Beatsong wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Men suffer also from menapause

It is called andropause.

http://www.project-aware.org/Resource/articlearchives/andropause.shtml

I suffered very badly in my late fifties. It was no fun.

Fuckin hell. I'm not a million miles off that age and that's complete news to me.

The balance between the testosterone and estrogen is very important. While some estrogen protects against osteoporosis by increasing bone density and may decrease the risk for prostate cancer, men’s testosterone level should be greater than their estrogen level. In many men over fifty, the estrogen level is greater than the testosterone level, which is unacceptable.

Why? The article doesn't seem to describe just what happens if a man's estrogen exceeds his testosterone.

Sweats, headaches and shivers to start of with.
Bad tempers and a hellish feeling which is quite indescribable.

I had it all big way. My colleagues would not believe me and it was only when I showed them on the internet did they finally accept it.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Beatsong wrote:The article doesn't seem to describe just what happens if a man's estrogen exceeds his testosterone.

Sweats, headaches and shivers to start of with.
Bad tempers and a hellish feeling which is quite indescribable.

COOL!

I can repay Mrs Beatsong for all the years of PMT.

Hee hee! And lose interest in sex??? Just asking.

Agrippina wrote:Hee hee! And lose interest in sex??? Just asking.

Never lost interest in sex but being who I am that is another story. (I love only women and I really hate men)

Where would paedophilia and incest fit in in this putative paradise of sexual ´anything goes´?

I´m with Huxley. The fact that many societies still have too many sexual hang-ups and needless, counterproductive taboos doesn´t imply that the ideal society would be one with no boundaries at all.

There are evolutionary arguments as to why a natural, general inclination towards monogamy may be a survival advantage in a species like ours in which there is a very extended period over which the young are unable to survive without parental support. Like many evolutionary arguments, they are speculative, but they are certainly plausible, and consistent with the fact that monogamy is observed as a prevalent practice in some non-human species. While it is ridiculous to criticise those who are not monogamous, it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that those (still the majority, so far as I can tell from popular culture) that aspire to monogamy are suffering from some form of sexual neurosis.

Personally, I don't think that monogamy is a "sexual neurosis" but I can see where some people might think so.

As for paedophilia and and incest, I think that if informed consent isn't given, then it's wrong. I don't think children can give consent for sex until they are old enough to make decisions about other aspects of their lives, or until they actually understand the consequences and side-effects of early reproduction, or are mature physically to reproduce without potentially dangerous side-effects. But that's my personal opinion, not science.

Why reproduction?

Agrippina wrote:Personally, I don't think that monogamy is a "sexual neurosis" but I can see where some people might think so.

About 75% of the cultures in the Human Relations Area Files practice non-monogamy, so that doesn't support any idea that monogamy is particularly natural.

I don't think monogamy is a sexual neurosis. It works for many people, but not all, and probably only a minority. There are two things about monogamy that are, if not neuroses (which is an outdated term anyway), at least a bit nuts.

One is an expectation that everybody be monogamous, to be enforced by laws and shaming. This is like expecting everybody to be heterosexual or Christian.

Another is what is called "serial monogamy," which would more accurately be called "serial non-monogamy." Very few people only have sex with one person for more than a few years. Some people's "monogamous" relationships only last a few weeks. Monogamy works when two people are happy being monogamous until one of them dies. People who practice "serial monogamy" want to think of themselves as monogamous when they really aren't.

As for paedophilia and and incest, I think that if informed consent isn't given, then it's wrong. I don't think children can give consent for sex until they are old enough to make decisions about other aspects of their lives, or until they actually understand the consequences and side-effects of early reproduction, or are mature physically to reproduce without potentially dangerous side-effects. But that's my personal opinion, not science.

Almost all people seem happy with the decision that sex is only appropriate for consenting adults.

As for incest, I once read a story of a female gorilla raised by humans who, whenever she went into oestrus, avoided the male members of the family like the plague. This suggests the possibility that there is an innate tendency to avoid it, which is only broken in cases of particularly odd individuals or royal marriages. It may also be related to what some people have called "familiarity incest," which may be a force working against monogamy.

I've often wondered about "incest" in animals. Surely if, for instance a troop of monkeys, they keep the breeding pool as only the one male breeding with all the females in the group only, there has to eventually be some sort of problem like you get when humans breed only within their own family?

Agrippina wrote:I've often wondered about "incest" in animals. Surely if, for instance a troop of monkeys, they keep the breeding pool as only the one male breeding with all the females in the group only, there has to eventually be some sort of problem like you get when humans breed only within their own family?

