The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[Netzach]

Too few males in the clan and the clan cannot defend its territory against encroachment by other clans.

Too many males and you have internal conflicts for mates, thus weakening the clan.

Evolution selected for 1 to 1 pair-bonding as the ideal compromise between too many and too few.

Except it didn't.

 

[BLoved]

As far as I can tell, its a sexual orientation the same way heterosexuality and homosexuality is.

http://www.asexuality.org/home/

I remain open-minded regarding the subject. I simply do not know enough, nor have I researched enough sources to provide a considered opinion.

 

[Netzach]

So we're monogamous like whales.

No, they're not. Even though calves take forever to grow up and gestate.

Or maybe like lions?

Um no.

I know, penguins!

Only they're only together per breeding season - actually the majority of monogamous selection seems to favor people who have feathers and beaks.

 

[BLoved]

I'm sorry. I was simply trying to empathize with your beloved.

And I was just setting the record straight.

Keep in mind that I am the only one in this discussion who was specifically invited to start this discussion and encouraged to provide my opinions.

I'm the fish in the barrel. It's too easy to shoot at me for providing opinions when I've been specifically asked for them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Because biochemistry is incapable of explaining the complexity of the human psyche.

Biochemistry is a very important part of the human psyche. C.F. "neuropeptides" "Mirror neurons" and works by the eminent researcher Jaak Panksepp
Here is a PDF of his paper "Seven Sins of Evolutionary Biology"
i couldn't find an html version, I'm sorry-- it's well worth reading.

"I don't understand how you manage to love a mob of birds that has just tried to kill you."


"Oh, Fletch, you don't love that! You don't love hatred and evil, of course. You have to practice and see the real gull, the good in every one of them, and to help them see it in themselves. That's what I mean by love. It's fun, when you get the knack of it."

--- Richard Bach, "Jonathon Livingstone Seagull"

This explains so much.

I'd be curious to know whether this is the result of genetics or experience.

To my knowledge this question hasn't been resolved.

It seems to be greatly influenced by the gestational environment. The hormonal composition of the womb changes all the time, depending on both the progression of the pregnancy and the external influences and stresses she encounters. All hormones in our bodies are multi-use, and during fetal development the are used to switch genes on or off. During the brain's development, they can influence overall personality and gender identity. Whether or not this influence develops into a sexual preference every time is uncertain.
C.F. "epigenetics"

Too few males in the clan and the clan cannot defend its territory against encroachment by other clans.

Too many males and you have internal conflicts for mates, thus weakening the clan.

Evolution selected for 1 to 1 pair-bonding as the ideal compromise between too many and too few.

You know this for certain, do you? We want to be very careful when we make claims based on conjecture. We want to be very aware that our personal preferences and prejudices can influence thought experiments, while empirical data is harder to distort.

And I was just setting the record straight.

Keep in mind that I am the only one in this discussion who was specifically invited to start this discussion and encouraged to provide my opinions.

I'm the fish in the barrel. It's too easy to shoot at me for providing opinions when I've been specifically asked for them.

If you only thought carefully how to word your opinions and make them sound less like sweeping insults, you would have fewer scales and fins.

 

[BLoved]

Species where the male mates and leaves, providing no support to the female or offspring tend to produce offspring who are at least mobile within a short period of time, such as caribou and polar bears.

The fact our offspring are helpless and remain so for so long demonstrates our species didn't evolve in that way.

That 21st century humans can engage in such behaviour only indicates that the struggle for survival is a lot easier than it was throughout most of our evolutionary history.

It does not indicate that the hard-wiring has been lost (and the struggle for same-sex marriage indicates the drive to pair-bond is as healthy as ever).

No it does not. It demonstrates that we live in a society that rewards one kind of relationship at the exclusion of other kinds monetarily.

So it is your belief that homosexuals are seeking the right to marry because they believe they will benefit financially?

None of them want to marry out of love?

 

[intothewoods]

And I was just setting the record straight.

Keep in mind that I am the only one in this discussion who was specifically invited to start this discussion and encouraged to provide my opinions.

I'm the fish in the barrel. It's too easy to shoot at me for providing opinions when I've been specifically asked for them.

Posters here suggest that other posters start threads all the time. As in this case, the idea is just to keep threads on-topic.

 

[BLoved]

Biochemistry is a very important part of the human psyche.

Biochemistry does not explain why one man throws himself on a hand grenade while another man runs.

Dysfunctional behaviour resulting from abusive experiences is not based on biochemistry.

 

[BLoved]

If you only thought carefully how to word your opinions and make them sound less like sweeping insults, you would have fewer scales and fins.

If I only said what you want me to say you'd like me?

~smile~

Those who cannot accept that the world is vast and that most people will not abide by your wishes are bound to experience disappointment.

 

[intothewoods]

Biochemistry does not explain why one man throws himself on a hand grenade while another man runs.

Dysfunctional behaviour resulting from abusive experiences is not based on biochemistry.

But it actually does. We just don't know enough yet about the science of biochemistry to be able to provide an explanation.

 

[Netzach]

So it is your belief that homosexuals are seeking the right to marry because they believe they will benefit financially?

None of them want to marry out of love?

The legal construct of marriage has nothing to do with love whatsoever. Of course they want to marry out of love, just as heterosexuals in the west do every day. However all the love in those relationships hasn't won them the right. Romantic love doesn't exist on the same axis as social justice, appeals to romantic love have fallen on completely deaf ears, and it's time to put the focus where it belongs - on property, stuff, and rights.

 

[Etoile]

So it is your belief that homosexuals are seeking the right to marry because they believe they will benefit financially?

None of them want to marry out of love?

I think I'll take this one.

Just so you know my background, my wife and I have been together since 1998, and we were legally married last year in Connecticut. We live in Virginia, though, so it is a meaningless piece of paper here.

You're asking about two different things: why do gay people want to marry, and why are they seeking the right to marry. And you're acting as if they were mutually exclusive, and they're not. Of course every gay person ("homosexual" is so clinical) who wants to marry, wants to marry out of love. Very few people have marriages of convenience anymore - most people marry out of love, though they may stay together out of convenience (for the kids, for the tax breaks, can't afford divorce, etc.). This is not to say that marriages of convenience don't happen, but the majority of marriages today are for love. (Even Britney Spears, who got married for 55 hours, did it out of love.)

But why are we fighting for the right to marry in the US? You're damn right it is financial. When I graduate, I'll be without health insurance. My wife has a great plan, but it doesn't allow same-sex relationships, so I will be paying out of pocket for insurance. We have to file on our taxes as single, instead of taking advantage of lower rates for married couples. We don't automatically inherit each other's property. And so forth. There are 1,138 rights that straight people in the US have, that gay people don't have. And yes, many of them are financial.

Additionally, gay couples already can marry "for love." It's called a commitment ceremony, and it has no legal standing, but many couples consider it a wedding, marriage, etc. Nobody wants to fight for the right to marry "for love" - we already can. We are fighting for the right to be EQUAL. The things that make us unequal are largely financial at the present time.

 

[neci]

Dysfunctional behavior resulting from abusive experiences is not based on biochemistry.

sorry sweetie, you are wrong. physical and emotional abuse can result in the altering of biochemical reactions in the body.

Sexual and physical abuse history in gastroenterology practice

Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders

now, i'm not talking about someone who goes to a play party, gets beaten in front of people, and then is not kissed on the lips afterward. i find it disgusting how you throw around the term abuse, which is why i have not really payed much attention to your posts so far. the word abuse is serious, and should not be thrown around casually. you do a disservice to real victims by cheapening the word to fit your cause.

 

[BLoved]

But it actually does. We just don't know enough yet about the science of biochemistry to be able to provide an explanation.

And that's why your assertion that "it actually does" is moot.

Granted, the body is a biochemical machine, but the spirit, the soul, who and what we are is far more than a mass of chemicals interacting.

 

[BLoved]

Of course they want to marry out of love, just as heterosexuals in the west do every day. However all the love in those relationships hasn't won them the right.

It did here in Canada.

It will in America.

Keep faith in Love and miracles happen.

 

[BLoved]

("homosexual" is so clinical)

I wanted to be sure I included all. I wanted to avoid using terminology which someone might perceive as favouring one group or another.

As for the rest ...

I am not discounting the financial inequities nor the need to rectify them (and I do not consider the financial inequities to be the worst that society has done to gays ... I am mindful that Hitler ordered the same fate for homosexuals as he ordered for the Jews).

But beneath that is a more fundamental motive: the right to be recognized by society as committed to a life-long relationship based on love.

This is the fundamental basis behind het marriage.

None of these issues would be issues if not for the love between two people unashamed of their love and unwilling to hide their feelings from the rest of us.

Nor would I want to confuse anyone regarding the committment one makes in their heart with the socially sanctioned institution of marriage. I was married to my wife long before we "married".

 

[BLoved]

sorry sweetie, you are wrong. physical and emotional abuse can result in the altering of biochemical reactions in the body.

In other words, emotional responses to stimuli drive biochemical changes, not the other way around.

And emotional responses are the result of conditioning, another behaviour pattern without biochemical stimuli.

I fail to see how this is in disagreement with what I said. Human psychology is far too complex to be explained through a biochemical model.

 

[BLoved]

I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you've given me the will to survive
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive

Don't you worry
Sometimes you've just gotta let it ride
The world is changing
Right before your eyes
Now I've found you
There's no more emptiness inside
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive

I would die for you
Climb the highest mountain
Baby, there's nothing I wouldn't do

Now I've found you
There's no more emptiness inside
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive

I would die for you
Climb the highest mountain
Baby, there's nothing I wouldn't do

I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you've given me the will to survive
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive
When we're hungry... love will keep us alive

-- Eagles, "Love Will Keep Us Alive"

... For my Beloved

 

[Etoile]

It did here in Canada.

It will in America.

Keep faith in Love and miracles happen.

I try. I do keep trying to believe it will happen. It's a slow process, but just 10 miles from me, DC started allowing gay marriage a few short months ago. It's frustrating sometimes but I keep trying to have hope.

I wanted to be sure I included all. I wanted to avoid using terminology which someone might perceive as favouring one group or another.

As for the rest ...

I am not discounting the financial inequities nor the need to rectify them (and I do not consider the financial inequities to be the worst that society has done to gays ... I am mindful that Hitler ordered the same fate for homosexuals as he ordered for the Jews).

But beneath that is a more fundamental motive: the right to be recognized by society as committed to a life-long relationship based on love.

This is the fundamental basis behind het marriage.

None of these issues would be issues if not for the love between two people unashamed of their love and unwilling to hide their feelings from the rest of us.

Nor would I want to confuse anyone regarding the committment one makes in their heart with the socially sanctioned institution of marriage. I was married to my wife long before we "married".

What you say here is exactly what I am trying to say, though. Yes, of course couples can commit to each other without a marriage license. My wife and I have been known to our friends and family as a couple for 12 years; we got matching rings back in 2004. But the thing we are missing - the thing that gay people are fighting for - is the equality afforded by that social institution. Gay people are not fighting for the right to announce their love, or be recognized by society as in committed. We are fighting for the social institution, pure and simple. Because we deserve it. Because we love, as you have said, just like anyone else. Because gender shouldn't be a reason to deny someone rights.

So when you asked your question "so gay people are fighting for financial equality? don't they want to marry out of love?" the answer is YES to both. Of course we want to marry out of love. Everyone does. But we want to be given EQUALITY when we do it.

Canada is far advanced compared to the United States in this regard (and others).

For the record, the term "homosexual" is actually considered negative in the gay community. The word "gay" is just fine, and includes men and women. You can use "same-sex" in many cases too. "Homosexual" is what the shrinks used to call us back when it was a disease, so the term is out of favor.

 

[00Syd]

Ew. The Eagles.

 

[intothewoods]

And that's why your assertion that "it actually does" is moot.

Granted, the body is a biochemical machine, but the spirit, the soul, who and what we are is far more than a mass of chemicals interacting.

It's not moot at all. We don't fully understand the biochemical reactions, so we posit explanations for human behavior. We adopt philosophical worldviews. Some of these opinions are more factually based than others, but they are still opinions.

 

[BLoved]

I try. I do keep trying to believe it will happen. It's a slow process, but just 10 miles from me, DC started allowing gay marriage a few short months ago. It's frustrating sometimes but I keep trying to have hope.

I've had some very lively debates with American fundamentalists on this issue.

Of course, you could always take the advice I give on this subject: apply to Canada for political asylum from the official bigotry in America.

That ought to stir a few waves

What you say here is exactly what I am trying to say, though. Yes, of course couples can commit to each other without a marriage license. My wife and I have been known to our friends and family as a couple for 12 years; we got matching rings back in 2004. But the thing we are missing - the thing that gay people are fighting for - is the equality afforded by that social institution. Gay people are not fighting for the right to announce their love, or be recognized by society as in committed. We are fighting for the social institution, pure and simple. Because we deserve it. Because we love, as you have said, just like anyone else. Because gender shouldn't be a reason to deny someone rights.

And that is exactly the basis upon which several provincial supreme courts ruled in favour of overturning the Marriage Act, thus allowing for same-sex marriage.

But as I said, all of this would be moot if not fueled by love. Marriage, the institution, is just a metaphor for the love that binds people together. Fighting for that metaphor is fighting for another way of expressing that love.

So when you asked your question "so gay people are fighting for financial equality? don't they want to marry out of love?" the answer is YES to both. Of course we want to marry out of love. Everyone does. But we want to be given EQUALITY when we do it.

~smile~

Don't be confused by rhetorical questions. I was asking someone who was trying to present it as a purely financial motive.

Canada is far advanced compared to the United States in this regard (and others).

Canada has its faults, but we're basically a liberal-minded people, and I don't think I was ever more proud to be Canadian than when I learned we'd legalized same-sex marriage.

Now if we could do something about the marijuana laws ...

For the record, the term "homosexual" is actually considered negative in the gay community. The word "gay" is just fine, and includes men and women. You can use "same-sex" in many cases too. "Homosexual" is what the shrinks used to call us back when it was a disease, so the term is out of favor.

Fair enough. "Gay" it is.

Keep in mind I've been around long enough to have heard words come into favour and then get discarded ... hard to keep up sometimes.

 

[Netzach]

There are also some GLBT people who are so repulsed by the institution of heterosexual marriage and what it has done to heterosexual people's lives that they question why any GLBT people would want to replicate it. A small minority, but I don't think their point is insane.

 

[BLoved]

It's not moot at all. We don't fully understand the biochemical reactions, so we posit explanations for human behavior. We adopt philosophical worldviews. Some of these opinions are more factually based than others, but they are still opinions.

An evolutionary history of pair-bonding within the human species isn't an opinion. It is demonstrable fact (altricial offspring as opposed to precocious).

In all of the most primitive tribes studied pair-bonding is the norm.

 

[BLoved]

There are also some GLBT people who are so repulsed by the institution of heterosexual marriage and what it has done to heterosexual people's lives that they question why any GLBT people would want to replicate it. A small minority, but I don't think their point is insane.

What hets have done with marriage is an argument I make against those who argue that marriage is too 'sacred' to be shared with gays.

And I do have to wonder how many of them are trying to win support for themselves in the Republican party: tokens of what 'good' gays are supposed to believe.

When it comes to the party of Ann Coulter I wouldn't put it past them ...