Meghan Laslocky, “Just a Woman”: MONOGAMY IS UNNATURAL

“Just a woman with a healthy respect for science”, Ms. Laslocky announces for CNN.

CNN’s low ratings are becoming lower by the month. They seem to be seeking more publicity by entering the alleged science and sex world with Ms.Laslocky’s ‘findings’. Sex is top god today at the American university and newsprint.

The university female mentions nothing about family and the natural function of sex…..to preserve the species…..but, her femininity of study is stuck on the carnal……womankind to be celebrated as the animal.

Emperor penguins, she reports, usually mate for one year before moving on to mate with a new partner. She did not describe her own personal movings on mate to mate.

FACE IT: MONOGAMY IS UNNATURAL by Meghan Laslocky

(CNN) — Kristen Stewart, Ryan Phillippe, LeAnn Rimes, Jude Law, Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton. What do they have in common?

Many are quick to label a person who strays from his or her marriage or relationship as a “cheater,” but it’s really not that simple. It’s time for our culture to wake up and smell the sex pheromones: monogamy is not natural for many, or probably even most, humans.

With people living longer than ever before, a greater tolerance toward the human impulse to experience sexual variety is needed. Whether a person succeeds at being sexually monogamous depends as much on biology as environment.

Meghan Laslocky History and biology suggest that strict monogamy, which has social advantages, is not a “one size” fits all proposition.

The rise of the love marriage

Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment — the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries — when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world.

But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance.

Husband: Monogamy destroys marriage. The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage — regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations.

Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?

Lovebirds cheat

Biologically, we humans are animals. So it makes sense to look to the animal kingdom for clues as to what we are built for. Let’s start with birds. For some time, bird species such as lovebirds and penguins were celebrated among humans for their seemingly monogamous ways. About 90% of birds were thought to be strictly monogamous.

But DNA fingerprinting knocked birds off the monogamy perch. Analysis of avian DNA indicates that many nestlings’ fathers are not their biological fathers.

This led experts to distinguish between unions that are sexually exclusive and those that are socially monogamous — meaning a pair that raises a family together but indulges in what are called “extra pair copulations.”

“Faithless pairing” is the norm

The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth “practice any form of monogamy.” In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous.

One species, the prairie vole was subjected to scrutiny by biologists because it appeared to be truly monogamous. But it turns out that as a species, it just has a very high rate of sexual monogamy. Not every prairie vole resists straying.

Studies of prairie voles helped scientists understand that from a chemical and biological standpoint, sexual monogamy depends not just on particular hormones that are released in the brain, but on receptors for these hormones.

Among humans, here’s the rub: we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary dramatically from one individual to another.

In other words, “once a cheater, always a cheater,” might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person’s moral compass, upbringing or culture.

The bottom line is that flings are far from folly, at least in the animal kingdom. Even swans — symbols of fidelity — are not immune.

Opinion: Let’s hear about fidelity for a change

One partner for 50 years?

It’s also important to look at human longevity with respect to cultural expectations of monogamy.

As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers — also known as serial monogamy — was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety.

Today, the median age for first marriages is 28 for men and 26 for women. Disease is far less likely to kill someone in their prime and life expectancy hovers in the late 70s.

See also: Is this how we ‘do’ with marriage issues?

Because fidelity is considered the barometer of a successful marriage, this means that a person is theoretically expected to have one sexual partner for about 50 years.

This seems like a lot to expect of any human being — even the most honorable, ethical and moral.

Those who are able to stay with one partner for a long haul are sometimes looked upon with awe. Certainly, a lasting and happy marriage tends to be far better for the children.

It has long been assumed that men struggle more with monogamy than women. Some experts have started to question this theory. With the development of a drug that promises to boost female libido, one can argue that sexual boredom and the temptation to stray is as big of an issue for women as it is for men, if not more so.

Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration.

No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that.

Moreover, one’s perspective on monogamy is not necessarily an indicator of one’s personal practices. Many people have incorrectly assumed that because I’ve read, thought, and written about the problems with human monogamy that I am myself promiscuous.

For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor am I, as many commenters on this Yahoo post suggested, a Satanist or a whore.

I am just a woman with a healthy respect for science.

Ignorant America Deserves Gang of 8 Immigration Fraud!

ONE MORE METAPHOR FOR THE GANG OF 8

by Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller:

Preliminary Search for Loopholes in a Cloud: I’ve been trying to think of the right metaphor for the giant Corker-Hoeven amendment, the one that is reportedly giving the Gang of 8′s immigration bill enough votes to pass the Senate. Sure, it’s a fig leaf–but a fig leaf is usually something insignificant-yet-real. This is something grandiose that’s a fraud.

The best I can come up with is this: A man comes into your restaurant. You recognize him–he’s a guy who ate a $100 meal last year and said he’d pay later, but he stiffed you. Now he’s back and wants another meal on credit. He senses you are wary and makes a new offer. “This time I’ll pay you … $2 million! How can you refuse? It’s 2 million dollars!”

