PDA

View Full Version : Born To Cheat? Does Science Justify Adultery?



Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 12:58 PM
Does Science Justify Adultery?

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Are humans born to cheat? What do Americans think about marital infidelity? Those who oppose the practice of adultery often base their arguments on religious prohibitions. Others, confident that religion is worthless, or worse, turn to science to support their contentions that monogamy is not biologically “natural.”

The ABC News television program Nightline is currently running a series on the Ten Commandments that “explores the biblical commandments from [a] modern-day perspective.”1 The fourth installment of the series looked at the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). The program consisted of four panelists, including Pastor Ed Young, debating the issues from different sides.2

Young, who heads the 20,000-member Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, defended marital fidelity. Noel Biderman, president of AshleyMadison.com, a social networking website dedicated to helping people who want to start affairs, defended the case for infidelity. The Nightline session was recorded at Fellowship Church in front of a live audience on September 17.

Many agree with Biderman that adultery is a neutral, or even positive, activity. In their 2001 book The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, married researchers and co-authors David Barash and Judith Lipton diligently pointed out that many animals, including those popularly thought of as monogamous, are not dedicated to a single partner. They also highlighted historical examples of mankind’s infidelity. Barash and Lipton placed human origins and makeup squarely within an evolutionary context: “We are biological creatures through and through.”3

Others have reasoned that since many animals are promiscuous, and since man is merely an ape without fur (having a primarily physical, not a spiritual, aspect), then it follows that mankind’s tendency to cheat has “biological underpinnings.” Adultery, to a certain extent, becomes a biological imperative.

But animals never take vows or make promises.

Moral activities, such as choosing to fulfill promises, cannot be accurately described by biology alone because biological science is limited to the observation of the physical workings of living things. As such, biology does not have the tools to investigate the immaterial workings of morality. One would need to use very different research tools and procedures to investigate moral laws under which humanity operates.

Interesting debate.

ICR (http://www.icr.org/article/4968/).

ralph wiggum
09-28-2009, 01:10 PM
I don't buy any argument for cheating.

I'm not particularly religious, I just think it's wrong.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 01:12 PM
Yet another case of people trying to find an excuse to justify their bad behavior.:rolleyes:

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 01:52 PM
We're rapidly consigning our free will to the flames when we look to animal behavior for moral guidance. Animals don't have morals.....or options. They are slaves to their environment of the moment.

BadCat
09-28-2009, 01:58 PM
We're rapidly consigning our free will to the flames when we look to animal behavior for moral guidance. Animals don't have morals.....or options. They are slaves to their environment of the moment.

You mean when people tell me that I have "the morals of a tomcat", it's not a good thing???

FlaGator
09-28-2009, 02:06 PM
Perhaps one of these pro-adultery people can show for me a few examples of when adultery had a positive outcome for all parties involved?

I love the argument that put us on par with the animals. Someone please let me know the next time an animal writes a best selling novel or designs a skyscraper. I find it really hard accept morality lessons from species that regulary licks their own butts.

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 02:37 PM
Perhaps one of these pro-adultery people can show for me a few examples of when adultery had a positive outcome for all parties involved?

I love the argument that put us on par with the animals. Someone please let me know the next time an animal writes a best selling novel or designs a skyscraper. I find it really hard accept morality lessons from species that regulary licks their own butts.

LOL! Too true.

pssvr
09-28-2009, 03:02 PM
There can never be any excuse for adultery. It is a crime against a person's emotional well-being, and, in many cases, also a literal crime in the legal / economic sense.

Polygamy, however, is not at all the same thing as adultery. Adultery is the violation of a commitment; polygamy is the decision to refrain from making such a commitment in the first place.

Polygamy should be of no legal concern, as it is no crime. To those who choose to practice it, we owe our obligatory respect of their freedoms. I can sympathize with why a person would choose polygamy as a life-style, but I can't see it working for me personally.

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 03:09 PM
There can never be any excuse for adultery. It is a crime against a person's emotional well-being, and, in many cases, also a literal crime in the legal / economic sense.

Polygamy, however, is not at all the same thing as adultery. Adultery is the violation of a commitment; polygamy is the decision to refrain from making such a commitment in the first place.

