BRex21 said:
Let me ask you something, i want you to look at your significant other and i want you to tell me WHY she is attractive(I'm assuming your a heterosexual male, if I'm wrong i apologies and ask that you will change the gender pronouns). Did you consciously decide she is an attractive woman, or deep down did you just feel it. Sex is so much a internal drive, something ingrained in our genetics and we just DON'T think about the why's of it.
Sorry, you're wrong. Im perfectly capable of self-reflection and deducing exactly why I find certain women attractive and others less so.
I've never argued that it has to be a conscious decision though, but im perfectly capable of accurately calculate why I like a certain woman. And in my history of dating it has NEVER simply been a matter of such primitive instincts and feelings that you claim we are all ruled by. Mainly because im attracted to and sexually aroused by more abstract concepts and personality traits than what you'd call "traditional" signs of attractiveness.
And the very reason im like that has to do with my development as a human. You knowm, my past experiences, my memories, my views and opinions. All these factors have influenced my sexual preferences (as they do in everyone).
So you're very much in the wrong here. We do think about "the why's" of our feelings, and the thoughts we have CAN influence the feelings themselves.
They do in my case, and my DNA is just as human as yours.
BRex21 said:
This shows a serious flaw in your understanding of human evolution. We are very much animals, who frequently let our basic nature, yet the sheer concept that the brain TRUMPS biology simply can't exist in line with human evolution.
Our body is the way it is for a reason, because our distant ancestors survived and reproduced most successfully using these parts, these parts that are obviously geared to give us, the individual, the best ability to compete in an environment where men and women are polygamous. Human nature and the self aware mind may play a part in how we behave, but by being self aware, I can't simply change the fact that biologically our bodies are perfect for polygamy yet counterproductive for monogamy.
But our distant ancestors also survived using these more advanced parts of our brain that gave rise to monogamous relationships and an actual preference for such relationships.
You can't just take one factor into consideration and leave the other one out.
And I certainly don't do that because I acknowledge BOTH factors and the fact that they could very likely give rise to people with different predispositions towards certain sexualities and forms of relationships.
For instance, how do you explain homosexuality or sexual fetisches that can in no way or form make that person able to compete in an enviroment where men and women are monogamous? Homosexuals can't reproduce, yet they exist, and there's evidence to suggest that homosexuality has been around even since ancient times.
Also sexual fetisches and inclinations that cannot lead to any form of reproduction (like people who only get off by having sex with inanimate objects, getting urinated on and such) have also existed for a very long time.
Are you going to take such a simplistic and fact-ignoring route as to write all of these instances off as "abnormalities"?
I mean really, if a human being can be so inclined as to only want to have sex with corpses (a necrophiliac that is), is it REALLY such an alien concept to grasp that SOME INDIVIDUALS might just be more predisposed towards monogamy than polygamy even on a biological level?
Oh and before you start with the "penises are designed to trap and remove other mens sperm"-hypothesis, do note that the evolution of organs in different species do not occur all at the same time. Meaning that just because we have penises that might have fulfilled a purpose that was beneficient in polygamous relations (and that hypothesis is still a real stretch) it does NOT mean that our brains are fundamentally predisposed towards monogamy as a species.
And if you're going to dispute that as well, consider the appendix. A vestigial structure that biologists claim has lost it's function yet all humans are still born with one. It can even be removed without causing any tangible negative harm to our digestive system.
This is a perfect example of how organs in one species evolve differently over time. Making it perfectly plausible that while genitals with a certain form might be useful in some ways in one competetive enviroment, it doesn't mean that our individual brains have to be competitive in that same enviroment.