You get the idea. Just try and collect.

Ads by GoogleSimilarly, Schumer, Durbin & Co. have offered a deal to Corker, Hoeven, and conservatives. In essence, it’s this: You’ll immediately legalize 11 M immigrants who are unlawfully in the country. They’ll get work permits renewable ad infinitum–we call it “provisional,” but basically they’re in. Yes, we know that in 1986 we passed an amnesty and promised enforcement that never happened, but this time we promise to … militarize the Southern border! Hire 20,000 new agents! That’s the ticket. Double the Border Patrol! Spend $20 billion. Quadruple the budget. Drones in the sky–triple the number of drones. Drones! Sensors on the ground! 700 miles of fence! 100% use of E-Verify! ”I don’t know what more to do, short of just shooting people,” says Gang of 8-er Lindsey Graham.

Just try and collect.

Nothing this Congress does, remember, can prevent future Congresses from reneging on the back end of this “legalize first” deal. Budget considerations alone will mean the advertised ”surge” won’t be sustained–as Obama’s earlier 1,500 man National Guard surge wasn’t sustained. Future lawmakers will be looking around for “offsetting” spending cuts and that bloated 40,000 man border patrol will stick out like a nail that wants to be hammered. Plus, once Democrats have eaten their meal illegal immigrants have their legalization in hand, Democrats will lose 80% of their motivation to make good on the law’s elaborate promises. They’re already unhappy with the back end of the deal–Sen. Leahy calls it “a Christmas wish list for Halliburton.” Meanwhile, militarizing the border is drawing immediate protests. Business interests–especially farmers–can be expected to oppose the requirement that they use a computerized system to check new hires. There will be little to stop these forces–the ones that have blocked enforcement until now–except some Republican pols saying “But … but you pwomised!”

It’s true that Democrats (and immigrant advocates, and the ethnic lobbyists like La Raza) will want the 11 million newly legalized immigrants to be able to get green cards and embark on the fabled ”path to citizenship.” But their answer won’t be to fulfill the cartoon enforcement promises of Corker-Hoeven. It will be to water down the requirements for green cards. Republicans are going to resist that? They want to alienate the growing Latino voting bloc? After they tried so hard to take the whole issue “off the table” in 2013? **

This the reality to keep in the front of your mind when discussing the details of Corker-Hoeven’s border security requirements: None of them is actually going to happen! The formal requirements will be gutted by future Congresses and bureaucrats. We’re just trying to figure out if there’s really anything they’ll have to gut.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/23/one-more-metaphor-for-the-gang-of-8/#ixzz2XBbZcN3wRepb

Revitalized University Studies Mean More Entertainmant, Less Learning!

The following university propaganda piece picked up by the National Center for Policy Analysis is titled: “Strong Educational Reforms at the University Level”. Read for yourselves the travel and intensity of these new, Strong learning, study programs. Off to Hawaii to “feel” a lava flow by standing near it….the feel of sitting near a Ford Motor executive in Detroit!….the feel of visiting assassination sites to feel the excitement of “being there”…..Sound like the human female is solidly in control to replace knowledge….”Intensity and innovation are as important as openness and accessibility”, interim provost, feminized Robert A. Strong at Wash and Lee announced. So one forks over thousands of dollars each year for intensity and innovation, opennness and accessibility…..

No wonder today’s university student prefers drugs, booze, and sex to learnings and graduates loony Obamalings.
June 24, 2013 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

At Washington and Lee University, they have developed new programs with unique opportunities for students. These programs provide short intensive courses for students, says Robert A. Strong, interim provost and the William Lyne Wilson Professor of Politics at Washington and Lee University.

A few years ago, the faculty at Washington and Lee (W&L) adopted a plan to revitalize the short term at the end of its regular academic year. For many years, W&L had a six-week spring term with students taking either two courses on campus or one six-credit course off campus.

The revitalized spring term is shorter and more intense. It now expects students to take one four-week course each spring that will fully engage them. The faculty developed new courses with innovative pedagogies and course enhancements that often involve travel, guest speakers and special activities outside the classroom. For example:

•A philosophy course studying the abortion controversy went to Washington to hear oral argument in the Supreme Court.
•History students studying the civil rights era traveled to some of the landmark locations where demonstrations and assassinations shaped the national agenda on those issues.
•An economics class on the auto industry included a trip to Detroit to meet with executives of the Ford Motor Co.
•Students in a geology course stood next to lava flowing from a Hawaiian volcano into the sea.
•A class on Shakespeare traveled to the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton and did a performance of “Hamlet.”
The idea behind the new intensive and innovative spring term is to break free from the bonds of regular classroom learning and to overcome the tendency of students to spread themselves thin across a variety of academic activities

Intensity and innovation are just as important as openness and accessibility. Schools should not allow themselves to overshadow and overwhelm other worthwhile educational reforms that happen to lack a patina of revolutionary change.

Source: Robert A. Strong, “Strong: MIICs, not MOOCs, at Washington and Lee,” Richmond Times Dispatch, June 19, 2013.