BigManWeek+11

In economics we learned that when given limited resources but unlimited rights to these resources; humans will be selfish and greedy. They will utilize all of the resources themselves, even if it is more than needed, without taking a moment to step back and see how the resources could instead be dispersed amongst the whole group to ensure that everyone gets the needed amounts. When we learned this in class, I thought that this perfectly displayed the human tendency to be selfish. However, Chapter 11 in the text seemed to subtly dispute that by highlighting how across all societies humans strive for relationships and friendships. Is it a natural tendency for humans to seek company? If so- why when put into a stressful situation do humans tend to only fend for themselves; rather than everyone? At what point does someone stop having a natural need to share a bond with someone and instead just focus on their own needs?

After reading about the Nuer marriage traditions of woman marriage and ghost marriage, I was wondering if there were any types of man marriage or if homosexual relations among males weren't allowed? In addition regarding ghost marriages, do the Nuer acknowledge that it is an ongoing process that is necessary or do they see a need to interfere?

http://sc2218.wetpaint.com/page/The+Nuer+Tribe https://www.google.com/search?q=nuer+homosexuality&oq=nuer+homosexuality&sugexp=chrome,mod=19&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In reading about polygamy and polyandry in chapter 12, I started wondering what happens to men or women who can not find a partner because some men or women have multiple partners? Like if a man has multiple wives and the population is about 50/50, how does society deal with the people that have no wives?

(This question is partial influenced by media coverage of the 'Lost Boys' from Mormon fundamentalist communities so I realize it might be a bit biased.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger

Although it may differ from culture to culture, what are the methods anthropologists use to study the sexuality of humans? What if this subject is not to be discussed in a certain culture? What type of connection or relationship must an anthropologist have with the people in order to gain access to ask about these personal matters. Does the gender of the anthropologist matter?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,024.htm http://hsaig-aaa.ning.com/

I'm curious about the dynamics between evolutionary psychology and feminism, for example"Laurette Liesen (2011:749) points, evolutionary //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">psychology //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;"> often has been especially resistant to feminist intellectual critique and methodological corrective..." Is part of this conflict due to patriarchal views in evolutionary psychology?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">The reading also mentioned Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer’s (2000) book, //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">, where the book argued rape was primarily a reproductive strategy, while feminists argued that rape was about "power, an expression of patriarchy and an act of violence". In evolutionary terms I think that reproduction and power are very similar, the ability to reproduce is the apex of "evolutionary power" and power means that your have the ability to reproduce. Or was the problem that it was an expression of patriarchy and an act of violence? Couldn't these also once be aspects of a reproductive strategy, now outdated? Isn't rape observed in primates? Biology and evolution aren't always pretty, acknowledging that these behaviors existed doesn't mean that evolutionary psychologists were advocating for rape. What are other issues in this conflict? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">I'm having problems trying to get to my point, hopefully you understood what I'm trying to say, thanks anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape http://www.salon.com/2000/02/29/rape_15/ http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/thornhill&palmer.html http://web.mit.edu/paxson/www/articles/Sex_on_the_Brain.pdf

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In the video, “Sex: An Unnatural History”, Mr. Downey mentions that “sex in some way is a bit like hands, it may evolved for one reason but we use it for a whole lot of reason” and I was wondering how the use of sex developed some many different uses and reasons for it? Furthermore, why is it that most other species do not use sex the way humans do?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">As I was reading the article by Greg Downey titled “The long, slow sexual revolution” I began to wonder why the act of sex is no longer held at the high standard that it used to be. Downey speaks of the sexual revolution during the 60’s and 70’s and it made me wonder if this was the beginning of the decline? At what point in time did it seem to become “socially acceptable” to have sex? (I am neither promoting or discouraging the act- just curious.) Furthermore- how does social networking play into this new outlook on casual sex? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">In the video accompanying, "The Long, Slow, Sexual Revolution" the concept of sex for procreation versus sex for recreation is discussed. The rise of "the pill" reduced the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy and therefore removed much of the risk associated with sex for recreation. Despite the increasing apparency of recreational sex over the past several decades, the stigma associated with sexual expression still plays a profound role in the shaping of children's conceptions of sex. If society is making no visible steps in eliminating the "sex is shameful and dirty except when procreating" construct we force on our children, then, even if inadvertently so, aren't we discounting every other positive aspect of sexual relationships? In effect, we are putting more emphasis on the sex and less on the love when we teach our children that sex is for procreation; a means to an end, so to say. (Not to imply that having children is the "end", of course.) How does this reflect the values of acceptance and tolerance that so many adults claim to hold in high esteem, if we are discounting homosexual relationships because the sex itself isn't directly linked to procreation? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Based on the reading, "The long, slow sexual revolution," by GregDowney <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">stated how throughout history and other cultures, people have been having sex <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">in all different ways and sexual preferences. If that is the case, why is it <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">that the American people still generally feel the topic of sex is so taboo? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">Even with the knowledge that most people are involved in sexual relations, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">and the technology that has been created for safe sex, and womens' right, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">there is still much progress that can be had to improve the circumstances. Do <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">other western cultures feel the same way or are these views strictly within <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.800000190734863px;">America?