# Diogenes, what the hell!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991 "2009-12-04T15:58:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/281 "2009-12-07T17:54:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Their “functionality” is whatever they get used for. Biology doesn’t care. Biology doesn’t think, or know, or plan or have a goal. You’re an idiot. > [@](#): > > I don’t get this at all. The prophylactics don’t get you off, or cause emotional intimacy or any of the other things that go along with sex. They often aren’t even necessary in same-sex or infertile couplings. Are infertile couples “subverting” the purpose of sex when they fuck? What are you, Jimmy Swaggert? Cite for biology having a purpose? Your penis doesn’t cause emotional intimacy either, or necessarily get you off. And getting one off is irrelevant to monogamous coupling. If getting off is the ‘purpose’ that you choose to use your penis for then any format will do. What outliers do and do not do have no bearing on the subject. > [@](#): > > I DON’T care. I DON"T care. I DON’T care. I never said I did. Yea you obviously don’t care because the functionality of your mouth has been subverted for excretion and your ass is doing all the talking. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/282 "2009-12-07T17:55:15Z")
That function is still only incidental, and cannot be “subverted,” since subversion implies intention, and biology has no intention, only incidental results. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/283 "2009-12-07T17:57:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your penis doesn’t cause emotional intimacy either, or necessarily get you off. Mine does. Maybe yours is broken. > [@](#): > > And getting one off is irrelevant to monogamous coupling. Coupling is pretty much pointless without getting off. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/284 "2009-12-07T17:58:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That function is still only incidental, and cannot be “subverted,” since subversion implies intention, and biology has no intention, only incidental results. No, it’s not incidental. The way YOU use it is incidental. Biology DOES have function and purpose. To propagate the species and maintain survival are PURPOSES, as such the biological tools of our bodies serve that PURPOSE. You should probably go bang your head against the Post-Modernism section at your local philosophy bookstore. It’d do you more good than reading them. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/285 "2009-12-07T18:01:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Mine does. Maybe yours is broken. I can engender intimacy with a look, with my hands, by mopping the kitchen floor. > [@](#): > > Coupling is pretty much pointless without getting off. I see ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/286 "2009-12-07T18:13:31Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > On the last, I definitely agree. It doesn’t matter whether you’re gay or straight, monogamous or in a 32-person line marriage, making out in a party that is not intended for that purpose, especially in another person’s home, is inappropriate. But every relationship has to begin somewhere…even your relationship with your wife was only a month old at one point. Barring the inappropriate PDAs, I’d hope that I’d take their word for it as to their sincerity in adding this person to their relationship, unless they’ve proven themselves inveterate flakes before. > > Agree with revolving door…my relationship with **supervenusfreak** isn’t exclusive, but we wouldn’t bring a short-term (or even recurring) playmate to a party where the host didn’t know him in the first place. > > One last question: what constitutes inappropriate PDA? A peck on the cheek? Holding hands? Touching each other in passing (hand on a shoulder or on a waist)? Do they have to be Victorian proper? Or does “inappropriate” begin when things advance beyond that peck-on-the-cheek stage? I made the analogy in the other thread to a friend bringing over a brand new girl, and saying she’s the love of his life. Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t, but I’m going to be skeptical if it’s new, and I’m not going to take the relationship as seriously as with other, more established, long-term relationships that I know of. This would even be more true if the new relationship was unorthodox in a way that did not suggest great potential for long-term success. For instance, if friend my age (43) brought over a 19 year old girlfriend that he’d been dating for three weeks, I’d have a hard time taking it seriously as a relationship, no matter how much he gushed about how in love they were. It’s not impossible that they could end up establishing some kind of genuine Woody/Sun Yi thing over a long period of time, but my initial reaction is going to be highly skeptical, and if this was a guy who already had a wife and kids (even if separated or divorced), I would very much default to an evaluation that he was being immature. As I also said in the other thread, I would probably still end up relenting and inviting everybody in in either case, I would just ask them to behave appropriately in front of my kids, and not necessarily expect me to take them very seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/287 "2009-12-07T18:15:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, it’s not incidental. The way YOU use it is incidental. Biology DOES have function and purpose. To propagate the species and maintain survival are PURPOSES, as such the biological tools of our bodies serve that PURPOSE. No, those are just incidental results. Your assertions are religious, not scientific. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/288 "2009-12-07T18:16:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, those are just incidental results. Your assertions are religious, not scientific. No they are scientific. If you walked up to a Doctor and said that the penis has no biological function and that it’s totally subjective, he’d laugh at you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/289 "2009-12-07T18:21:09Z")
