Monogamy versus Polygamy
Replies
-
Sample size! Ha! How many divorced women posting here had their marriage break up due to cheating? How many more were cheating, but they never knew about it? This is massively underreported. Although I grant you, many men can't cheat, because they can't convince another woman to sleep with them. And yes, other don't, because they realize it's wrong.Desiring to have sex with others is of course perfectly natural - but that doesn't mean they don't consider the trade off worth it. Many people are fine window shopping and fantasizing... then going home to their spouse. Sometimes driving I get the desire to run some f*cker over with my car - but I don't cause prison would suck. We are defined by our actions more than our thoughts.
This is my point. People want to sleep with others. Probably men much more so than women. But they typically try not to for a variety of reasons (honor, love, commitment, fear, etc.). But the desire is there. It's very strong. It's in our genes that we want to get in yours.
Let me ask another way. What if your friend could find a wonderful girlfriend. Madly in love. She's everything he ever wanted. Etc., etc. Fast forward twelve months. Let's say he meets supermodel twins at a party, and they get him into a private bedroom, and they tell him they want to have crazy wild sex with him, all together, now. Nobody is around, the door is locked, they have protection, he's sure that nobody will ever find out. Only he will know. Knowing what you know about your friend, does he have sex with the supermodel twins or not?
I know many guys reading this will say, "I wouldn't, if I truly loved my partner!" And maybe they are right. But my guess is that if we performed this experiment, 50% of the men in a committed relationship would say they wouldn't have sex with the supermodels. But 98% of the men actually would.
Not me, of course... ;-)
--P0 -
P, I think most people would feel guilty that they would betray their partner, even if there is no chance of the partner finding out. It's about your own guilt too. Just read any Dear Prudence column. She occasionally hears from people who cheated and the guilt is eating them alive. 99% of the time, Prudence says not to tell the partner and to live with the guilt as the punishment, because if you tell your partner, you are just making them feel bad to make yourself feel better.0
-
P, I think most people would feel guilty that they would betray their partner, even if there is no chance of the partner finding out. It's about your own guilt too. Just read any Dear Prudence column. She occasionally hears from people who cheated and the guilt is eating them alive. 99% of the time, Prudence says not to tell the partner and to live with the guilt as the punishment, because if you tell your partner, you are just making them feel bad to make yourself feel better.
I think you are absolutely right. Unless they were pathological, it's a terrible betrayal of trust, and I'm sure the guilt must be overwhelming. It's cultural: we have said cheating on a spouse or loved one is wrong, and we've attached a stigma to that. It's a powerful deterrent. But that means we need to impose penalties to prevent the behavior. Without the penalties (e.g. guilt), don't you think more people would cheat? So in effect, a cultural restraint is put in place to deter an animalistic urge, because monogamy is not natural. Just as in the previous example of murder being prevented by life in prison (although I'm certainly not saying adultery and murder are equivalent, they obviously are not).
But I'm also reminded of the Woody Allen film, Crimes and Misdemeanors. A rich, successful man has a long-term affair, tries to break it off, the woman refuses to go quietly, and she threatens to tell the wife. He has her killed. He's racked by guilt, he starts to lose his mind, turns to alcohol, his life becomes a living hell, etc. But over time, he recovers. He puts it behind him. He focuses on being a good husband, a good father, a leader in the community. And for him, it's apparently a happy ending. The sad conclusion: in a world without a God (i.e. ours), evil is not necessarily punished. It's a tragic conclusion, but that's the reality.
So while guilt is a deterrent, it's not necessarily a strong one. Remember, people have affairs in cultures where the penalty for that is death! And yet, they still want to have sex with others, and are willing to risk their lives to do so.
--P0 -
Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?
--P
Yes! You dont even have to look further than the Peeps!!! Most of us are looking for that special significant other. There is only ONE of those!! IMO relationships break down because people 'settle' for a partner that actually doesn't suit them! To fight the very human urge of being alone. And gain the very human urge of loving and being loved! This need, IMO, outstrips sex by a million to 1!
