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

[Muloghonto]

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. 

 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

This is not the core debate here, but the main issue is modern sexual behaviour and family problems of today. 

 

From my perspective, it was the industrial revolution, which was the main reason in transforming the Farming Based societies to the industry based societies. Off course it took time to get mature, and thus it doesn't matter when it started and at what places it started. The availability of the pregnancy control pills and the modern technology, all are the fruits of this same industrial revolution. 

 

Now coming to the core issue ... 

I believe that till world war II, things were not settled, and there were lot of wars, and every where there was aggression and food was also rare. But things changed a lot after the world war. World saw real peace, especially European countries never saw such peace against each other up till now. Food became plenty and life became easy. 

 

These were the same circumstances which the Bonobo saw during their evolution journey i.e. no Aggression from the neighbours and plenty of food and easy life. 

 

Today the traditional family structure (which is based upon monogamous relationship) is breaking. Women have become educated and independent. They  don't need their husbands for financial support. They are demanding more love and attention and help in the house. The present monogamous family system is unable to fulfil her demands and thus the families are being broken at rapid pace. 

 

Perhaps the new sexual behaviour and changed family structure could help the humans of today to get more satisfaction. 

 

Human became polygamous earlier due to the circumstance. Then humans became monogamous, and that too due to the circumstances and humans adapted the monogamous behaviour. Now once again these are the circumstances which may make humans to change their sexual behaviour along with the family structure. 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

This is not the core debate here, but the main issue is modern sexual behaviour and family problems of today. 

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. 

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

From my perspective, it was the industrial revolution, which was the main reason in transforming the Farming Based societies to the industry based societies. Off course it took time to get mature, and thus it doesn't matter when it started and at what places it started. The availability of the pregnancy control pills and the modern technology, all are the fruits of this same industrial revolution. 

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. 

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Now coming to the core issue ... 

I believe that till world war II, things were not settled, and there were lot of wars, and every where there was aggression and food was also rare. But things changed a lot after the world war. World saw real peace, especially European countries never saw such peace against each other up till now. Food became plenty and life became easy. 

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. 

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

These were the same circumstances which the Bonobo saw during their evolution journey i.e. no Aggression from the neighbours and plenty of food and easy life. 

 

Today the traditional family structure (which is based upon monogamous relationship) is breaking. Women have become educated and independent. They  don't need their husbands for financial support. They are demanding more love and attention and help in the house. The present monogamous family system is unable to fulfil her demands and thus the families are being broken at rapid pace. 

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. 

6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Perhaps the new sexual behaviour and changed family structure could help the humans of today to get more satisfaction. 

 

Human became polygamous earlier due to the circumstance. Then humans became monogamous, and that too due to the circumstances and humans adapted the monogamous behaviour. Now once again these are the circumstances which may make humans to change their sexual behaviour along with the family structure. 

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. 

[Alam_dar]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

I disagree. 

It is not all about being memetic species, but it is also based upon the biology of our species. For example, human females are able to have sex for prolonged period, even when they could not conceive babies. This factor plays an important role in sexual behaviour of our species. And it evolved while human males were also taking care of the babies, and not killing them as in the chimps. 
 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Industrial revolution is not pregnancy control pills or paternity tests.

Industrial revolution is the one which started the end of the Farm based society. 

And this farming was the main reason why humans became monogamous in the first place. 

Now farmers don't need the assistance of the family, but they merge to form one big unit, and women are not needed to assist any more. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Industrial revolution was the start of the ending of family based farming system. 
Please read it once more, while you ignored this main point once again. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

In my opinion, you are totally wrong in your conclusion. 

 

These earlier periods of peace were without the industrial revolution, which means that they were still completely dependent upon the family based farming system. Ultimately it led to this situation that women stayed dependent upon their husbands. 

While the modern period of peace in this century was accompanied with the industrial revolution, which ended the family based farming system, and which empowered the women too and made them independent of their husbands. Thus, both men and women are not dependent on each other in this period of peace, and this makes it different to those periods of peace in the history. 

 

That is why this time peace and life security and independence and excess of food has brought changes which didn't happen during the earlier periods. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Again I find that your point of view is limited here. 

The times of 1920s and 1960s were still different than today, and the circumstances were still changing for the women. They were not so much independent as they are today. It always take some time for the change to take place. 

The religious authorities were also very strong in 1920s or 1960s, who strongly opposed this change in the sexual behaviour. 

