stop_1 this forum is Great Debates. When you present idea here we expect them to be backe dup with somehing other than your opinions.
So can you please provide some evidence for any of what you have just said? It sounds like warmed over 60s hippy/feminist ideology to me.
Nobody comes before me in hating 60’s hippie/feminist ideology. You have no idea how much I loath it.
Reality is reality no matter how much I might dislike it. One reason why I hate the 60’s hippies take on ‘free love’ is the reality of it. What actually happened is that women were encouraged to be more promiscuous for the benefit of the males who (for various reasons) were already more likely to shag them.
‘Feminism’ meant (means) that women were (and now are even more so) encouraged to have sex with any man that they desire, regardless of consequencies.
I add (free of charge), that ‘feminism’ encourages females to be like the worst type of males - that is, evil-power-mad-lust-filled creatures.
So all that means you have absolutely no evidence or reasoningto suuport what you are syaing then, does it? Its all baseless opinion?
In that case you have the wrong forum. MPSIMS is next door. You can present baseless, erroneous speculation there to your heart’s content. In this forum I am going to loudly prcocil that it’s…
BULLSHIT!
Of course it is opinion. It is my opinion that (say) Australia exists. There is no way that I can prove to you that my opinions become reality in your mind in this internet forum.
You deny reality all you want sunshine - beleive women can be true to your goodself. If that makes you happy, who am I to deny your happiness? Hey, I’m happy for you. You can look forward to a life of true contentment in the knowing that any women you have will be faithfull to you.
Dude the problem isn’t that it’s your opinion, the problem is that you didn’t read the forum description. The forum for your baseless opinions is next door, it’s called IMHO. In this forum your opinion has to be supported by something.
I point this out to you as a favour, not an insult. You will enjoy your time here much better if you understand what belongs where.
This issue was covered a bit in the book the naked ape
Yes. It was TNA that introduced such highly dubious ideas as the link between testicle size and promiscuity, the idea that human breasts looked like anyhting remotely like buttocks before the invention of the brassiere and the concpet that lipstick is designed to make the lips look like labia.
Morris has had some good ideas in his time, but he’s presented a lot of wildly speculative crap as science as well.
Does “manogamous” and “pair bonding” mean the same thing? I always took manogomy to mean pairing with one person forever, and noone else. In that case its possible to be pair bonding(marraige) and not be manogamous (extramarital affairs, serial manogomy, married swingers).
Monogamy aren’t strictly the same thing, but for most purposes they are. If a couple are pair bonded then neither is technically copulating with anyone else. If both are having wild sex with multiple partners then they aren’t a bonded pair in any reproductive sense, they are simply co-habiting. Monogamy or pair bonding can also be serial or seasonal. And of course monogamy doesn’t rule out the possibility of cheating, it simply means that it is covert or cionducted within certain guidelines.