The virtues of promiscuity

The SF Chronicle ^ | August 20 2002 | Sally Lehrman

[2Trievers]

"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.

[mhking]

You know the difference in stats between black and non-black single motherhood and illegitmacy rates, you've already alluded to it.

You deflect pretty well.

The fact remains that you cannot point to specific numbers to support your position. You try to pass off anecdotal evidence to support your thinly veiled slam against all blacks. I take offense at being painted with a broad brush.

I'll not waste any further energy on your faulty premise.

[bvw]

Yes it is a genetic thing -- some predispoition to general emotional makeup -- including the ability to exercise control over the different aspects of normal human life are just as inherited as ability to roll the tongue or to have hazel eyes. As humans we have an ability to control those, but there is some underlying bias or predisposition.

I mentioned the inablity of native peoples in North America to hold their liquor well, but for example there is also the ability of Mohawks to work in high places for their natural fear of heights is greatly diminished from the rest of us, as I understand that is an inherited trait.

[bvw]

Denial. Give us the comparative stats -- you have them. Talk about deflection!

[rdb3]

Don't waste your time with this knuckle-dragging Stormfront buffoon.

He needs to be dragged to the river along with all the rest of the bigots and racists (black AND white).

NO MERCY!

[rdb3]

Using the so-called "genetic makeup" argument to hide your racist drivel behind.

Get bent, clown.

And, no, I don't want the Mods to delete this. We need this crap out front and in the open.

Humans have choices. That's what makes us different from animals. But to you, black folks aren't any different from animals.

You just don't know... do you?

[Aquamarine]

Most of the people in that tribe probably won't live beyond the ripe old age of 27.
The Bible instructs us on how to live healthy, happy lives if we follow the instructions yet this author would rather we destroy ourselves through a hedonistic lifestyle. The article is reckless and this study was probably paid for with our tax dollars!

[bvw]

Humans do have choices -- among them to deny the obvious when it is politically correct to do so. Each and every one of us is a man, and fully accountable for acting like man. Moreover each of us is different and individual.

Yes we have genes, no those are not the final or even in most cases the overriding determinant in what we are, what we become. Some are prone to heart attack in the genes they were born with, others to cron's disease, others to tay-sacks, others to sickle-cell anemia. Some families are tall, others stocky, yet in each there will be a mix.

The fact that one is predisposed genetically to heart disease does not mean one will have it, but its does mean one should be more cautious and wary in things that raise that risk.

There was the greatest of runners -- Steve Prefontaine -- his body was all wrong for a runner, ye by determination he made himself the best.

We are a mixture of things and pre-exsisting conditions, however the future for each of us is in our own sway, in our abilities to change -- to radically change.

The significantly higher rate of single mothers, of illegitmate children, of hard STD's among urban blacks over non-urban blacks, how do you account for it?

[Sabertooth]

Using the so-called "genetic makeup" argument to hide your racist drivel behind.

I've only scanned the thread, so I'm not going to address any specific post, I'll just give my take on things.

After reading Thomas Sowell's "Race and Culture," I can't honestly say why certain cultural characteristics, for good or evil, seem to manifiest themselves in certain ethnic groups. Are genes involved, or are there genetic predispositions reflected in certain ethnicities? Perhaps, I don't really know, nor do I care.

What I am certain of is that race does not equal moral or cultural destiny. If there are predispositions, they are just that, and nothing more. All of us are endowed by our Creator with Free Will and Inalienable Rights. All of us have the capacity, by God's grace, to transcend our sinful nature and overcome any predisposition.

As to the question of social pathologies in "black communities," again, the question of predispositions is largely irrelevant. We know that these pathologies were in the minority prior to 1960, and have increased tragically since then.

As I see it, there have been three significant changes since that time with regard to the day-to-day life of the average black person.

• The first is the eradication of legal racial discrimination and segregation. This has been a positive development ofr all Americans, and I don't for a monet believe that blacks are less able to manage full freedom and enfranchisement than anyone else.

• The second is the dilution of a traditional moral code of social behavior, as predicted by Daniel Moynihan in "Defining Deviancy Down," in 1965. This breakdown of morality has hit all ethinic groups, but I believe it's hit blacks harder as a result of the third development...

