where one spouse puts the other into the poor house over their anger. I've seen parents try to hurt their ex through their kids. Yes. People suck.
Think of it this way. On the most basic level, divorce is bad because a marriage and family are now broken. That in itself is sad. The relative ease of divorce reduces the amount of commitment that a person needs to keep things together and to make things work. It's easy to just give up. Nobody wants to try. Yes, sometimes there is no way to make things work. Sometimes divorce is necessary but make no mistake, the result is not a total positive.
I feel the concept of marriage itself will also become extinct.
Why? Perhaps it just needs some modification. Polygamy is a system where, when you get the hots for a new partner, you don't have to dump the old one. People seem to think that polygamous marriages are one big orgy. Not really. It just keeps the ongoing obligation one has to past spouses and offspring as a part of the family structure.
The bullshit system we have of monogamous marriages and divorces completely overlooks the fact that our legal system keeps spouses economically bound together afterwards for the sake of the kids. It's de facto polygamy with a dash of animosity and a healthy cut for the lawyers.
Have gnu, will travel.
Conservatives want women to be handed out as prizes to the faithful. And maybe bogart the pretty ones for the church elders.
Have gnu, will travel.
Same guy here: my point still holds, to get to your 'sane' middle ground requires suppression to get to the so called middle and is just a redefinition of the bottom by saying the bottom has been lifted to middle by oppression of the top !? No thanks.
A penis bone would have kept all male penises pointing up at the angle of optimum intromission. This would have forced all males to urinate in long rainbow arcs that got piss all over the place in a highly conspicuous way and would have made the penis, sticking out and up right up front, highly vulnerable to all sorts of weapons as tribal man fought one another.
This is about the best proposed explanation I have read so far. Not walking on all fours mean we don't need the penis sheath for protection against brush, branches and things. I wonder if the two (baculum & sheath) are evolutionarily related and when you don't need one you don't need the other.
Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
Exactly, so I'm not sure why you're railing against divorce here. Everyone has their reasons for taking such a drastic step, and I'm sure most people do not take that step without considering the alternatives, attempting to repair the situation, etc.
The only time I ever hear about people getting divorced on a whim as it might seem (like with a coworker of mine whose wife just moved out one day, much to his surprise), is when that couple didn't have any children and don't own a house together, and so separating is actually not very difficult, so in situations like that I actually fail to see how divorce is a bad thing at all. If two people are unhappy in a relationship, and there's no collateral damage in breaking up, why exactly should they stay together? The only real problem will be that someone will need to cough up some money for a new security deposit and pay for moving their small truck-load of belongings to a new little apartment. BFD.
When kids are involved, I've never heard of anyone taking it lightly, unless the person leaving has something wrong with them (e.g. the classic parent who decides to abandon their family situation). In that case, I still fail to see the problem; in the "old days", before divorce was acceptable, that person would simply disappear and move across the country and assume an alias, and the remaining spouse would not only be stuck with a house and kids to manage, but they'd have a real hard time getting a divorce and finding a new partner because of the crappy courts and the social stigma. At least now that spouse can get a quick divorce on grounds of abandonment, file for child support (much more likely they'll find the deadbeat these days, unless they skip the country), and then they can get back into the dating market and maybe find a new partner. I have a female friend who left her husband (but hasn't fully divorced yet, after 4 years, because of the cost of a lawyer and because the husband is contesting it), for multiple reasons, including that he was cheating on her, and worse he wanted to keep the girlfriend on the side and expected her to just put up with this. In the "old days", she'd be stuck, but today she's able to leave him and get child support.
It seems like you're full of shit too... gee it's easy making unfounded claims.
Less likelihood of another male mounting her? These guys didn't know my ex.
As we all know, the oldest profession in the (western) world, is breewing beer.
Prostitution preceded brewing by millions of years: Prostitution among animals.
As you've pointed out, humans have been debating about morals for thousands of years, long before "some dude" named Religion came along.
