RE: Polygamy
Two reasons besides patrilocality that males might be more valuable: Heavy labor it takes a lot of muscle mass - especially upper body muscle mass - to do. Nonmechanized warfare, ditto. So you want sons to push the ox-plow and sons to wield a sword. Never judge a book by its movie. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:48:11 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Polygamy hkhenson wrote: At 01:00 PM 2/4/2008, Alberto wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. This does not square with field anthropology. Polygamy is well known in cultures where female infanticide and distorted sex ratios are prevalent. Polygamy greatly exacerbated women's scarcity and direct and indirect male competition and conflict over them. Indeed, a cross-cultural study (Otterbein 1994: 103) has found polygamy to be ... Sorry to shoot down your thoughts. Please try again because I would really like to understand it and am clean out of ideas. Keith Keith-- Hi. This is interesting. First, just for clarification, do the studies have direct evidence of female infanticide, or do they deduce it from the skewed sex ratio? (There is some evidence that the ratio can be made to vary from the norm without infanticide. Just checking...) The part I have trouble with is why it would be in the parent's interest to have male children rather than females. In terms of number of descendants, it seems that females would actually be a better choice if the sex ratio was skewed. (Pretending that each female has 3 children, wouldn't it be better on the average to have a female child which gave 3 grandchildren, rather than a male child with a 1 in 10 chance of surviving to have a harem of 5 women, say? Since the male produces 0.1 * 5 * 3 = 1.5 grandchildren, on average.) So the argument would be that the parents are responding to social forces. For instance, that a female child costs them for its upbringing, but provides little return on investment, since she's going to go live with her husband's family anyway? (i.e. patrilocality) And the parents may even need to provide a dowry. Whereas grown male children will at least attempt to pay back their parents, and may even get rich? (I guess I have classical China in mind, or something.) Claiming social forces produce this effect doesn't really address the basic question, though. WHY is this way of organizing a society stable? In economic terms, a scarcity of women should make them more valuable. This would put them (or their parents) in a better bargaining position. So that instead of paying a dowry, parents gradually wind up being paid a bride price... ---David It takes a certain mindset to do this kind of analysis, doesn't it? : ) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
At 01:00 PM 2/6/2008, David Hobby wrote: Keith wrote: This does not square with field anthropology. Polygamy is well known in cultures where female infanticide and distorted sex ratios are prevalent. Polygamy greatly exacerbated women's scarcity and direct and indirect male competition and conflict over them. Indeed, a cross-cultural study (Otterbein 1994: 103) has found polygamy to be ... Sorry to shoot down your thoughts. Please try again because I would really like to understand it and am clean out of ideas. Keith Keith-- Hi. This is interesting. First, just for clarification, do the studies have direct evidence of female infanticide, or do they deduce it from the skewed sex ratio? Both. It's robust. http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdfhttp://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1a.pdf. (There is some evidence that the ratio can be made to vary from the norm without infanticide. Just checking...) The normal ration at birth is 105 males to 100 females. Because boys are more likely to die, the ratio is close to 1 to 1 by reproductive age. Evolutionary theory says that the ratio will be pulled back close to one because the less common sex then has a better chance of reproducing. (There are well understood exceptions.) The part I have trouble with is why it would be in the parent's interest to have male children rather than females. You can see a progression in Azar Gat's collected data. With the exception of China, the female infanticide cultures are hunter gatherer and/or warlike. And the more extreme the environmental problems get the more skewed the ratio. As a guess, such peoples value male hunters or warriors in the clan more than females. Females you can always steal from other groups if you have enough warriors to carry out the task. With the Chinese, I guess it's because the culture expects males to support old parents while the females leave home. It's really worth reading this http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf because the Malthusian era existed right up to 1800. In that time there was a tight coupling between the number babies women had and how long the average person could expect to live. Infanticide, especially of female infants, reduced the effective number. In terms of number of descendants, snip In that era, the average woman had 2 surviving children plus or minus a tiny fraction. It's weird, but Clark shows that in that time disease *improved* how well off people were on average. snip It takes a certain mindset to do this kind of analysis, doesn't it? : ) Definitely. If you like the Clark paper, I highly recommend his book Farewell to Alms. Lots of stuff the chew over there, especially since the predictions are for most of the world to return to Malthusian times. Have you looked at how thin the grain reserves are? Keith ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
