Adultery no longer a crime as Supreme Court strikes down Section 497

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am fully open to any Scientific evidence. 

 

I have absolutely no problem in accepting your conclusion, based upon the study that you mentioned. It is indeed a strong evidence. 

 

Nevertheless, there come other issues, like your presented study has been  some what challenged by another later researched more detailed study (Link), which reduced this gap significantly and suggested other issues too. Link. 

 

 

 

 

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). 

[Alam_dar]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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."

 

This rich man situation occurred after the stone age, about 10 thousand years ago. After stone age the gene contribution from men became less as compared to women. 

 

Therefore little doubts remain, how the humans behaved during the palaeolithic time, before the start of cultivation? 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

14 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

This rich man situation occurred after the stone age, about 10 thousand years ago. After stone age the gene contribution from men became less as compared to women. 

 

Therefore little doubts remain, how the humans behaved during the palaeolithic time, before the start of cultivation? 

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

57 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

Agreed. 

[Stradlater]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Agreed. 

Nice move.

[nikred]

Nice move.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[coffee_rules]

51 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Nice move.

Actually, in this debate, I agree with both viewpoints!

[Stradlater]

14 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Actually, in this debate, I agree with both viewpoints!

Don't encourage him CR. You and me both know how dangerous that can be.

[Alam_dar]

Start of the Cultivation Era didn't mean the start of monogamy. 

 

Monogamy took hold perhaps first in Greek culture, got picked up by the Romans, and then spread far and wide with the Christians.

Until recently, meaning the last couple hundred years or so, polygamy (and specifically polygyny) has been much more common than monogamy.

[Stradlater]

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Start of the Cultivation Era didn't mean the start of monogamy. 

 

Monogamy took hold perhaps first in Greek culture, got picked up by the Romans, and then spread far and wide with the Christians.

Until recently, meaning the last couple hundred years or so, polygamy (and specifically polygyny) has been much more common than monogamy.

My great grandpa had 3 wives. 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Start of the Cultivation Era didn't mean the start of monogamy. 

 

Monogamy took hold perhaps first in Greek culture, got picked up by the Romans, and then spread far and wide with the Christians.

Until recently, meaning the last couple hundred years or so, polygamy (and specifically polygyny) has been much more common than monogamy.

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.  

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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). 

Monogamy in  Roman culture should not be understood as of today(i.e. to be limited to one woman for sex) . It is due to the reason while Roman men were free to have sex with concubines and prostitutes on a very very vast level. In antiquity, war rape was an integral aspect of virtually all military conflicts, with conquered civilians (both men and women) serving as spoils for the Roman soldiery.

 

Same is the case with the Christianity. People think they were monogamous, but they neglect totally the angle of slavery and sex with slave women.

 

Slave wives were acquired in much the same way slaves were acquired in general. Sometimes slave women were captured as prisoners of war and later converted to concubines (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Sometimes poor women whose fathers, brothers or husbands had died sold themselves as concubines so they could be taken care of.  A man could sell his daughter as a slave to another man (Exodus 21:7-11).

 

Same is the case about the slavery in ancient China. Actually slavery was practiced on a very big level during some dynasties. Concubines played a big role in Chinese ancient societies.

 

I am not very much familiar with the slavery in ancient Egypt or in Sumerian cultures. But I do think slavery did exist in the ancient Egypt.

 

Muslims in Indian sub-continent may have stopped polygamy due to the British rule, but polygamy was very much present in the Arab world till this century.

 

 

Quote

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.  

Any scientific evidence/reference  of genetic data of monogamy in period between 7-10,000 years?

Edited October 4, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Monogamy in  Roman culture should not be understood as of today(i.e. to be limited to one woman for sex) . It is due to the reason while Roman men were free to have sex with concubines and prostitutes on a very very vast level. In antiquity, war rape was an integral aspect of virtually all military conflicts, with conquered civilians (both men and women) serving as spoils for the Roman soldiery.

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. 