You wish to dissect and litigate any example brought forth, shoving the entire argument into a bible, when that is hardly the point here. People today question why morals should exist at all, casually dismissing or ignoring the impact of immorality entirely. Ironically, impact is the reason the fire of debate has burned for thousands of years.
The only reason religion has anything to do with it is because that "dude" had enough of the bickering and issues one day, and wrote some rather black-and-white rules to try and help.
Wisdom and Experience are the teachers in life. For those who live the IDGAF YOLO lifestyle that is trending more and more these days, there is but one teacher, and many people and their loved ones are suffering with the consequences.
Oh well. Bring on the asphalt. Guess there's nothing to see here.
As you've pointed out, humans have been debating about morals for thousands of years, long before "some dude" named Religion came along.
Actually that's not specifically what I said. But whatever it has little bearing.
You wish to dissect and litigate any example brought forth, shoving the entire argument into a bible, when that is hardly the point here.
Well, your flavour of assertions about morals seem to be Christian influenced. I specifically referred to them as "puritanical Christian" morals and your response was to essentially build on that, rather than tell me why I was wrong. So, unless you give me reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume this is all Christian influenced.
People today question why morals should exist at all
I expect so. Ultimately there's no good answer to that, but that's not the debate we're having. I think we both agree morals should exist, right? What I'm questioning is YOUR morals, not the need for the existence of them in general.
The only reason religion has anything to do with it is because that "dude" had enough of the bickering and issues one day, and wrote some rather black-and-white rules to try and help.
That's such a gross over-simplification that it's not just naive, it's more or less wrong. Take the bible, for example. It's an agglomeration of stuff written over the course of a few thousand years. In fact there was so much variety that a bunch of people got together to make the "canonical" KJV version, picking and choosing which bits they wanted from the various possibilities and of course throwing a few teanslation interpretations of their own in for good measure.
And then you've got that whole mix of new and old testament stuff shoved in together. I mean there old Moses' block o' stone. That's kinda straightforward, though the smiting armies of the tribes of Israel had a bit of difficulty with the first one. I mean it's not like Joshua knew Moses or anything...
Oh yeah and then there's the bit about "knowing" men. There's a good argument that that's not a piece of moral guidance in the sense you're thinking it, but a bunch of anti-Greek propaganda. They were one of the major power in the region after all.
The proscription against tattooing is similar. The followers of other religions have often had a habit of tattooing themselves, so it's another proscription to set apart the followers of Yaweh from the local (and as it turns out, not so local) pagans.
And there are in fact provisions for divorce in certain circumstances in the old testament. A mite unbalanced and a bit peculiar in places, but there nonetheless. So I guess divorce is OK?
And then there's the bit about not wearing mixed fibers and wearing tassles on the four corners of your clothes. No idea WTF that is about.
etc etc etc.
Oh except that then Jesus and a bunch of other people came along and overturned all those silly old rules. Except not some of them, it's not really clear and a lot of people/sects/branches are quite picky about which ones he did overturn and which ones he didn't. I'm a bit less up to speed with all that new-fangled stuff to be honest and besides, not everyone agrees it's even valid.
So tell me, is old-testament wartime propaganda relevant today or not?
And of course this whole discussion is very centred on the Judeo-Christian branch of the Abrahamic family of religions. It is completely ignoring all the others that guide people to this day and the others that have gone but whose influence remains.
But anyway, you keep asserting that morals are on the decline. I still dispute this: adherence to puritanical Christian morals are on the decline perhaps, but beyond that I don't see anything by the way of moral decay. Less sticking to a bunch of nonsensical, partisan and/or obsolete rules from a bunch of crust old desert goat herders, sure. But decau in general? No. I don't buy it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Rule of thumb is entirely a hoax.
Spousal rape wasn't legal - it wasn't even a fucking concept. You gave consent when you got married - and it was essentially impossible to prove otherwise. Idea of "raping" your wife was and is stupid in law. NOTE: you COULD sexually assault her and that has always been a crime. This isn't about defending some brutal lunatic who is beating and abusing his wife and forcing her into sex she doesn't want.
