Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4024 alt.romance:5609 soc.men:23965 soc.women:30117 soc.singles:74203 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!crash!pnet01!rcf From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous? Message-ID: <5981@crash.cts.com> Date: 30 Nov 90 07:16:19 GMT Sender: root@crash.cts.com Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA Lines: 31 turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >----- >In article <1990Nov29.201215.14890@uncecs.edu> bch@uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) writes: >> Having come of age in the '60s myself, I never actually witnessed this >> phenomenon. I did, however, see an emphasis on the more, um, spectacular >> features of relationships (like sex, living together) and the expense of >> the more delicate and important emotional components. Somewhere in there >> we got sex all mixed up with love, and I'm not sure they've been unscrambled >> since. > >Do you think there was ever a time when they were unscrambled?! > Probably not. >If you think that sex and love have been scrambled together only >since the 1960s, then you need to start reading more books that >were written more than a century ago. > It's been going on forever, Russell. I don't think anyone would dispute that point. Each generation has to learn on its own, however. We thought we had something new and bold. In some cases we were correct. In many more we were wrong. Somewhere in there we *did* get confused. Pointing out that others before us were just as confused doesn't really mean anything. >Russell Bob c/o The OTH Gang rcf@pnet01.cts.com Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com