There are countless examples of people that are right for each other - Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward being my favourite. As the most handsome man in the world said "why have burgers when I have steak at home" :bigsmile:
For the likes of you and Mike, you belong on the commune. Cool. Go find one. They do exist! :flowerforyou:0 -
having chickens has been interesting to me, regarding sex.
roosters have to have sex like ALL. DAY. LONG!!!! every 5 min.
they don't have any kind of appendage that gets inserted though. hens and roosters have the exact same anatomy! but, he can produce sperm which is deposited every time he does the deed.
what does the deed consist of, you might ask. well, he spends about 5 min chasing a hen. another minute literally pinning her down with his feet on her wings and his beak on her neck. then about 2 seconds to deposit his contribution and he's done. she runs away and about 5 min later he looks for his next victim. the hens scream through ALL of this mind you.
you only need ONE rooster for about 10--12 hens!!!!!! if he's gone after a hen a lot eventually he gets tired of her, and he moves on. but, usually he just plays the field over and over until he's done with those hens and needs NEW hens! the hens, still hate it. they run every single time. no matter how much "showing off" he does. they aren't impressed.
a hen with more than one rooster ( like if you had it be 10 roosters to 1 hen)..... she'd die. she'd lose all of her feathers and just give up and die! chickens also, do not notice when one of their own has died. in fact, they will eat their friends if they feel like it.
humans have the ability to reason, rationalize, connect, have empathy, sympathy, regret, concern,...... i mean we can do so much with our brains. there is a lot of "for the greater good" in human kind too. just look at survival of the fittest in the human race!!My roommate, the eternal charismatic player was just complaining about this last night. He's tired of having sex with new women all the time. He wants to find a girl he's compatible with and just stick with her, and he's super bummed that his (now ex-) girlfriend didn't fit the bill.
Yeah, every guy says this to women. And perhaps some even mean it. For about six months...
Agree it can be done, and it's certainly "right," when in a committed relationship. Certainly marriage.
Just saying it's not natural, that's all.
--P
Let me give you a little real life lesson in animal behavior that I doubt you are aware of P.
I grew up on a dairy farm and bull calves are sent to market as they are not producers.
A dams milk after freshening is loaded with colostrum and not fit for consumption so often the bull calf was allowed to nurse to gain weight and utilize a product that would have to be thrown out.
When removed away (heifer calves too because the now good milk was sold) from the dam she would spend a day or two searching and bellowing for her calf.
Sad to see but part of farm life.
Know what would happen though?
Within 48 hours of losing her offspring she would forget it ever existed and would not recognize it if reintroduced back into her existence.
As it is with most if not all animals,humans being unique in having a family bond that lasts a lifetime.
Get back to me about what is natural with people after you chew on this for a while.
We are not just another species and pseudo intellectualism is just that.0 -
having chickens has been interesting to me, regarding sex.
roosters have to have sex like ALL. DAY. LONG!!!! every 5 min.
they don't have any kind of appendage that gets inserted though. hens and roosters have the exact same anatomy! but, he can produce sperm which is deposited every time he does the deed.
what does the deed consist of, you might ask. well, he spends about 5 min chasing a hen. another minute literally pinning her down with his feet on her wings and his beak on her neck. then about 2 seconds to deposit his contribution and he's done. she runs away and about 5 min later he looks for his next victim. the hens scream through ALL of this mind you.
you only need ONE rooster for about 10--12 hens!!!!!! if he's gone after a hen a lot eventually he gets tired of her, and he moves on. but, usually he just plays the field over and over until he's done with those hens and needs NEW hens! the hens, still hate it. they run every single time. no matter how much "showing off" he does. they aren't impressed.
a hen with more than one rooster ( like if you had it be 10 roosters to 1 hen)..... she'd die. she'd lose all of her feathers and just give up and die! chickens also, do not notice when one of their own has died. in fact, they will eat their friends if they feel like it.
humans have the ability to reason, rationalize, connect, have empathy, sympathy, regret, concern,...... i mean we can do so much with our brains. there is a lot of "for the greater good" in human kind too. just look at survival of the fittest in the human race!!My roommate, the eternal charismatic player was just complaining about this last night. He's tired of having sex with new women all the time. He wants to find a girl he's compatible with and just stick with her, and he's super bummed that his (now ex-) girlfriend didn't fit the bill.
