| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/8/2008 6:39:34 PM | You know, this might have been true in the past or whatever, but i know i am looking for a woman that i can spend the rest of my life with. ONE woman.
Go on, call me names or whatever...but thats how its going to be for me. | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:15:47 AM | it is a cop out if you use it that way .
..but also an accurate observation - if you scientifically apply you mind to evolution there are obviously advantages for a mans DNA if he screws around.
tho ultimately evolution is a process of accidents.. so there is absolutely not any MEANT TO... it is up to us to make the best of who we are...
monogamy is for grown ups | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:24:37 AM | | yea I cant stand those people who use those one liners "men are not to be monogamouse" I mean who the hell do they think they are speaking for me...men. I can totally speak for myself buddy "I am monogamous" aahh I feel much better thankyou. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:15:19 AM | > if you scientifically apply you mind to evolution there are
> obviously advantages for a mans DNA if he screws around.
Not if he catches something from one of them and dies.
Or not if all the women become fertile at the same time, so that by the time he has courted and won one of them the others are no longer fertile.
Or not if he is successful in getting her pregnant, but she is then unable without his help to raise the kid to maturity.
The point being that there are reasons for monogamy to have evolved, which is why it has evolved in several different species. We're only mildly polygamous by nature, so mostly we are monogamous, just not perfectly so.
_______________________________________________________________
Ok, here's a question for fans of this thread who have given the topic quite a bit of thought...
Is monogamy something males impose on females, or is it the other way around, with females trying to impose monogamy on males? Or does it sorta go both ways more or less equally? (not a test - I don't think there is a 'right' answer)
| |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:26:01 AM | Same as 'women aren't meant to be tied to one man' or they 'need to have some experience first' or 'I was abused by my last male partner so now I'm sleeping with 5 men simultaneously at the moment with a view to picking the one for me and do you fancy joining the show' (which I've been offered).
I don't mix socially with men who behave that way, OP, but it's an old playing record this one and it comes from both genders.
I blame condoms and the pill myself. They should only be used in marriage. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:37:11 AM | You might cringe, but it is a "true" line: men are not monogamous by nature. Women aren't either; monogamy is a social and religious construct to control people's sexuality. When sexuality is controlled, people are more easily controlled.
Earlier societies took care of the monogamy issue and the needs of men by allowing them to have more than one wife, i.e. Judaism allowed multiple wives but not multiple husbands. Again, it was a method to control women's sexuality. It also "makes sense" to have multiple wives because the point of life was to have kids. A man can impregnate many women and have many offspring, but a woman with four husbands will still produce only one child at a time.
Women were second class citizens; their needs were not important in a patriarchal society.
However, an interesting side note is that for centuries, women were considered the ravening sexual creatures, luring men to engage in sex with them--against the men's wills, of course. Men could engage in affairs and people turned blind eyes--not so with women who had affairs.
Having said all that, our culture is monogamy based. It is a choice to remain monogamous. If two people agree to this arrangement, then both should stick to it. It is not impossible to be faithful to one partner. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:46:34 PM |
Having said all that, our culture is monogamy based. It is a choice to remain monogamous. If two people agree to this arrangement, then both should stick to it. It is not impossible to be faithful to one partner.
You are right on all accounts g-2008, you know your history well. There is no animal,male or female who is sexually monogamous with one partner for life yet there are many animals who mate for life nonetheless, then there is a certain worm,I forget the species but they mate for life,they live in side each other so theres no getting out or fooling around with others!
What does make us different here is that there are the laws as if you want to be promiscuous or adulterous,you must be also responsible for you actions outside a marriage and if you bring a child into the picture also.
Now in the third world countries they are still light years behind in equality due to primal beliefs and customs. For example, in the Congo in the past decade, 250,000 females were raped and the men said that it just the nature in them and were not punished or held responsible of any of there actions. | |
|
| |
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:46:21 PM |
It's a cheap excuse. Human's weren't meant to crap in toilets either, but I'd bet most of these guys pinch it off rather than drop their cargo where they stand.
We aren't slaves to our bodily urges.
You compare apples to oranges and then say they aren't the same things. Why are we not meant to use toilets? Just because they were a later invention doesn't mean that we aren't meant to use them.
You then state that we aren't slaves to our bodily urges--isn't defecating a "bodily urge"? How long will you stay healthy if you "pinch it off"?
Polygamy/polyandry isn't a bodily urge in the simplistic way that this poster and the previous poster present it. And again, "our" perception is colored by culture and religion. If we had been raised in a different culture, we wouldn't think twice about such matters. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:51:12 PM | So, let me see if I understand all the "scientists". Since we're decended from monkeys, we should still act like monkeys? I don't buy it. There are so many things wrong with that theory.
