Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content Count

    7,851
  • Runs

    119,650 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    101d 1h 13m 56s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Modern sexual behaviour has jack $hit to do with species' historic behaviour. We are again, a memetic species. The only one of its kind that we know of. Learn the definition please before you wade in to argue about scientific stuff. If the debate is on modern sexual behaviour, then focus on what is different about modern human sexuality. Not make false claims about our history to try and understand the present. Industrial revolution is not pregnancy control pills or paternity tests. Industrial revolution is about creation of excess of labor via machinery. I don't care what YOU in your ignorance think, but if you are going to debate, learn the definitions that everyone knows. Pregnancy pills has nothing to do with being in the industrial age. Furthermore, the west is increasingly in a POST industrial age, the age of information : except for a few western nations like Germany and Japan, the west is moving away from the fundamental root identification of industrial age: INDUSTRIALIZATION. The west has declining industrial productivity, not increasing. False. Such periods of long peace has existed in many societies in the past. Pax Romana, Pax Sinica, Pax Gupta, Pax Arabicana are all historical terms that span 100-200 year period of peace & prosperity spanning various large areas controlled by these people. Europe itself had a relatively peaceful period from 1872 to 1914,where hardly any major wars happened. Food becoming plenty and life becoming easy has happened for 100-200 year periods in other parts of the world. They kept censuses. Still stuck to monogamy mostly as evidenced by their surveys. This shows how half-educated your POV is. If the main driving factor was female empowerment, then it leads to females weilding control of monogamy and resulting into serial divorces initiated by women. This is exactly what we see in the 1960s America or 1920s France. High-achieving power women are not going to sit around and take crap from a lesser man, so they leave and find another man. She still has to be more or less serial monogamous, because without paternity tests, her partner is still likely to shun making children with her, due to above-mentioned problem of inheritence. The decisive difference is obvious. We have an explosion of polyandry, polygamy, polyamory etc. in the western world in the last 20-40 years, unparalleled ever before. Even in the 60s and 70s, the poly community was extremely fringe community. What do people have today that people from 40 years ago did not have ? a) much greater access to abortion b) much greater access to paternity tests. So therefore, now, the issue of 'faithfulness' more or less boils down to trust and honesty. I don't have to worry that my 'slutty wife' who always wants more sex, is actually sleeping with Bob the neighbor and 'my kid' is actually Bob's kid. If i have any doubt about my kid being my kid, i order a pat test at any point and its done. For us, it fundamentally boils down to 'trust, honesty, quality of relationship' etc factors. with greater access to abortions, now women can control exactly when or if they want kids as well and its hardly as messy or stigmatizing as prior to 50 years ago. We also are at the apex point of STD treatments or atleast, have been for the past 20 years in the west. So all the risks of sleeping with whomever we want, are largely gone for the first time in human history of our species. And we are seeing a shift in our sexuality due to this technologically driven change.
  2. If you want to get into the 'new age sexuality' of the west, the answer is very simple : its consequence of technology & affluence. The relation of monogamy to farming is also pretty damn obvious. Farming creates the notion of fixed property. Ie, this chunk of land is yours, for all your life, because you want to GROW STUFF ON IT. prior to the concept of 'i grow stuff on land for me +others (ie, FARMING)', we had zero need to be fixed or rooted. Fixed chunk of land creates the notion of land = property. Which historically (and even today), is the world's most expensive & highly prized commodity: LAND. It is fundamental, to all species to be biassed towards their children more than other children. For us, it is also fairly fundamental behaviour seen in ALL societies- parents are much more biassed towards their children than other children. Thus, we want to leave our most valuable posession - our land- to our children. Prior to 30-40 years ago, when genetic testing came around, we have only one way to ensure our kid is ours - monogamy. Unfortunately for the elitist males of paleolithic/chalcolithic/neolithic etc, who were accustomed to hogging all the women on the virtue of being great warriors + hunters/band-leaders, etc., farming was a game-changer. This is because, now, virtually any man without physical ailments can carve out a farm for himself and feed himself plus his family. Plus if he is part of society and follows society's way of ensuring land control, he has land to pass down to his kids. This is where the 'polygynous king-pin' has competition, as many women will opt for a more ordinary man that garantees HER child gets to inherit, as opposed to facing competition of inheritence from children of OTHER women. The pre-farming man had nothing to gain via inheritence, except a few trinkets or a club/bows etc. So figuring out the best inheritence strategy for your progeny, in societies where inheritence is king( as it is, in ALL farming societies - land inheritence) was not a factor prior to farming, either. Thus, polygnous kingpins became a minority in every farming society, as their service to society - aka 'police action' (aka literally ruling society) is decisively minority position. From bangladesh to Herat, Guangzhou to Cairo - the # of people who rule & fight are a tiny % of number of people who stay put and farm the land.
