Home > Apologetics, Atheism, Science > Morality: Evolutionary Indecency

Morality: Evolutionary Indecency

February 28, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

I was reading this article about morality and was shocked. I’ve heard morality argued as a product of evolution, but have never read it in depth or really met someone who agreed with that argument. Somehow this thought has survived, and I’d like to address how that is a misuse of the science of evolution, and what the implications of evolved morality would be. By the end of this blagopost I’m sure all of you will find the idea of morality as a facet of evolution to be immoral.

First the science of evolution notes patterns in changes of the limited fossil record we have in our present day. Also, the theory relies on the knowledge of existing organisms as they are today and what we know of DNA mapping. Together scientists have concluded the theory of evolution. There have been many speculations on how life could have originated, but that is not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is a good solid conclusion- a best guess, based on the evidence presented. It should be treated like what it is not as some master truth that redefines the way the world turns.
To build another series of speculation about morality on top of the theory of evolution, and treat it as absolute truth is faulty logic. I am not familiar with how scientists feel about morality being tacked on to evolution, but I’d like to know, if you have a good source, please share. It would be my opinion that it is an abuse of the science. The fossil record, and DNA mapping, so far, have not told us why or how we define right and wrong, or any sense of morality. That is the truth of the science.

What are the implications of evolved morality? Well, morality would then be as diverse as all the organisms on earth. In such case right and wrong is hereditary. In fact everyone’s inclinations to do right or wrong is not their fault, but their DNA’s. To that extent people could have moral ethnicity. To say a right and wrong is to discriminate against certain ethnicities. Depending on the way your amino acids are grouped, we could have completely different senses of morality. What’s absolutely right for you could be absolutely wrong for me. Of course that would be an extreme case, and the actual range of fluctuation would be much smaller. But it becomes a possibility. What happens with genetic variation, or a deviation? Are there moral atavisms? Some people are born with tails, others want to eat their children, it’s all a matter of their genetics…
I disagree. This ideas rejects the idea of morality in general. Morality is about right and wrong. This makes right and wrongs subjective (not as a choice, but varying without rigid boundaries). This idea eliminates responsibility, and accountability. We no longer have to own up to our actions- they are all right depending on your genetics, right? The only way to make this idea work is to use so many qualifiers that the original thought is murdered. It would become like IRS tax codes and no one could actually figure our what’s right and wrong.

A misconception about Christian Morality is that the bible is the source. That is incorrect. The bible does shed a lot of light, and truth on many matters of right and wrong. It brings perspective. But the bible is not telling us right and wrong, it is using the morality already instilled in us, and pointing out correct thinking in a world where many thoughts and ideas are there to distract us from the truth. “Thou Shalt Not Kill” was not a message to an army, but to individuals. As an individual, don’t go around killing people. Pretty good thought. Yeah, it’s obvious, I know, but still there are murderers. Perhaps if people didn’t murder each other God wouldn’t have to tell us not to. I used to work at an after school program. During homework time we had 3 rules. Every day at the beginning of homework time I would go over the rules with my students again. After a while they started to hate it. So I told them plainly, “I’m not doing this to because you don’t know the rules, I’m doing it because you don’t follow the rules. If you follow the rules, I won’t have to tell you them.” In the same way, God didn’t define morality in the bible, he merely pointed out what we already knew so that hopefully we would actually do it. So, don’t go around killing people. But when people are disrespecting God, have been for generations, and are living immoral and empty lives, then God will stop it. In some extreme cases he will resort to genocide. Let me say to the writer of the article that it was not one priest who ever made those kind of decisions. I don’t think he understands how God commanded his people. It was not like cutting open a goat and reading it’s entrails. I repeat, not like that. Also the article writer claims that priests disagreed. Sure they did, but did they disagree on going to war? No. There is no record of that in the bible, which contains the source that the wars happened.
Also, just for fun, I’d like to add something more. If morality is indeed genetic, then the Jewish people might have had an odd little deformity that made it okay to go to war and kill a lot of people. Just saying… but I don’t believe that. And honestly the genocide and killing in the bible is at some points a stumbling block to me. Honestly if God is not real then the things described in the bible are awful. If God is real, on the other hand, they are more than acceptable, but preferred. Praise God I was not asked to kill, and never will be. It’s hard to get a cultural understanding in today’s society when war is not out of necessity for life- at least not for me.