Despite all this, we see a large increase of women in Europe during  1960s to 1980s, who were very much independent and who raised their children alone too. 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

Please think about it, while here you are yourself refuting your earlier conjecture about the birth pills. 

 

Please understand that "No Birth" is involved in gay sex, or lesbian sex, but still they were unable to practice it openly till 1980s. They got freedom only after the religious voices became weaker. The case of whole poly community is proving your conjecture wrong, and it was much more than the birth pills which brought all this change. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Read once again the case of gay, lesbian, poly community case, which is proving this change is not all about the birth control or paternity test, but it is more about the awareness about the human nature and human needs, and right of individual choice and weakening of the religious voices. 

 

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Actually it is some thing opposite. Now "faithfulness" is not the basic condition for love. But people are trying to find the mental comfort between them as first condition for partnership. They are much more tolerant than before about the sexual life of their partner. Many women are independent enough to raise the children alone and thus they don't need any permanent partners. They just enjoy their life with multiple temporary partners. Inheritance is also becoming secondary thing, while in Europe people don't even want children while Government looks after them when they are old through welfare system. 

 

====

 

At end, few words about ethics of discussion. 

 

* Discussions are not about getting personal, even if they are wrong according to you. 

* Discussions are also not about compelling others to accept your point of view, otherwise start insulting them. 

 

Whatever you think about yourself of being beacon of knowledge etc,, but I firmly believe my point of view is correct in raw healthy eating and other issues, and I still disagree with you. 

Learn to simply put your arguments without using insulting language. No one is going to respect you for getting personal and using abusive insulting language. 

 

If you still don't understand these basics, then I have to put you on ignore list while you don't deserve respect that one enters in discussion with you. 

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I disagree. 

It is not all about being memetic species, but it is also based upon the biology of our species. For example, human females are able to have sex for prolonged period, even when they could not conceive babies. This factor plays an important role in sexual behaviour of our species. And it evolved while human males were also taking care of the babies, and not killing them as in the chimps. 
 

Again, stop making up nonsense biologically. Human females can have pregnancy free sex for very few days of the month and that too, only if they PRECISELY chart their periods - something that is bloody hard to do without a CALENDAR, which nobody had for tens of thousands of years. 

The bulk majority of days of the year, if the female has sex, she has a high chance of getting pregnant. 

You have a penchant for twisting/inventing nonsense to fit your agenda, this is a classic example. Prior to contraception, the decisive clue to our heterosexual history, is in our genes. Period. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Industrial revolution is the one which started the end of the Farm based society. 

And this farming was the main reason why humans became monogamous in the first place. 

Now farmers don't need the assistance of the family, but they merge to form one big unit, and women are not needed to assist any more. 

Industrial revolution did not end farm-based societies. Even in 1901, the largest % of British people, were farmers. Again, census data. Don't make up nonsense please. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Industrial revolution was the start of the ending of family based farming system. 
Please read it once more, while you ignored this main point once again. 

 

Except we have clear evidence that monogamy did not end with industrial revolution. Industrial revolution for hundreds of years did not have paternity tests - the presence of which is the decisive factor for inheritence issues. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

In my opinion, you are totally wrong in your conclusion. 

 

These earlier periods of peace were without the industrial revolution, which means that they were still completely dependent upon the family based farming system. Ultimately it led to this situation that women stayed dependent upon their husbands. 

While the modern period of peace in this century was accompanied with the industrial revolution, which ended the family based farming system, and which empowered the women too and made them independent of their husbands. Thus, both men and women are not dependent on each other in this period of peace, and this makes it different to those periods of peace in the history. 

Europe had a 40 year peace between 1870 and 1914. During industrial revolution. Did not change their mating patterns. 
Post WWII peace in the 50s,60s and 70s did not change the mating patterns. Paternity tests and abortion ease from 1980s did. This is the clear-cut correlation. 

 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

That is why this time peace and life security and independence and excess of food has brought changes which didn't happen during the earlier periods. 

 

Again I find that your point of view is limited here. 

The times of 1920s and 1960s were still different than today, and the circumstances were still changing for the women. They were not so much independent as they are today. It always take some time for the change to take place. 

Yes, because no easy abortion access and no access to paternity tests = monogamy is preferred. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The religious authorities were also very strong in 1920s or 1960s, who strongly opposed this change in the sexual behaviour. 

Despite all this, we see a large increase of women in Europe during  1960s to 1980s, who were very much independent and who raised their children alone too. 