12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Same is the case with the Christianity. People think they were monogamous, but they neglect totally the angle of slavery and sex with slave women.

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. 

12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Slave wives were acquired in much the same way slaves were acquired in general. Sometimes slave women were captured as prisoners of war and later converted to concubines (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Sometimes poor women whose fathers, brothers or husbands had died sold themselves as concubines so they could be taken care of.  A man could sell his daughter as a slave to another man (Exodus 21:7-11).

 

Same is the case about the slavery in ancient China. Actually slavery was practiced on a very big level during some dynasties. Concubines played a big role in Chinese ancient societies.

 

I am not very much familiar with the slavery in ancient Egypt or in Sumerian cultures. But I do think slavery did exist in the ancient Egypt.

 

Muslims in Indian sub-continent may have stopped polygamy due to the British rule, but polygamy was very much present in the Arab world till this century.

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. 

12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Any scientific evidence/reference  of genetic data of monogamy in period between 7-10,000 years?

yep, plenty. 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I don't think sexuality of Ancient Romans could be compared with West of today. 

 

In today's west, still the main concept is about monogamous relationship. And if any partner cheats, then it is frowned and relationship or marriage breaks. 

 

Also, still it is frowned upon to have sex with the prostitutes in the West of today. 

 

While ancient Romans were totally free of any such obligations. Despite having wife, they were totally free to enjoy sex with the prostitutes or the concubines or even the young male boys, and nothing was frowned upon. Actually it was taken as pride. 

 

//

Some sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman culture differ markedly from those in later Western societies.^[14][15] Roman religion promoted sexuality as an aspect of prosperity for the state,.. Prostitution was legal, public, and widespread. It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes...  No moral censure was directed at the man who enjoyed sex acts with either women or males of inferior status

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

//

 

Male Slaves were not allowed to marry:

 

Another important point is this that Male Slaves were not allowed to marry. In ancient Rome, they were only allowed to marry if they became free. 

And the numbers of slaves in ancient Rome were about 40% of the total population. 

 

Wars, shortage of Men and raping of the women:

Another very big factor in the past was continuous wars, which itself meant much less numbers of males as compared to the women. 

And after every war, the victors raped all the women and girls. 

Even the farmers and their families were saved from it even if they didn't take part in the wars. 

 

Remaining world was huge as compared to the Romans:

In their era, ancient Romans were the only one with one wife. But rest of the (non monogamous) world was still huge as compared to the Roman Empire. 

 

Quote

Because total % of monogamous Christians are >75%, it makes monogamy dominant form of christianity.

As compared to the Romans, the Christians could be considered monogamous (But still they were not true monogamous as they were allowed to have sex with the slave girls.

 

Christianity is very recent, and only 2000 years old. It started to spread out of Europe (into Africa, Asia, America) only after 15th century, otherwise it was limited only to the population of Europe which was not too much as compared to the remaining whole (non monogamous) world. 

 

Quote

I've lived in the arab world. Polygamy is still less than 50% of marriages.

I thought it is clear that we are not talking about the Arabs of today, but of the last 14 centuries, where not only polygamy was a norm, but also unmarried male slaves were present is huge huge numbers. 

 

Quote

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.

How much dominant? 

Due to continuous wars, every household was contributing in the Army by sending their children as soldiers. 

Also due to the continuous and organised wars, males were again in shortage as compared to the women in the neolithic era. 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 yep, plenty. 

And I thought you will back up your claim about 7000-1000 years with proper scientific reference. 

Do you really have a proper reference for this? 

 

===

 

During the palaeolithic era too, the difference was not found to be so big in the later research studies. 

If we consider that men also died during the fights, and the women were taken by the other groups, and if we have to believe that the group leader took all the women in his Herem during Palaeolithic era, then the difference should be many folds. And if it is not present many folds, then again it will give rise to the doubts. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't think sexuality of Ancient Romans could be compared with West of today. 

 

In today's west, still the main concept is about monogamous relationship. And if any partner cheats, then it is frowned and relationship or marriage breaks. 

