Discussion in 'World Events' started by common_sense_seeker, Jul 7, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Behind every great man, there is a great woman.
as i said to you in that thread i belive, your theory is a load of crap. why exactly do you think the devil has horns?
because its a pervesion of pan the greek MALE fertility god. the female godess of sexuality is oviously athana and the worship of these two WAS SEX. not to mention eygyption noble women were definitly bsre chested. then there is all the resunce pitures of naked females.
the sexual supression of women AND men traces back to one man, constine who wanted ALL power, not just secular power, for himself.
while people could call on the gods by having sex they had no need for him and HIS church (roman catholisium). the popes continued this and other religions like islam picked it up. however it serves no purpose to anyone and its certainly not how our species is MENT to live. its most likly we were small groups with 1 or 2 men to a small group of women which is again bourn out in the bible, the koran AND in common sense. msle children are inherently weaker, even today less male children survive when compared to females and thats even without wars.
basically all your argument proves is that religion today is still stuck in constines eara with "the guy on top) still trying to keep power at the expense of both humans generally and women paticually
BTW where did you think the term "horny" came from?
The Polynesian islanders are maybe the best of the counterexamples to that garbage, as their huge territorial expansion was recent as well as being based on very sophisticated cultural innovations.
Unwin seems to have things exactly backwards, as did a good many of the "scholar and anthropoligist" crowd in the early 1900s. But he wouldn't have been the first resident intellectual of a dominating and expansionist military empire to put effort into finding suitable justifying virtues - or inventing them.
Which is why the largest brains and greatest intelligences among the great apes are found among the more monogamous gibbons and gorillas, the smallest among the famously promiscuous chimpanzee varieties - bonobos, chimps, and hominids.
And why porpoises, with their promiscuous sexuality, are such pea-brains compared with elephant seals.
And why the promiscuous and polyandrous mating females of the social wasps and bees have undermined their respective species, caused them to be the shameful degradations of the insect world we see before us.
Unless (yet again) an entire field of evolutionary biology is being misinterpreted by yet another military-oriented religious fanatic looking for support for the authority of their sacred beliefs - and the social power concomitant.
Symbolic hoods of types commonly worn by rightwing fundamentalist whackos have a special history in the US.
And a special significance on TV - I wonder at the motives of someone who would make a big deal out of that. I wouldn't wear my biker jacket to promote the interests of any politician I favored.
You did not address any of my arguments, and your explanation is incoherent and largely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
Polynesian islanders have also been moving toward monogamous practices and away from polygamy (especially polyandry) for decades, and practice monogamy universally nowadays. This may explain their territorial expansion (which wouldn't be too significant, in any event) and their "very sophisticated cultural innovations".
Unwin reported his findings honestly, which is easy to observe. Even as a Freudian liberal, he constructed a theory on human sexuality and culture which was inherently sexist and contrary to the works of the intellectuals he descended from. This section of the discussion isn't a biological debate; it is instead the unearthing of human history, and the noting of cultural growth during extended periods of female sexual repression and monogamy, and cultural decline during extended periods of female sexual promiscuity.
Your comparisons of gorillas with chimpanzees, porpoises with elephant seals, is dishonest and misleading. My examples of cichlids and bats examined very closely related species. The less related two species are to one another, the more ambiguous comparisons become. Female promiscuity leads to lower intelligence and larger genitals with faster, larger sperm amongst many species, yes. However, a human born into a culture whose females are (and have been for an extended period of time) promiscuous will still be more intelligent than a gorilla whose species is monogamous by nature. This is because the intelligence gap between humans and gorillas is far too great for female promiscuity to significantly alter. If you wished to see the effects of female promiscuity in gorillas, you would not compare gorillas as a whole to chimpanzees; you would instead compare mountain gorillas and eastern lowland gorillas, for example, and take your results as seriously as the relation between the gorillas - the greater the relation, the greater the study's importance. Even better would be the studying of a single species of gorilla in different geographical areas, and noting if the behaviours of one area of gorillas differed from another, and observing how these differences in behaviour affected the species. Your comparisons are not merely of different species, but of different tribes (and sometimes different families and orders as well). The weaker the relation, the more ambiguous and unimportant the comparison.