• The third development has been the creation of a welfare state, aimed disproportionately at blacks. The welfare state has generated a legal reinforcement of America's moral decline by, intentionally or unintentionally, attempting to dismiss the consequences of immoral, self-destructive behavior, particularly fatherless families... oftentimes rewarding it. I believe this has led to a plague of lower expectations, especially in underclass black communities. And many people, whatever their color, will live down to the level of expectations placed upon them.

  The welfare state is largely the creation of the Democrats (although there has certainly been Republican complicity), who've wittingly or unwittingly, generated a plantation mentality among a huge percentage of Amercan blacks for the purpose of insuring their loyalty on election day. By brazen demagoguery, these Democrat masters have inculcated trans-generational cycles of dependency and victimhood mentality, with flagrant disregard to the devastation these pathologies have wreaked on black individuals, families, or communities.

It's at the feet and on the heads of the liberal creators of the welfare state, and its consequential social degeneracy, that I place the blame for any disprortionate presence of self-destructive pathologies among American blacks.

[Black Agnes]

The inability of NA's to hold their liquor is genetic. There is a defect with a gene for alcohol dehydrogenase in their population. (I can do specific lookups on this if you wish) As for the Mohawk's and height, that is a learned trait. They don't teach their kids to fear height. Genetic traits can be overcome with some difficulty (if you can't hold alcohol, don't drink), but conditioning works much better! Just don't teach your kids to fear heights! (works better if the whole village does it! (ok, couldn't resist))

[Black Agnes]

I'll address the susceptibility to 'some diseases' by pointing you guys to this post of mine...

Mutations that affect HIV susceptibility

In short, the rates of infection might have little to do with actual rates of behavior but be more related to susceptibilities of infection. For HIV as an example, white people of European descent (especially northern European) might get a statistical genetic 'get out of jail free' card with HIV. Meaning they can practice risky behaviour a few times without getting the actual disease if they have this particular mutation. If 5% of whites have this genetic combination, then they'll be infected at ~-5% the rate of African descent people w/o this gene. Even 2% increase in a population infected annually represents a doubling over ~30 years. We're ~20 years into this epidemic, and there is probably a 5-8% of the white population with this mutation.

There are some genes found in African descent people that actually prevent their getting other diseases. Malaria (altho the homozygous of this prevention gene causes sickle cell), and others. Race doesn't have as much to do with these issues as does genetic distribution. In the past, populations didn't have the ability to mix their genes like they do today.

It might not be unreasonable to assume with behaviour oriented disease acquisition that genetics plays a MUCH more important part in who actually ends up infected than we've been led to believe. This would mean that genetics were not responsible for the behavior itself (behaviours are generally learned) but responsible for the infection rate delta between blacks and whites. SO, instead of white people pointing at statistical infection rates and shouting 'you're all promiscuous, you're going to hell, God is getting you!' and blacks pointing at the same infection rates and shouting 'It's all a Great White Conspiracy to kill the black man' there MIGHT come a time for reasonable discussions of the underlying genetic predispositions for infection. (dare I hope?)

[rdb3]

Humans do have choices -- among them to deny the obvious when it is politically correct to do so. Each and every one of us is a man, and fully accountable for acting like man. Moreover each of us is different and individual.

From the conservative standpoint, that should be the end of the argument. But it's not for the likes of you. You get your jollies off by pointing directly to the bad then claiming that some genetic disposition is accountable for it, thus nullifying your statement that, "[e]ach and every one of us is a man, and fully accountable for acting like a man." If it's an individual(s)' failure, then call it just that.

You can't have it both ways, and I ain't buying your brand.

NO MERCY!

[Black Agnes]

Rats, meant to ping you too. Read my previous post.

[mhking]

This would mean that genetics were not responsible for the behavior itself (behaviours are generally learned) but responsible for the infection rate delta between blacks and whites. SO, instead of white people pointing at statistical infection rates and shouting 'you're all promiscuous, you're going to hell, God is getting you!' and blacks pointing at the same infection rates and shouting 'It's all a Great White Conspiracy to kill the black man' there MIGHT come a time for reasonable discussions of the underlying genetic predispositions for infection. (dare I hope?)