In conclusion: Rock on.

Advertisements
  1. February 28, 2011 at 10:51 AM

    In the matter of God murdering (though that’s not your term in this case), I’ve come to the understanding that death in all forms has a distinct flavor from our perspective. But what is death? By God’s revelation we believe death to be an ushering into eternity. Our time of testing is done. He has decided to finish what He started, our life. Many will blame God for many things. What will it matter to He who is KING?

    By His Grace.

  2. February 28, 2011 at 11:18 AM

    “Well, morality would then be as diverse as all the organisms on earth.”

    Well, yes and no.

    Look at sharks and dolphins. They evolved along different lines, and there are some very large biological differences, but superficially they’re nearly identical. Why? Because their shape is pretty ideal for surviving in the environments in which they live.

    Now, look at social mammals, and you’ll find very similar behavior that we can give the label ‘morality’. Or at least proto-morality. The most obvious behavior would be protecting their young. This behavior is at least in part inspired by instinct and, the more advanced the animal is mentally the more it is backed up with reason.

    “What’s absolutely right for you could be absolutely wrong for me.”

    You’ll actually fine that morality is pretty similar the world around. Where it differs, generally speaking, is who people view of as being in their in-group. I consider everyone in the world to be a part of my ‘in-group’, and would probably extend that to any species that has sentience should we ever stumble across aliens or true artificial intelligence. Others find only their national or religious or tribal group to be their in-group. But amongst the in-group, our morality and actions are pretty similar. Certainly there is the occasional psycho- or sociopath. But that’s less than a percent of the population.

    We decide what right and wrong is, whether we are happy with that idea or not. Luckily, because our ‘goal’ is survival, our ideas of right and wrong are generally pretty similar.

  3. February 28, 2011 at 11:22 AM

    The problem with a debate regarding morality is the source of rule we’re using. God’s form of morality is defined clearly. And it becomes even more clear when a man or woman receives the Holy Spirit through the sacrifice of Jesus. Without those elements within a person, morality becomes revelant. Let man say what he will. God has spoken, and will speak the final word.

    By His Grace.

    • February 28, 2011 at 11:26 AM

      Yeah, the problem is that it doesn’t take all that much for someone who thinks God is the one and only word to think that telling other people who they can sleep with is a good idea. Or that stoning is a valid response to anything. And those aren’t the kind of people I want to socialize with.

      • February 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM

        Promiscuity leads to disease, unwanted pregnancies, a slew of psychological issues and a haunting fear of any of those 3 happening. Perhaps God doesn’t want us to be miserable, if He exists.
        As for stoning, I don’t want to socialize with those people either. But I’d like to socialize with people who understand the consequences for their actions, and that their immorality deserves death. As Buttermilk said, “By His Grace” and by it alone, I have not been stoned. (of course that grace is metaphorical for being born into the society and time period I have been).

    • February 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM

      So how do you rationalize lower rates of ‘immoral’ behaviours in countries with the lowest rate of religiosity? It seems perfectly clear to me that you don’t really care if what you say is actually true rather than simply what you believe is true.

      • March 4, 2011 at 1:32 PM

        Tildeb, define ‘immoral behaviors’ and define ‘religiosity’. and then I will respond. It might also help to give a source. Otherwise I can just disagree and be done with it.

      • March 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM

        There is a lot of evidence to support a strong correlate between religiosity and what we might call immorality – behaviours that indicate societal dysfunction. For example, this is very interesting and puts the spotlight on the religious to provide a basis for their argument that religion is somehow a net benefit for a society. In its conclusion, the study states

        “There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

  4. February 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM

    Men debate. God knows.

    By His Grace.

  5. February 28, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    “Promiscuity leads to disease, unwanted pregnancies, a slew of psychological issues and a haunting fear of any of those 3 happening.”

    Which is why the moral thing to do nowadays is to have safe-sex education so young people learn the consequences of their actions before they have to suffer through them. Which we are doing now, in more and more places.