Finally, when you compare human races, or even observe the changes a single race of humans undergo, during extended periods of female sexual repression and monogamy or extended periods of female sexual promiscuity, you can note differences and changes in intelligence and see its reflections upon human culture. These comparisons are legitimate because they examine very closely related human races and at times, only a single race.
If the connection between promiscuity and brain size (and therefore intelligence) seems plausible to you, this is probably not the forum for you.
Female promiscuity leads to larger genitals and faster, larger sperm in many different species. The reason why males in such species develop larger genitals and faster, larger sperm is to compete with other males in impregnating the promiscuous females. If the species in question were monogamous, larger genitals and faster, larger sperm would not be of such importance because the females would only be receptive to the sperm of one man, and one man only.
The intelligence aspect comes into play when we consider the issue of resources. As the brain and genitals of any species are very resource dependent, there is an inverse correlation between the size of one and the other; that is, individuals with larger brains and higher intelligence tend to have smaller genitals, and individuals with smaller brains and lower intelligence tend to have larger genitals. The reason for this is because the resources required to develop larger genitals and faster, larger sperm amongst species whose females are promiscuous takes away from the resources of the brain.
Bollocks. (To coin a phrase).
People said the exact same thing about women wearing mini skirts! If you saw a woman walking by in a string biki would you start raping her? Well? Let me guess, as soon as she removed the small string running through her crack you'd say "She had it coming" punch her in the face and start raping?
Men who do not rape are not going to rape someone regardless. Those that do rape will find a way to do so.
If I were wealthy, I'd LOVE to pay hot chicks to walk around these public areas in England with a veil and a string bikini Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No - they made their great territorial gains (they colonized the Pacific Ocean archipelagoes, a much larger area than, say, the continent of Africa) and unprecedented ocean navigation discoveries with the culture as discovered by the early European explorers, and soon legendary throughout the Western world.
Another example of that would be the Vikings and heirs the Scots- whose independent and headstrong women have inspired many a ballad, and whose territorial conquests, trading establishments, and innovative sea-faring technology were accompanied by sexual arrangements much less restrictive than those of their stagnant, medieval raid targets.
Another example might be the Inuit and pre-Inuit peoples of the Arctic, whose deeply sophisticated technological innovations and consequent expansion over huge territories was accompanied by sexual norms of a kind carefully omitted from popular accounts in the European family media.
Nothing of the kind is observed in the historical record honestly described.
Except when it's the other way around, as in primates, seagoing mammals, and possibly in other groups that socially bond via sex.
Really? How closely related are those bats - one of the oldest and most diversified of mammalian lineages? And how much relevance would Darwinian evolution have for human cultural evolution? - which is not Darwinian, as you no doubt are aware, despite this:
There is no relevant biological debate, as far as I can see.
I certainly can't see anything like that. Where are you getting that nonsense about comparing races, for example? From Unwin? That would be typical of his era of "anthropology", much of which is being quietly shelved these days - with quiet apology, where it cannot be simply ignored.
The early Polynesian expansion from Taiwan to Micronesia and later Melanesia occurred during an era when such areas were largely or completely unsettled. Aside from ocean navigation, there has been very few innovations within Polynesian cultures which can be considered unprecedented or revolutionary. There was very little development across Polynesian islands after expansions ended and permanent settlements became established.
Also, your characterization of Polynesia as being "a culture" ignores the diversity of the Polynesian islands, and how the culture of one Polynesian island cannot be directly applied to another, even if they are geographically close and similar. Note, for example, the significant differences in sophistication and culture between the largest divisions amongst Polynesians - East and West - and how the sexually stricter West is more advanced in a variety of social and economic factors than its sexually lax counterpart, East Polynesia.
