Heterosexual Monogamy: A Sin Against Nature - DD_130109
Channel: owais sarvasukhsevaka
Date: 09/01/2013

This is a farcico-scientific response to the religious right - those pretenders to the Absolute Truth - who claim that homosexuality (indeed all sexuality other than peno-vaginal sex, and I guess only in missionary position, AND only in order to procreate) is Unnatural.

You can read the text of this essay (sans the narration mistakes that I have not corrected here in the video) at... 
http://owaisvasundhara.blogspot.in/2013/01/heterosexual-monogamy-sin-against-nature.html 

--

Excerpts:

Many would consider my calling the male phenotype 'useless', almost a blasphemy: after all, no major religion has a female at the peak of its phalanx of gods.  That, actually is enough of a proof that it is the men that make the gods, and not the other way round.  But that is a different discussion.  

It is very humbling, but is most likely the truth that it is not the genes or the species that are the enablers for the 'vicarious immortality' of the individual, but rather, that the individual is (and the societies are) the vehicle(s) of the 'actual near-immortality' of the genes, or just possibly, of the ever-adapting, and thus ever-changing species: in other words, of life, itself.

Patriarchy (which often goes along with patrilineality) is one such.  Perhaps, along with religion and tribalism / nationalism, it is the primary weapon in the hands of the men of this World.  Of course, the blame of this too can well be laid at the doors of the female of the species: they should have chosen to be the brains as in the Bonobo society, or the brawn, as in the hyena society.  They, instead, decided to look for those in their mates!  Dumb broads!!

Thus, a powerful man often ensures that the poor get their bread and circuses.  And also, have enough of a pool of women to have a practical chance of reproducing.  At least, in principle.  Very few powerful men have broken that compact.  And when they have, the results have been spectacular.  Eight centuries back, a man named Temujin ensured that his genes, to this day, constitute the 'Y' chromosome of as many as a twelfth of all men from his erstwhile dominions*!
*  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

However, for the most part, in the 'civilized' world, men, theoretically, are content with one woman.  HA!  What a joke!  The male phenotype cannot be content with only one lover.  His investment in an offspring is too little -- just a little bit of spray paint.  Why wouldn't he want to paint more, considering that he has a couple of factories working day and night inside him?  Pair-bonding does not get him a twelfth of all men for scions, even if it gets him a little bit of doubtful security!  A woman's investment, au contraire, is comparatively infinitely higher.  So, even if she wants the most successful genes for the few children that she can practically have, owing to her high investment in each; she often prefers to pair-bond with a man that will likely care for her, and her offspring, vastly increasing her chances of long-term reproductive success, even if the genes are not top-notch.

Most would worry about the hordes of men that would have no women to copulate with.  Well that is not the business of the genes; it is that of the memes.  All we need to do is do what Bonobos and Giraffes and countless number of other species do: encourage the sub-prime males to couple with other sub-prime males.