SweetSue92
Diamond Member
Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage? Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
So, is biology your highest value?
Okay they are often at odds though. Religions understand this--IOW, "highest values".
You have "blood and soil" first--those are animal instincts, territory, food and procreation--and then you move into moral and ethical values. You seem to lump all these together. But not only not together, they are often at odds. Not always, but often.
You must choose the higher value when they are at odds.