Yeah, every guy says this to women. And perhaps some even mean it. For about six months...
Agree it can be done, and it's certainly "right," when in a committed relationship. Certainly marriage.
Just saying it's not natural, that's all.
--P
Let me give you a little real life lesson in animal behavior that I doubt you are aware of P.
I grew up on a dairy farm and bull calves are sent to market as they are not producers.
A dams milk after freshening is loaded with colostrum and not fit for consumption so often the bull calf was allowed to nurse to gain weight and utilize a product that would have to be thrown out.
When removed away (heifer calves too because the now good milk was sold) from the dam she would spend a day or two searching and bellowing for her calf.
Sad to see but part of farm life.
Know what would happen though?
Within 48 hours of losing her offspring she would forget it ever existed and would not recognize it if reintroduced back into her existence.
As it is with most if not all animals,humans being unique in having a family bond that lasts a lifetime.
Get back to me about what is natural with people after you chew on this for a while.
We are not just another species and pseudo intellectualism is just that.
Exactly and any discussion that attempts to state what is natural for us by comparison with the animal kingdom is ludicrous.
If you are a hog farmer you have farrowing pens...that allows the piglets to nurse without the possibility of the sow to roll over on them and kill them...do humans need this?
Btw,she will also eat them,we had pigs for a while on the farm and yes they will eat anything,they are natures garbage disposal.
Cannibalism is not all that uncommon in the animal world including primates.
Left to free range bull cattle will breed with their dams or sisters without any thought of right or wrong.
We are completely removed from all other animals in uncountable ways.
That damned concept of capitalistic private property ownership has nothing to do with anything.0 -
Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?
--P
Yes! You dont even have to look further than the Peeps!!! Most of us are looking for that special significant other. There is only ONE of those!! IMO relationships break down because people 'settle' for a partner that actually doesn't suit them! To fight the very human urge of being alone. And gain the very human urge of loving and being loved! This need, IMO, outstrips sex by a million to 1!
There are countless examples of people that are right for each other - Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward being my favourite. As the most handsome man in the world said "why have burgers when I have steak at home" :bigsmile:
For the likes of you and Mike, you belong on the commune. Cool. Go find one. They do exist! :flowerforyou:
I have never said I'm looking for life on a commune. I've never said I'm not interested in having a relationship with one, and only one, woman. What I'm saying is that monogamy is not a "natural" state, so making it work is difficult. But certainly not impossible. And we shouldn't underestimate how unnatural it is.
Paul Newman had an affair with Joanne Woodward when he was with his first wife. He left her for Joanne. So clearly he cheated. Also, he had other affairs while with Joanne. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5262240/Paul-Newman-was-a-drunk-adulterer-according-to-new-book.html
--P0 -
Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?
--P
Yes! You dont even have to look further than the Peeps!!! Most of us are looking for that special significant other. There is only ONE of those!! IMO relationships break down because people 'settle' for a partner that actually doesn't suit them! To fight the very human urge of being alone. And gain the very human urge of loving and being loved! This need, IMO, outstrips sex by a million to 1!
There are countless examples of people that are right for each other - Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward being my favourite. As the most handsome man in the world said "why have burgers when I have steak at home" :bigsmile:
For the likes of you and Mike, you belong on the commune. Cool. Go find one. They do exist! :flowerforyou:
I have never said I'm looking for life on a commune. I've never said I'm not interested in having a relationship with one, and only one, woman. What I'm saying is that monogamy is not a "natural" state, so making it work is difficult. But certainly not impossible. And we shouldn't underestimate how unnatural it is.