Thank you.

This is as the discussion should be.

[rdb3]

This would mean that genetics were not responsible for the behavior itself (behaviours are generally learned) but responsible for the infection rate delta between blacks and whites. SO, instead of white people pointing at statistical infection rates and shouting 'you're all promiscuous, you're going to hell, God is getting you!' and blacks pointing at the same infection rates and shouting 'It's all a Great White Conspiracy to kill the black man' there MIGHT come a time for reasonable discussions of the underlying genetic predispositions for infection. (dare I hope?)

You've approached this in a rational manner. I share this hope. To wit, the amount of abuse I get as a black man for pointing out and criticizing the behavior of those in the inner-city proves that I, too, share this hope.

Now, if it would only happen in such a rational way.

[bvw]

Interesing posts. When I was in grade school -- fifth grade maybe -- we had an assembly where they had some filmstrip and presentation about the basic human fears. Those being of heights, of the dark and of snakes. There may have been more but that is what I recollect.

In that presentation the claim was made the Mohawks were genetically unafraid of heights .. strange I thought that one tribe in the Five Nations would be and not the others.

Now look to the three things about Mohawks that I mentioned -- susceptibility to smallpox, prone to alchohol abuse, and lacking fear of heights. The first is cultural in a way, probably -- the Mohawks hadn't been exposed and hadn't developed antigens passed along in mother's milk. It's a strong cultural trait, yet almost seems genetic in statisical appearance. Until the Mohawks developed those antigens and passed them along they had to take special precautions to avoid the disease -- moreso than the Eurpeans. That was not a question of fairness, just survival.

The second -- alcoholism -- seems at first glance to be the most behaviour derived rather genetic. Yet it turns out to be a genetic predisposition. Culturally the Mohawks have to -- and still need to -- develop more safeguards against this genetic weakness to fermented spirits. It's not a question of fairness -- just survival. It is racial, yet still that racial characteristic it must be taken account of in the Mohawk culture.

Each Mohawk is an individual, and may live seperate from the old Tribe, but if an individual has that gene found more among Mohawks than others, that person must take extra care -- if his Mohawk heritage is known, or until testing shows it is in him or not. Failing to know, failing to be more strict, to be on the wagon, has far harder consequences.

Even though it is a genetic thing, rather than cultural, the best way to deal with the problem is culturally. While one and another Mohawk may be free of this gene, it is found at greater precentage among them all, so that culutral adaptations can have great ameliorative effect, even though this and that individual doesn't need these culturally improving habits to be safe from the problem.

And last is that postive thing -- training to eliminate fear of heights -- a cultural phemonom. As a training, it is independent of "race" and genetics, yet because it is so much a part of the culture of Mohawks, who in many other ways appear through common genetic characterics as a "race", each individual appears almost to have inherited the trait. Yet did not.

By statistics and by personal observations, I think that the individuals who together form a "black" inner city neighborhood, in addition to sharing those genetic and cultural traits that mark them in current sensibilites, both to themselves and to others as "black", those in such neighborhoods share other mixtures of genetic and cultural influences that make tham more susceptible to the problems in sexual mores what lead to single motherhood and illegitimacy. What the mix between genetic and cultural influences is, who knows -- I'd suspect too that the genetic component is individually very very small, yet in larger groups over time it resonates, reinforces in its effect.

It is not-PC to even suggest that there may be genetic influences rather than cultural ones. Yet in my own life , as much as I might culturally attempt to become a "black" man, it fails me. I am missing some important genetics, important and obvious ones! The obvious ones may be remarked in public -- "It's a black thang, you white boys would never understand it", yet it brings on the most vicious response to suggest that there other less obvious ones, more subtle and in one individual of neglible impact, yet by cultural resonance of very potent impact in the whole group.

[rdb3]

You've given an accurate depiction of what has happened to lower-class American blacks over the past 40+ years. If a foreign nation had done the same thing(s), we'd be right in calling it an act of war.

The Democrat-Media-Leftist Complex wants everyone to believe that Pookey on the corner of Euclid and E.55th is an accurate portrait of all American blacks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is amazing, really, is that we have those on the Right who also take up these portraits and run with them for whatever reason, purposefully choosing not to know the history of the situation.