Polygamy should be of no legal concern, as it is no crime. To those who choose to practice it, we owe our obligatory respect of their freedoms. I can sympathize with why a person would choose polygamy as a life-style, but I can't see it working for me personally.

From a taxpayer standpoint, polygamy is fine until wives #2 - #8 start claiming welfare benefits. That's the problem I have with it.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 03:11 PM
I find it really hard accept morality lessons from species that regulary licks their own butts.I can think of several people here whom I am very much convinced do this as well.

BadCat
09-28-2009, 04:17 PM
I can think of several people here whom I am very much convinced do this as well.

Thanks for that one, Poli.

Where is my bottle of mind bleach?

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 04:43 PM
Thanks for that one, Poli.

Where is my bottle of mind bleach?

glad to be of service :)

Full-Auto
09-28-2009, 05:15 PM
I don't buy any argument for cheating.

I'm not particularly religious, I just think it's wrong.

That's because you're conditioned from birth in this country to believe having multiple partners is unethical and immoral. In other cultures they are thought it's perfectly acceptable - even in cultures that believe in God.

It's all a matter of perspective.

wilbur
09-28-2009, 05:27 PM
From article:

Moral activities, such as choosing to fulfill promises, cannot be accurately described by biology alone because biological science is limited to the observation of the physical workings of living things. As such, biology does not have the tools to investigate the immaterial workings of morality.


Whoa, what?! On the contrary, biology - neuroscience in particular - is helping us understand morality and belief on a physical level. Should expect that kind of stupid from the ICR though...

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 05:35 PM
That's because you're conditioned from birth in this country to believe having multiple partners is unethical and immoral. In other cultures they are thought it's perfectly acceptable - even in cultures that believe in God.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Not if you are a woman who reasonably expects freedom of association, it isn't. Some other cultures think women should be sexually mutilated or sold to the highest bidder. Just because some cultures are "okay" with it, doesn't mean it's okay.

Full-Auto
09-28-2009, 05:51 PM
Not if you are a woman who reasonably expects freedom of association, it isn't. Some other cultures think women should be sexually mutilated or sold to the highest bidder. Just because some cultures are "okay" with it, doesn't mean it's okay.

Two different things entirely.

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 06:02 PM
Two different things entirely.

Not if human beings have intrinsic value.

FlaGator
09-28-2009, 06:37 PM
That's because you're conditioned from birth in this country to believe having multiple partners is unethical and immoral. In other cultures they are thought it's perfectly acceptable - even in cultures that believe in God.

It's all a matter of perspective.

There are certain things that separate us from the animals. Monogamy is one of them. I can think of a lot of advantages to monogamy but I can't say the same thing for multiple partners. One of the best reasons I can think of is the rearing of children. In the animal kingdom the offspring is able to fend for itself in at most a couple of years. The human child takes much longer to develop and needs the protection and education that both parents can provide. In our 'nice to meet you/let's fuck' society which is so concerned with self it forgets its responsibility to the life it creates.

wilbur
09-28-2009, 06:40 PM
Not if human beings have intrinsic value.

That's not the case, if you don't believe polyamory harms or offends this intrinsic value.

Rockntractor
09-28-2009, 07:31 PM
A harem would be nice. Just sayin'.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/HAREM.jpg?t=1254180521

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:28 PM
That's because you're conditioned from birth in this country to believe having multiple partners is unethical and immoral. In other cultures they are thought it's perfectly acceptable - even in cultures that believe in God.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Which is why America is far more civilized than the rest of the world. Barely . . . . but still. Monogamy was one of the strengths of Roman society and when it went by the way side . . . it was a fast slide downhill towards the end.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:29 PM
A harem would be nice. Just sayin'.


no thanks. I'm satisfied and content with what I have.

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 08:47 PM
That's not the case, if you don't believe polyamory harms or offends this intrinsic value.

Polyamory is a consensual and usually informally contractual agreement among a group of adults who choose to abide by the agreement.

The agreement is anything but open-ended. While I have no use for this kind of recreational sexual arrangement, it is still very much an arrangement and polyamorous groups endure a great deal of tension and harm when one fails to abide by the group consensus.