1. Survival of the fittest is not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the smartest. It wasn't the Alpha males who tried to go head to head with wooly mammoths and saber toothed tigers that survived. They ended up crushed or tiger food. It was the smart ones who figered out a better way to kill them, or found easier prey to kill that made it back alive. They are our ancestors, not the brutes. The Cro-Magnons replaced the Neandertals because, contrary to current the scientific trend, Neandertals were idiots who couldn't make the cut.
2. Take the act like a monkey theory to it's logical conclusion. Mammals came from reptiles; should we then crawl on our bellies and dart our tongues? Reptiles came from amphibians; should we act like frogs. Amphibians came from fish; why don't we all have gills and live in water full time. I'll skip all the way down to single cell organisms; how come we don't just reproduce by cell division. I'll give you the answer BECAUSE WE EVOLVED BEYOND ALL THAT. That means we don't have to act that way. The "scientists" are advocating devolution, not evolution.
3 This is similar to a murderer or sexual predator being excused because "they can't control their most basic urges". It's just as big a cop out.
I'll stick with being evolved. The "scientists" can crawl in the muck. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:56:48 PM | Facts are facts and that statement is TRUE. That IS how nature has planned things. For men TO BE ABLE to impregnate any female that comes along and the more he has sex with, the more likely HIS bloodline will continue. Many men "easily overcome"/do not feel that urge of course but SOME will use that as an excuse obviously... Of course CHEMISTRY with another is nature's way of telling you WHICH female [or male as the case may be] is a good GENETIC match. [but has ZERO to do with compatibility] I fully believe many on this sight have "faulty" Chemistry detectors for whatever reason. Maybe it is diet, pills, environment, stress level or who knows what else.
BUT... if you do not believe the above, then maybe you or someone else has a better explanation for why many/most men can "get ready" for sex at the slightest little seemingly innocent provocation, a few moans or groans, 5 seconds of porn, pictures of simply body parts, legs, boobs - whatever pushes his buttons? EVOLUTION at work. If he merely HAS sex, he has done his part. Women NEED to take longer to "get ready" to be able to make a better decision about their choice of sexual partner. IF she were to get pregnant, unless the male sticks around, SHE would be raising the child alone, a significant investment of HER time and energy. Her [in all probability, "much harder to achieve"] orgasms most likely serve as a filtering device as to partners...
Women are "programmed" by millions of years of evolution to be mainly concerned with care of offspring which is why they would "tend to want" a man of means. A "better off" man would more than likely have the means to provide for and be a better parent to the offspring. Whether she even "wants kids" is irrelevant to her "basic programming".
The above is what the scientists who study this stuff think but it makes sense to me and seems to fit. It is of course generalities and PROBABILITIES which is what Evolution is all about. And it obviously works. We ARE flooding the planet with our species. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:24:46 PM | You compare apples to oranges and then say they aren't the same things. Why are we not meant to use toilets? Just because they were a later invention doesn't mean that we aren't meant to use them.
You then state that we aren't slaves to our bodily urges--isn't defecating a "bodily urge"? How long will you stay healthy if you "pinch it off"?
Polygamy/polyandry isn't a bodily urge in the simplistic way that this poster and the previous poster present it. And again, "our" perception is colored by culture and religion. If we had been raised in a different culture, we wouldn't think twice about such matters.
I think you've misunderstood. Yes, defecating IS a bodily urge. That's what I'm getting at. We don't just drop our pants in the middle of the mall and fire one off. We make for the rest room, an appropriate place for such things. Unless you have some serious gastrointestinal issues, I figure most of us can "stay healthy" long enough to make it to the john.
My point is, we can control our biological urges. We can choose when, where and with whom to have sex. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with polygamous or polyamorous relationships or whatever if that's your thing, or the norm in some culture. It's not MY thing, but I don't judge people based on what's right for me as an individual. To each their own and all that.
However, this does not change the fact that sex with multiple concurrent partners simply is not a biological NEED. Not for any person, not in any culture. A psychological compulsion in some cases maybe. But for humans as a species, whether it's "in our nature" or not, we aren't bound to it. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:39:38 PM |
The Cro-Magnons replaced the Neandertals because, contrary to current the scientific trend, Neandertals were idiots who couldn't make the cut.
Um, I don't know what you've been reading, but there is no evidence to support your statement about Neanderthals. We do not know why they died out--perhaps they even interbred with Cro-Magnons or early Homo Sapiens.
Since we're decended from monkeys, we should still act like monkeys?
"Descended."
Science doesn't claim that humans evolved from monkeys. When we are in the womb, we do have vestigial gills. It is hard to take you seriously because you don't seem to know current theories.
No one is saying that murderers or sexual predators should use "basic urges" as a defense. In fact, if murdering people were a basic urge, then more people would murder. You, too, are comparing apples and oranges.
BECAUSE WE EVOLVED BEYOND ALL THAT.
You are talking about basic physiology when you discuss the evolution of single celled organisms to humans. There are other things which we have not "evolved" beyond. Many things from our primal past remain constant within us. We are still territorial; our basic needs have not changed; biologically speaking, the imperative to reproduce is still with us VERY strongly. We temper those things culturally, but they remain.
