= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
novalis comments on What is moral foundation theory good for? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (296)
It constitutes the vast majority of significant, formal, mid to long term Western relationships. It does not constitute the majority of sexual relations that can be described as "It's Complicated" or "Single (but not celibate)".
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Even if serial means "one night at a time", so long as each man is only going home with one woman per night, there will still be an equal number of unattached women and men.
If all people were forced to be copulating at all times then your conclusion regarding equal access would follow. An acceptable weirdtopia!
All people being obliged to copulate at, and only at, specific times would also lead to the conclusion. A less acceptable weirdtopia.
As it happens it is possible for some males with exceptional attractiveness, skills and motivation to mate with a different female every day while some females do not mate every day. This allows for the possibility that there is not equal access to mates among all members of the population in question.
Typo?
Well, I suppose if we take that into account there is arbitrary amounts of access for everyone if they look hard enough.
Right, and the women who are not mating that day, are available to mate with someone else.
Yet, somehow that doesn't seem to happen in practice.
Nearly 3/4 of American adults are in relatively stable monogamous (in theory, of course) cohabiting relationships including marriage. And that's not counting non-cohabiting relationships or casual sex at all.
Extremely promiscuous straight men are a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, and the extent to which they monopolize female attention is vastly exaggerated. If you look at India and China, where there's a genuine difference in the number of men and women in the population, you'll see all sorts of weird social effects that we just don't have in the US. True, some of that is due to general attitudes towards women, but some of it isn't.
True on any given night; but it might well be the case that the unattached men are always the same ones, whereas each woman is unattached on certain nights but not on others. ETA: e.g., on Monday, Albert sleeps with Alice while Bob, Charles, Betty and Cathy stay unattached; on Tuesday, Albert sleeps with Betty while Alice, Bob, Charles and Cathy stay unattached; on Wednesday, Albert sleeps with Cathy while Alice, Bob, Betty and Charles stay unattached.