 

Also, still it is frowned upon to have sex with the prostitutes in the West of today. 

 

While ancient Romans were totally free of any such obligations. Despite having wife, they were totally free to enjoy sex with the prostitutes or the concubines or even the young male boys, and nothing was frowned upon. Actually it was taken as pride. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

//

Some sexual attitudes and behaviors in ancient Roman culture differ markedly from those in later Western societies.^[14][15] Roman religion promoted sexuality as an aspect of prosperity for the state,.. Prostitution was legal, public, and widespread. It was considered natural and unremarkable for men to be sexually attracted to teen-aged youths of both sexes...  No moral censure was directed at the man who enjoyed sex acts with either women or males of inferior status

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

//

So ? Prostitution is legal in Germany, Holland, Norway etc. Still most Germans, Dutch etc are serial monogamists. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Male Slaves were not allowed to marry:

 

Another important point is this that Male Slaves were not allowed to marry. In ancient Rome, they were only allowed to marry if they became free. 

And the numbers of slaves in ancient Rome were about 40% of the total population. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Wars, shortage of Men and raping of the women:

Another very big factor in the past was continuous wars, which itself meant much less numbers of males as compared to the women. 

And after every war, the victors raped all the women and girls. 

Even the farmers and their families were saved from it even if they didn't take part in the wars. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Remaining world was huge as compared to the Romans:

In their era, ancient Romans were the only one with one wife. But rest of the (non monogamous) world was still huge as compared to the Roman Empire. 

False.

Indians, Persians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks and Egyptians were all populations with predominantly one wife. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

As compared to the Romans, the Christians could be considered monogamous (But still they were not true monogamous as they were allowed to have sex with the slave girls.

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Christianity is very recent, and only 2000 years old. It started to spread out of Europe (into Africa, Asia, America) only after 15th century, otherwise it was limited only to the population of Europe which was not too much as compared to the remaining whole (non monogamous) world. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

I thought it is clear that we are not talking about the Arabs of today, but of the last 14 centuries, where not only polygamy was a norm, but also unmarried male slaves were present is huge huge numbers. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

How much dominant? 

Due to continuous wars, every household was contributing in the Army by sending their children as soldiers. 

Also due to the continuous and organised wars, males were again in shortage as compared to the women in the neolithic era. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

And I thought you will back up your claim about 7000-1000 years with proper scientific reference. 

Do you really have a proper reference for this? 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

===

 

During the palaeolithic era too, the difference was not found to be so big in the later research studies. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

If we consider that men also died during the fights, and the women were taken by the other groups, and if we have to believe that the group leader took all the women in his Herem during Palaeolithic era, then the difference should be many folds. And if it is not present many folds, then again it will give rise to the doubts. 

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 ??

[Muloghonto]

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. 

[Alam_dar]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

It would be illogical to bring Augustine census as argument, while it didn't cover the prostitution or concubines or wars etc. in it's survey. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So ? Prostitution is legal in Germany, Holland, Norway etc. Still most Germans, Dutch etc are serial monogamists. 

Germans, Norway, Dutch etc. are no more farm based societies. It is the influence of religious teachings of previous centuries that they are still serial monogamists, or still frowned upon prostitution. While Romans were not suffering with these problems. 

 

Moreover, in their youth, almost all the European boys and girls are indulging in polygamous behaviour. It is an important change in human behaviour which perhaps didn't exist in history. We have to ponder more upon it in order to know more about human nature without the social taboos. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I don't think you could decide about dominant form of sexuality while no one knows exactly how many Romans practised sex with prostitutes and with other low status women who had no social taboos in engaging in sex with multiple men. It may be  that almost 100% Roman men engaged in polygamous relations, just like the youth of Europe today who have no social taboos in doing so. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I respectfully totally disagree. 

 

Wars were fought for money and material. Even if they were fought outside of the cities, but the aim was always to enter into the city after the victory and to loot the city. Off course if the defenders were successful then nothing happened, but if the attackers were successful, then there was 100% looting associated with it. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False.