I am an English teacher, not a scientist, but even I know that. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:44:11 PM |
My point is, we can control our biological urges.
And my point was that you might be able to control your need to urinate for awhile, but sooner or later if you don't relieve yourself, you will pee your pants.
However, this does not change the fact that sex with multiple concurrent partners simply is not a biological NEED
People can satisfy their biological needs by masturbating, but most seek avenues beyond self pleasure. Also, it isn't all about biological "needs," is it? Our psyches extend beyond the physical.
But for humans as a species, whether it's "in our nature" or not, we aren't bound to it.
I made that point in my first post. People CHOOSE to be monogamous. If a monogamous seeking person wants a faithful partner, then he/she should leave the polyamorous people alone. Problem solved. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:02:11 PM |
People CHOOSE to be monogamous. If a monogamous seeking person wants a faithful partner, then he/she should leave the polyamorous people alone. Problem solved.
Well, yeah...so who's arguing? Seriously, if you're polyamorous or something that's great for you. I think you're looking in my posts for some kind of judgment, and it just ain't there. Don't be so defensive. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:27:16 PM | | interesting debate. the bottom line is to what degree does one have 'locus of control' meaning the emotional intelligence and inner control to not act as a child and maintain impulse control...I think that is a trait that all mature adults look for in a mate. We aren't all lacking in character now are we ? Or is this a reason to maintain deviant behaviors or addictions?? Or is it motivated to protect a lack of inner strength to go deeper for the self??? | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:42:04 PM |
I think you're looking in my posts for some kind of judgment, and it just ain't there.
Methinks your words "It's a cheap excuse" is a bit judgmental.
Or is this a reason to maintain deviant behaviors or addictions?
What is "deviant" behavior? Is deviance a constant, or is it decided by a culture? For example, when the philosopher/teachers of ancient Greece had homoerotic sex with their students, it was not considered deviant, but it is now. To the Jews, the Muslims, and many other polygamous societies and/or religions, having multiple wives was not deviant, but in modern America, we proclaim that multiple wives is deviant.
maintain impulse control.
Not every act of sex outside marriage or a partnership (and that's what this forum is about) is an act of not maintaining impulse control. Some are very controlled and well thought out. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:47:23 PM | | Lot's of men are monogamous and very territorial about their woman!! I think the idea of men not being able to stay true to one woman is because a lot of women can't have sex with someone unless they feel some kind of emotional pull to that person. Whereas men don't blur the lines of lust and love as easily as women do and can plant it pretty much anywhere if they are horny enough!!! But between condoms and the pill, I'm sure a large % of women these days are probably as equally capable as men are of having sex for the sake of sex without bringing their hearts into bed with them...and as such are likely equally capable of bed hopping and having sex without commitment!!! | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:08:48 PM | Either in neanderthal or modern times, a child had a much poorer chance of suviving if there is a father around so therefore, men would want to stick around to give their child a chance of survival, not just impregnate the woman and move on.
So alternatively and perhaps additionally, a man would be most interested in impregnating a woman that has already paired with a man, thereby ensuring his offsprings survival whilst taking no resposibility. Although in caveman days, didn't they hunt and share amongst the clan. They were more communal than paired offlike we are now. This is rediculous. Did they even know sex was connected to pregnancy??
Obviously, if you look through this thread , there are plenty of people turned off by promiscuity. I think that says more than all these neanderthal comparisons. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/9/2008 11:15:14 PM | natural selection is only amplified bye unnatural selection produced bye the media, the alpha male has changed
but either way men will cheat when they feel the relationship has lost the physical connection it once had. or accept living with a dead love life
but women will cheat due to the power they possess in attracting, and to find someone who can give her better pleasure, constantly looking for better mates each time one upping themselfs.
but this is immature for nature
isnt maturity the power to progress, a lot of times breaking beyond our ancestors and there ways. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:07:48 AM | tinydancer123 wrote: Either in Neanderthal or modern times,
a child had a much poorer chance of surviving if there is a father around...
Did you intend to say a child has a GREATER chance of surviving
if there is a father around?
Kingreol wrote: ...but either way men will cheat when
they feel the relationship has lost the physical connection
it once had, or accept living with a dead love life.
That's true but a man can have something on the side
though the relationship with his wife/GF is good
and she'll have sex with him whenever he wants it.
Sometimes it depends on what he thinks he can get away with,
not whether his GF is neglecting him.
| |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:25:36 AM | Monogamy is a choice by both sexes. Seems to me that if I remember history any at all, there are a lot of "**stard" children running around. Most men and women married to improve their status. Actually, a lot of times a woman's family wanted a better status and therefore created dowery. Also, survival of the fittest in the animal world anyway. Not sure what makes us tick as humans (urges, connection, love, lust, whatever), everyone is different. It's what makes the world go around and things pretty interesting at times. Personally, I'll take monagamy. My choice.  | |
|
Home
login 
