Quote:
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.
Hybrid Mode
