|
|
|
|
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/24/2008 2:36:06 PM | We have never been sexually monogamous. As for socially monogamous, that is something else entirely. It seems to have been typical in Asia Minor and Africa for men to have many wives. It was typical in the Far East and West for men to have one "wife" who was bonded to his estate but have many concubines/mistresses and for women to also sometimes be the mistress of a man who was not her husband. In Roman times, a man of means might have a slave whose job was to keep the matron of the house satisfied.
Sexual diversity has been with us for hundreds of thousands of years and yes, it is only "cheating" if it is done with deception.
If I were married and my wife wanted to take a lover, as long as I was convinced that it wasn't a health risk to me, I would be fine with that. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/24/2008 9:25:51 PM | zentral wrote: ...most cultures in the past
(and some today) practiced polygyny. Harems,
concubines, polygamy, mistresses, etc., are how
these manifest. Some Arab sheiks practice this today,
and in some Muslim countries it is still accepted
even if less common than it may have once been.
There are an estimated 100,000 conservative
fundamentalist Mormon polygamists, not counting
ostensibly monogamous mainstream Mormon husbands
who have mistresses.
YourCuteGuy1 wrote: It's because they have
more power, social status, and success that they are
dating around with exceptionally desirable women.
For me it's been the other way around. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/24/2008 11:03:19 PM | Cgirl101
Stop listening to the line and then you wont have to cringe.....
However; it's the truth!
If we lived till the age of 30 as was once the case -- then we could do it .... but we now live longer and the majority of males are not about to spend an entire lifetime with the same type of pudding! | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 2:41:38 AM | This excuse is a cop out, just as you believe. The "hey, its in my genes babe, what can I do?" excuse is simply that , an excuse. The prob isnt in his genes, its when he takes it OUT of his jeans.
Irregardless of our historic nature, whether we descended from apes, etc, we have evolved over time. I dont see these guys still hunting down mastadons. It is no longer a question of "spreding your seed" and is now a question of can you be a person of honor, is your word your bond, can you devote yourself to being with your significant other. Funny how the guys who seem to want to spred their genes the furthest are usually the ones who should have evolved OFF the evolutionary train and the rest of the men have passed them by, evolution-wise. Ingore the neanderthols. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 3:45:10 AM | Men are not monogamous by "nature"???? That may be true, however, I would hope that men would be able to control their natural instincts in an effort to do what is best for "today's" society.
Propagating the species is NOT always in the best interest of today's society as evidenced by the number of children who are being raised "fatherless". It certainly is not conducive to the enrichment of our society. Just ask a child if they wish they had a father. Examine the cost to society in caring for these children and ask if that is that is in the best interest of society. For those who say it is "in their genes", then I would hope that they would stand up to plate and take responsibility for "their genes" and take care of their children so that I and others in society do not have to. Put your money where you mouth is.....This is 2008 and I hope that our society has matured since the days of yore. | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 9:24:18 AM |
One more comment....If you have a daughter and she were to become impregnated because her boyfriend decided to go with his "natural instincts", would you support your current opinion of monogamy?
123carrie. That is such an asinine question. That is the same as asking if you had a son and his girlfriend got "accidental" pregnant without his consent because her "biological clock" is ticking, would you change your current opinion about "accidental" pregnancies.
The not monogamous argument is not a defense of infidelity or morality. Infidelity is a choice. Morality is a set of beliefs dictating behaviors and shared among most individuals in a specific culture. The non monogamous argument is founded in biology and questions whether men have a "natural" instinct to procreate. As such, it is no different from the biological clock and PMS arguments. If you deny the presence of a genetically induced urge to procreate, then you should also reject the notion of a "biological clock" and PMS.
So once again, if you feel that the non monogamous argument is deemed an excuse for infidelity, then you should likewise deem the PMS argument an excuse for being a raving biatch!
I personally believe that men can curb their "natural" instinct through reason and morality filters, just like women can curb their PMS outrage through reason and behavioral filters. Then whether they choose to do so is up to them!! | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 9:45:12 AM |
Examine the cost to society in caring for these children and ask if that is that is in the best interest of society. For those who say it is "in their genes", then I would hope that they would stand up to plate and take responsibility for "their genes" and take care of their children so that I and others in society do not have to.
Yes, the loss is great when abandoned and unwanted ,without a father or mother, being without it's guidance and love,these children will be without the basic building blocks and society now will be responsible to care for those because,
one or both of the parents was not there after bringing them into this world, and the responsibility in rising there off spring.