    “and that their immorality deserves death.”

    Disagree. 100%.

    The only thing that deserves death is killing. And then, only in defense. In my humble opinion, anyway.

    • February 28, 2011 at 12:04 PM

      I deleted your comment to Buttermilk. You can say whatever you want about God on my blog and you can say whatever you want about atheism, but no one will be directly demeaning to another person on this blog.
      Safe-sex is not 100% effective. It does not always protect from disease, or pregnancies- all kinds of safe sex, mind you. Also, it does nothing to alleviate the psychological pain that comes along with sexual promiscuity.
      And I don’t appreciate you taking my comment out of context.

      • February 28, 2011 at 1:06 PM

        “but no one will be directly demeaning to another person on this blog.”

        I don’t think my comment was actually demeaning, nor was it intended to be. But this is your blog, so you can delete whatever you like.

        “Safe-sex is not 100% effective.”

        I never said it was. Are you suggesting that we can only do something that helps people if it is 100% effective?

        In addition, I happen to be of the opinion that part of safe-sex education is promoting abstinence. My only problem is with those who promote abstinence only. Knowledge is always superior to ignorance. Children are both incredibly curious as well as driven by powerful biological urges when they hit puberty. Telling them only to practice abstinence and nothing else is like showing them a loaded gun and then telling them never to touch it, without explaining why.

        “Also, it does nothing to alleviate the psychological pain that comes along with sexual promiscuity.”

        I’m not convinced that this actually exists. Rather, I’m not convinced it exists on its own. If a child is raised and indoctrinated to hate/fear/be disgusted by their sexuality, then being promiscuous will probably result in some mental dissonance if nothing else. But by itself, I don’t think promiscuity hurts someone mentally.

        “And I don’t appreciate you taking my comment out of context.”

        In what way was it taken out of context? I mentioned stoning, and you agreed with me but said that people should know that immorality leads to death. Reading the Bible there are plenty of things that are deemed ‘immoral’ that seem innocuous to me and would certainly not deserve death of any kind, let alone by stoning.

        If you meant something else by your comment, please correct me.

      • March 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

        You know, NotaScientist, you’re right. A safe-sex program that includes and emphasizes abstinence along with teaching many other things could be very effective. But would you argue that abstinence is not the best choice? I have not been abstinent and I made a bad choice. I admit that and have seen first hand why God would not want sexual promiscuity from us.
        Psychological pain… much of that is pretty obvious. Stress over possible pregnancy and feeling used or cheated. Sex does create bonds between people, bonds I believe should not be broken. I have never heard anyone say different of their first sexual experience. This site http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/ has some interesting information in it. It’s not the best, but gets the job done. I just typed in psychological effects of sex in google and clicked the first link. I’m sure you can find some good stuff if you do some digging. I was not raised or indoctrinated to “hate/fear/be disgusted by sexuality” and I still deal with the pain of my sexuality. I will not deny that there is a point of numbness. I have a good friend who confided in me that her life sucked because of sex and she would do differently if she could do it again. She later grew numb and denied she ever said that or felt that way. It happens to a lot of people.
        About my words out of context. haha. I did say that immorality deserves death. It was my fault, but I meant to convey the idea that it is not any human’s job to execute that sentence, but God’s alone. God however, took on our iniquities, and our infirmities and suffered our consequences at the cross. So, it was not you who used my words out of context, but me, and I apologize.

      • March 5, 2011 at 5:23 PM

        Comprehensive Sex Education Is Effective, Does Not Promote Sexual Risks.

        * Research has identified highly effective sex education and HIV prevention programs that affect multiple behaviors and/or achieve positive health impacts. Behavioral outcomes have included delaying the initiation of sex as well as reducing the frequency of sex, the number of new partners, and the incidence of unprotected sex, and/or increasing the use of condoms and contraception among sexually active participants.[4,5,6,7] Long-term impacts have included lower STI and/or pregnancy rates. [4,5,6,7]
        * No highly effective sex education or HIV prevention education program is eligible for federal funding because mandates prohibit educating youth about the benefits of condoms and contraception.[13]
        * Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.[4,5,6,7,14,15]
        * Between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. teen birth rate fell from 62 to 41per 1,000 female teens.[16,17] Some experts attribute 75 percent of the decline to increased contraceptive use and 25 percent to delayed initiation of sex.[18] Others credit increased contraceptive use and delayed initiation of sex about equally.[19] Regardless, contraceptive use has been critical to reducing teenage pregnancy.

