I read the book this guy wrote. It is awesome: Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.
Reading the book you find your jaw sort of dropping and thinking, “Wow! That make so much sense and explains so much.”
I was reminded of this after Say Uncle pointed out Rick Santorum says he will fight the dangers of contraception—some people will want to have sex without any intention of had a child result from it. As a commenter pointed out, “I thought Ron Paul is supposed to be the kook…”
Here’s hoping Congress is a strong R because we’re getting 4 more years of Jugears, like it or not. Actually, worst case scenario, Romney gets voted in and we could have 8 more years of Obama, only 1/2 less black.
I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever for this jackwagon should I have to, but I won’t campaign for him, won’t tell others to vote for him, and will have all the enthusiasm of someone going in for a root canal.
Leave it to the Stupid party to have an election year where a syphilitic rat could beat the incumbent and the best they can do is this freak show.
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3748
A post that pretty well breaks down why the author is an idiot.
@ravenshrike, If she had actually read the book she would have found nearly everything she ranted about well supported by data. The only thing not well supported (and I was annoyed about as well) was that monogamy was a product of the creation of an agriculture society.
As much as I respect LabRat for her to claim the author is an idiot without having read the book is a little too arrogant for me to even bother responding to.
The best explanation of monogamy I’ve heard of yet is that it is simply more productive to society. Men will work harder if there is a chance to procreate and leave a legacy. If a small percentage of the men have multiple wives, and the rest have no realistic chance of “winning” or “earning” the right to their own wife, they are much less productive, and so the society stagnates or collapses. If there is a “competitive marketplace” for spouses, and every male has a chance to work hard and make themselves attractive to a wife because the ratio is about 1:1, then men on the whole will tend to be very much more productive to win and keep a desirable wife. So, monogamous and competitive societies tend to beat and overrun polygamous and command-driven societies. This may change with the advent of the net and free porn and good gaming consoles to sate the young single males, but we don’t know yet for sure.
So, do I have this correct?:
What you are saying is that if there was an actual or proposed government program that purchased guns for everyone as and when they had a need for them, but then a politician said “guns were bad, and the government should not be in the business of buying them for individuals”, he would be violating your rights.
Until recently I thought Santorum was an authoritarian social conservative. Now that profiles and actual interviews with him are starting to appear in mass-market news and culture magazines, I’ve learned that he is much less authoritarian than I thought.
This doesn’t mean I’d ever vote for him, but I am seeing a lot of commentary that falls into the trap of assuming that a politician with reactionary views, who is very insistent in trying to convince you that those views are correct, will necessarily try to force you to abide by his views through law.
@Rolf, Neither the author nor I am saying that monogamy doesn’t have big evolutional (social and/or biological) benefits. He just says the evidence for a more “free love” as opposed to any sort of “marriage” construct in our evolutionary history is very strong.
Read the book. About two thirds of the people who have read it on my recommendation tell me it they really liked it and even said it was “life changing”.
@DOuglas2, All I was trying to say about Santorum is that there is a lot of evidence that his view of sex as only “intended” for procreation is wrong. I intentionally left out whether his beliefs have any political ramifications.
Thanks