  3. You fool, industrial revolution occured in England in the late 1700s. In rest of western Europe by 1830s and in eastern Europe by 1900. Yet, your so-called behaviour shift is a decisively post 1980s trend, showing it has nothing to do with industrial revolution and it creating excesses of resources. The difference between 1980s and prior, is our ability to control STIs and pregnancies better than at any prior point in human history.
  4. Augustine survey shows that most Romans had 1 wife. There was no legal restriction in Rome to have 1 wife,yet most Romans did. You are imagining the prostitution angle because you are not very smart. Just because the option exists doesnt mean most of society partakes - just like Germany or Holland today. Culture doesn't change overnight. Germans, Norweigians, Dutch had predominantly farmer population as late as 1910 AD. without social taboos AND technology. Behaviour today is influenced by ability to control pregnancy, which did not exist before. Except there is no evidence to believe that. We know how much prostitutes cost in ancient Rome due to writings of Livy and Cassius Dio and they were not cheap. if you think everyone can afford 200 dollars/hr hookers, then you are quite simply, deluded. You can disagree all you want, but you are not a historian or have much knowledge of history. Most wars are fought to control taxes and revenues from the said city. Your Islamic background is showing in said assumption, because its the Islamists (along with central asian nomads) who really popularized rapine killing and pillaging during war. Most of Roman, Persian, Chinese, Indian etc. conquests were done with on-field battle to control cities. Not loot them. Again, elites do not define behaviour of the whole human populace, its the poor and the middle class that do because they are higher in numbers. Stop showing your sucking up to elitism. It may be a thing socially, but in terms of drawing scientific conclusions about humanity, the majority behaviour is simply what most people do. By definition, its not the elites or the middle wealthy people. Again, stop making up nonsense. Monogamy in our genetics is evident for the last 10-20,000 years as THE dominant form of procreation. You should educate yourself more before holding such religious beliefs. A simple google search would show you that 'neolithic' is a term used for the periods of 12,000 BC- 9,000/7000 BC. Its disapperance in various parts of the world is defined as when farming starts. And as i said, farming societies are overwhelmingly monogamous, while your own article (which is not a scholarly article but a random travel website) states the non-monogamous practices as neolithic. Amongst elites. Not amongst common citizenry. None of this defines majoritarian behaviour. Human sexual dynamics is all about what >50% population does. 50% of populations did not commit genocide or wars or rapes/pillages in any society outside of nomadic societies like arabs or mongols, etc. Save us your lies and propaganda because you hold on to polygyny beliefs as a form of religious belief. This is why you edited out the very next part of the quote, as it goes like this: "However, these numbers are problematic in that the underlying coding places each society in a single category. This raises the possibility that some or perhaps even many of these putatively “monogamous” cultures allowed for a measure of polygyny, most notably among rulers, or tolerated some form of formalized concurrent concubinage – a suspicion borne out by the fact that ancient Egyptians and Babylonians are classified as “monogamous,” regardless of well-documented resource polygyny amongst their rulers." As i said, most monogamous cultures allowed a limited form of polygyny for their elites. This does not impact the conclusion that Egyptians and Babylonians were monogamous, because THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THOSE SOCIETIES WERE MONOGAMOUS. Yet, those were for the elites, not the common man. You have already shown inability to decipher scientific papers and you cite travel blogs as a source in a scientific discussion. Quoting scientific papers to you, i've learnt is pointless, hence i am using simple words and simple terms to convey the point across.
  5. in the entire history of mesopotamia that we know of, ie, the last 4500 years, there was only ONE CITY - Marri- where the dominant form of procreation was not monogamy (it was polyandry). Every single other city, except for the few dozen elites, practiced monogamy. Same in India, Pakistan, China, even the Mayas, Aztec, Incas, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. We see monogamy also amongst the Gauls and Germanics from Roman writing period, where except for the chiefs and war-leaders, everyone had 1 wife. The historical evidence of monogamy in historical times, is overwhelming in practically every single culture that left behind written evidence. @Alam_dar as usual, is presenting his BS assumptions against scientific and historical evidence because of lack of education.