For the stupid among you, the word RAPE has been abused an debased (ironically) by feminists so much that it's basically worthless.
So yes... you're spewing a bunch of feminist talking points.
People today question why morals should exist at all
I expect so. Ultimately there's no good answer to that, but that's not the debate we're having. I think we both agree morals should exist, right? What I'm questioning is YOUR morals, not the need for the existence of them in general.
When I brought forth the example of the proverbial lawn, the argument was not over the type of grass, but whether or not the lawn (read: morals) needed to exist, which is perhaps where the confusion lied, since you questioned the need altogether. You have at least confirmed that you think morals themselves should exist, so I suppose we are in agreement about the lawn. The type of grass (read: religious vs. other) is another matter entirely, and my morals are more founded in simple common sense/right and wrong rather than derived from religion, but does not completely exclude said influence. Since my initial comments revolved around the concept of marriage, it more or less invoked the biblical law of not coveting thy neighbors wife, which breaking that common sense rule has led to much pain and death in our world, affecting adults and children.
But anyway, you keep asserting that morals are on the decline. I still dispute this...I don't see anything by the way of moral decay.
The proof is difficult given the metrics and tools necessary. We would first have to define what immoral activity to measure, invoking that whole 5,000 year old philosophical debate, clouding the task of defining clear metrics. Teen pregnancy, STD rates, murder for passion, the popularity of click-to-fuck apps, pick your metric poison. Is the metric measuring the societal uproar of making certain services illegal? It certainly was during Prohibition. Abortion has been hoisted upon the morality fence for so long it doesn't even need a boost from Religion anymore. All examples are metrics mired in debate, so perhaps measuring morality becomes quite an impossible task.
Then of course, we would have to call upon the tool of statistics, a once-simplistic mathematical tool that has turned into a religion itself due to "experts" wielding a masters degree in manipulation, making the task of accurate measurement all the more impossible.
Mathematically, this turns into dividing zero by zero times infinity.
That said, an IDGAF society showcasing utter debauchery as entertainment fueled by narcissists seeking the almighty click-dollar has spread quite nicely across a flattened world. Morals? Ain't nobody got time for that. Consequences? The YOLO generation is too wrapped around FOMO to deal with consequences, and from a legal standpoint, the politically correct prefer a slap in the wrist.
since you questioned the need altogether.
No I didn't. You're equating me questioning your morals with me questioning the need for morals. You are choosing your morals as an unarguable axiom which makes any degree of debate pretty much impossible.
Since my initial comments revolved around the concept of marriage, it more or less invoked the biblical law of not coveting thy neighbors wife, which breaking that common sense rule has led to much pain and death in our world, affecting adults and children.
That has nothing to do with divorce. Once you're divorced, she's no longer your wife. And some people seem happy with open/poly/misc relationships. It's not my cup of tea, but as long as no one's getting hurt, I don't see a problem with that.
Teen pregnancy
I assume you are in favour of teen pregnancies then. Because the only way morals could be on the decline is if teen pregnancies are DECREASING, which they are:
https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregna...
Yes that was me being facetious.
STD rates,
Pretty flat for heterosexual people, rising for gay men. Well, the number reported are rising. Hard to know what was unreported before.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/ne...
murder for passion,
Hard to tell, but the overall murder rate has decreased quite sharply.
the popularity of click-to-fuck apps
There's nothing immoral about that, so the existence of such a thing does not indicate a slide in morals.
statistics, a once-simplistic mathematical tool
Of all the claims you've made, that is the wildest.
That said, an IDGAF society showcasing utter debauchery as entertainment
As recently as 1936 there were public executions in the USA. I'd say watching people fuck on film is a much more wholesome activity than watching someone get slaughered.
The YOLO generation is too wrapped around FOMO to deal with consequences, and from a legal standpoint, the politically correct prefer a slap in the wrist.