        Sex Ed works. Abstinence Only programs do not. The evidence is clear. Yet more than a billion tax payer dollars has been poured into Abstinence Only programs because it appeals to the evangelical right’s belief that it works when we know it does not.

        Imagine trying to argue that the best way to teach young adults how to drive is by teaching them that the safest way to drive is to abstain from it altogether. How is that teaching safe driving? Now compound that foolishness by funding only programs that promote not driving. It’s crazy because it fails utterly in addressing all the other underlying issues about poor driving and how drive more safely!

        We teach people nothing about sex when we teach abstinence. That’s not an alternative; that’s an abdication of responsibility.

  6. February 28, 2011 at 11:50 AM

    Evolution is a good solid conclusion- a best guess, based on the evidence presented. It should be treated like what it is not as some master truth that redefines the way the world turns.

    No, no, no. Evolution is not a solid conclusion. It is a scientific theory. It is THE BEST explanation that is as close to being a fact as the human mind can understand.

    You obviously do not appreciate what this means and so you ramble off the rails making all kinds of ridiculous accusations regarding morality in the context of evolution. That you are so misguided here is not a surprise because you start off on a gross misunderstanding.

    Let’s be clear: the defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. These are not “GUESSES”! To equate a scientific theory as simply a best guess is remarkably – astoundingly – incredibly – gob-smacking ignorant about the process of science.

    The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. And here is where your description of guessing becomes painfully inadequate: the theory of evolution, my dear fellow, underpins our knowledge of biology and has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it works IN ALL CASES. The theory successfully accounts for ALL data. It is mutually supported in every related field of inquiry. That MEANS the theory is the bedrock upon which all kinds of reliable and consistent and efficacious and practical technologies and medicines have been built and you RELY on this knowledge to keep you alive when your body alone is incapable. That you isolate the fossil record and genetics as if they were poor supports multiplies your obvious ignorance about what evolution means to new heights. Let’s forget we have nothing BUT support for the theory of evolutionary under every avenue of scientific investigation – from anthropology to zoology – and the direct support of 99.84% of scientists in the Earth and Life sciences (here). Let’s go with JUST the fossil record and ask why there isn’t a single solitary fossil of a later species in an earlier geological formation? That’s all it would take to bring legitimate disrepute to the theory. NOT A SINGLE SUCH CASE has been made. You gloss over this fact as if it doesn’t matter, as if it’s all still just some guessing that seems to work for the most part… failing to appreciate that it works in ALL cases.

    Yet you have the incredible audacity to suggest that there is actually some LEGITIMATE controversy about the role of evolutionary theory as a bedrock of our knowledge! There isn’t. There is no scientific controversy at all… except by those scientists who are trying in vain to present intelligent design and some ancient nebulous force they call call god to be some sort of creative interventionist force. But they’ve got squat except their faith-based beliefs.

    What is so ironic is that you falsely accuse evolutionary theory to be some kind of guess when it is so obviously not but are more than willing to grant your faith-based beliefs some kind of higher standing than the obvious guesses they really are!

    This is called hypocrisy.

    • February 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM

      Tildeb, I’m honestly sorry I so offended you calling Evolutionary Theory a guess… But I think you’ve over reacted and kind of ignored the argument here. I wasn’t arguing against evolution, or against it being a great theory. I was arguing against it as the authority for which we base the existence of morality. The EVIDENCE, which is rock solid, does not address morality. Evolutionary theory is a good theory not because of speculation about how it relates to other fields, but because of evidence that produced the theory, and testable evidences of evolution working hand in hand in applicable situation of other fields. Speculation about morality coming from Evolution is ill founded and faulty. At best it’s taking on a bad idea to a good one. I’m removing the tack.

      • February 28, 2011 at 2:11 PM

        You didn’t offend me, CJ: you offended yourself. Evolution isn’t an ‘authority’: it’s an explanation that is true. If you wish to bring it into debate, then all you have to do is come up with evidence the explanation cannot account for.