If we all did things without any rules, conscience or restraint, and did things only on impulse regardless of the consequences, then we would be in quite a mess as a society. | |
|
| |
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 12:09:18 PM | this is a cop out. it says, "if i am faithful, and if i happen to do what i am supposed to do ( be faithful), then i should be congratulated for it." however, notice, we women are SUPPOSED to be faithful. it is a given. women are more likely to forgive a man's cheating then a man is to forgive a woman for cheating. if men do it, well, thier "nature" got the better of them, but if we women do it, well, we're now "whores." ( i am not by any means saying it's okay to cheat, i am just pointing out the obvious double standard.)
the problem is, women reenforce this idea, and society backs it up as well. its one of our "myths." as an english major i can profess to seeing this as a common theme througout the ages... it is reflected in our literature... etc. there is the man powerless in front of the beautiful woman, and the man being ruined by giving in to his passions... etc. of course, the corollary is the fallen women, or the women becoming a pariah for doing what would be simply frowned upon for a man. we also hear the remnants of this thinking whenever a man says, " well, if a woman sleeps with me on the first date then i am not interested in her...," or, "she's a slut." (this denys the fact that the guy did it too, and asserts that if HE does it it's okay, but if SHE does it, well, it's a different story. it also makes the woman the arbiter of HIS morality. what a bunch of crap!)
men are humans too. perhaps they have a stonger urge to "spread the seed," but this does not sanction unfaithfulness or deceit. it's called being a grown up. it's called being able to forsee the consequences of one's actions. it's also called being responsible and accountable. i have a stronger desire to eat chocolate certain times of the month, and i manage to refrain most of the time... i mean, come on!
this notion that men are not monogamous by nature is a bunch of bologne invented by men that gives men the excuse to be cads...
lar | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 12:28:39 PM | | It all goes back to the saying "they want their cake and eat it to "! But , if a woman were to have other relations thats a different story. When a man does it you have 2 types of women those that will stand by there man and try and work it out (why he didn't think of this b4 incountering another relationship is beyond me) or the other type , she's packing her stuff and she's out , (let him work it out by himself or with the new woman). | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 1:24:36 PM | The double standard is alive and well. I think there may be a reason for this which is the following:
If a woman cheats (this was especially true prior to effective birth control), she may get pregnant. This is a significant risk, and if it happens, her husband is likely to know (however, over 10% of children in the USA are NOT fathered by the husband and he does not know!!!). He will not want to support a child that is not his (doing so may reduce his own genetic success - so, women will often lie about paternity). Men, on the other hand, do not run this risk - and if they do get someone pregnant and end up paying child support, it is for their own child, at least.
The risk and potential penalties are greater for women than men, thus this behavior is considered more negatively when women do it.
Fair? Of course not! But, there is some logic behind the double standard. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 1:45:26 PM | zentral. Your logic is completely backwards. If a man cheats and get's his mistress knocked up, he is paddling up s^&t creek. He has no choices and will most likely loose 50%+ of his assets not to mention paying childsupport for the next 18 years. If a woman cheats and get knocked up she has some options. She can either; a) have the child and say it is her husbands (which you illutrated), b) get an abortion without her husband's knowledge, or c) divorce her hustand and take 50%+ of his asstes while simultaneously collecting child support.
The woman has all the cards there slick. The only thing men can do is to keep the pickle in their pants! | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 2:12:12 PM | | Happy, you're quite right - but two of your scenarios (b and c) have really only been true/available for the past 50 years or so, and I'm thinking more in terms of centuries of precedent for the double standard. And a key point is that regardless of the cost to the man, he has successfully promulgated his genes. That's what it's fundamentally all about from a biological ("nature") perspective, regardless of whatever veneer of morality or civilization society and custom has overlaid on relationships. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/25/2008 4:01:06 PM |
Happy, you're quite right - but two of your scenarios (b and c) have really only been true/available for the past 50 years or so, and I'm thinking more in terms of centuries of precedent for the double standard. And a key point is that regardless of the cost to the man, he has successfully promulgated his genes. That's what it's fundamentally all about from a biological ("nature") perspective, regardless of whatever veneer of morality or civilization society and custom has overlaid on relationships.
