[quote]Unbannable wrote...
Am I? Monogamy is non existent in bonobo society, and their rate of sexual frequency is off the charts....much much higher than the average human.[/quote]
You are assuming that monogamy has always been the state of human beings. This is incorrect. Monogamy is a very modern social creation, much like the idea of marriage "for love." Many cultures of the past, even those that the monogamous west is based off of, actually functioned under polygamy. The rate of sexual frequency for the bonobos is off the charts because they have no regulating factor like we do: the creation of the family and the need to stabilize sex to avoid overpopulation is the primary reason why our sexual EXPRESSION differs, but that says nothing of our sexual DRIVE.
[quote]I never said that humans don't use sex as a tool.. In truth, humans use sex as a tool in a more variable fashion than bonobos do..[/quote]So we're in agreement, once again.
[quote]I guess it's intensity that matters here. Even Ancient Rome at her most decadent cannot compare to the bonobos.. The only sexual taboo for the bonobos seems to be incest, for obvious reasons.[/quote]
Read above on social attitudes and control of sexual intercourse/reproduction.
[quote]Point being that humans and bonobos are not as similar as you seem to believe.[/quote]I don't see your proof otherwise. Your argument is intensity. I'm explaining to you the difference between intensity of sexual expression and sexual need. You have to comprehend these first before we can move this debate forward.
[quote]That was just an example. You can't expect me to conceive of every potential circumstance now can you? [/quote]No I can't, and that was EXACTLY my point. Your theory does not function because it is missing an immense amount of data. I was not expecting you to list every single potential circumstance, precisely because I knew you couldn't. I hope you see where I was going with this.
[quote]Links, please.[/quote]
Replied already.
[quote]Yes I am familiar with your Middle East example. All I can say to that is, that due to the sexual segregation between men and women in many of those countries (Afghanistan is even worse apparently), many men have looked to other men to fulfill their sexual needs as casual, or even genuinely romantic sexual relationships (not marriage) between men and women are largely prohibited..
The extent of this phenomenon is unknown. I'm sure not every man participates in this effect, but I'm also certain that many men do.[/quote]
Precisely the flaw in your in theory. You are assuming many things, yet admit that the extent of this phenomenon is unknown. Therefore, you have to logically conclude that the surveys, polls, and even scientific reasearch is off in comparison to the real world numbers that we have yet to understand (because these scientific studies only look for sexual identity).
[quote]The question is, can this example be used to give us insight into human sexuality, when we know that it is the direct result of unnatural sexual segregation for both cultural and religious reasons, the likes of which do not exist in most other nations?[/quote]
You mean in most WESTERN nations. The segregation between the sexes is overwhelming for the majority of the world. The further you go into poverty, the lower the education of women and the higher the amount of segregation of the sexes. Hard as it is to swallow, the majority of the world's population actually makes up this sector of poverty. Of our 7 billion inhabitants, about 5 billion live below relative and absolute poverty lines. You have to keep that in mind.
[quote]Kinsey's studies were debunked, specifically because he used prisons, prostitutes and other sources which offered a less than truthful perspective on sexuality in greater America.[/quote]
Not sure what your point is. I'm aware of the bias of Kinsey's studies. Read my posts again and you will see that I have not once quoted him, and I never will. His work was not peer reviewed and his sampling was poor. The difference between my argument and yours, and I mean no offense by this so please don't take it the wrong way, is that I am going of off proper research data while you are using the "other side" equivalent of Kinsey's work.
[quote]With that said, I'm wondering if you can use the Middle East (with all it's quirks and ironies) as an example with which to correlate the rest of humanity.[/quote]
Considering humanity is made up of cultures that intertwine and affect each other, yes, you most certainly can. I would argue that America is probably a less relative example to correlate to the rest of humanity as the majority of human beings, as pointed above, do not live in countries like America with so much political freedom, opportunity, financial stability, etc.
[quote]OK let me ask you something. If humans are not innately heterosexual in terms of their physiological makeup, then why are there no outward differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals; particularly in regard to sexual organs (both inner and outer)?[/quote]
You are missing the point. There is no "innate" sexuality simply because of sexual organs. There is a potential for procreation from both, but it doesn't dictate sexuality in the slightest. Your question is actually the same I can ask you: If human beings are innately heterosexual because of having male and female sexual organs, then why are there homosexuals who have the same organs? If sexuality was innately correlated or dependent on sexual organs then homosexuals would not have the same organs as heterosexuals. This is presuming that there is such thing as absolutely sexuality in the first place, which I don't, but you do, so I'll keep it at this point for the sake of getting the debate moving forward.
Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 10:10 .
Retour en haut
*cries* seriosuly Jack is so like me my favourite damn
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