You're confusing women's rights with the social acceptance of female sexual promiscuity in a given culture. Viking women certainly had rights to property, limited divorce, and inheritance, but they were not sexually promiscuous, and their sexual freedoms were nowhere near the freedoms Viking men enjoyed. Viking women were forced into marriage by their fathers in their early teens, and were expected to efficiently run households. Socially, it was understood that Viking women would be chaste until marriage, whereas the same standard was not applied nearly as strictly to men. Polygyny also existed in Viking societies, most times amongst upper-class men, and especially amongst kings and earls. Adulterous behaviours amongst women were taken very seriously, as the husband retained the right - which he oftentimes used - to kill his wife and the man whom she had had a secretive affair with.
The Scottish people adopted Christianity from Saint Ninian in the fourth and fifth centuries, and by the seventh century Christianity became universal in the region. Your reference to the post-Viking era Scots suits my point well, as they established extremely rigid social and sexual mores against fornication, promiscuity, illegitimacy, and adultery (similar to Viking societies, although admittedly more rigid). The rigid sexual mores the Scots established, which derived from Christianity, might explain their gradual ability as a people to inspire many a ballad, claim various territorial conquests, establish widely used trading establishments, and so on.
The early Inuits of the Arctic, who traveled eastward from western Alaska, experienced territorial expansion, but not as one might expect. The Inuits gained a significant portion of their territory through warring with the Dorset Tuniits, who were extremely primitive and had very little to no technologies to speak of. Although the Inuits were not strictly monogamous, monogamy was the social norm, exceptions being examples of polygyny rather than polyandry. Inuit women were pressured socially to marry, sometimes even forced by their community, when they were able to efficiently run a household. The conquest of the Inuits over the Dorset folk was not surprising, as the Dorset Tuniits had even looser sexual norms for women, which supports my argument.
The other portion of the Inuit expansion was due mainly to uninhabited land. When the Inuits reached southern cultures of Native Americans, their expansion ceased as their technologies for expansion were only viable in the harsh winter climates they had adapted to for centuries.
The study said it examined three-hundred thirty-four species of bats which were closely related. The study also made mention of studying single species of promiscuous bats and noting the differences in brain/testis size between the promiscuous offspring and the less common monogamous offspring in the same promiscuous species of bats. As I said before, the weaker the relation, the more ambiguous comparisons between different species become.
Have you ever read any of Unwin's works? Unwin was a Freudian liberal, and he was also a proponent of Franz Boas' extrapolation of anthropology, which was largely non-racial and postulated environmental theories to explain differences in human behaviour and intelligence. Unwin believed the races and sexes were equal, which is why he constructed a very unsexist theory of mental and social energy to explain the phenomenon of female promiscuity's effect upon human culture. Unwin's era of anthropology was almost exclusively Boasian, as racialist theories stopped being socially acceptable in the late nineteen-twenties, ending with the likes of Madison Grant and other racialist anthropologists.
The intellectual battles between traditional, racialist anthropologists and Franz Boas' new line of non-racialist, environmental anthropologists is very interesting. I may spend a post outlining its details and consequences if you're interested.
i am interested
The sexually "promiscuous" Polynesian cultures expanded and innovated to a much greater degree than other cultures with more restrictive norms. It's a counterexample to your thesis.
That's not a confusion - it's a correlation, and a much solider one than Unwin's ill-informed guesswork. The Viking women - and the Scots after them - were more promiscuous than the women of the stagnant cultures they raided and conquered. Their active, innovative, expanding cultures are a counterexample to Unwin's thesis.
The Dorsett first, and the Inuit afterwards, expanded and innovated and created new human livelihoods in harsh environments with cultures in which women were - by comparison with the stagnant cultures nearby, that did not innovate and expand into these bleak environs - more promiscuous. They are a counterexample to Unwin's thesis as you present it.