A slap on the wrist and consequences for WHAT precisely? For doing something privately between consenting adults? Why would that even be illegal?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
since you questioned the need altogether.
No I didn't. You're equating me questioning your morals with me questioning the need for morals. You are choosing your morals as an unarguable axiom which makes any degree of debate pretty much impossible.
I believe I made the confusion clear; we both agree that morals are necessary. Defining immorality is the crux of the issue. One cannot readily find an answer with an undefined variable left in the equation.
Since my initial comments revolved around the concept of marriage, it more or less invoked the biblical law of not coveting thy neighbors wife, which breaking that common sense rule has led to much pain and death in our world, affecting adults and children.
That has nothing to do with divorce. Once you're divorced, she's no longer your wife
Historically, divorce rates have increased. Infidelity rates across both sexes (particularly women) have also increased. Yes, I know that correlation does not equal causation, but my point was more centered around the immoral actions that can cause divorce, which infidelity can most certainly be a factor. The divorce (tool) itself is rather irrelevant, but one cannot easily dismiss the impact of divorce, especially where children may be involved.
the popularity of click-to-fuck apps
There's nothing immoral about that, so the existence of such a thing does not indicate a slide in morals.
I identified the popularity surrounding such a specific tool, not the "existence" of such a tool. Guns exist. Murder is the more relevant metric. Ashley Madison is a prime example of the popularity of infidelity, since the specific purpose of that tool is to serve up extramarital affairs hot and fresh. Consenting and/or single adults are not its prime target, which tends to leave behind the demographic that represents questionable morals, along with a rather distorted view of monogamy.
And yes, even when something exists, it tends to highlight immorality, and the demand for it. Prostitution can be viewed as immoral with all parties involved, which also speaks to the legality of it in the world today.
Sexting between minors can be defined as immoral activity. How popular was it before 99.999% of that demographic held a private smartphone (vs. the house party line)? Viewing porn has been around for centuries, and has almost always carried the burden of immorality, but how popular was it within the sub-teen demographic before smartphones delivering HD streams 24 hours a day came about? Capability to take part in immoral activity has increased considerably. Wearing something as skimpy as a bikini in public would have been illegal a century ago, so we also tend to shift things from immoral to moral to meet our wants and needs.
Where infidelity leads to divorce, some countries reward such behavior with alimony, while others punish and stone the offender to death for the immoral actions taken. Dealing with immorality can be as hard as defining it.
You sound like the people who freak out about a company dying because the rate of increase in profits levels off. All of the things that you mention are at an all time high in the US and there is no sign of them deteriorating (bu.. bu.. Trump!! aside). Things here are al heel of a lot better than in your country.
Completely agree. Abolish divorce, except for cause, and abolish monogamy.
Wow, talk about wham bam thank-you-'mam!
That's not me. At just 3 minutes, why even bother? A guy should at least do 1/2 hour.
I know, I know. I'm not like other guys. Of course it probably helps that my wife is very flexible and can ride me like a horse. Likes to ride me like a horse.
Brewing beer goes back around 8000 years, clearly far too recent the be the oldest profession.
More likely to because society is more stable.
Having reproductive organs sticking out during a battle became a liability and those who survived were the ones who did not present such an obvious target. Not to mention the advances in clothing and animal husbandry. Why migrating to colder climates would have frozen those with a penis bone out of the gene pool.
FYI, illegal immigrant and muslim are not races. Also, sexual contact between consenting adults is not mysogyny. Just because you don't like what he has to say does not make it racist and mysogynistic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Judaism, Christianity and Islam considered modern sexual relations between husband and wife as a spiritual act and enlighten. Traditional marriage and concubinage change over time along with the consensus view of sexual behavior is acceptable. The teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism on sexuality have different interpretations. Buddhism teaches "curb adultery", which the explanations and definitions vary by individual. However, there are many smaller religious groups with different views on sexual behavior are acceptable and banned several groups monk or nun sex. another study that you might be interested in (https://goo.gl/zuPgcQ)