Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think you are wrong about the nature of monogamy, especially as it has allowed females to provide for their offspring. The study I was thinking of contrasted the different evolutionary benefits to males and females of monogamy vs. having multiple reproductive partners if you look at the evolutionary "goal" of getting your genetic material into the next generation. Females benefited from one long term partner providing material support to allowing offspring to reach reproductive age. Males benefited from getting the sperm out there to as many different females as they could.

How in the world could you imagine that there is no legitimate scientific knowledge in the area of mating habits and their benefits?

None of this translates to women being biologically inclined toward monogamy.

Everyone has read or heard about that ONE study. It has been used to support everything from patriarchy to male promiscuity to why women should stay in the home to why women should be paid less. The only thing it REALLY supports is that women are able to be impregnated and men are not.

And here's the spoon ("where's the spoon? aha!"): Women don't have to be monogamous to get pregnant and pregnant women don't have to be monogamous. Dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmmmn!!!!

[UGAalum94]

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

What was your point, again?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

You sure about the bold part?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You sure about the bold part?

in the sense that we are using the term "biological" in this context, yes quite sure.

Biology means study of life, so everything from genetics to taking a poop could be "biological" but there is nothing that will be passed down biologically if it isn't genetic. Genes carry the information for biological things to happen. Unless you subscibe to the "jesus made everyone the way they are" theory.

[DrPhil]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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 all together. 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.

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.