Indians, Persians, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Greeks and Egyptians were all populations with predominantly one wife. 

Again the problem stays that:

 

1. They were not strictly monogamous in the sense we understand monogamy today. Chinese were practising sex with prostitutes and concubines, both the elites and the middle wealthy people too. Iran too was not monogamous and practice of Harems also established there (link). 

 

2. And the practices of monogamy are relatively very recent in all these societies and didn't even exist during 7000-10000 years ago as you claimed. 

 

Let us see the case of China:

 

//

https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/culture/ancient-chinese-marriage-customs.htm

Development of Ancient Chinese Marriage Customs

The ancient Chinese marriage customs have gone through five stages over 5,000 years: primitive group marriage stage, consanguineous marriage stage, exogamous marriage stage, antithetic marriage stage and the monogamy marriage stage.

Primitive Group Marriage

In the primitive society, the ancestors of the Chinese people lived in groups and had no fixed spouses, and they had sexual relationships indiscriminately with one another. 

Consanguineous Marriage

As the first marriage taboo in Chinese history, consanguineous marriage emerged during the middle Neolithic Age, which banned a parent-offspring marriage but allowed the marriage of people of the same generation (such as the brother and sister of a family). 

Exogamous Marriage Stage

As the second marriage taboo in Chinese history, exogamous marriage emerged in the middle and late Neolithic Age, which strictly banned the marriage between blood brothers and sisters, and it only allowed marriage among different social groups.

In the exogamous marriage stage, it was very common for the brothers of the same family to marry a wife from the other group, and she would be the wife of all the brothers in the family, and vice versa.

Antithetic Marriage

As a transitional stage from the exogamous marriage stage to the monogamous marriage stage, the antithetic marriage (or paired marriage) was an unstable marriage between men and women during the late Neolithic Age, which was very different from modern monogamy and easily dissolved; and it retained some vestiges of group marriage with tolerance toward a husband's or wife's extramarital relationships.

Monogamy Marriage

As the patriarchal social system took place of the matriarchal social system, the private ownership of property came into being, on which the ancient monogamous marriage was based. In the ancient monogamy marriage stage, the husband owned everything in the family, including his wife, children and property, and the main task of women was bearing children to carry on the paternal lineages.

///

 

So, you can see none of these monogamous civilizations are proving your point of monogamy during 7000-1000 years period. 

 

Moreover, Chinese practised slavery and concubines were common. Also sex with prostitutes was also a common practice among the Chinese. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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 Christianity is relatively very new and has nothing to do with your 7000-1000 years ago claim. 

And I already mentioned you that Christianity was almost limited to Europe till 15th century. 

And Christians fought a lot of wars in Europe and slavery was common practice among Christians. It could not be claimed with certainty that they still practised monogamous behaviour in the presence of the slave women. Actually it is well documented that women were raped by the victor armies. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Most of the world had 1 wife and 1 husband for all of our written history, dating back to the Sumerians. 

I am afraid this claim is only a conjecture on your part, as the scientific studies are showing opposite results:

//

Of 1,154 societies described in the Human Relations Area Files, 93% recognize some degree of socially sanctioned polygyny, and in 70% of all cases polygyny is the preferred choice (which does not mean that it is dominant in quantitative terms).5 However, precision is difficult to attain due to the frequent failure to distinguish between rare, de facto absent, and formally banned social polygamy, or between polygamy (as a form of marriage) and other forms of polygyny (such as concurrent concubinage). This casts doubt on the finding that among 862 societies surveyed in George Peter Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, “monogamy” is observed in 16% of all cases (n=134).6 In a more recent study of 348 better-known societies, 20% (n=71) are defined as monogamous whereas another 20% displayed limited polygyny and fully 60% more frequent polygyny.7

Link

// 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I disagree. Iran and central Asian Muslim areas were always engaged in fights and numbers of slaves were huge. There were slave markets all over in the Muslim countries. They were fully allowed to have multiple wives with Harems. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

Any scientific reference?