Well, the other male monkeys have to go off and do something else, if they want to get laid. That probably results in some gene-mixing. It's not as limited as the royal families of Europe that eventually resulted in some rather impaired people.

Lots of species seem to have evolved techniques by which they prevent inbreeding due to it being unsustainable and disadvantageous. The animal I'm most familiar with is the orca and, being an animal whose primary sense is sound, they use sound to find suitable sexual partners. While it's probably not intentional, they choose mates whose vocalisations are unique to their population but the most different from their own matriline. The only breed within their clan (population, which shares one language broken into many dialects). They never breed within their matriline (which has a specialised dialect) though and only in times of desperation when population numbers are low do they breed within their pod (family with which they share a general dialect).

epepke wrote:
I don't think monogamy is a sexual neurosis. It works for many people, but not all, and probably only a minority. There are two things about monogamy that are, if not neuroses (which is an outdated term anyway), at least a bit nuts.

One is an expectation that everybody be monogamous, to be enforced by laws and shaming. This is like expecting everybody to be heterosexual or Christian.

Another is what is called "serial monogamy," which would more accurately be called "serial non-monogamy." Very few people only have sex with one person for more than a few years. Some people's "monogamous" relationships only last a few weeks. Monogamy works when two people are happy being monogamous until one of them dies. People who practice "serial monogamy" want to think of themselves as monogamous when they really aren't.

Neither polygamy nor monogamy have to be life-long so serial monogamy is a perfectly accurate term unless monogamy isn’t occurring within the sequential relationships. They’re terms to describe relationships, not entire lives.

Regardless, neither behaviour is uniquely associated with monogamy. Monogamy is just really prevalent in western cultures and the people who behave this way tend to be monogamous. If most people had several spouses the assholes within their group would attempt to oppress those whose behaviour differed from their own and people would lie to themselves about their relationship status in order to escape guilt too.

Unpleasant human characteristics aren’t exclusive to monogamous people or inherent to monogamy. There are lousy people in every group. There's nothing inherently tolerant or open-minded about relationships deemed alternative either.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:\Neither polygamy nor monogamy have to be life-long so serial monogamy is a perfectly accurate term unless monogamy isn’t occurring within the sequential relationships. They’re terms to describe relationships, not entire lives.

Well, a lot of people say a lot of stuff. For about 950 years out of 1000, monogamy has meant "til' death do us part." You seem to have decided that what's happened in the past 50 years is definitive and correct. I think it's revisionist. People want to fuck around but still call themselves monogamous.

Regardless, neither behaviour is uniquely associated with monogamy. Monogamy is just really prevalent in western cultures and the people who behave this way tend to be monogamous. If most people had several spouses the assholes within their group would attempt to oppress those whose behaviour differed from their own and people would lie to themselves about their relationship status in order to escape guilt too.

I agree with you on this, except for one thing. People who do serial monogamy highly value breakups, and in most cases, they consider even an unpleasant and destructive breakup highly moral.

Unpleasant human characteristics aren’t exclusive to monogamous people or inherent to monogamy. There are lousy people in every group. There's nothing inherently tolerant or open-minded about relationships deemed alternative either.

I agree with this too, except that there are certain unpleasant characteristics that are required for "moral" serial monogamy. You can see them on the Jerry Springer show.

epepke wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I've often wondered about "incest" in animals. Surely if, for instance a troop of monkeys, they keep the breeding pool as only the one male breeding with all the females in the group only, there has to eventually be some sort of problem like you get when humans breed only within their own family?

Well, the other male monkeys have to go off and do something else, if they want to get laid. That probably results in some gene-mixing. It's not as limited as the royal families of Europe that eventually resulted in some rather impaired people.

I've been watching our troop for a few years now. It seems to me that the young males stay with the troop for the first few and by their second summer, when they're only a year old, they make way for the new babies and eventually become the ones who come into the garden first and who sit on the fringes of the play area while the females and babies socialise. I've seen them mating in the trees, and it always seems to be the alpha male, but I have seen others mating, not as often as the alpha male though. From my reading about them, the young males are allowed to mate with 'low-ranking' females, the alpha male mates with the high ranking females, which includes his daughters. The other males tend to form new groups when they're around five years old and sexually mature, and they can try to steal females from the troop, but then they would be the lower-ranking ones on the fringes. (Interesting, these are the only primates other than humans, that swim). So it seems there is some in-breeding among them.

epepke wrote:For about 950 years out of 1000, monogamy has meant "til' death do us part."

source?