Paul Newman had an affair with Joanne Woodward when he was with his first wife. He left her for Joanne. So clearly he cheated. Also, he had other affairs while with Joanne. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5262240/Paul-Newman-was-a-drunk-adulterer-according-to-new-book.html
--P
Blimey! Illusions shattered - thanks!! :laugh:
I'm still disagreeing that it's a 'natural' state. If it were, then based on your theory of the both men and women living in poly-bliss, then women would be feeling it too. And we don't. And one can't work without the other, so.................nothing natural or evolutionary about it.
Just a bunch of guys who want to have their cake and eat it! :flowerforyou:0 -
Just a bunch of guys who want to have their cake and eat it! :flowerforyou:
LOL! Maybe, maybe....
But I'm serious when I say I'm not interested in multiple partners. Just one. Although I'd probably fail the supermodel twin test...
--P0 -
i think what you're pointing out is a difference between sex as sex and sex with the belief that it means something much deeper......
you only want ONE woman, but you have no problem having SEX with hot twins. sex can be just sex, it doesn't have to mean any other kind of connection. that's where the whole "human" side of sex comes in.
we are both meant to enjoy it in order to continue to reproduce, but that's just it, we enjoy it as the act that it is. SOME, have to have an emotional bond with someone to have sex with them ( like me). others don't.
some have sex with someone and it CREATES an emotional bond. others, it doesn't. if you met a woman that was down with you having sex with other women, would you still want to be with THAT woman? would you be able to swing? or practice polyamory?
people might cheat but it's not always because someone hotter walked in the room ( yes, sometimes it is). usually it's because there is other stuff going on that makes the connection between partners not as strong, or strained, or less meaningful. like months of fighting over the same thing. one party or both could start to see the grass as greener elsewhere.......
if a man doesn't feel sexy and appreciated he might easily fall for the woman that lets him come to her with all of his issues, the woman that doesn't nag him. the woman that says ALL of the right things, who is always on HIS side, who is new, and fresh, and fun, and he can create a fantasy life with........
if a woman doesn't feel sex and loved, she might easily fall for a guy that does same things for her. he's there, listening, not judging, not running, not complaining, not avoiding, not saying, no, etc.
cheating is not usually a result of a person who can't say no to sex. it's usually because people start to take each other for granted and stop appreciating and loving one another......0 -
Hey P, you know what else is natural? Rape. MANY animals do this. A male dolphin will separate a female dolphin from the pod, tormenting her, starving her, until she finally gives in and has sex with him. Ducks are particularly well known for engaging in gang rape.
Or what about murder? It's not uncommon for chimpanzees, out of boredom, to go and hunt other animals (even other chimps) and commit genocide.
When a male lion takes over a pride, more often than not he eliminates all the cubs from the previous father. Usually by outright killing them. Any that are old enough to fight for their lives might get away, but often die because they are unprepared to live on their own.
These are all natural behaviors. So I think before we tout something as being natural so therefore we should be more accepting we should consider other factors. Can it fit in with our society? If it doesn't, can an argument be made for it? Does it infringe on another persons rights?
So while yes, I think open relationships are perfectly functional ways to have a relationship it's not for everyone. There's nothing wrong with monogamy - even if it doesn't really exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom... we are kind of a unique case.0 -
a friend of mine went to a 40th bday party for a friend of her hubby's. it was a surprise party thrown by the wife.
she spent something like 25,000 on this party. she hired a live band, rented outdoor furniture and a stage. had it catered. hired women to serve drinks and body shots. these women eventually were identified as hookers ( essentially) they got paid by the guests to do lap dances, body shots, get the guys off, etc. and at the end of the night, they had sex with one another in front of the entire party. when they were done the guests were allowed to penetrate the women with any sex toy the body guard brought with him.......
according to my friend, there were husbands on sofas with these women, hiding from wives, basically receiving oral sex from these women. the wife that threw the party hooked up with one of the women herself. she wanted to buy her hubby a lapdance and BJ, and he by that point had LEFT HIS OWN PARTY!!! ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!
people were having sex all over the house ( at least some of them were having it with their own partner ;-)). my friend and her hubby left before it got to that point, but people texted her pics all night long!
it was the talk of the town.
a year later, the husband and wife were divorcing. she wanted to experiment with others, he didn't. she hooked up with one of the waitresses, he didn't............ she had cheated in the past, he hadn't.
i have never once cheated on anyone. and i don't run around having sex with loads of people. but, i would have ZERO problem with polygamy. i know i would prefer my life to be like that right now. it would make things easier. and since we would all know about each other and go into it KNOWING about each other, i would have no problem what so ever. because, in my mind that kind of set up ( polygamy) it's not about sex. sex is only part of it, but that's NOT what it's about.........0 -
Just a bunch of guys who want to have their cake and eat it! :flowerforyou:
LOL! Maybe, maybe....
But I'm serious when I say I'm not interested in multiple partners. Just one. Although I'd probably fail the supermodel twin test...
--P
Given the choice and Gerard Butler standing naked in a room, I'm really not sure I would turn him down either!!! :laugh:
I jest :bigsmile:0 -
i think what you're pointing out is a difference between sex as sex and sex with the belief that it means something much deeper......
you only want ONE woman, but you have no problem having SEX with hot twins. sex can be just sex, it doesn't have to mean any other kind of connection. that's where the whole "human" side of sex comes in.
we are both meant to enjoy it in order to continue to reproduce, but that's just it, we enjoy it as the act that it is. SOME, have to have an emotional bond with someone to have sex with them ( like me). others don't.
some have sex with someone and it CREATES an emotional bond. others, it doesn't. if you met a woman that was down with you having sex with other women, would you still want to be with THAT woman? would you be able to swing? or practice polyamory?
people might cheat but it's not always because someone hotter walked in the room ( yes, sometimes it is). usually it's because there is other stuff going on that makes the connection between partners not as strong, or strained, or less meaningful. like months of fighting over the same thing. one party or both could start to see the grass as greener elsewhere.......
if a man doesn't feel sexy and appreciated he might easily fall for the woman that lets him come to her with all of his issues, the woman that doesn't nag him. the woman that says ALL of the right things, who is always on HIS side, who is new, and fresh, and fun, and he can create a fantasy life with........
if a woman doesn't feel sex and loved, she might easily fall for a guy that does same things for her. he's there, listening, not judging, not running, not complaining, not avoiding, not saying, no, etc.
cheating is not usually a result of a person who can't say no to sex. it's usually because people start to take each other for granted and stop appreciating and loving one another......
Yes, serial cheaters aside, I think this would be the most common reason. Lack of compatibility. Lack of effort. Lack of Love in the relationship.0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.0 -
a year later, the husband and wife were divorcing. she wanted to experiment with others, he didn't. she hooked up with one of the waitresses, he didn't............ she had cheated in the past, he hadn't.
I dated a guy once, who's ex wife wouldn't have sex with him unless there was at least another male involved, but mostly only if it was a swing. The guy never once wanted to participate in this. He just did it to please her. Eventually, it rendered him impotent. And obviously divorced!0 -
The fact of the matter is, we all have an innate standard of morality. Whether or not we agree that it is fine to have multiple sexual partners or one, within the bounds or marriage or not, we can all agree that it is not right to just have anyone we want. I do not believe this is societal; I would even argue that your hunter gatherer society had the same moral standard. Yes, they may have shared partners to further the species and preserve life, but as you yourself pointed out, P, this would all be within the bounds of their own village or tribe, among people they knew and trusted. (I honestly haven't studied this culture, so my arguments are completely based on your information.)