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

So, you don't want to bring scientific references for your claims while I lack basic understanding. 

May I ask you, why then you are debating with me at all when you consider me to be devoid of any intelligence to understand things?

 

[Alam_dar]

I just hope no more discussion takes place with Mulo.

 

We have other important questions to ponder upon. 

 

===

 

A very important question is this: "How and why the Bonobos sexual behaviour departed from the sexual behaviour of their very near relatives, the Chimps?"

 

According to the researchers, Chimps lived on the northern side of the River Congo. But one million years ago, Congo River became dried enough that some of Chimps succeeded in crossing it to the south side. 

 

There was enough of food and resources available in the south of Congo River as compared to the North, whereas there was shortage of the food in the North and Chimps had to continuously fight among each other and show aggression. 

 

This excess of food and resources made Bonobos less aggressive. They learnt to share all the food along with love and sex. 

 

Chimp females had also to compete for food, and to save themselves from the aggression of the males, and they also had to protect their babies from the other Chimps who kill the children. All this resulted in this that Chimp females are ready for SEX for a very short period of time (only when they could get pregnant). This makes male Chimps more jealous as they get very little time for sex. 

 

Since the Bonobo females didn't have to face these problems of competing for food, or facing aggression from male Bonobos, or defending or protecting their babies, therefore, they are ready for sex for very long period of time (just like Human Females). According to the researchers, this is also the reason that male Bonobos are not jealous as they all get enough time for sex. 

 

Bonobos are also closer to humans (as compared to chimps) while while whole family stays together and males took very good care of the babies, just like the human males. 

 

Conclusion: 

Evolution took place among the Bonobos due to the environment (i.e. excess of food and resources changed their behaviour from the chimps). 

 

But what about the humans?

 

If humans (or at least a group of humans) get enough of food and resources, then are they going to change their behaviour too? 

 

In Europe, after the industrial revolution, there is excess of food and resources. This brought this change that at least youth in Europe are not so much jealous regarding sex partners any more. They are indulging in very promiscuous sex activities as compared to the past generations. They are going towards the Bonobos behaviour. A lot of change has already happened, and it seems to be continued in the future too. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It would be illogical to bring Augustine census as argument, while it didn't cover the prostitution or concubines or wars etc. in it's survey. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Germans, Norway, Dutch etc. are no more farm based societies. It is the influence of religious teachings of previous centuries that they are still serial monogamists, or still frowned upon prostitution. While Romans were not suffering with these problems. 

Culture doesn't change overnight. Germans, Norweigians, Dutch had predominantly farmer population as late as 1910 AD. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Moreover, in their youth, almost all the European boys and girls are indulging in polygamous behaviour. It is an important change in human behaviour which perhaps didn't exist in history. We have to ponder more upon it in order to know more about human nature without the social taboos. 

without social taboos AND technology.  Behaviour today is influenced by ability to control pregnancy, which did not exist before. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't think you could decide about dominant form of sexuality while no one knows exactly how many Romans practised sex with prostitutes and with other low status women who had no social taboos in engaging in sex with multiple men. It may be  that almost 100% Roman men engaged in polygamous relations, just like the youth of Europe today who have no social taboos in doing so. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I respectfully totally disagree. 

 

Wars were fought for money and material. Even if they were fought outside of the cities, but the aim was always to enter into the city after the victory and to loot the city. Off course if the defenders were successful then nothing happened, but if the attackers were successful, then there was 100% looting associated with it. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Again the problem stays that:

 

1. They were not strictly monogamous in the sense we understand monogamy today. Chinese were practising sex with prostitutes and concubines, both the elites and the middle wealthy people too. Iran too was not monogamous and practice of Harems also established there (link). 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

2. And the practices of monogamy are relatively very recent in all these societies and didn't even exist during 7000-10000 years ago as you claimed. 

