Do think proclivity to be anti-social for the sake of poontang is inherited or cultural?

[MatureDJ]

On another recent thread, someone had made a comment about a fat chick being good to have around if cast adrift. That got me interested, and I ended up reading about the famous "Mutiny on the Bounty" story. Basically, the Bounty was on a voyage to the Polynesian islands in the South Pacific (e.g., Tahiti), and a group of sailors on the ship let their allegiance to the Admiralty be subsumed to the sexually licentious women there (sailor's delight!), eventually ending up with the mutiny. These mutineers, along with some of those island gals, settled in the Pitcairn Islands (officially a UK territory), where basically everyone there is a descendant of those mutineers and their Polynesian brides.

Then I learn that a large portion of the current men on the islands were involved in a child p0rn scandal:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/pitcairn-mayor-on-child-porn-charges-20101204-18kjc.html

I presume that this scandal started happening not long after this isolated place got hooked up to the internet. This got me thinking that the men that mutinied had the personality traits that they were seduced by poontang so much so that they dishonorably bailed out of their allegiance to the Admiralty, and that the men on that island have carried this personality trait since then. And I could probably understand why the 40 or so women that live on those islands would start looking quite stale after a while, with the internet providing the huge amount of female sexual depiction that they had never experienced, leading them to engage in this universally condemned behavior.

Contrast this with femynist thought that says that the reason that men are sexually abusive is because of culture and not a consequence of inheritance.

 

[Serenity]

Contrast this with femynist thought that says that the reason that men are sexually abusive is because of culture and not a consequence of inheritance.

It seems you're suggesting it's genes and not environment/culture. I'd like to point out that it's very difficult to point out which one it is when the child is raised by the same people who gave them their genes. It is a well known fact that children are very impressionable, that environment has a very large effect. I'm not saying genes don't matter at all, but I think the effect of genes are small compared to the environment.

If a small island is inhabited by a bunch of guys with a particular type of culture, it may very well be the culture that's being passed down as a result of being raised in that culture. You could only prove that it's genes if you take a statistically significant portion of children born there and move them into a different contrasting environment before they get too many cultural impressions. If what you suggest is true then they'll still become like their parents, if not they'll be like the people around them.

I'm more inclined to say that environment has the greatest impact on behavior. Behavior in healthy humans isn't something that is unchangeable, if it was there wouldn't even be a point to self-improvement, because genes would determine behavior and genes don't improve in a person...