  6. There was still stigma with prostitutes, which is why Rome & Pompeii's 'red light district' was in their poorest quarters. Stop spouting nonsense. Ancient Romans are comparable to the west, simply because most ancient romans were monogamous, just like the west. This is self-evident in the Augustine census. Your concept of what Rome was like, is what their top 1% elites did. The west is not what Hollywood does either. So ? Prostitution is legal in Germany, Holland, Norway etc. Still most Germans, Dutch etc are serial monogamists. In the CITY of Rome, the average slave population was 40%. In the ROMAN EMPIRE, the total % of slaves never crossed 15%. Again, not indicative of dominant form of sexuality when you are talking of practices of a minority population. This is more or less BS claim. Rapine and pillaging happened in almost all wars, but its impact on the population was negligible. Victorious armies raped and pillaged mostly after winning seiges. Like the seige of Alesia. Where Caesar's men raped and pillaged the city for days. There was no rape or pillage for the battle of Georgovia. Why ? because the Romans seiging the Gauls lost the battle and ran away and victorious natives arnt going to celebrate victory by raping and pillaging their own folks. Or the numerous set-piece battles in the middle of nowhere, where its two armies fighting. Its not like the winner is gonna go on an adventure to find villages to rape and plunder for weeks and days on end. False. Indians, Persians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks and Egyptians were all populations with predominantly one wife. Allowed to have sex does not equal to having sex. Most christians, like hindus, muslims, buddhists, etc. have lead a monogamous existence of either singular monogamy or serial monogamy. Again, stop spreading your BS. We have Egyptian records from 1000 BC showing they are mostly monogmous outside of the Royalty. Tax records. head counts. Same with the Han Dynasty China or Tang Dynasty. Same with non-royalty Indians. Most of the world had 1 wife and 1 husband for all of our written history, dating back to the Sumerians. False. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that most of the arab world ever practiced anything other than serial monogamy even 500 years ago. Again, Egypt + Iraq = makes up more population than rest of the Arab world combined. And they have overwhelmingly been monogamous through the times, because they are densely populating farming societies, where farming societies are mostly monogamous. Male shortage due to warfare would be far greater in the pre-agricultural era than post agriculture. This is because agriculture = supports a far bigger population than non-agriculture. And dominant as in it is overwhelmingly dominant - well over 80% of humanity we have record for over the last 4,000 years show monogamy. Monogamy is also our dominant genetic marker trait for the last 10-20,000 years. Ofcourse i do. But you have demonstrated a clinical lack of understanding basic science, nor does science change your religious views on dangers of raw meat or even your own article that shows polygamy to be the non-dominant trait of farming societies. False. 100% false. Again, the genetic contribution difference between men and women narrow significantly over the last 10-20,000 years, coinciding with farming. The history of humanity from roughly 200,000 years ago till 20,000 years ago shows overwhelming evidence of polygyny and far lesser evidence of it since. it is many-folds. the diversity of old mtDNA compared to old y-chromosomal DNA (as in > 20,000 years old) is somwhere in the factor of 4-20, depending on classification. Why are you so hell bent on pushing your assumptive religious agendas on science ??
  7. stop being an idiot. Roman men were free to have sex with prostitutes (so were Indian, Chinese, every other non-desert cult cultures FYI) doesn't mean they all did. Prostitutes are expensive. Even in the west today, less than 25% men end up with prostitutes at some point in their lives. Besides, for the matter of human sexual history, biology, again, is decisive. Our biology shows us that we are predominantly a monogamous race for the last 10-20,000 years. Because total % of monogamous Christians are >75%, it makes monogamy dominant form of christianity. you need to pay attention to words. Nobody said ALL humans were monogamous after a certain point in time, just like nobody said ALL humans were polygynous before a certain point of time. it is about DOMINANT trait - monogamy is by far the dominant trait of humanity for the last 10-20K years and polygyny is by far the dominant trait before that. There is no if and or but to it, really - the genetic history is decisive. I've lived in the arab world. Polygamy is still less than 50% of marriages. We are talking about the dominant form - slaves and sex with slaves etc. have been ever-present but not a dominant form of most humans. This is because the concept of a 'poor farmer with a slave' is unheard of in any society and societies based on farming have the common attribute of farmers = dominant chunk of population. True in India, China, Greece, Rome, etc. yep, plenty.