And we could go on - comparing the nearby Islamic stagnation with the promiscuity of Renaissance Italy, the innovative and expansive and sexually freer Scotch-Irish American colonists with the less active and less innovative Puritan puritans (and frontier folk in general), the innovative and quickly-adapting (horses, etc) Cheyenne and Blackfoot and Pawnee and Crow with the stagnant Hopi and slower-adapting Sioux with their more restrictive mores, and so forth.
I don't wish to make the converse argument. Clearly there are a couple of ways in which rigid restriction of female sexuality could lead to active expansion and innovation, especially military with its opportunities for conquest and rape, and the notion of sublimated sexual energy emerging in innovation and other activity is possible (however contrary to observation of the successful and innovative in my own culture), I just don't think Unwin has a handle on these things, and I don't trust his evaluations at all.
If you really think racist anthropology faded out in the 1920s, you will not accept my pigeonholing of Unwin - but anyone comparing "races" according to their "female promiscuity" (something I don't believe could be measured in the 1920s, btw) has effectively pigeonholed their conclusions in my filing system.
Gorillas and chimps and gibbons and hominids are closely related, in that sense. And bats don't socially bond via sex, nor do they have the weight and size flexibility of a great ape (or a swimming mammal). Their biological constraints are quite different.
Doesn't matter - all of the biological comparisons are more solid than whatever extrapolation you think you can make to human cultures - which aren't even Darwinian.
If Polynesian cultures expanded and innovated to a "much greater degree than other cultures with more restrictive norms", it is because the individuals of those cultures were significantly less intelligent than their Polynesian counterparts. Due to the intelligence gap between the members of the two cultures, female promiscuity alone was not able to significantly alter it. Unwin did not make this mistake; he instead observed the changes a single culture underwent according to the promiscuity of its females. For example: if Ashkenazi Jews, who have the highest IQs in the world, became very promiscuous for an extended period of time, they would still be more intelligent than, say, a typical sub-Saharan African or Amazon rain forest tribe. This is because the initial disparity in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and sub-Saharan African tribes or Amazon rain forest tribes is far too great for female promiscuity to overturn. Therefore, Ashkenazi Jews would still retain more sophisticated cultures and produce more cultural innovations, just as the Polynesians may have done.
Take note of the division between Polynesians - East and West - and how the more sexually strict and less promiscuous West produces a much more sophisticated culture in terms of social and economic order than their sexually lax Eastern counterparts. This comparison is legitimate because it examines one people who have two different sexual norms, and how the culture of the more sexually repressive group is more advanced than the culture of the more sexually promiscuous group, even though both groups are composed of, genetically, the same people.
Viking women were only slightly more promiscuous than the women of the "stagnant cultures they raided and conquered"; Scottish women, especially after the eighth century, were sexually repressive and followed Christian mores and sexual values, during which times they "inspired many a ballad, claimed various territorial conquests, and established widely used trading routes". The reason why the Vikings had success against more monogamous cultures is because their intelligence was high enough to cover the deficiencies caused by slightly higher levels of female promiscuity. Their higher intelligence allowed them to produce more sophisticated tools for war, and strategize better than their enemies.
Your examples are not counterexamples to Unwin's thesis. In fact, your examples instead prove you have no idea what the actual thesis behind Sex and Culture is, and that you have never read the work itself. Unwin observed the changes a single culture underwent - he did not compare different cultures and theorize that more sexually promiscuous cultures were less innovative, and more sexually repressive cultures were more innovative. He instead noted an unchanging trend: cultures stagnate and weaken or progress and grow according to how promiscuous their females are. One promiscuous culture may still be more intelligent and innovative than a sexually repressive and monogamous culture, because the individuals who compose the first culture have an intelligence level great enough to sustain their superiority over the other culture despite practices which lower their intelligence.
The Dorset Tuniits had practically no cultural innovations to speak of, and their expansion occurred on mostly uninhabited, unsettled land. They were never able to expand south because they were not advanced enough to compete with southern Native American cultures. The Inuit are similar, but they were more intelligent and technologically sophisticated than the Tuniits, partly because they were more sexually repressive and monogamous than the Tuniits.