It's not at all how it seems. We see how this has happened. But that's not the question. The accurate question here is why did this happen? This quesiton leads us the the heart of the matter because it begs the other questions of "Who benefitted from it?" and "Who suffered due to it?"

[Mark17]

That would be Byrd. What a bunch of hypocrites, huh?

I don't think there are any other kinds of democrats but hypocrites.

[Black Agnes]

It isn't that the Mohawk and others are genetically inferior for being more susceptible to smallpox and alcohol effects, merely that the Europeans that were more susceptible got weeded out of the gene pool over the course of a couple of thousand years. There is a *great* book, 'Armies of Pestilence' that makes a lot of really good points. One of which is this: The Native Americans had never been exposed to *many* of the diseases common in everyday European existence. When they were exposed, it was to all of them (measles, smallpox, plague, influenza etc) at once. It wasn't that their mothers milk passed on antigens, that's like getting a dose of antibiotics, once it wears off, your advantage is gone. Antibiotics and such treatments don't change the underlying genetic structure of the immune system. If that hasn't been tested and the inferior immune systems weeded out, there is a die-off when populations are exposed to new microbes. This happened to the Europeans over the course of a couple of thousand years, every 10-15 years for various diseases. Children w/o good immune defenses died and weren't able to pass on these weaknesses. Native American populations and thus respective cultures didn't have a chance to recover fully before the cultures were lost. If you read some of the contemporary medieval literature regarding the evils of distilled liquor you'll see that the experience of medieval europeans wasn't all that terribly different. The susceptible ones got weeded out earlier.

The problem with associating inner city black social problems with underlying genetics is this: In the Caribbean, those behaviours exhibited so frequently w/o social ostracism in the inner city in America would result in shunning or severe social consequences in the Caribbean. Ditto for West Africa. West African immigrants generally hit the ground running in the US. They have an extraordinary work ethic and their social mores are closer to what we'd consider the norm in 'Christian suburbia'. Sadly 'Christian suburban' mores are going the way of the dodo bird for all races. What has happened in the inner city is the result of first, malicious intent by big government (being a slave generally sux & isn't conducive to forming a good work ethic...you're not working for yourself, so why bother?, ditto for sharecropping & jim crow laws), followed by do-gooding combined with the 'soft racism of low expectations'. From a warrior standpoint, the inner city black man's *honor* has been stolen from him with slavery & jim crow, then he has been deprived of the chance to regain it by interfering do-gooding social programs. The government needs to leave the black man *alone* for 30-50 years. Every time they have anything to do with the black man he's worse off for it.

[bvw]

On the antigens in mothers milk, I thought that the baby had some ability to replicate the mother's antigens, and thus gain immunity. As you say distilled spirits brought a ruin to inner cities in Europe -- but I think you make too much of the weeding out process, I suspect the adjustment was social, not the genetic weeding you suggest. If the weeding out that you suggest cleaned out the gene pool that quickly it would be safe to drive in Mohawk country during the winter at night and weekends.

Also, I would never claim that someone or a group of someones is genetically inferior -- and not for PC reasons either -- but because the efect of genes is so complex and so subtle and so balanced that what is inferior in one regard is almost undoubtably superior in another.

And I agree with your remarks about the people from the Islands and West Africa -- I have enjoyed working closely with great people from Jamaica, Cameroon, Nigeria and Liberia, and my mom's next door neighbors are a Nigerian couple of the finest, gentle and caring natures.

From that acquaintance my sense is that in those cultures they a remarkably sensitive to sexuality, and very refined and adept at dealing with it -- is some ways better and deeper than some European cultures.

When you noted the negative impact of "the soft racism of low expectations", I can not agree with you more -- I would amplify that -- it is the most mean and pervasively vile form of hate I have encountred. There is no form worse, imo -- the KKK was dangerous directly, but obvious and brutish -- this soft racism is and has been far more effective and deadly.

[Mr. Mojo]

Women said they'd like maybe up to five partners in a lifetime. Men in various surveys ranged from 18 up to 1,000.

I guess the survey didn't include Wilt Chamberlain.