Please think about it, while here you are yourself refuting your earlier conjecture about the birth pills. 

Raising your own kids does not nullify monogamy. Monogamy is not defined as singular partner through life, its defined as one partner at one given time. 60s and 70s most hippies were still serial monogamists - i should know, i live in the hippie center of the universe (aka US-Canada west coast). 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please understand that "No Birth" is involved in gay sex, or lesbian sex, but still they were unable to practice it openly till 1980s. They got freedom only after the religious voices became weaker. The case of whole poly community is proving your conjecture wrong, and it was much more than the birth pills which brought all this change. 

Except polyamory is still predominantly done by heterosexual people ( as heteros are the dominant majority of virtually every demographic group). Polyamory was quite literally fringe non-hetero behaviour ( outside of old age polyamory, aka swingers) prior to easy access to abortion, birth control and paternity tests. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Read once again the case of gay, lesbian, poly community case, which is proving this change is not all about the birth control or paternity test, but it is more about the awareness about the human nature and human needs, and right of individual choice and weakening of the religious voices. 

Awareness of human nature does not relate to polyamory at all, since polyamory mostly seen are not polygyny - which is the default model of polygamy for species homo sapiens for most of its existence. 

You are exposing a classic 'by nature' fallacy - which you have in your past regarding foods and such - to justify current trends, you try to look at it from a 'nature of humanity' angle, controvert the data and time-line to suit your agenda and completely ignore the new inventions that are driving the change. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Actually it is some thing opposite. Now "faithfulness" is not the basic condition for love. But people are trying to find the mental comfort between them as first condition for partnership. They are much more tolerant than before about the sexual life of their partner. Many women are independent enough to raise the children alone and thus they don't need any permanent partners. They just enjoy their life with multiple temporary partners. Inheritance is also becoming secondary thing, while in Europe people don't even want children while Government looks after them when they are old through welfare system. 

They are much more comfortable now, because 99.9% of STIs are curable, paternity tests take away ambiguity from pregnancies and pregnancies can be controlled for quite literally 1.5 dollars/day (on pills) or 5 bucks for a 'morning after' pill. 

 

You can try to ignore the two most important developments in human sexuality in history of humanity, but most scientists wont.

In the last 40 years, we are seeing a decisive rise to non-polygyny polyamory in the west. This was not present prior to the 1980s. 
Also since the 1980s, for first time in the entire history of species homo sapiens, have we attained the ability to completely control our pregnancy AND determine the paternity of a new-born. At no point in human history, did we have the ability to completely control our pregnancies en-masse, neither did we possess the ability to decisively determine (through testing of the individual) who the father of a child is. 
These are, in terms of mating behaviour, decisive, earth-shattering changes. Only a fool ignores such changes when trying to analyze modern human sexual behaviour in countries where such course of action (pregnancy control & pat tests) are easily accessed. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

====

 

At end, few words about ethics of discussion. 

 

* Discussions are not about getting personal, even if they are wrong according to you. 

* Discussions are also not about compelling others to accept your point of view, otherwise start insulting them. 

If you make up nonsense, like you did in this thread, you will get heat. Discussions are neither of the things you described, until someone starts to make up nonsense. you made up nonsense about how the rest of the world from the Romans were polygamous, how polygamy started with Rome, etc. All random,baseless, nonsense. There are not just wrong conclusions from ignorance (which you make aplenty) - these are false information being peddled, period. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Whatever you think about yourself of being beacon of knowledge etc,, but I firmly believe my point of view is correct in raw healthy eating and other issues, and I still disagree with you. 

Thats because you are a religious nut when it comes to raw foods and display the same level of belief as a religious person does to their faith. 
You may firmly BELIEVE in your raw foods nonsense. 

But most here KNOW that raw food diet is dangerous and unfit for most human consumption, because science tells us so. 

 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Learn to simply put your arguments without using insulting language. No one is going to respect you for getting personal and using abusive insulting language. 

Then learn to not invent fake data or make up BS to try and bolster your point. I have a degree in history - which is why its easy for me to spot your made up falsehoods regarding history.  I am also a STEM field degree holder, which means i can do the same when you invent falsehoods about science or try to pass off a travel magazine as a 'source' in science. 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

If you still don't understand these basics, then I have to put you on ignore list while you don't deserve respect that one enters in discussion with you. 

It is very simple then - stop making stuff up or coming up with BS that YOU invented, just to bolster a point.