This actually happens fairly often. We have several polyamorous intentional communities in Colorado. The communities are obviously supportive of the lifestyle yet is there a lot of turnover in them and a lot of legal difficulties.

I'm fairly uninterested in what adults do in private with other adults in a free society. I'm also uninterested in applauding non-traditional family groupings. This thread is about monogamy versus adultery, however. That's a debate that is extremely different from forming unusual sexual groupings to begin with in a multi-partner social structure.

Full-Auto
09-28-2009, 11:52 PM
There are certain things that separate us from the animals. Monogamy is one of them. I can think of a lot of advantages to monogamy but I can't say the same thing for multiple partners. One of the best reasons I can think of is the rearing of children. In the animal kingdom the offspring is able to fend for itself in at most a couple of years. The human child takes much longer to develop and needs the protection and education that both parents can provide. In our 'nice to meet you/let's fuck' society which is so concerned with self it forgets its responsibility to the life it creates.

For much of history mankind has claimed to be monogamous to his community, because it was expected socially in many cultures, but behind closed doors was anything but.

We've had plenty of children reared by single parents throughout history... I'm a product of a single parent home (my father died when I was young).

Lots of things separate us from the animals. We commit genocide. We fight wars. We have orgies. We jack off to internet porn. We put men on the moon. We split atoms. We do all sorts of things animals don't do. I don't see how this supports the argument one way or the other regarding monogamy.

Here's a thought, if the majority of people think to themselves "I would hit that" when they pass hotties on the street... I would venture to say it's perfectly natural to have sex with as many partners as you possibly can. Why? Because before we were uber civilized it was how we perpetuated our species. If we didn't hump like rabbits, given the perils we faced on a daily basis, our kind would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.

Now. With all of that being said, I agree that it's probably a good thing in this day and age to be monogamous. I personally am but I wasn't before I got married... but dating isn't marriage. :)

Do you think monogamy should extend to couples that are dating or only to couples that are married?

expat-pattaya
09-29-2009, 03:23 AM
As animals human males are programmed to procreate with as many females as possible.

As people, we supposedly are more than mere animals and using embedded instinct as an excuse for behavior is lame. You are either above your animal impulses - or you are not.

Sort of the same as when someone insults me my animal instinct is to rip their heart out. My human controls restrict my actions. ;)

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 06:54 AM
What are we, freaking Vulcans now?

Where is it written that it's below us to act on our instincts? Isn't that why we have them? If they weren't important to who we are and to our survival, why would we have them?

That's like saying breathing is animalistic and if we want to be better than animals we should stop breathing.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 07:53 AM
For much of history mankind has claimed to be monogamous to his community, because it was expected socially in many cultures, but behind closed doors was anything but.

We've had plenty of children reared by single parents throughout history... I'm a product of a single parent home (my father died when I was young).

Lots of things separate us from the animals. We commit genocide. We fight wars. We have orgies. We jack off to internet porn. We put men on the moon. We split atoms. We do all sorts of things animals don't do. I don't see how this supports the argument one way or the other regarding monogamy.

Here's a thought, if the majority of people think to themselves "I would hit that" when they pass hotties on the street... I would venture to say it's perfectly natural to have sex with as many partners as you possibly can. Why? Because before we were uber civilized it was how we perpetuated our species. If we didn't hump like rabbits, given the perils we faced on a daily basis, our kind would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.

Now. With all of that being said, I agree that it's probably a good thing in this day and age to be monogamous. I personally am but I wasn't before I got married... but dating isn't marriage. :)

Do you think monogamy should extend to couples that are dating or only to couples that are married?


I don't believe in sex outside of marriage. I advocate celibacy so the dating question is hard for me to address. Whether I date one woman at a time or ten, sex is not a factor. This gives me certain advantages in that I don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The decision to abort is not a moral dilemma that I have to confront head on. One of the big advantages is that I get to know the person a lot better once the idea of a pre-marital sexual relationship has been shelved. Is this difficult? Certainly it is. I have urges like everyone else but I don’t want to be controlled by my urges. I wish to control them. That is the biggest thing that separates us from the animals. To give in to them is not be in control them but to become enslaved by them.