Your example does not counter Unwin's thesis. Unwin observed individual cultures and noted how they weaken, stagnate, or grow depending on extended periods of either female promiscuity or female sexual repression and monogamy. He does not compare various cultures and theorize one culture is more sophisticated and innovative than another because its practices are monogamous and sexually repressive. This would be as illogical as your comparisons between significantly different species of animals.
Unwin did not compare races according to their female promiscuity; he observed the changes individual cultures underwent during extended periods of female sexual promiscuity and female sexual repression and monogamy, and noted all cultures - both primitive and civilized - expanded when their females became sexually repressive, and declined when their females became sexually promiscuous.
Your logical error is assuming Unwin compared different cultures and their sexual practices, and subtly theorized promiscuous cultures could not be as innovative or feature as high of intelligence as sexually repressive and monogamous cultures. This is untrue. Unwin's theory is that a culture can be relatively innovative and intelligent despite promiscuity amongst its females; however, if the culture in question were to become more monogamous and sexually repressive, it would become even more innovative and intelligent. It is all relative to the individuals who compose the culture in question, which is why his work is titled Sex and Culture.
Also, racial anthropology became fringe toward the end of the nineteen-twenties, as it became more and more socially unacceptable during and after Franz Boas' extrapolation of non-racial, environmentally-derived anthropology began to politically expand and finally take root and dominate in the American Anthropological Association.
Splendid. I will surely detail the events soon, presuming such a discussion is alive and well.
That's not the purpose. What you call repression, is considered modesty and chastity to those who practice it, and atleast in the Muslim World, it applies to both genders equally. The basic reasons are the prevention of the rise of ill-begotten children whom are not aware of their parents, the protection of especially women from kidnapping and general misuse by men, and most importantly, for establishing a suitable and complete family structure to be the root of an organized and efficient society. Another major theme is pride and honor, and the importance of tracing lineage as a means of both protection and recognition of one's self. So the actual control promiscuity through the institution of marriage is mainly to benefit the offspring and instill in them honor and pride.
The relationship to pagan and polytheistic societies in the Middle East and South Asia, results not as a basis for the institution of marriage and control of gene flow in a society from designated parents to their children, but rather these cults were a negation of the original system present which encouraged modesty.
You discussed a very interesting point, that polytheistic religions in the Middle East influenced the Christian image of the devil. This may be true for Roman Christianity, but the image of pan had little to no influence on Judaic and Islamic image for the devil. As a matter of fact, if you have ever studied the pagan idol Baal, this correlated more or less with the Middle Eastern image of devils. So, the question is whether Baal was an independent development by some pagan priests, or was the image of Baal based on something else. In the montheistic religions, serpents, black dogs, salamanders, and dragons feature prominently as symbols of devils disguised as animals. Needless to say, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Canaanite, and even Aztec, Mayan, and Indian idols were often figured in these images. There is also the popular image of the horned, winged, reptilian type creature or known as a gargoyle in Western mythology. Nevertheless, these things are curious and should be investigated thoroughly. If anyone wants to create a thread regarding this, I's be willing to discuss these points in more detail.
I'm willing to make a contribution if you set up a charitable foundation. Once it is up and running I might even make a small deposit.
Whoever voted yes needs psychiatric treatment.
I don't care if a woman wears nothing but a thin cord to hide her genitalia. It does not, repeat, does not, justify terrorism. Who suffers, is violated, or goes without basic needs because a women shows her skin? No one.
What a goddamn pile of crap.
woe is us
vi, with her wild and wanton ways, will surely end civilization as we know it
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
very freaky. is that a new cult?
Ha! It's soooooo obvious ....those two are terrorists! The one on the left is getting ready to set off the bomb that was planted ....they're both excited at getting to watch innocent people getting blown to bits.
Oh, and by the way, isn't it perfectly obvious that those two are actually men terrorists disquised as women?
Separate names with a comma.