  8. Decisively false. Please don't make statements out of nowhere or actually read history. Monogamy is *decisively* seen in the two oldest cultures we have written evidence of: mesopotamia and egypt. People do not know how much of a 'giant' Sumerian civilization is, in terms of literature/written evidence. And these guys were contemporaries of IVC and bronze age civilization. Sumerians had the added advantage of living in a land (which back then) was lightly wooded savannah floodplains of Iraq, with wooded forests in all the hills, along with easiest of clay soils underlying the alluvium. Sumerians mass produced clay tablets because all it took was to make a blob of clay, set it in the sun to 'harden', etch writing on it and fire it for a few minues and you have a clay tablet. We have a lot of variety of info from such clay tablets - the oldest epic tale ( epic of Gilgamesh), the oldest tax collection record, the oldest poem - heck, even the oldest suicide note. In many ways, we know more about Sumerians of 2000 BC than we do of Greeks prior to Socrates. Yet, in almost all Sumerian systems (with the exception of the city-state of Marri), monogamy was the dominant form of procreation. Polygamy - specifically polygyny is decisively, the 'elite in status and numbers' section of procreation. You are taking a 'rich muslim' centric view to this and even then, we see in many muslim nations that #men with 1 wife > # of men with more than 1 wife. Another example of decisive dominance of monogamy throughout the ages is Chinese & Roman recordskeeping: they did censuses and the overwhelming majority of the population were recorded with 1 concurrent wife ( Chinese were far more open to divorce than most societies historically, with the average chinese man and woman having a higher propensity of being multiple, serial monogamist through their lives). The genetic and the historical data is more or less consistent with the idea that monogamy is the decisively dominant form of procreation for humanity in the last 4,000 years of records availability, plus the last 7-10,000 years of genetic data present.
  9. sorry, your assumption is rich men = multiple women. That is an incorrect assumption. Powerful men (chief of a tribe) can easily be the ones who hog 20 women themselves and with enough warfare/hunter-gatherer deaths, we can still have 20:1 women to men's mating ratio. Not to mention, your ignorance and religious holding to your nonsensical beleifs are again at display here. Genes do not lie. We have y-chromosomal DNA as well as mtDNA that are 30,000+ years old. They too show the same pattern: far greater diversity of old mtDNA, far less diversity of old y-chromosomal DNA. Face it, the biology is decisive. species homo sapiens has propagated for overwhelming majority of its existence with a far greater # of women producing offspring than men contributing towards producing off-spring. Furthermore, the y-chromosomal DNA shows that there is far greater diversity of new DNA than old ones (while for women it does not change). This is because due to farming, precisely the opposite of what you claim happens: far more men start to propagate their genes, because farming propagates monogamy predominantly. This is pretty straightforward to see as well - once humans transition to a settled life, it makes individuals hold farmland far better and thus, leading to monogamy. Sorry, but you got it completely ass-backwards, as usual.
  10. From your own link: " Polygamy -- the practice of one man marrying multiple women -- was historically pretty common (and probably much more common than the opposite group marriage arrangement, polyandry). If most men have multiple wives, and the richest can support a whole bunch, that's going to leave some men without reproductive partners. So even though an individual male might have had more offspring than most individual women, the gender as a whole was making fewer contributions to the gene pool." As i said, the genetic data supports only one model for historical sexual habits of species homo sapiens: one man and multiple women. This is simply, what was. There is no moral lesson/natural etc. argument to be made based on this (as we are a memetic species, not one blindly driven by simple genetic encoding).
  11. As your views on raw foods has demonstrated, you have very little grasp of science and ability to discern facts. I've read this book and this book is nothing more than trash. Ranges from speculative trash to outright,falsified trash. The answer to human sexual behaviour, is in our genome. Humans have a very wide variety of mtDNA but far less variety in y-chromosome DNA. This means far less men got to pass down their DNA than women. This can be possible prior to birth control via only ONE type of mating strategy: very few men hogging most of the women. Aka standard polygamy, where men of power/status have humongous harems. This is the exact opposite of feminism. Men did not share women with each other, they jealously & violently guarded their own harems. As mankind transitioned from hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming, this model started to break down, with serial monogamy introduced into our societies, as human societies started to be more and more spread apart due to early farming. The greatest winners of monogamy were/are men. Not women. Most women got to pass down their genes anyways in the standard polygamy model. But most men were no longer excluded. DNA evidence is decisive towards this model for heterosexual transmission of our genes. Rest, is bakwaas.