Just because we give in to something that feels good doesn’t mean that we aren’t thralls to it. Drug addicts can make the same claim about addition but I think that everyone here realizes that giving in to an addition is not a good thing no matter how good it feels. No, I am not comparing sex to drug addictions, but I am using the thought process (or lack thereof) behind one to highlight the problems of the other. I am also not stating that my choice is superior to yours. We place different values on different things and we make choices based on those values and this situation of the moment. That is free will, in my opinion.

I just see more advantages in monogamy than I do in promiscuity.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 08:01 AM
What are we, freaking Vulcans now?

Where is it written that it's below us to act on our instincts? Isn't that why we have them? If they weren't important to who we are and to our survival, why would we have them?

That's like saying breathing is animalistic and if we want to be better than animals we should stop breathing.

You don't have an instinct to breath. It is not a choice. Try holding your breath. When you pass out you'll start breathing again. It’s an involuntary action. An instinct is unlearned behavior that is common to a species.

As for instincts... which is more important to a human, his instincts or his ability to reason? Fear for example. The instinct with fear is fight or flight. If we obeyed our instinct we would be in a constant state of battle and running. Reason allows us to set aside our instinct and instead of running or fighting we can now attempt work out a mutually beneficial resolution with our adversary. We can weigh the consequences of fight or flight and then choose and alternative if neither of those provide the most beneficial response.

djones520
09-29-2009, 09:45 AM
I'm an Atheist, and both my parents have cheated. I have no inclination to ever do such a thing, and see it as being very wrong. So it's not religious, and it doesn't seem to be genetic. I call bunk on this story.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 10:50 AM
Just because we give in to something that feels good doesn’t mean that we aren’t thralls to it. Drug addicts can make the same claim about addition but I think that everyone here realizes that giving in to an addition is not a good thing no matter how good it feels.

Not even close to being the same thing. Instincts aren't the same thing as a drug addiction.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 10:55 AM
As for instincts... which is more important to a human, his instincts or his ability to reason? Fear for example. The instinct with fear is fight or flight. If we obeyed our instinct we would be in a constant state of battle and running. Reason allows us to set aside our instinct and instead of running or fighting we can now attempt work out a mutually beneficial resolution with our adversary. We can weigh the consequences of fight or flight and then choose and alternative if neither of those provide the most beneficial response.
You don't think we're in a constant state of fighting? Have you read the news lately? I can't recall a time in my life where there wasn't some major conflict going on somewhere in the world. For the last 10 years we've been killing Arabs as fast as we can.

I've been in more fights than I care to remember.

If a man comes into my house at 2am to steal something, reason goes out the window and deadly force comes in.

Our instincts are critical to our survival, just as our ability to reason is. They aren't mutually exclusive.

That urge you feel has been critical to the success of our species. We're here having this discussion because people had sex. Not all of us got here because our parents planned it. I would venture a guess and say a large number of us are here because of an accident. Are those of us here by accident or out of wedlock any less important? I don't think so.

Just because you choose a life of monogamy doesn't mean you're right and those who don't are wrong.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm an Atheist, and both my parents have cheated. I have no inclination to ever do such a thing, and see it as being very wrong. So it's not religious, and it doesn't seem to be genetic. I call bunk on this story.
Since when is religion the sole motivator behind the morals of a society? If you grew up in the US, chances are you've been told your entire life that monogamy is the only moral path. It's a learned behavior. Ironically it's a learned behavior taught by people who often break their own rules. We had more than one scandal in the churches I grew up in. As a matter of fact, the pastor that married me later came forward to admit an affair. Oops.

Had you grown up in the wild, outside of our society, you very well could have a completely different outlook on things.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 11:00 AM
The implication that if we break that one rule of socially imposed morality and have multiple sex partners, all of a sudden we're no better than animals is ludicrous by the way.

Gingersnap
09-29-2009, 12:24 PM
Where is it written that it's below us to act on our instincts? Isn't that why we have them? If they weren't important to who we are and to our survival, why would we have them?

