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 ___ http
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
Number of gays [was: Polygamy]
William T Goodall wrote: 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. Let's be non-scientific! I remember, at school, that every class had one or two gay men, and no lesbians. In classes of 40 to 60 people, with half to 2/3 male, this turns out ranges of 0.5 to 2.5% of gay men, and an upper bound of 2% for lesbians. OTOH, my middle daughter reports a rate of 12% among her male classmates - probably in this age it's more common to get out of the closet. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polygamy
theocracy violates the separation of church and state. jlm William T Goodall wrote So does making laws that support a Judeo-Christian notion of marriage whilst outlawing the practices 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. jlm The limit to 'religious freedom' in the USA is that it doesn't apply to non-Judeo-Christian traditions. muslims, buddhists, and even Cof$ are allowed to proselytize and practice their scams in american, as long as they don't get caught breaking the law. american institutions, often recognize and practice judeo-christian traditions, with impunity most of the time, but more and more, they are being challenged. polygamy was legal in utah until they applied for statehood. even now it is being practiced in some heretic compounds (according to big love)... serial monogamy and infidelity are more the norm now. during the free love era of the 60s and 70s, i was fortunate to have participated in consensual sex outside the bonds of matrimony, and on a few occasions, even some group activities. then i did the honorable thing and made my wife an honest woman, for the duration of our open marriage...~) years after she passed i did the same with the mother of my second son. now that i am long in the tooth, i am finally prepared to commit to monogamy, only to find that i have burned my bridges. i suspect that many of my fellow baby boomers find themselves alone now that our salad days are over... so it goes... jon Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ 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
Polygamy
At 01:00 PM 2/3/2008, William T Goodall wrote: snip It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognise Islamic polygamy although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. There is an interesting discussion about which sex benefits from monogamy in Robert Wright's _Moral Animal_. I can't find my copy at the moment, but as I remember his analysis said women were more likely to benefit where men differ a lot in quality. I.e., better a fraction of a top ranked man than all of a loser. 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. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polygamy
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. 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. i watch big love and poor bill hendrickson had to take multiple does of viagra a day. it's hard enough (no pun intended) to satisfy just one woman. polyandry makes a lot more sense, but has been only practiced in one society, that i know about. the question i have is, since the genders are close to evenly balanced, what happens to the left overs... jon l. mann Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ 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
the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001538.shtml#001538 ... The Historical Assault on Mormons: But the attacks on polygamy should evoke a more historical American shudder that should make conservatives think twice before equating their intolerance of gay marriage with intolerance for polygamy. ... A Slippery Slope: So in order to preserve marriage as that of one man with one woman, the US government systematically led a criminal and economic assault on a religion and essentially at a point of a gun, forced them to recant a core part of their religious beliefs. ... - I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators of America and to the Republicans for which I can't stand one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud Indefensible with Liberty and Justice Forget it. -Life in Hell (Matt Groening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy
I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who live very happily. I don't know of many quads who last long, they usualy end up in smaller groups, but 3 does seem to be the magic number for many. I take issue with the assumption that this is always sexist. What about 2 males and one female? Is that sexist against men? After all when it works it is usualy an equal kind of love in all directions. (That means at least 2 are bi.) But I don't think that the mormans are this way. These situations are allways one man and many women, and the women generaly do not have a kind of life-bond love for eachother. So that is where the sexism comes in, but that doesn't mean that all relationships envolving to women and one man are structured that way. It is ammazing 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. Now I agree, everyone has their limit of understanding. I could not see a marriage of 12 as having anything to do with love and bonding, and life commitment. Maybe a residency scam... But who is to make the decision? I wouldn't know how to look at an arangment of more than 4 and understand if their was truely love and bonding there. And I am mearly a sympathetic person in a 2 person bond. How would your average social worker be able to look at a relationship of more than 2 people and know whether or not it was real? So, simple, dont base residency, or any other problematic concern on life bonding. Where does that leave Gay marriage? Or even hetero mariage? --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001538.shtml#001538 ... The Historical Assault on Mormons: But the attacks on polygamy should evoke a more historical American shudder that should make conservatives think twice before equating their intolerance of gay marriage with intolerance for polygamy. ... A Slippery Slope: So in order to preserve marriage as that of one man with one woman, the US government systematically led a criminal and economic assault on a religion and essentially at a point of a gun, forced them to recant a core part of their religious beliefs. ... - I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators of America and to the Republicans for which I can't stand one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud Indefensible with Liberty and Justice Forget it. -Life in Hell (Matt Groening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy
-Original Message- From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:57 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who live very happily. I don't know of many quads who last long, they usualy end up in smaller groups, but 3 does seem to be the magic number for many. I take issue with the assumption that this is always sexist. What about 2 males and one female? Is that sexist against men? After all when it works it is usualy an equal kind of love in all directions. (That means at least 2 are bi.) But I don't think that the mormans are this way. I have meet some people in a polig' arraingement of multiple men and women... While visiting their home, a young boy answered the door. I asked, Can I speak with your dad?, the boy replied Which one? These situations are allways one man and many women, and the women generaly do not have a kind of life-bond love for eachother. So that is where the sexism comes in, but that doesn't mean that all relationships envolving to women and one man are structured that way. It is ammazing 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. Now I agree, everyone has their limit of understanding. I could not see a marriage of 12 as having anything to do with love and bonding, and life commitment. 12 is excessive for polig's. A man usually has up to 6 wives, adding one per generation (at 20, 40, 60, 80, and so on) Multiply this, by say, an average of 6 children per wife, it adds up. Note that this man would have multigenerational children. It makes for a very flat Geneological tree. Maybe a residency scam... But who is to make the decision? I wouldn't know how to look at an arangment of more than 4 and understand if their was truely love and bonding there. And I am mearly a sympathetic person in a 2 person bond. How would your average social worker be able to look at a relationship of more than 2 people and know whether or not it was real? Again, if a man at 60 has 3 wives, only one is producing children (generally). There is a heirarchy between the wives, formulated by the serialized basis for plural marriage. Generally, it is frowned upon for a man to sleep with more than one wife at a time (a criminal offense in some parts of Utah - especially if one of the wives is underage.) There are many examples of parallelized plural marriages within Arab communities. This is widely accepted in many arabic countries. Each wife is entitled to IDENTICALLY what the other wifes are entitled to (economically, at least). I am sure that there would be many arabic men that would take offense to your statement. Polygamy is really only found unacceptable within Western culture. So, simple, dont base residency, or any other problematic concern on life bonding. Where does that leave Gay marriage? I think your point is made, that we humans do form bonds in other fashions other than the typical Man/Woman arraingement. It is unfair to say polygamy is acceptable, but gay marriage is not. Nerd From Hell Or even hetero mariage? --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001538.shtml#001538 ... The Historical Assault on Mormons: But the attacks on polygamy should evoke a more historical American shudder that should make conservatives think twice before equating their intolerance of gay marriage with intolerance for polygamy. ... A Slippery Slope: So in order to preserve marriage as that of one man with one woman, the US government systematically led a criminal and economic assault on a religion and essentially at a point of a gun, forced them to recant a core part of their religious beliefs. ... - I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators of America and to the Republicans for which I can't stand one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud Indefensible with Liberty and Justice Forget it. -Life in Hell (Matt Groening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:57 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who live very happily. I don't know of many quads who last long, they usualy end up in smaller groups, but 3 does seem to be the magic number for many. I take issue with the assumption that this is always sexist. What about 2 males and one female? Is that sexist against men? After all when it works it is usualy an equal kind of love in all directions. (That means at least 2 are bi.) But I don't think that the mormans are this way. I have meet some people in a polig' arraingement of multiple men and women... While visiting their home, a young boy answered the door. I asked, Can I speak with your dad?, the boy replied Which one? I asume you are reffering to Mormans...if so,... I Did not know that. Still, they are not mutualy bonded, are they? These situations are allways one man and many women, and the women generaly do not have a kind of life-bond love for eachother. So that is where the sexism comes in, but that doesn't mean that all relationships envolving to women and one man are structured that way. It is ammazing 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. Now I agree, everyone has their limit of understanding. I could not see a marriage of 12 as having anything to do with love and bonding, and life commitment. 12 is excessive for polig's. A man usually has up to 6 wives, adding one per generation (at 20, 40, 60, 80, and so on) Multiply this, by say, an average of 6 children per wife, it adds up. Note that this man would have multigenerational children. It makes for a very flat Geneological tree. Once again, I believe you are refering specificaly to Mormans, I most certainly was not. Still, 12 is excessive, that was the point of choosing that number, to show to someone who does not find trigs moraly reprehinsable how it looks,,,feels, to those who would only couple, or who only accept the idea of 1 man 1 woman. Maybe a residency scam... But who is to make the decision? I wouldn't know how to look at an arangment of more than 4 and understand if their was truely love and bonding there. And I am mearly a sympathetic person in a 2 person bond. How would your average social worker be able to look at a relationship of more than 2 people and know whether or not it was real? Again, if a man at 60 has 3 wives, only one is producing children (generally). There is a heirarchy between the wives, formulated by the serialized basis for plural marriage. Generally, it is frowned upon for a man to sleep with more than one wife at a time (a criminal offense in some parts of Utah - especially if one of the wives is underage.) Again you seem to be refering to Mormans specificaly, I was not. There are many examples of parallelized plural marriages within Arab communities. This is widely accepted in many arabic countries. Each wife is entitled to IDENTICALLY what the other wifes are entitled to (economically, at least). Historicaly, they were entitled to everything else in equal portians as well. I am sure that there would be many arabic men that would take offense to your statement. Which statment would that be? Polygamy is really only found unacceptable within Western culture. Well, it was acceptable in chinese culture at one time, but it is not any longer acceptable. In Japan, many expect husbands to cheet, and even to get a permanent girlfriend later in life, but poligamy is not acceptedso I have been told anyway. So, simple, dont base residency, or any other problematic concern on life bonding. Where does that leave Gay marriage? I think your point is made, that we humans do form bonds in other fashions other than the typical Man/Woman arraingement. It is unfair to say polygamy is acceptable, but gay marriage is not. Nerd From Hell Or even hetero mariage? That point, and in addition, the qestion of how acceptance of non traditional relationships and life bonds will alter society. One more thing. I think that the main concern for most social concervatives.. (hate that term becouse it can mean so many differnt things to differnt people) ..so errr... -religious right- is that if something is legal that ~their~ children might engage in the practice. Much of the reason many Americans ancestors came to this country was to shelter their children from concepts. Of course genocide and slavery were