> [@kimera](#): > > **John Mace** ’s cite was from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy), but he left off the very next line: According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.[2] At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. > > The pure number approach doesn’t also explain WHY said marriages occur. If you look at the societies and economics, then the patterns become clearer. The number of societies doesn’t reflect the number of individuals themselves. > > More information can be found [here](http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Polygamy) which shows where polygamy has occurred and also notes > > I’m not saying that people that practice polyamorous marriages are linked to these types of marriages. I only wish to counter the notion that monogamy hasn’t been the ‘norm’. This doesn’t mean that what is outside the majority is a-normal or non-healthy. Homosexuality is rare compared to heterosexuality, yet it’s perfectly normal. Here’s the thing, though. Polygamy is often correlated with wealth. And as most males aspire to wealth, I think you’ll find that most would also aspire to a polygamous family if they lived in a culture where it was accepted. Mathematically, it’s just not possible for most men to practice polygamy in any given society. So it’s not so much a question of what is the “norm”, but what is the aspirational norm. Most people aren’t rich, but most people aspire to be. I find the idea that we are “naturally monogamous” to be unsupportable by any objective analysis. We, in the Western world, have culturally imposed monogamy on ourselves, and that might be a good thing as far as overall society is concerned, but it isn’t something that derives from our nature as members of the species _H. sapiens_. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/290 "2009-12-07T18:22:28Z")
I forgot to define what I what I would consider an inappropriate PDA. I guess there isn’t a strict definition. It’s a “know it when you see it” thing. It would bother me if it was obviously over the top (full on necking), appeared to be attention seeking (especially if it’s a guy clearly trying to show off with two women, which I’ve seen friends do before), or if it’s confusing to my kids who might only know a couple as a couple or, more significantly, I think, if they know them as somebody’s mom and dad. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/291 "2009-12-07T18:23:51Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No they are scientific. If you walked up to a Doctor and said that the penis has no biological function and that it’s totally subjective, he’d laugh at you. It would depend on how religious the doctor was. What is your scientific evidence that biology can think and have a “purpose?” Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/292 "2009-12-07T18:27:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Here’s the thing, though. Polygamy is often correlated with wealth. And as most males aspire to wealth, I think you’ll find that most would also aspire to a polygamous family if they lived in a culture where it was accepted. Mathematically, it’s just not possible for most men to practice polygamy in any given society. > > So it’s not so much a question of what is the “norm”, but what is the aspirational norm. Most people aren’t rich, but most people aspire to be. I find the idea that we are “naturally monogamous” to be unsupportable by any objective analysis. We, in the Western world, have culturally imposed monogamy on ourselves, and that might be a good thing as far as overall society is concerned, but it isn’t something that derives from our nature as members of the species _H. sapiens_. It wasn’t imposed on me, and I’ve never had any desire to be anything else. I would choose monogamy with my wife over any sized harem. The word “natural” doesn’t mean anything, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/293 "2009-12-07T18:29:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It would depend on how religious the doctor was. No, it would merely depend on whether or not he was a Doctor. > [@](#): > > What is your scientific evidence that biology can think and have a “purpose?” Cite? Why should I pretend that your straw man is worthy of a cite? I never said biology ‘thinks’. Nor is ‘thinking’ an essential part of purpose. A dam’s purpose is to hold back water, just as the urethra’s purpose in the penis is to deliver semen and expel urine. Neither of these has anything to do with thinking. Your straw man is retarded. He doesn’t think very well. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/294 "2009-12-07T18:36:43Z")
If you’re going to say that anything has a “purpose,” or a primary “function,” then you are implying intent. “Subversion” implies intent. With no intent, there is no purpose, and no possibility for “subversion.” Rivers dig valleys. That doesn’t mean that the “purpose,” or “function” of a river is to dig valleys, and that using the river in other ways is “subverting its purpose.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/295 "2009-12-07T18:38:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It wasn’t imposed on me, and I’ve never had any desire to be anything else. I would choose monogamy with my wife over any sized harem. There is no reason to believe that your personal experience is shared by most other people or that you would have the same response if you had lived your entire life in a culture where polygamy was the accepted aspirational norm. > [@](#): > > The word “natural” doesn’t mean anything, by the way. I’m fine with that, but you’re going to have accept that there is nothing “immature” about wanting to be in a poly relationship. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/296 "2009-12-07T18:39:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you’re going to say that anything has a “purpose,” or a primary “function,” then you are implying intent. “Subversion” implies intent. With no intent, there is no purpose, and no possibility for “subversion.” Intent on the part of the user yes. I can kill a man with a hammer, but that doesn’t mean that the hammer lacks a primary purpose which is not killing a man. If we were speaking about something else, and I asked you what the ‘purpose’ of a hammer is, you would answer without hesitation and you wouldn’t resort to these puerile semiotics. > [@](#): > > Rivers dig valleys. That doesn’t mean that the “purpose,” or “function” of a river is to dig valleys, and that using the river in other ways is “subverting its purpose.” Stupid example. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/297 "2009-12-07T18:44:08Z")
Without getting into the rest of this nonsense… > [@mswas](#): > > **kimera**** Sexual reproduction is the purpose for coupling **. It is the reason why we couple. We cannot procreate without at least a temporary coupling. There’s really no other way to look at it. Sure, we have sex for all sorts of reasons, but the raising of children is the** primary purpose** of monogamous coupling. You just said two different things here - there is a difference between “purpose”, baldly stated, and “primary purpose” :). **kimera** is correct, in primates in particular sex can also form an important social cohesion function. This too, is biological in nature. The best illustration of this outside of humans can be found among our nearest cousins, the [bonobo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior). Nature, to anthropomorphize for a second, makes use of what it has. In this case it has taken sexual procreation and modified it to enhance society-building. This is certainly every bit as much a result of evolutionary pressure as any other facet of our biology. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/298 "2009-12-07T18:56:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There is no reason to believe that your personal experience is shared by most other people or that you would have the same response if you had lived your entire life in a culture where polygamy was the accepted aspirational norm. I never said it was, I was refuting your statement that didn’t think monogamy was “natural.” Is my monogamy unnatural then? > [@](#): > > I’m fine with that, but you’re going to have accept that there is nothing “immature” about wanting to be in a poly relationship. Is it ever immature to want to fuck anybody? What about my analogy to the 40-year-old buddy with the 19-year-old girlfriend? Could that possibly ever be an indication of immaturity, or should they always, and immediately be regarded uncritically and unskeptically as soulmates? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/299 "2009-12-07T19:00:36Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Intent on the part of the user yes. I can kill a man with a hammer, but that doesn’t mean that the hammer lacks a primary purpose which is not killing a man. A hammer is a product of designed intent. Biology is not. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991/300 "2009-12-07T19:07:49Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Without getting into the rest of this nonsense… > > You just said two different things here - there is a difference between “purpose”, baldly stated, and “primary purpose” :). > > **kimera** is correct, in primates in particular sex can also form an important social cohesion function. This too, is biological in nature. The best illustration of this outside of humans can be found among our nearest cousins, the [bonobo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior). Nature, to anthropomorphize for a second, makes use of what it has. In this case it has taken sexual procreation and modified it to enhance society-building. This is certainly every bit as much a result of evolutionary pressure as any other facet of our biology. Sexual procreation is of course the primary building block of a ‘society’. There can be no society without prior breeding. So yes, it is **primary** in every sense of the word. If the species didn’t first fuck to procreate, then there wouldn’t be more members of that species. Picking nits and eating them can also enhance society-building. And Bonobos are a great example of natural polyamory. There is no reason to believe that absent enforcement mechanisms such as social ostracism or the pain of inflicted violence and externally enforced mores, that it is not perfectly within the capacity of some humans to live in a Bonobo-like environment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diogenes-what-the-hell/519991.md?page=16)