In today's society we have agreed that monogamy is the best course of action -- I believe this probably has much more to do with the fact that we have developed to the point that we do not need to share partners in order to survive rather than boring society forcing us to counteract our natural desires and be upset and unhappy with just one person. The reason so many people turn to dating sites, professional matchmakers, etc. is because we all have the desire to find a deep, emotional and physical attachment to a partner with whom we can enjoy a meaningful relationship for life. True, the desire to reproduce is a major part of who we are, which is why the desire to have sex with multiple people is there, but we have also recognized that we are generally safe as a society without multiple sexual partners to preserve ourselves. Would this not then make us free to pursue that desired monogamous relationship in which we can have that security and happiness?
Perhaps this is a bit too idealistic, but in some sense, not being bound by the survival instinct to reproduce prolifically actually just gives us the freedom to distance ourselves from our sex drive. We can each reason that while it may be fun to fantasize about the sexy man or woman across the room, it is far more beneficial to our mental health and general well-being to go home to our monogamous partner with whom we share a much deeper connection on many different levels.
*I realize I seem a bit like I'm arguing both sides of the fence, but in reality I got bored trying to prove a point I didn't really believe :laugh:0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.
This thread is political in lots of ways, but I question whether the intention of the op was to covertly brainwash this group with an argument against the doctrine of rights. I might have skipped some posts, though : )
Edit: thinking john locke, not kant0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.
LOL! Political beliefs? WTF? I have two companies, trying to start a third, but I'm a closet communist, using sexual anthropology to make my case on an exercise site? And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that damn meddling Carl!
Although it does explain your posts in this thread. I hadn't bothered answering, because they didn't add anything to the points being raised. But now I see you were attacking windmills.
But why are you still commenting, Carl, and so passionately in this "dishonest" thread? Aren't there many other "honest" threads that could use your valuable insights on chicken/hog behavior? Ones where the OP is so much more sincere?
--P0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.
LOL! Political beliefs? WTF? I have two companies, trying to start a third, but I'm a closet communist, using sexual anthropology to make my case on an exercise site? And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that damn meddling Carl!
Although it does explain your posts in this thread. I hadn't bothered answering, because they didn't add anything to the points being raised. But now I see you were attacking windmills.
But why are you still commenting, Carl, and so passionately in this "dishonest" thread? Aren't there many other "honest" threads that could use your valuable insights on chicken/hog behavior? Ones where the OP is so much more sincere?
--P
Shutup you commie *kitten*!!! LOL I agree P.... How the feck did this get to be about politics???
Thinking is one thing... over-thinking is quite another.0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.
LOL! Political beliefs? WTF? I have two companies, trying to start a third, but I'm a closet communist, using sexual anthropology to make my case on an exercise site? And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that damn meddling Carl!
Although it does explain your posts in this thread. I hadn't bothered answering, because they didn't add anything to the points being raised. But now I see you were attacking windmills.
But why are you still commenting, Carl, and so passionately in this "dishonest" thread? Aren't there many other "honest" threads that could use your valuable insights on chicken/hog behavior? Ones where the OP is so much more sincere?
--P
Now you know how Joan of Arc felt....0 -
i thought it was a thread about sex. lots and lots and lots of sex!!!0
-
Now you know how Joan of Arc felt....
Hot?
--P0 -
Now you know how Joan of Arc felt....
Hot?
--P
Yeah. Bigmouth strikes again.0 -
Folks I suspect that what is being foisted on us is not a legitimate discussion of social mores but a veiled attempt by the op to try to intellectualize a political belief that begins with the concept of property rights and modern civilization as evil.
Dave picked up on it as well.
This is why I take issue,it is imo a dishonest thread.
LOL! Political beliefs? WTF? I have two companies, trying to start a third, but I'm a closet communist, using sexual anthropology to make my case on an exercise site? And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that damn meddling Carl!
Although it does explain your posts in this thread. I hadn't bothered answering, because they didn't add anything to the points being raised. But now I see you were attacking windmills.