        And we do have lots of biological evidence as the basis for our morality. This is not speculation: this is good science. There is a significant difference you keep failing to appreciate by simply asserting science is (in the case of evolutionary effects on our morality) equivalent to guesses or speculation, that is faulty and ill-founded. All of these assertions are flat out wrong and in my view pretty intentional on your part to misrepresent science and its findings.

        If you want to look at the evolution of morality, for example, look no further than the acceptability of owning another person. Morality changes over time and we can correlate those changes to a whole bunch of reasons.

  7. February 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    Carly – you managed to completely misunderstand my blog post. I suggest readers here follow the link and read the original post and comments.

    I did not say that you can derive morality from evolutionary theory. Evolutionary psychology – thinking about how evolutionary forces may have shapes our emotions and motivations – at best informs our morality. It does not determine it.

    We have to derive morality from our understanding of the human condition, and then develop the most basic and universal first principles we can, and then proceed logically and thoughtfully from there. Philosophers have been doing this for thousands of years, to great effect.

    The point of the post is that you can be moral without any faith, and that secular morality can be rational and objective.

    Further – I point out that god-based morality is highly problematic, because no one knows if any god exists, let alone what the mind of god is. If you claim to, you cannot prove it, and many other people will also claim to know the mind of god to defend mutually exclusive beliefs. And there is no way to resolve your differences, at least to the extent that they are based upon faith.

    In short – faith is an unnecessary and counterproductive element is any system of morality.

    • March 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM

      Steve, thanks for coming by and commenting, I appreciate it and hope we keep some good conversations now and in the future.
      Your original post was in reply to Jon Topping’s video where he stated that atheism leads to subjective morality, and theism leaves morality open to objectivity. You disagreed and cited evolution as a third option that makes atheism morally objective. I am wondering what then is determining morality, since evolution is not, as you said. It seems that if evolution is not determining morality, but morality is still being determined then your argument doesn’t really give a third option or say much of anything at all. Where, then, is morality coming from, and how can we determine what is moral? Theism, or supernaturalism is excluded, and evolution doesn’t get the job done. So what?

  8. February 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM

    The problem with an evolutionaty theory that goes into social sciences (ie: social darwinism) is the assumption that along with our ‘scientific discoveries’ humans are still evolving into ‘better creatures’. It’s almost as if the more we uncover about us and the universe the better we are becoming at the same time somehow.

    If are getting to a better construct for humanity and society, which political ideology is it that is ‘the best’? What form of psychology is the most appropriate for humanity? As for as business goes, what model and structure works best for humans? Anthrologically, which cultural ideals should be adopted for the whole of humanity? Social science just does not work that way.

    Theology is in the field of a social science or humanities type idea, it is constructed, de-constructedm interpreted, re-interpreted, has developed systems which are subject to change, etc. In essence, theology espouses an ideal, which is really no different than political science, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and various other social sciences and humanities that also espouse various patterns and systems for human living/society.

    Evolution is not even in that argument and never will be, because science is debateable within science committee’s via hypothesis, not outside of them in social sciences and humanities areas of research.

    Evolution may be a true phenemonen, but really, what does that have to do with the politics I choose, my cultural heritage, my religious beliefs, or which type of business environment enthralls me?

    Truth is we are not evolving into a ‘better species’, this is a facade to the Nth degree. We’re not even evolving better morals within Western societies…considered by many to be the most advanced ever on this planet (technologically speaking obviously).

    The most death this planet has seen happened in the span of 28-30 years from about 1917 – 1945. How much death/killing was there? I believe there was more killing in that short time span than the world had seen in its complete added up history; is that really civilized?

    Well obviously humanity has made progress from that point in time? In Rwanda in a time span of 88 days – 800,000 people were killed in the name of political power in that country. In fact, the Sudan and the Khmer Rouge genocides both happened in the last 25 years as well…which if added up would make the Roman gov’t look bad over it’s 1000 year reign (which may have only equalled similar numbers).