At 01:00 PM 2/4/2008, Alberto wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. This does not square with field anthropology. Polygamy is well known in cultures where female infanticide and distorted sex ratios are prevalent. Polygamy greatly exacerbated women's scarcity and direct and indirect male competition and conflict over them. Indeed, a cross-cultural study (Otterbein 1994: 103) has found polygamy to be one of the most distinctive correlates there is of feuding and internal warfare. Female infanticide was another factor contributing to women's scarcity and male competition. Although the number of male and female babies should be nearly equal at birth (105:100 in favour of the boys), a surveys of hundreds of different communities from over a hundred different cultures (of which about one fifth were hunter-gatherers) has shown that juvenile sex ratios averaged 127:100 in favour of the boys, with an even higher rate in some societies (Divale and Harris 1976). The Eskimos are known to have been one of the most extreme cases. They registered childhood sex ratios of 150:100 and even 200:100 in favour of the boys. No wonder then that the Eskimo experienced such a high homicide rate over women, even though polygamy barely existed among them. Among Australian Aboriginal tribes childhood ratios of 125:100 and even 138:100 in favour of the boys were recorded (Fison and Holt 1967 [1880]: 173, 176). Among the Orinoco and Amazonian basin hunters and horticulturalists childhood boy ratio to every 100 girls was recorded to be: Yanomamo 129 (140 for the first two years of life), Xavante 124, Peruvian Cashinahua 148 (Dickemann 1979: 363-4). In Fiji the figure was 133. In tribal Montenegro it was estimated at 160 (Boehm 1984: 177). Although the evidence is naturally weaker, similar ratios in favour of the males have been found among the skeletons of adult Middle and Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, indicating a similar practice of female infanticide that may go back hundreds of thousands of years (Divale 1972). Polygyny and female infanticide thus created women scarcity and increased men's competition for them. snip Page 14 http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf And in any case, all societies, including the western ones and Japan, were engaged in war long after the switch to monogamy. Sorry to shoot down your thoughts. Please try again because I would really like to understand it and am clean out of ideas. Keith ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
hkhenson wrote: At 01:00 PM 2/4/2008, Alberto wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. This does not square with field anthropology. Polygamy is well known in cultures where female infanticide and distorted sex ratios are prevalent. Polygamy greatly exacerbated women's scarcity and direct and indirect male competition and conflict over them. Indeed, a cross-cultural study (Otterbein 1994: 103) has found polygamy to be ... Sorry to shoot down your thoughts. Please try again because I would really like to understand it and am clean out of ideas. Keith Keith-- Hi. This is interesting. First, just for clarification, do the studies have direct evidence of female infanticide, or do they deduce it from the skewed sex ratio? (There is some evidence that the ratio can be made to vary from the norm without infanticide. Just checking...) The part I have trouble with is why it would be in the parent's interest to have male children rather than females. In terms of number of descendants, it seems that females would actually be a better choice if the sex ratio was skewed. (Pretending that each female has 3 children, wouldn't it be better on the average to have a female child which gave 3 grandchildren, rather than a male child with a 1 in 10 chance of surviving to have a harem of 5 women, say? Since the male produces 0.1 * 5 * 3 = 1.5 grandchildren, on average.) So the argument would be that the parents are responding to social forces. For instance, that a female child costs them for its upbringing, but provides little return on investment, since she's going to go live with her husband's family anyway? (i.e. patrilocality) And the parents may even need to provide a dowry. Whereas grown male children will at least attempt to pay back their parents, and may even get rich? (I guess I have classical China in mind, or something.) Claiming social forces produce this effect doesn't really address the basic question, though. WHY is this way of organizing a society stable? In economic terms, a scarcity of women should make them more valuable. This would put them (or their parents) in a better bargaining position. So that instead of paying a dowry, parents gradually wind up being paid a bride price... ---David It takes a certain mindset to do this kind of analysis, doesn't it? : ) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 4 Feb 2008, at 05:10, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. The consensus is that the proportion of women who are lesbians is much lower than the proportion of men who are gay. If we remove all gay and lesbian people from the equation there is still a surplus of straight women to straight men. How big a surplus depends on whose numbers for the proportions are correct. San Francisco Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 05:10, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. The consensus is that the proportion of women who are lesbians is much lower than the proportion of men who are gay. If we remove all gay and lesbian people from the equation there is still a surplus of straight women to straight men. How big a surplus depends on whose numbers for the proportions are correct. I think the concensus is off, then. I think it's close to equal, or very slightly biased towards more lesbians. Do you have sources to cite? I'd be interested in seeing them if you do. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 4 Feb 2008, at 14:40, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 05:10, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. The consensus is that the proportion of women who are lesbians is much lower than the proportion of men who are gay. If we remove all gay and lesbian people from the equation there is still a surplus of straight women to straight men. How big a surplus depends on whose numbers for the proportions are correct. I think the concensus is off, then. I think it's close to equal, or very slightly biased towards more lesbians. Do you have sources to cite? I'd be interested in seeing them if you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation United States 1990: Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation published findings of 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either extensive or more than incidental homosexual experience. [12] 1990-1992: The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time. [13] 1992: The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years;[14] 1993: The Alan Guttmacher Institute found of sexually active men aged 20–39 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[15] 1993: Researchers Samuel and Cynthia Janus surveyed American adults aged 18 and over by distributing 4,550 questionnaires; 3,260 were returned and 2,765 were usable. The results of the cross-sectional nationwide survey stated men and women who reported frequent or ongoing homosexual experiences were 9% of men and 5% of women. [16] 1998: A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods — a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones — which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question Ever had receptive anal sex with another male: 0.1% to 0.8%. [17] 2003: Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[18] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual. In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds that It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates.The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated--a finding inconsistent with some other studies.) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products. - Steve Jobs ___
Re: Polygamy
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 14:40, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 05:10, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. The consensus is that the proportion of women who are lesbians is much lower than the proportion of men who are gay. If we remove all gay and lesbian people from the equation there is still a surplus of straight women to straight men. How big a surplus depends on whose numbers for the proportions are correct. I think the concensus is off, then. I think it's close to equal, or very slightly biased towards more lesbians. Do you have sources to cite? I'd be interested in seeing them if you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation United States 1990: Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation published findings of 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either extensive or more than incidental homosexual experience. [12] 1990-1992: The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time. [13] 1992: The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years;[14] 1993: The Alan Guttmacher Institute found of sexually active men aged 20–39 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[15] 1993: Researchers Samuel and Cynthia Janus surveyed American adults aged 18 and over by distributing 4,550 questionnaires; 3,260 were returned and 2,765 were usable. The results of the cross-sectional nationwide survey stated men and women who reported frequent or ongoing homosexual experiences were 9% of men and 5% of women. [16] 1998: A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods — a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones — which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question Ever had receptive anal sex with another male: 0.1% to 0.8%. [17] 2003: Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[18] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual. In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds that It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates.The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated--a finding inconsistent with some other studies.) Oh, OK. All I was operating on was anecdotal evidence, which was *very* heavily biased towards lesbians. Thank you for the information! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 4 Feb 2008, at 15:50, Julia Thompson wrote: Oh, OK. All I was operating on was anecdotal evidence, which was *very* heavily biased towards lesbians. Thank you for the information! Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. Thirty men and women started a computer science degree with me and by the fifth year there were only six of us (all male) left. And one (at least) of my five classmates was gay. So that's nearly 17%. And in my first programming job in an office with about ten men and one (married) female office administrator (at least) one of my male colleagues was gay. So that's about 10%. So by my personal experience of college and the workplace up to that point I'd have to say between 10% and 17% (at least) of men were gay. Looking on friendsreunited at my old high school class I see only one of them has come out - as a lesbian, but I don't actually remember her. She's the only lesbian I know (AFAIK) whereas I know a few gay men apart from my ex-classmate and ex-colleague. So my anecdotal evidence would have gay men outnumbering lesbians by around 5 to 1 or so. But the numbers I believe are the ones from serious scientific surveys Maru. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:54 AM Subject: Re: Polygamy On 4 Feb 2008, at 14:40, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 05:10, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. The consensus is that the proportion of women who are lesbians is much lower than the proportion of men who are gay. If we remove all gay and lesbian people from the equation there is still a surplus of straight women to straight men. How big a surplus depends on whose numbers for the proportions are correct. I think the concensus is off, then. I think it's close to equal, or very slightly biased towards more lesbians. Do you have sources to cite? I'd be interested in seeing them if you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation United States 1990: Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation published findings of 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either extensive or more than incidental homosexual experience. [12] 1990-1992: The American National Health Interview Survey does household interviews of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The results of three of these surveys, done in 1990-1991 and based on over 9,000 responses each time, found between 2-3% of the people responding said yes to a set of statements which included You are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time. [13] 1992: The National Health and Social Life Survey asked 3,432 respondents whether they had any homosexual experience. The findings were 1.3% for women within the past year, and 4.1% since 18 years; for men, 2.7% within the past year, and 4.9% since 18 years;[14] 1993: The Alan Guttmacher Institute found of sexually active men aged 2039 found that 2.3% had experienced same-sex sexual activity in the last ten years, and 1.1% reported exclusive homosexual contact during that time.[15] 1993: Researchers Samuel and Cynthia Janus surveyed American adults aged 18 and over by distributing 4,550 questionnaires; 3,260 were returned and 2,765 were usable. The results of the cross-sectional nationwide survey stated men and women who reported frequent or ongoing homosexual experiences were 9% of men and 5% of women. [16] 1998: A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5% positive response rate; the homosexual behavior with the greatest reporting difference (800%, adjusted) was to the question Ever had receptive anal sex with another male: 0.1% to 0.8%. [17] 2003: Smith's 2003 analysis of National Opinion Research Center data[18] states that 4.9% of sexually active American males had had a male sexual partner since age 18, but that since age 18 less than 1% are [exclusively] gay and 4+% bisexual. In the top twelve urban areas however, the rates are double the national average. Smith adds that It is generally believed that including adolescent behavior would further increase these rates.The NORC data has been criticised because the original design sampling techniques were not followed, and depended upon direct self report regarding masturbation and same sex behaviors. (For example, the original data in the early 1990s reported that approximately 40% of adult males had never masturbated--a finding inconsistent with some other studies.) *** Inconsistent with other studies? Hell, that is inconsistent with reality!! Masturbation is almost a universal fact of life. But my
Re: Polygamy
William wrote: But the numbers I believe are the ones from serious scientific surveys Maru. But the Wiki article isn't very conclusive is it? It's prefaced with this: Measuring the prevalence of various sexual orientationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientationis difficult because there is a lack of reliable data http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reliable_dataaction=edit. Problems gathering data include: - Survey data regarding stigmatized or deeply personal feelings or activities are often inaccurate. Participants often avoid answers which they feel society, the survey-takers, or they themselves dislike. - The research must select measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation, and that may involve further testing problems. The class of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the class of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the class of people who self-identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#_note-black - In studies measuring sexual activity, respondents may have different ideas about what constitutes a sexual act. - There are several different biological and psychosocial components to sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex and genderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender, and a given person may not cleanly fit into a particular category. and concludes with this: In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports. It is important to note, however, that these numbers are subject to many of the pitfalls inherent in researching sensitive social issues. It is possible that survey results may be biased by under-reporting, for instance. (See note 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Footnote.) The frequent use of non-random sampleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample(white college students) in many studies could also serve to skew the data. In general, most research agrees that the number of people who have had multiple same-gender sexual experiences is fewer than the number of people who have had a single such experience, and that the number of people who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual is fewer than the number of people who have had multiple homosexual experiences. In addition, major historical shifts can occur in reports of the prevalence of homosexuality. For example, the Hamburghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HamburgInstitute for Sexual Research conducted a survey over the sexual behavior of young people in 1970, and repeated it in 1990. Whereas in 1970 18% of the boys aged 16 and 17 reported to have had same-sex sexual experiences, the number had dropped to 2% by 1990. [2]http://www.lsbk.ch/articles/gunter_schmidt.asp *Ever since homosexuality became publicly argued to be an innate sexual orientation, boys' fear of being seen as gay has, if anything, increased,*the director of the institute, Volkmar Sigusch, suggested in a 1998 article for a German medical journal. [3]http://www.bvvp.de/artikel/jugendsex.html In 2005, as part of the statistical and financial measurements required to implement the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom's new Civil Partnership Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Partnership_Act_2004, the British government's H.M. Treasury actuaries calculated that there are 3.6 million British people who may want to enter into a gay or lesbian civil partnership arrangement. This is equal to around 6 percent of the UK population. I'm not convinced by any of the data. Doug lies, damned lies, statistics maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 3 Feb 2008, at 22:10, jon louis mann wrote: William T Goodall wrote: (snip) It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognize Islamic polygamy, although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. theocracy violates the separation of church and state. So does making laws that support a Judeo-Christian notion of marriage whilst outlawing the practises of other religions. there are limits to religious freedom, otherwise any one can claim to be the next joseph smith and prophecize that any child can be forced into marriage before they even hit puberty. The limit to 'religious freedom' in the USA is that it doesn't apply to non-Judeo-Christian traditions. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. It was an intriguing suggestion, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
William wrote: If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. Unless lesbians buy into the polygamy thing, this is probably a wash. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
Julia wrote: You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. It was an intriguing suggestion, though. Oops, didn't see this until after I had sent mine. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy in the closet
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare, but they do exist in the West, and in other parts of the world they're more common. We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all too often they involve they exploitation of women There are ones that don't. Those tend to be *extremely* low-profile, and what you actually hear about are the horrid ones like the Warren Jeffs situation, or whatever was going on with David Koresh. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare, but they do exist in the West, and in other parts of the world they're more common. We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all too often they involve they exploitation of women I still don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an unusual domestic relationship makes for a dramatic reordering of anything. Its because people respond to incentives, and if you provide incentives for something, then you will get more of it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy in the closet
On 11/11/2006, at 2:21 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare, but they do exist in the West, and in other parts of the world they're more common. We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all too often they involve they exploitation of women I'm sure that some do. Which is why a legal recognition of those relationships would protect those women, and their children. I still don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an unusual domestic relationship makes for a dramatic reordering of anything. Its because people respond to incentives, and if you provide incentives for something, then you will get more of it. So people only get married for the incentives? Again, it's a minor issue, and you're protecting way more people by having a legal framework and safety net than you are by banning something entirely (c.f. abortion, war on drugs, prohibition...) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
At 09:57 PM 2/20/2004 - Jan Coffey wrote: It is amazing to me that in a country claiming to be free that these types of conversations even still happen. Who or who-all, one decides to fall in love with, raise a family with, bond for life with, should be absolutly no concern of the state. Well, as I argued in my sadly fairly-ignored Federal Marriage Amendment piece, there are good reasons for the government to incentivise heterosexual marriages, and less compelling reasons for the government to provide incentives for other such relationships. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
I feel that there should be a program, perhaps governmental, perhaps SPCA, that helps parrots to regain the full use of their legs. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l