But why are you still commenting, Carl, and so passionately in this "dishonest" thread? Aren't there many other "honest" threads that could use your valuable insights on chicken/hog behavior? Ones where the OP is so much more sincere?
--P
Shutup you commie *kitten*!!! LOL I agree P.... How the feck did this get to be about politics???
Thinking is one thing... over-thinking is quite another.
I have to agree, you lost me on this one Carl :huh:0 -
I think you are giving far too much intelligence to the program in your body here, I personally think your program can understand notions such as "sexual satisfaction", but it cannot understand advanced notions such as "polygamy" and "monogamy".I have never said I'm looking for life on a commune. I've never said I'm not interested in having a relationship with one, and only one, woman. What I'm saying is that monogamy is not a "natural" state, so making it work is difficult. But certainly not impossible. And we shouldn't underestimate how unnatural it is.
Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?
--P
It is probably true however that monogamist relationships might not satisfy everyone's thirst for pleasure in our modern society - BUT I wouldn't say that because most monogamist relationships are crap then polygamist relationships are needed.
I personally think that most monogamist relationships are just not sexually satisfying for most people (but could be).
Here is an extreme "imaginary case" for you. Imagine a man milked (i.e. orgasm) every hour by mechanical apparatuses (which is theoretically possible)... Now that his "sexual satisfaction" is guaranteed, would this person really be interested in the concept of "polygamy" or even "monogamy"? Personally, I believe he would not so in my view there is no natural need for monogamy or polygamy, just sexual satisfaction.
I don't think monogamy is a natural state indeed, I don't think polygamy is a natural state either. I think we are naturally drawn towards pleasure.
I agree with you that polygamy is the less constraining of the two states (monogamy vs polygamy) and thus the more likely to meet our inscribed need for pleasure - but polygamy is just that: a state which is more likely to meet our >biological need< for pleasure and not a biological need in itself.
PS: I'm a real communist! :laugh:0 -
I can't see the pleasure in being 'milked' either!!!!! :laugh:
FFS Florian, you can do that for yourself every 5 minutes now, if you like!!!
What about emotion? Touch? Feel? Sensation? Exploration? Intimacy? Warmth? Comfort? Love?? And dare I say it, being human???
All these things are why we need another person to make the process pleasurable.............surely? :flowerforyou:0 -
Yes, in fact I shouldn't have said just "sexual satisfaction", but pleasure as a whole.What about emotion? Touch? Feel? Sensation? Exploration? Intimacy? Warmth? Comfort? Love?? And dare I say it, being human???
I still think it's all about pleasure... I am still convinced that the body "in itself" has no particular preference on how you find this pleasure - i.e. if you chose monogamy or polygamy or drugs.
You could find this pleasure in monogamy or in polygamy but which particular one is not written in your code at a basic level.
I do believe however that a lot of modern monogamous relationships are not necessarily satisfying for the people involved in them (for a variety of reason), making polygamy a more obvious choice in the overall quest for pleasure.
One person or several persons...All these things are why we need another person to make the process pleasurable.............surely? :flowerforyou:0 -
I think you are giving far too much intelligence to the program in your body here, I personally think your program can understand notions such as "sexual satisfaction", but it cannot understand advanced notions such as "polygamy" and "monogamy".
Actually, both men and women produce chemicals/hormones which are released at orgasm, designed to 'attach' them to their sexual partner - a biochemical impulse to monogamy, if you like.
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm0 -
I think you are giving far too much intelligence to the program in your body here, I personally think your program can understand notions such as "sexual satisfaction", but it cannot understand advanced notions such as "polygamy" and "monogamy".
Actually, both men and women produce chemicals/hormones which are released at orgasm, designed to 'attach' them to their sexual partner - a biochemical impulse to monogamy, if you like.
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
Nice find! Never heard that one before but it might explain a few things, especially about female orgasm, or lack of..........!0