I agree with this if we trace back to the roots. Then additional variables come into play such as infant mortality rates, age mortality, survival of the fittest etc. And yes, we still carry this genetic programming today no matter how one slice or dice it. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/27/2008 12:27:40 PM | zentral~
birth control has been really revolutionary for women. it marks the first time when women could actually be free from bearing the outward visible signs of "sin" - e.g., a premarital pregnancy, or the birht of some one else's child... etc.
for ages, if a woman got knocked up outside of wedlock she was forever shunned from society. the only fit place for her "confinement," a convent, or somewhere well out of the way of "decent society." not only that, but her whole family line could be ruined indefintely. so if your sister strayed... well, nooone would marry you either!
interesting thing... the word adultery finds its root in unclean, or alloyed. there is a concept here at work that is interesting. if a woman commits adultery, well, there was no way of knowing the patronage of the child, and therefore the family line was polluted, sullied, or alloyed with something possibly inferior. controling women's sexuality was all about controling women, and making sure that the family line was "unadulterated." it's really sick if you think about it.
i am not feminist, believe me. i have no issue with certain gender roles, however, the question that the OP poses certainly illustrates just how embedded this anti-female thinking is. men and women aren't so different that it justifies men's bad behavior, and it certainly doesn't justify tainting a woman with some out moded notion of "original sin."
lar | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/27/2008 12:44:03 PM | I've been faithful to myself for over a decade. I think that makes me monotonous rather than monogamous.
If I can be faithful to myself I can be faithful to a woman. I don't think men make good philanderers anyway - they're not good at multi-tasking and women are. Women are far better at being unfaithful. When a man plays games he's trying to out-multi-task an army of multi-taskers and he soon gets tangled up with those many multiple multi-taskers.
Read a good book, that's what I say. Or come on here and type. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 3/27/2008 1:17:19 PM | The definition of "monogamy" can be argued forever...
Some define creatures as being monogamous only when they can't live (literally) without their mate. They die of a broken heart if their mate dies.
Some say that monogamy is the natural way for humans to live and to be otherwise is an aberration.
If that's the truth; we sure have alot of weirdos...
I do believe that monogamous relationships are possible, but I don't think it's human nature to be like that. I also think it's dependant upon many other conditions of the relationship. We're more likely to be monongamous if our relationship has a large outside support structure, like family, jointly owned property, live in their own home, are able to meet their financial commitments.. may other things like that.
I think most people go into marriage wanting a monogamous relationship, but we humans have a tendency to venture outside of it if the relationship becomes overly stressful or isn't working in some way. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:54:19 PM | I happen to agree with that philosphy. Men have been programmed genetically for tens of thousand of years to pursue as many women as they can in order to populate the human race. Women are programmed the opposite way in order to raise their young and ensure survival of the human race. We have come a long way since Neanderthals walked the earth but the wiring is still quite similar. Whether or not a man steps out however is his decision. Nature isn't entirely to blame. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:57:10 PM | What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
I feel this line is such a cop out! I keep hearing that men are not meant to be monogamous. That in early times, men would mate with as many woman as possible to 'spread their seed' blah blah blah.....
- It's called Male Fantasy. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:11:31 PM |
That in early times, men would mate with as many woman as possible to 'spread their seed' blah blah blah.....
Welcome to why we survived as a species. Best advise (instead of a long winded explanaion) is to youtube human sexual behavior. | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:33:45 PM | It's not a "line." It's reality. The last few posters have touched on this, but here's my take: billions upon billions of women, since the species has become sentient, have given birth knowing, without a doubt, that their children were their genetic offspring. A few hundred million, maybe even a billion or so, men, at best, since the dawn of time, could actually KNOW this. They're the ones who eventually "saw" their physical likeness in their children, or in a few extreme cultural cases, had partners who were physically unable to couple with anyone but them. Other than that, it was a genetic crap shoot for the males of the species.
A biological reason for existance of any species is procreation. Monogamy was genetic suicide, for men, until the past few generations. Undoing a few hundred thousand years of wiring/reality isn't as simple as telling men to "be monogomous" because it's "nice."
Oh, oh! Here's a thought! The "reason" men are not monogamous "by nature" is because women aren't actually monogomous "by nature." Women have been cuckolding men from deep into history to modern times, as much as men have been "spreading their seed."
Science is the bitch. If, as of today, no baby can be born on the face of this planet without "genetic" testing for paternity, the place will go postal for a while, and then we'd all have to shrug and admit that neither gender is intrinsically more "monogamous" than the other.
Until then, men are naughty and women are angels. OK. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