Well, it's written about pretty extensively in the bible.

The truth is that human beings have almost no real instincts at all. We have the instinct to run or fight, we automatically duck when we hear a large noise, women (usually) automatically feel protective toward babies and small children but that's about it. What we have are inclinations. We have a lot of those. The male random coupling urge is an inclination and it's one that often works out badly for women and children.

We have all kinds of inclinations and most of them are selfish, violent, callous, or vindictive to one degree or another. Animals by contrast, live violent, brutish lives but they don't harbor any malice. Their instincts cause them to eat their young, enslave others, fight over females, and eat their prey alive but it's not personal. Human inclinations are always personal.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 12:59 PM
Well, it's written about pretty extensively in the bible.
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. The Bible has nothing to do with this discussion, that is, unless you think Christians are the only people on earth. :D Christianity is something you have to believe in for it to have any relevance what-so-ever.


The truth is that human beings have almost no real instincts at all. We have the instinct to run or fight, we automatically duck when we hear a large noise, women (usually) automatically feel protective toward babies and small children but that's about it. What we have are inclinations. We have a lot of those. The male random coupling urge is an inclination and it's one that often works out badly for women and children.
That's an over simplification actually. The rush you feel when you're scared (heart rate increase, tunnel vision, etc) is your body telling you to react to a threat. That rush a man feels when a woman responds favorably to his sexual advances is no different. It's over powering.

As for mating in general, it's purely instinctual. That's a fact. As a matter of fact, our instinct to procreate is so powerful, it permeates every aspect of our society. Everything from clothing, television shows, movies, music, the arts, advertising, etc. all reflect this fact.

If monogamy were "natural" we wouldn't find ourselves struggling with it - it simply would be.


We have all kinds of inclinations and most of them are selfish, violent, callous, or vindictive to one degree or another. Animals by contrast, live violent, brutish lives but they don't harbor any malice. Their instincts cause them to eat their young, enslave others, fight over females, and eat their prey alive but it's not personal. Human inclinations are always personal.
I disagree with this assertion too. There are plenty of animal cultures that are just as focused on the community, that nurture their young and are no more violent than we are. Again, name one group of animals that has serial killers. Name one group of animals that commits genocide. Name one group of animals that actively seeks to annihilate another species (how many species has man wiped out or damn near wiped out?).

You put man up on some pedestal as if we're so superior to the animals we share this planet with... and in the end we do far more damage to this planet and to our neighbors than any animal or group of animals ever have.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 01:06 PM
Not even close to being the same thing. Instincts aren't the same thing as a drug addiction.

Did I not say in my post

No, I am not comparing sex to drug addictions, but I am using the thought process (or lack thereof) behind one to highlight the problems of the other.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 01:17 PM
You don't think we're in a constant state of fighting? Have you read the news lately? I can't recall a time in my life where there wasn't some major conflict going on somewhere in the world. For the last 10 years we've been killing Arabs as fast as we can.

I've been in more fights than I care to remember.

If a man comes into my house at 2am to steal something, reason goes out the window and deadly force comes in.

Our instincts are critical to our survival, just as our ability to reason is. They aren't mutually exclusive.

That urge you feel has been critical to the success of our species. We're here having this discussion because people had sex. Not all of us got here because our parents planned it. I would venture a guess and say a large number of us are here because of an accident. Are those of us here by accident or out of wedlock any less important? I don't think so.

Just because you choose a life of monogamy doesn't mean you're right and those who don't are wrong.


Do you bother to read what I post? You stated

Just because you choose a life of monogamy doesn't mean you're right and those who don't are wrong

But before you said that I said

I am also not stating that my choice is superior to yours. We place different values on different things and we make choices based on those values and this situation of the moment.

In the previous post you stated

Not even close to being the same thing. Instincts aren't the same thing as a drug addiction.

Replying to a post in which I said

No, I am not comparing sex to drug addictions, but I am using the thought process (or lack thereof) behind one to highlight the problems of the other.