    The most unethical thing a person can do, according to NotAScientist is killing others (his comment ‘The only thing that deserves death is killing’ – shows a degree of morality), yet humanity has become more efficient at it within the last 100 years. Are we to be considered more ‘moral’ or ‘less moral’ based on those overwhelming statistics – and I was being conservative with the numbers?

    The problem is obvious as to the spike in the death of humanity on such a large scale – economies of scale and scientific discovery. The combination of the two in the hands of the wrong ideological person can lead to horrific consequences as has never been seen on this planet prior but still may be seen within the near future.

    The blame evolution should take for any of this is ‘nil’. Fact is, if evolution is true, it stopped some time ago (educated guess). Moralistically, we not a better species in the last 100 years than at any single period of time on this planet. We’re worse (or at best better equipped) and we can prove it much easier and faster now.

  9. February 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

    “But when people are disrespecting God, have been for generations, and are living immoral and empty lives, then God will stop it. In some extreme cases he will resort to genocide” (Carly Jo)

    Interesting? Do you believe this about God? Would he support a genocide of Muslims by Israeli’s for example in the West Bank? Could this God support a regime that does such acts?

    • March 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM

      Interesting questing Society, and a very good one. I honestly don’t have a political answer for the Muslims v Israeli conflicts in any particular case. I’m not sure that those have anything to do with God’s will either way.
      I also think I was wrong, looking back on what I said. When people are disrespecting God and living immoral lives, then God will stop it. I believe that. But I’m not sure genocide is used in that situation. Genocide condoned and instructed by God was reserved for keeping his chosen people from being corrupted by surrounding nations that have been living immorally. Honestly complete genocide is very uncommon and is usually in retaliation, if I remember correctly… Since God’s chosen people (the modern Christian Church), as my faith believes his chosen people to be, are not at all the same as the nation of Israel in the OT, genocide is not optional. The standards of love and passivism set by Jesus and the early disciples has reflected a way we should live apart from the OT references to war. But honestly, Society, all of that war that happened in the OT is a stumbling block to me.
      In short, I don’t believe God supports Israeli’s anymore than Muslims or the USA or Switzerland.

  10. March 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM

    “But would you argue that abstinence is not the best choice?”

    That depends entirely what you mean by ‘best’.

    The most efficient way to keep a child from injuring itself is to lock it in a padded room. That’s certainly the ‘best’ way…but is it good?

    Abstinence is a choice. If you want to be 100% sure to never have an unwanted pregnancy or an STD, the only option that works 100% of the time is abstinence. However, I don’t think sex is a bad thing. It’s part of human experience and it’s part of healthy relationships. We evolved to want to have sex and while we can fight against those instincts and hormones, it’s not an easy fight to win. Luckily, with our advances in medicine, we have techniques and drugs and devices that can allow you to have sex with very little chance of getting pregnant or catching a disease.

    Is it 100% fool proof? Nope. But the chance is incredibly low, and for plenty of people the risk is worth it.

    “I was not raised or indoctrinated to “hate/fear/be disgusted by sexuality” and I still deal with the pain of my sexuality”

    Forgive me, but I don’t believe you.

    • March 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM

      Okay. I disagree that human’s evolved to want to have sex. It seems apparent that every species has an inherent will to procreate and many other animals, such as dolphins, have recreational sex. I don’t think evolution had much of a role in that one. I think healthy relationships that have a sexual element are only healthy as long as they continue. When it ends the sexual element becomes very unhealthy. On the other hand, life long sexual relationships are amazing. There’s a difference in doing what’s easy and what’s right.
      I’m sorry you don’t believe me…?

  11. March 14, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    “Forgive me, but I don’t believe you” (NAS)

    I find this response kind of puzzling for 2 simple reasons:

    (a) he doesn’t believe what you ‘feel’ concerning the issue at hand – which would be a personal understanding for her and something she finds some aspect of ‘truth’ in…what is that to be doubted?

    (b) She is a woman and may have different experiences and interpretations than a man concerning an issue like this. I have come to believe women and men’s psychologies are quite different and the way information is processed and interpreted seems different as well. In this case NAS I may have some agreenance about a sexual act not effecting someone, again, as a man I am just not as emotionally invested in some of that.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: