The virtues of promiscuity (anti-family pc run amuck alert)

San Francisco Chronical ^ | August 18, 2002 | Sally Lehrman

[Greeklawyer]

"Slutty" behavior is good for the species. That's the conclusion of a new wave of research on the evolutionary drives behind sexuality and parenting.

Women everywhere have been selflessly engaging in trysts outside of matrimony for a good long time and for excellent reasons. Anthropologists say female promiscuity binds communities closer together and improves the gene pool.

[Greeklawyer]

This is more junk science to allow women who sleep around to justify their poor behavior. Sounds like the feminist have reaped the consequences of destroying the family and are now trying to "sell" their members on the idea that the negatives are really positives. (remember the failed "inner bitch" movement) These poor women really need to learn the maxim "lay with dogs get up with fleas."

[BuddhaBoy]

Why is it "junk science" just because you might happen to disagree with it?

If anything is true, it is that people sleep around. It is as common as sunshine in summer.

No set of morals or religion has yet to have much influence on male and female hormones. Long after every form of Religion is long gone from the Earth, there will still be sex, and lots of it.

[Restorer]

More than 20 tribal societies accept the principle

Out of how many thousands of human societies? Most "primitive" societies carry their regulation of sexuality to the other extreme, from our perspective.

[weikel]

Dunno Ive always found the slutty ones more pleasant personally( not the stupid crackwhore sluts they are a diffrent category).

[another cricket]

More than 20 tribal societies accept the principle that a child could, and ideally ought to, have more than one father,

And how many think that having the neighbors over for dinner is a good idea too?

How many think that when twins are born that the second should be kill because they have no soul?

People are weird.

a.cricket

[Commander8]

Smutty behavior good for the species, tell that to the Canaanites, Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians, Incans and Mayans.

[John Locke]

You can find many examples of bizarre behavior in "tribal" societies. That's one of the main reasons they are still tribal. After all, if they had invented monogamy, capital accumulation and filial inheritance, they wouldn't be tribal societies - they'd be civilizations.

[GATOR NAVY]

Well said.

[D-fendr]

Gee — according to these philosophical giants — if we're advanced enough our society may have risen to the moral level of Amazonian Brazil.

And that's a big step up from monogamously trading food for sex.

Perhaps, if we keep advancing, we'll one day achieve the value level of crustaceans.

[DentsRun]

It's not just women in some Amazon tribe that fool around. A story from Britain a couple of years ago said that DNA analysis suggested that 14% of all children were fathered by someone other than the mother's husband.

[supercat]

Even among species which do not mate for life, females often tend to be somewhat choosy about mates. A female which becomes pregnant by an inferior male will forfeit a chance to become pregnant by a superior one.

Besides, only liberals would use the fact that primitive tribes engage in a behavior as an argument that the behavior is a good thing. They seem unable to grasp that such behaviors might be part of what has kept the tribe primitive.

Alternatively, it could be that liberals do grasp that, but that they wish to return everyone but themselves to such a condition. Given liberals' behavior in the fields of art, education, and technology, this latter view may be the more accurate one.

[balrog666]

It's not just women in some Amazon tribe that fool around. A story from Britain a couple of years ago said that DNA analysis suggested that 14% of all children were fathered by someone other than the mother's husband.

Simple blood type checks have shown that the statistics are about the same everywhere. But fathers rarely check.

[DentsRun]

Simple blood type checks have shown that the statistics are about the same everywhere. But fathers rarely check.

You're right about that. I just saw that Jennifer Aniston movie "Good Girl" in which she plays a wife who feels so trapped in a dead end life she ends up having an affair (which ends in pregnancy). Her naive (and sterile) husband is terribly hurt but still forgives her. He only wants to know one thing, "Is the baby mine?" It can't possibly be, since he's sterile. But she blandly informs him, "yes, it is," a reassurance he accepts with great relief. Why, when a woman has multiple partners, it is always assumed that of course she knows who the father is?

[Greeklawyer]

"Why is it "junk science" just because you might happen to disagree with it? "

Not because I disagree, because it is poor science. I deal with "hired gun" scientists who care only about their witness fee. Junk science has no regard for the scientific method and is motivated by external factors.

Since this study was produced with a political agenda. This study appears shortly after a reputable study which advises the feminist movement has betrayed women with a desire to foster a family late in life. The use of annecdotal "examples" to justify the moral (or lack of) behavior of slut women is laughable. The only women who find comfort in such a study are those who do not want to see themselves as a unpaid prostitutes.

[j271]

It's such an amazing coincidence that notoriously leftist anthropologists visit these primtive tribes and "discover" behaviors that seem to support modern Marxist (PC) orthodoxy.

Hmmmmmm...

[Redshift]

"The only women who find comfort in such a study are those who do not want to see themselves as a unpaid prostitutes."

This statements seems to reveal quite a bit of hostility toward women who enjoy sexual pleasure in a way different than you might approve of. Are you insecure?