How can we have an honest conversation if you only read to the point where you think that you understand where I am coming from? You are sharing your opinion without grasping my point of view. It seems that you want to state your opinion regardless of any point that I share with you. I'm not trying to get you to agree but I thought we could at least exchange views and better understand one another.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 02:25 PM
Is it my fault you can't effectively communicate your point(s)? If you don't want to draw a parallel between instincts and drug addiction, don't toss drug addiction into the conversation. Apparently you felt there was some connection between them otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

There's no need to repeat things over and over in different posts. If your defense now is to play the victim, I can stop posting in this thread as we're obviously getting no where. This topic isn't all that important to me to be honest. I'm just typing to be typing.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 02:39 PM
Is it my fault you can't effectively communicate your point(s)? If you don't want to draw a parallel between instincts and drug addiction, don't toss drug addiction into the conversation. Apparently you felt there was some connection between them otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

There's no need to repeat things over and over in different posts. If your defense now is to play the victim, I can stop posting in this thread as we're obviously getting no where. This topic isn't all that important to me to be honest. I'm just typing to be typing.

I answered the posts as I got to them and I'm not playing the victim. I'm merely pointing out that you aren't reading things completely because I addressed your points before you made it. This has more to do with subpar comprehension skills than ineffective communication. In short, read something before you respond it it because your responding to points that have already been addressed.

djones520
09-29-2009, 02:41 PM
This is awesome. A polite fight. :D

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 02:48 PM
This is awesome. A polite fight. :D

I would prefer behave like a civilized person because that is the only way differences are dealt with. My instinct is to use a lot of foul language but my ability to reason says that there are other ways to deal with things.:D

Besides FA a decent enough guy.

Full-Auto
09-29-2009, 02:55 PM
Besides FA a decent enough guy.

Don't try sweet talking me now. It won't work. :D

Gingersnap
09-29-2009, 05:01 PM
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. The Bible has nothing to do with this discussion, that is, unless you think Christians are the only people on earth. :D Christianity is something you have to believe in for it to have any relevance what-so-ever.


That's an over simplification actually. The rush you feel when you're scared (heart rate increase, tunnel vision, etc) is your body telling you to react to a threat. That rush a man feels when a woman responds favorably to his sexual advances is no different. It's over powering.

As for mating in general, it's purely instinctual. That's a fact. As a matter of fact, our instinct to procreate is so powerful, it permeates every aspect of our society. Everything from clothing, television shows, movies, music, the arts, advertising, etc. all reflect this fact.

If monogamy were "natural" we wouldn't find ourselves struggling with it - it simply would be.

I disagree with this assertion too. There are plenty of animal cultures that are just as focused on the community, that nurture their young and are no more violent than we are. Again, name one group of animals that has serial killers. Name one group of animals that commits genocide. Name one group of animals that actively seeks to annihilate another species (how many species has man wiped out or damn near wiped out?).

You put man up on some pedestal as if we're so superior to the animals we share this planet with... and in the end we do far more damage to this planet and to our neighbors than any animal or group of animals ever have.

All predators are serial killers, all predators given free reign will commit "genocide" (what did cats or rats do on islands?), all cats actively seek to annihilate mice or other appropriate prey. Do you believe that animals consider any repercussions from their actions? They don't.


If monogamy were "natural" we wouldn't find ourselves struggling with it - it simply would be.


"Natural" is not a code word for "beneficial" or "correct" or "morality". Natural simply describes a state. It has no moral implications nor does it have any positive or negative qualifiers. "Nature" is amoral.

We struggle with any number of inclinations that are not beneficial to us. The act of struggle isn't a disqualifier for morality. On the contrary, we seldom "struggle" when we attempt to be mean, hateful, selfish, neglectful, or jealous. That seems to come pretty easy for all of us.

I'm not going to try to convert you to my religion. I will say that even if I lost all my faith, I would still abide by Christian morals because they appear to be more logical and less destructive to me. Monogamy is more logical and less destructive than horndog-dom.

Horndogs take advantage of the weak and the drunk, they leave their progeny to others to kill or raise, they break the hearts of the trusting, and they destroy the image and the promise that their parents had they were born. That's enough I think.

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 06:49 PM
Don't try sweet talking me now. It won't work. :D

Can't blame a guy for trying...;)