  12. again, this has nothing to do with cheating, which is a matter of sharing information and mutual consent.
  13. You have a remarkable ability to spout illogical nonsense.
  14. give it 20 years and see where you are at. Its no coincidence that desis or videsis, most swingers are 50+ couples who've been married 20-30+ years.
  15. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    not everyone uses a winter coat either. I've lived all over Canada, people in the east use it far more than people in Vancouver actually. Been to Alberta ? almost ALL albertans use it. Coz their winter is super dry. Vancouver sees its dry winter weeks, but we are mostly wetter than a soggy bowl of cold soup through winter - we use it mostly when we go skiing.
  16. We only play Pakistan in multi-team cups, because participation in such an event has nothing to do directly with sponsoring sporting relationship with said nation. And given how crap your team is, i am sure you'd like to not get thumped by us and avoid us at all costs.
  17. Hand-picking companies for a defence contract does not automatically imply corruption. If the administration had good reasons to believe that company A is more trustworthy with national defence secrets, they have full perogative to hand-pick them. Security related issues are never an open contract- not even in the US of A.LM can't just partner with any new startup over F-35 software, either FYI.
  18. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    well the stuff i use (and so do most canadians) comes in a cylinder with that screw-pusher at the bottom or in a tiny nail-polish like bottle but doesn't have that glitter stuff in it. its usually just a monotone color (depending on flavor i guess), that makes your lips look like you just licked them and made them uniformly shiny. Nobody here uses those vaseline-like jars anymore...it requires u to scoop and apply, which is uneven and gloppy....we all use the lipstick dispenser type and apply it like you'd apply a lipstick....and occasionally, the nail polish kind (which some people think does an even better smooth coating but i just dont have the patience for it and it requires a mirror).
  19. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    Bud, thats just your taste, nothing more. Its strange how young people ( and i was guilty of this too) think that some music is superior to another music. Music is music. There is no superior/inferior to music as long as its well made ( meaning nothing be-sura, be-taal happening). Doesn't matter if its Lata or Kishore or Taylor or Beiber....thats just taste, nothing more.
  20. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    There is nothing wrong in singing songs sung by female leads by men or vice versa. FYI, one of the greatest romances i know of personally involved a guy singing 'lag ja gale' to his sweetheart from the streets. Get over your silly steriotypes of what men are supposed to do/not supposed to do. We are all humans, we are all with feelings and expressing them the way we want to is far healthier than holding these constricting ideals.
  21. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    whatever. its lighter than vaseline, keeps our lips from cracking for 7 months a year. Comfort over image any day of the week. FYI, even the 'i will kill you if you look at me' snarly bikers with big beards and stuff use this stuff. Ek bar asal sardi dekhoge, to yeh sab dhong bhul jaoge.
  22. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    i have no idea what the difference is. To me lip-gloss is the clear(on application...it is colored inside the container) and somewhat shiny material you put on your lips that has no color (with color, its lipstick). Something like this:
  23. Muloghonto

    Your Gay Interests Thread

    its all contextual. In Canada, everyone applies lip gloss. My favorite is the cherry flavored one. PS: Before you go on a tirade on how 'gay' that is, understand that no lip gloss in Canadian winter = your lips are more cracked than a monsoon deprived marathi farm, to the point where even smiling hurts like hell.
  24. Then no culture has honor in it. The way of the world has always been to be nice to your own and a$$hole to outsiders. If you bring in how culture xyz treats outsiders, before modern times, then nobody has honor and everyone is a giant d!ck. By that benchmark, i am pointing out that the Bushido code Japanese behaved more honorably than any other culture. My point is not to say only the Japanese have honor. My point is to say that they are one of the proudest cultures in the world, they had a honor code that was more hardcore than anywhere else in the world (show me anywhere else where bodyguards routinely cut open their bellies for failing to protect their lord/lady from abduction/rape/murder, like the Japanese did). And yet, they adopted westernism, while preserving their culture. My point was to show that if Japan can still retain its culture while becoming modern and western, anyone can. This means the standard knee-jerk response of the chaddis to lambast anything they dont like as 'western values' and prop up every single desi value as some sort of 'self-respect' is just inferiority complex BS.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×