(Jan 28, 2017 12:26 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 27, 2017 05:07 PM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: [ -> ]1. Monogamy (or stable, long term relationships) is an evolutionary advantageous practise only under some circumstances. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually exist other than as a social concept. Speaking of it in this context is useless and distracting, and is a social argument rather than a scientific one.
Do species that mate for life only do so as a social concept? 
There are precious few species that do mate for life, Syne, as RU has already pointed out. Even among those, closer observation often reveals that they're not quite as monogamous as once thought. They cheat.
As I
said, though, monogamy can be an evolutionary advantageous practice under some circumstances. To clarify that a little further, one only need look at history and anthropology.
Obviously, having a partner (particularly in the case of women) makes the burden of children considerably lighter. I think "love" is a similar thing, and that's why it tends to wear off. It doesn't
need to last very long, only long enough for the job to be done which is, in a nutshell, to make pair-bonding a little less onerous in the short term.
Another thing to bear in mind is that most of the animal kingdom don't really have lifespans equal to ours. Of the species listed in RU's linked article, some only live for 20 years at the outside, and most considerably less. Humans had a lifespan of only a few decades not long ago. Taking a partner, particularly in the lower classes, tended to be a very different prospect as little as a couple of centuries ago, when it was more likely a person would die of some horrid disease after a few years than of "old age". One just mostly held out hope the kids came before that happened (and that also explains why they had them much earlier, in general, than they do now).
I mean, there's a
reason women were considered old maids if they weren't married and pregnant by 18 years of age, and a reason why it was considered fine for men (particularly wealthier ones) to marry later, and marry younger partners. That's at least twofold, by the way. Older men can still father children, and they had a bit more time in which to amass enough wealth to cater for a family. Marrying "age-appropriately" is also a relatively modern thing - and a human thing.
Taken in context, mating "for life" didn't quite have the same meaning it does now. There is a significant difference between pair bonding for life being equivalent to ten or twenty years or so, and pair bonding for life meaning being with the same person for 60+ years. This is, at least partially, the reason marriages are becoming less and less "for life" in the modern western world. Few can handle it, and if they do then it's generally due to other factors (economic as well as social). Statistically speaking, marriages last longer among the wealthy than they do among the less wealthy, in a kind of bell-curve graph of average marriage lengths. That's the economic angle, and again a social construct rather than a natural one.
In addition, women are far less likely now to actually marry the fathers of their children than they were. Why? Because they no longer need to. Social constructs ensure the children are taken care of regardless. People are leaving marriage until later in life, and in increasing numbers not marrying at all.
In the modern western world, monogamy is becoming less and less necessary, even ostensible monogamy. We still kowtow to it, at least to some extent, mostly because social mores, once in place, do take quite some time to change - particularly when they aren't actively harmful. That monolithic entity we know as the Church still exerts plenty of influence even while no longer being really as necessary or beneficial as it once was.
Which brings me back around to the point that homosexuality really isn't detrimental to the species, and that's at least partially why it continues to survive (and thrive, given societies ability to ensure the continuation of pretty much any aberration we care to name). Back in the bad old days, humanity needed to procreate quickly in order to survive at all, and homosexuality prevented that to some extent - at least on the surface. So it became evil. Now it doesn't, so it's not anymore. Simple, really.
If you really want to know more about the change in social constructs as a result of changing population and economic factors, just take a look at modern Japan. As an appetiser, read about Soshoku-Kei Dansi, or "Herbivore Men". Those Japanese really
nail social categorisation.
And then we could start going into what constitutes attractiveness and why it varies according to sex, why women are generally more attracted to more "feminine" physical features in men now they they were not long ago, why what is considered attractive in women changes over the years, and... fuck I'm sick of typing, I've glossed over several things as it is.
Suffice to say, Orlando Bloom should probably be grateful he was born in this day and age rather than an earlier one.
Oh, and by the way - that little emoticon people use so casually now? As you did?
You ever wonder why an expression of exasperation with stupidity coincides with rolling the eyes toward the heavens?
(Jan 27, 2017 06:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Oooo! I like it. Not bad, Ben. Not bad at all. That’s one way that nurture/culture could have had a positive effect on their reproductive fitness. Just think about what Tiassa was saying in regards to the all the married men, the so-called heterosexual males (It’s not gay if…). That would be friggin' hilarious if homophobic attitudes contributed to their reproductive success (skeletons in the closet).
I’m a little confused, though, because Syne has been listing properties, possible causes, and implications. We could continue to go back and forth in this process, but he said that his opinion was a meta-ethical stance. I thought that meta-ethics wasn’t concerned with properties, or whether or not something was right or wrong, but more about how we determine whether something is right or wrong. So, it seems to me that we might want to ask how normality and deviations from normality affect our concept of right and wrong.
With regard to the bolded - I know, right?
Later, for the rest.