I think it probably points to a lot more than that.

What was your point, again?

What was yours?

Oh yeah, you're the Gender Morality Police and you think that women are born with a monogamy gene.

Bleh.

Nope. I don't think women are born with a monogamy gene. I think women may have a stronger biologically motivated interest in monogamy than men do. And I think this is social reinforced.

I don't think I limit my policing to just gender morality. You get to enjoy it on a variety of topics.

The only thing that motivates biology is genetics. (genetics are driven by dna) If there is no "monogamy gene" then there is no biological basis for monogamy. I think there is a lazy gene, though, and someone might be too lazy to get another lover.

A "stronger biologically motivated interest" is different than your original stance of "nature of monogamy." I still don't agree, but it is different.

As I said before, there is no conclusive evidence regarding nurture but social scientists do not dismiss it altogether. It's simply the case that we have never studied the nature of humans and most animals before the social learning process began.

The problem comes with positing a nature argument for female monogamy and not for male monogamy. This is all very tautological and is working backwards to try to biologically explain gender norms.

You sure about the bold part?

The "nature of monogamy" came in the discussion of the study. My first reference to it was women feeling a biological push toward monogamy. I think you can see what the original claim was.

I know this is might be heresy to you, but I think there are biological reasons for the social norms, rather than social norms looking for justification in biology. ETA: or maybe you meant they were in a perpetual loop of truth, but that seems to work against your sworn commitment to break them down.

ETA: I don't mean this in terms of the female subject of the original post, so much, except that she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys.

UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.

The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.

You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:

1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.

I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.

This thread is kinky and titillating.

Women were also exorcised, placed in counseling, given inappropriate medical procedures, incarcerated, and placed in mental institutions for defying gender norms.

A woman who liked to have sex (God forbid a woman sought an orgasm rather than a baby) or who was considered "loose" was considered a sign of spiritual turmoil or social problems.

That still occurs to an extent in this society (i.e. girls who are truant or run away from home are more likely to alarm parents and get arrested than boys); and I have no doubt that there are segments of this society where archaic social controls are still in place. They certainly exist in some other societies.

Are you tickling your nipples?

And then some!

KSig said concomitant and tacit. That was pretty HOT.

I'm midway between UGAAlum and DrPhil on this. I do think that, descriptively, the women who choose to engage in bathroom gangbangs in 2009 are very likely on a course of self-destruction, often due to past sexual abuse. There are a few Annie Sprinkles out there who truly find it joyous and empowering to have sex with strangers in public. I'd bet a lot of money that this accuser is a self-hater, not an Annie Sprinkle. However, I don't think this self-destruction vitiates consent. A self-destructive adult is still an adult and capable of understand the consequences of saying yes or no. She's just making bad choices.

That being said, I don't think consent is the end of the moral analysis the way it's the end of the legal analysis. I think it's morally wrong to assist others with their self-destruction, no matter how much they may want you to. What these men did was akin to giving Twinkies to a guy with severe diabetes because it's fun to watch him pass out. It's legal, and they have the diabetic guy's enthusiastic consent to do it, but it's cruel and immoral to take advantage of someone else's vulnerability for your own benefit.

On a slightly different note, I think filing a false report is an extremely serious crime, and I hope she is prosecuted.
________
LIVE SEX

Perfect.

ETA: I didn't ever claim that she legally couldn't consent for whatever that's worth. Maybe I do go too far using the idea of "impairment" rather than just limiting to horribly self-destructive behavior that no one should help her with.