Again, stop making up nonsense. Monogamy in our genetics is evident for the last 10-20,000 years as THE dominant form of procreation. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

So, you can see none of these monogamous civilizations are proving your point of monogamy during 7000-1000 years period. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Moreover, Chinese practised slavery and concubines were common. Also sex with prostitutes was also a common practice among the Chinese. 

Amongst elites. Not amongst common citizenry. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Again Christianity is relatively very new and has nothing to do with your 7000-1000 years ago claim. 

And I already mentioned you that Christianity was almost limited to Europe till 15th century. 

And Christians fought a lot of wars in Europe and slavery was common practice among Christians. It could not be claimed with certainty that they still practised monogamous behaviour in the presence of the slave women. Actually it is well documented that women were raped by the victor armies. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid this claim is only a conjecture on your part, as the scientific studies are showing opposite results:

//

Of 1,154 societies described in the Human Relations Area Files, 93% recognize some degree of socially sanctioned polygyny, and in 70% of all cases polygyny is the preferred choice (which does not mean that it is dominant in quantitative terms).5 However, precision is difficult to attain due to the frequent failure to distinguish between rare, de facto absent, and formally banned social polygamy, or between polygamy (as a form of marriage) and other forms of polygyny (such as concurrent concubinage). This casts doubt on the finding that among 862 societies surveyed in George Peter Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, “monogamy” is observed in 16% of all cases (n=134).6 In a more recent study of 348 better-known societies, 20% (n=71) are defined as monogamous whereas another 20% displayed limited polygyny and fully 60% more frequent polygyny.7

Link

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. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

// 

I disagree. Iran and central Asian Muslim areas were always engaged in fights and numbers of slaves were huge. There were slave markets all over in the Muslim countries. They were fully allowed to have multiple wives with Harems. 

Yet, those were for the elites, not the common man. 

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Any scientific reference?

 

So, you don't want to bring scientific references for your claims while I lack basic understanding. 

May I ask you, why then you are debating with me at all when you consider me to be devoid of any intelligence to understand things?

 

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.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I just hope no more discussion takes place with Mulo.

 

We have other important questions to ponder upon. 

 

===

 

A very important question is this: "How and why the Bonobos sexual behaviour departed from the sexual behaviour of their very near relatives, the Chimps?"

 

According to the researchers, Chimps lived on the northern side of the River Congo. But one million years ago, Congo River became dried enough that some of Chimps succeeded in crossing it to the south side. 

 

There was enough of food and resources available in the south of Congo River as compared to the North, whereas there was shortage of the food in the North and Chimps had to continuously fight among each other and show aggression. 

 

This excess of food and resources made Bonobos less aggressive. They learnt to share all the food along with love and sex. 

 

Chimp females had also to compete for food, and to save themselves from the aggression of the males, and they also had to protect their babies from the other Chimps who kill the children. All this resulted in this that Chimp females are ready for SEX for a very short period of time (only when they could get pregnant). This makes male Chimps more jealous as they get very little time for sex. 

 

Since the Bonobo females didn't have to face these problems of competing for food, or facing aggression from male Bonobos, or defending or protecting their babies, therefore, they are ready for sex for very long period of time (just like Human Females). According to the researchers, this is also the reason that male Bonobos are not jealous as they all get enough time for sex. 

 

Bonobos are also closer to humans (as compared to chimps) while while whole family stays together and males took very good care of the babies, just like the human males. 

 

Conclusion: 

Evolution took place among the Bonobos due to the environment (i.e. excess of food and resources changed their behaviour from the chimps). 

 

But what about the humans?

 

If humans (or at least a group of humans) get enough of food and resources, then are they going to change their behaviour too? 

 

In Europe, after the industrial revolution, there is excess of food and resources. This brought this change that at least youth in Europe are not so much jealous regarding sex partners any more. They are indulging in very promiscuous sex activities as compared to the past generations. They are going towards the Bonobos behaviour. A lot of change has already happened, and it seems to be continued in the future too. 

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.