Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

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.

Explain to me how I was using biological at that time.

[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.