G-spotter Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 All natural on deep nut kissing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Another good article on the Bonobos... Â http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Who gives a fuck how the bonobos act. Do they study us to decide how they should act? Â Humans do what they do. If we do it, then it's natural for us to do it. How can anything we do be "unnatural?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Kinda reminds me of the whole Margaret Mead "Coming of Age in Samoa" thing. Â Find a primitive culture that ostensibly serves as a model/proxy for whatever Utopia that you'd like to construct and your particular notion of the good society gets instant cred.... Â I do think that we can learn useful things about our origins and nature from studying primates, but you've got to be careful with the prescriptive descriptive thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 kinda of reminds me of this one time at band camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman. Â "Conducive to life"? What the heck does that mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 knew you couldn't stay away when 'ape sex' comes up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 (edited) probitions against polygamy are thoroughly retarded, provided they are formed between consenting adults - interesting that conservatives will "look the other way" on this "attack on marriage" though but still squeal like pigs if fags marry, eh? Â Good point. Â No, it's not a good point. Â If you define marriage as "between a man and a woman" both gay marriage and polygamy are equally wrong. Â Personally I'd like to see the state *out* of religious marriage, and religion *out* of civil unions. A church should not need a "marriage license" to wed a couple (or whatever) and the state should only define the legal contract bound between individuals (or groups thereof). Â The state has an interest in enforcing laws regarding statutory rape, property rights, etc, so YES, a church wedding should always involve a state sanctioned marriage license. It's religious and cult groups that commit the most heinous abuses of underage women in this country. Â Marriage is a contractual relationship, like it or not. That's the required part. The religious part is optional. The state has an interest in regulating such contracts. Edited April 18, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman.  "Conducive to life"? What the heck does that mean?   Main Entry: con·du·cive  Function: adjective  : tending to promote or assist   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 i think the difference is that in a polygamist situation there is still the natural way to reproduce. it's still man/woman (or man/woman/woman/woman/etc etc) which is more conducive to life than man/man or woman/woman. Â "Conducive to life"? What the heck does that mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 It means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 So, if we passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman on Mars, would Mars then support life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 more than a man and a man on mars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Â Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 So by 'conducive to life' you really mean 'conducive to procreation'. Â Why should moralists or the state care about whether a couple (or triple, or quadruple) procreates or not? Â At 6.5 billion humans and growing, shouldn't states and moralists be interested in finding ways to help people procreate a little less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I used to have a girlfriend. Yes, it was a long time ago. She accused me of using sex to releive stress. I guess I looked a little shocked so she quickly added, "Don't look so shocked! You know you do it." To which I replied, "The only reason I am shocked is because you think there is something wrong with it." She thought for a minute and then started smiling. The story has a happy ending. At least Bonobo was happy. Venus seemed OK too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 So by 'conducive to life' you really mean 'conducive to procreation'. Â Why should moralists or the state care about whether a couple (or triple, or quadruple) procreates or not? Â At 6.5 billion humans and growing, shouldn't states and moralists be interested in finding ways to help people procreate a little less? Every other child born should get a mandatory hysterectomy or irreversable vasectomy. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 if you're against overpopulation - don't overpopulate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 It means  excuse me, but have i been rickrolled?   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 if you're against overpopulation - don't overpopulate Most forms of birth control are still based on percentages. 100 times a month has a two or three percent return. Besides that they are not as much fun, not as spontaneous, and in very poor regions, they are prohibitively expessive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 It means  Scalia Raises Eyebrows on Talk Circuit With Sex Orgy Jokes He raised some eyebrows with a speech last week at Harvard University, however, with a comment about the number of people needed for group sex and the jest that "sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."  He made a similar remark in a speech Sept. 20 in Washington, to chuckles from the crowd at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, while making the point that judges can have personal moral judgments. It is not judges' role to impose them on citizens, he said.  "Let me make it clear that the problem I am addressing is not the social evil of the judicial dispositions I have described. I accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies eliminate social tension and ought to be encouraged," Scalia said with a smile. -snip According to The Harvard Crimson newspaper, Scalia ridiculed a European court decision that struck down British legislation barring group gay sex on the ground that the law intruded upon private life. He asked rhetorically and very much tongue-in-cheek how many people it takes for such sex.  "Presumably it is some number between five and the number of people required to fill the Coliseum," Scalia said, according to the newspaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 I'm not sure that the case can be made against consenting adults who want to practice polygamy. What about an unmarried man who fathers children with multiple women? His acts remain "legal" because he hasn't married any of his defacto harem? Â On a separate note, I would like to congratulate the State of Texas in regard to their handling of this delicate issue. If I recall, Bill Clinton and Janet Reno had a different way of protecting children... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Speaking of  "Six babies on the way - with six women  A music producer told a US court he has six children on the way - all with different women.  Ricky Lackey was asked by a judge how many children he had during sentencing on an attempted theft charge.  Lackey, 25, of Cincinnati, told Hamilton County Judge Melba Marsh: "None, but I have six on the way."  "Are you marrying a woman with six children?" asked the confused judge.   "No, I be concubining," he replied, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.  Prosecutors said Lackey is the expectant father of six children with six different women. The women all are expected to deliver in August, September and October.  Lackey's lawyer, Stephen Wenke, stopped his client from saying more."  It's official. Current status quo - play it safe and stick to concubinin....   Not sure this one passed the Snopes test, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Playuh hatuhs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 Speaking of "Six babies on the way - with six women  A music producer told a US court he has six children on the way - all with different women.  Ricky Lackey was asked by a judge how many children he had during sentencing on an attempted theft charge.  Lackey, 25, of Cincinnati, told Hamilton County Judge Melba Marsh: "None, but I have six on the way."  "Are you marrying a woman with six children?" asked the confused judge.   "No, I be concubining," he replied, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.  Prosecutors said Lackey is the expectant father of six children with six different women. The women all are expected to deliver in August, September and October.  Lackey's lawyer, Stephen Wenke, stopped his client from saying more."  It's official. Current status quo - play it safe and stick to concubinin....   Not sure this one passed the Snopes test, but...  oh man, black people. can you believe them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.