Is Monogamy the Norm? Part 2

If you haven't read part 1: http://dualicity.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-monogamy-norm-part-1.html

Yesterday I came across a video on the Mosuo tribe:

I was talking about Bonobo apes, our closest kin and how they are extremely sexual and promiscuous. Are we suppose to draw conclusions about ourselves from Bonobos? Lets look at our anatomy similarities, I'm sure you'll become more convinced.

Amongst our great ape kins; Bonobos, Chimpanzees are polygamous meaning multiple partner for both male and female. Gorilla are polyandrous meaning one male many females. Since Gorilla males are secure in impregnating their harem, they don't require much sperm whereas Bonobos need to produce more sperm in order to compete with other sperm that may already be in a female.

That is reflected in the testicle size of these apes. Gorilla has testicles the size of kidney beans and Bonobos the size of hens eggs. Human testicle size lie somewhere in the middle. In terms of sperm count per ejaculation:
Gorilla- 50 million
Human- 480 million
Bonobos- 600 million

It is obvious that humans seem to be more on the polygamous end of the spectrum when it comes to sperm count. However, when it comes to penis length and thickness, humans trump them all. Why is it so much longer? Twice the length of Bonobos and 6 times that of Gorillas. Humans are the only great apes with a coronal ridge as part of the penis.

Test have shown that it acts as a very effective plunger to remove fluid from the vagina. One plunge can remove 90% of the fluid in there. It is theorised that the ridge was evolved to remove a competitor sperm from the vagina and hence the longer it is, the further it could reach and more competitors semen could be removed.

You women folk who think you're less promiscuous than men can get off your moral high horse now. You're not less promiscuous, just better at concealing it! Liars! Ha ha!

So, you may ask, what are we suppose to do with all this information? I don't know! Neither does the author of the book "Sex at Dawn". The other day at a dinner party, I was introduced to Jack, John and Jason; three lovely elderly gentlemen that from what I can see enjoyed each others company. Jack and John have been together now for over ten years and Jason have just recently moved in with them after his long term partner died. I initially thought how nice of Jack and John to let their friend who have just lost his partner move in with them. Then I was told by Jason that he has a sexual relationship with John but not Jack; and Jack and Jason are very good friends even though they shared John.

I was blown away by their honesty and obviously, they from what I can see have a relationship that works. My respect goes out to them for their honesty. I respect them way more than monogamous couples who are disrespectful to each other or who just put on a facade of monogamy. Also, with so many divorcees and couples coming and going; serial monogamy seems to be the norm these days; isn't it just another form of polygamy?

Below is a chart of the type of relationships that are out there
For a full picture: http://www.xeromag.com/sexualinformatics/nonmonogamy2.5.2.gif

Whatever kind of relationship you're in, provided it's an honest one that works for you, that's the perfect relationship. Do not let ignorant people with religious or cultural biases tell you otherwise. Just because they're unhappy, doesn't mean you should be unhappy too.

Just go out there and love; and love like you've never loved before!

Is Monogamy the Norm? Part 1

I recently finished the book "Sex at Dawn"; the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality.

It is one of the most compelling books I've read in my life and it throws into question the suitability of monogamy for human beings; arguing from the perspective of evolution, anthropology, history, anatomy and zoology.

I come from a conservative upbringing. 11years of Chinese school where Confucius teachings were drummed into me has made me very conservative about sex but this book has definitely got me to look at our sexual relationships from a different perspective.

Divorce rates have been at an all time high for quite some time now in many developed nations. About a quarter of divorces are caused by infidelity and this has resulted in many broken homes and dysfunctional families. Are we actually just too hung up about fidelity and monogamy?

The book argues that marriage and monogamy were self imposed from the onset of an agricultural society when we started defining ownership. One had to defend ones property because of the animals or crops growing on ones land. The same with marriage where ones spouse belonged solely to the other. This was a drastic change from our hunter gatherer past when most things were communal. The forest where one gathered and hunted for food were shared by all and the same went for sexual partners where men and women shared multiple partners.

This style of polygamy can still be seen in many hunter gatherer and matriarch societies. The Mosuo tribe in China, Warao in Brazil, Kung San in Botswana and Inuits in the north pole just to name a few. Mosuo women are expected to take whoever lovers she wishes. The children she has is raised in her mother's house with the help of her family and the community. In the Mosuo language, the word Awu means both Father and Uncle therefore a man's sister's children are his paternal responsibility. Their society lacks jealousy and possessiveness because there is no such thing as infidelity.

You may say that these are primitive tribes! But I argue that human beings have been around for 2 million years and agriculture for only 10,000 years; that's only 5% of the human race existence. We ignore our past and our innate biology at our own peril. Our biology has not yet had time to evolve and our sexuality still suits a hunter gatherer past.

Lets look at our closest kin the Bonobo ape. We are very similar to them because:

• They walk upright 25% of the time more than any other animal.
• Bonobos copulate throughout their menstrual cycle, lactation and pregnancy.
• Bonobo infants only socialise with other babies after 1.5years, longer than any other animal.
• Bonobo females have front facing vulvas unlike chimps and other primates.
• They gaze into each other's eyes when copulating and kiss deeply.

Above are just a few examples amongst many. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo tells you more about our peace loving and harmonious kin. Not only are they polygamous, they use sex as a peace making tool and females are frequently observed practising genital to genital rubbing. Sex is almost a daily past time, used to ease tension, stimulate sharing of resources, reduce stress and reaffirm friendships.

This blog is getting a bit long, part two in a couple of days!

Say "NO" to Nuclear!

Much less controversial this time. I am sure many of you already agree! "NO" to nuclear!

What a mess the Fukushima incident is! Radioactive iodine levels reached over 1000 times the safety limit in the sea off Fukushima due to a leak! Thank goodness the half life of Iodine-131 is only 8 days. Now, they are dumping contaminated water into the sea, justifying it by saying that the ocean is going to dilute it down to safe levels. I hope this is going to be one off but chances are, with reactor 1 building up hydrogen gas and 2 and 3 still requiring continuous water cooling, we are going to see more dumping.

Further more. There has been nothing said about the type of contamination in the water they are dumping. Radioactive plutonium, uranium or caesium last for years and could easily be concentrated in the food chain.

The disaster is not as severe as Chernobyl where radioactive fuel rods actually exploded and the material entered the environment. I hope Fukushima never comes to that! The consequences of Chernobyl is highly controversial due to the big difference in opinions. The numbers reported by greenpeace is most likely exaggerated and reports by UN probably downplayed the severity. Therefore, estimated cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl range from 4000 to 50000 depending who you believe.

Many would argue coal fired power plant causes many more deaths. Every year, hundreds die in coal mining accidents. Keep in mind, the coal mined isn't just for power plants. Much of it goes to heating as well as steel smelting. Therefore the numbers are exaggerated. What's even more important is that how does one compared instantaneous death in mining accidents to chronic diseases like cancer? Cost wise, cancer is definitely way more expensive to the health system compared to instantaneous death as patients need continuous care and treatment till they die. So is a cancer worth two mining deaths? three? Four? Is it even sane to compare it like that? The truth is they are like apple and oranges, you can argue to the cows come home and no one can say whether nuclear is safer than coal.

They argue that nuclear plants don't emit any green house gasses. There are also many other methods that do not emit green house gasses; like solar, hydro, wind and geothermal. It is a lame excuse to imply there are no other alternatives. Japan is in a geothermal rich area, therefore it is an even lamer excuse. Currently, only 0.1% of Japan's electricity power supply comes from geothermal, they can definitely do much better!

Everything comes down to cost doesn't it? The Emission Trading Scheme that has been rejected by both USA and Australia because it is claimed too costly. Well, let's look at cost. A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run US$0.25- 0.30 per kWh. That is just the cost without any profits. The average US consumer pays US$0.11 per kWh. That just means that nuclear power must be heavily subsidised by the US government for it to be viable! Isn't that stupid? Wind, hydro and geothermal all range between US$0.06-0.14 per kWh, there is really no excuse to be using nuclear.


Putting aside the safety debate which will never be conclusive as well as the green house debate, which there are many alternative choices; we can only argue with cost. Clearly, nuclear is so much more expensive than all the alternative choices! It's really a no brainer at all, say "NO" to nuclear!

God???

Time for something a little more controversial like I promised.

I'm an atheist and I believe the world would be a better place if people didn't believe in god. One less thing for people to fight about and the world would be a way more rational place. Did you hear about the attacks on the United Nation base in Afghanistan?  The attack by Islamic Zealots was just because some idiotic pastor in Florida decided to burn a stupid Koran. For F**k sake people, grow up!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12949302

To quote the philosopher Bertrand Russell on the existence of God:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes"

Isn't believing in God like having an imaginary friend? Wouldn't you be worried if a 12 year old told you that he or she has an imaginary friend that they talk to every night before they go to bed? Let alone a grown adult? You would think such a person is suffering from psychosis! Somehow, as long as it is called religion, collective psychosis is considered al-right?

To be fair, religions do exist for a reason. In Wikipedia under "Religion and Happiness"; there is much evidence to show that religious people are happier people. The term "Happy Clappy" often used to describe Christian youth groups is quite logical after all. To many people, religion instils a sense of belonging and a sense of comfort thinking one is looked after by a greater being. However, is that a good enough reason to justify the believe in a celestial teapot? I dare you to ask the family members of those killed in the Afghanistan UN base.

The are so many other ways one can find a sense of belonging. Everyone belongs somewhere, a family, a relationship, a group of friends. Shouldn't we have more faith in our family and friends than something that's a figment of our imagination. Twenty thousand estimated killed in Japan, where's the comfort in that?

One does not need God to have spirituality. In fact, some of the most spiritual people are scientist. My previous blog contains a video of wave particle duality of matter. http://dualicity.blogspot.com/2011/03/name-dualicity.html
Modern physics flies in the face of the world we perceive. How can something be two things at the same time and only revealing to be one or the other when we look at it? The world in which we live in is a strange place. Physics laureate Niels Bohr once said "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

The quantum world is none deterministic. We can never fully predict what's going to happen even if we know exactly the initial conditions of a system, we can only predict the probability of it happening. Einstein was very uncomfortable with this theorem and said "God does not play dice with the Universe". Well, I suppose there was never going to be anything good enough to convince a die hard Jew that god does not exist. If you readers think your life has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, think again! The very hard disk this blog is stored in a server runs on quantum mechanical magneto resistance effect.


Science has revealed a beautiful and elegant universe to us. I often watch a bird fly-by and smile in awe that evolution has turned dinosaurs into birds! We don't need an imaginary teapot to explain all this beauty we see, we're way more evolved than that!