|
|
|
|
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:29:48 AM |
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.
They weren't citizens at all, they were wives. In Rome, they were both.
But that's not the whole story or what I wanted to address. Obviously, so long as birth ratios are roughly 50/50 not every man can have multiple wives. In fact, for every man who has four wives there are three guys left out in the cold. Nobody ever seems to remember them, nor much care about `em, but that's what being an omega male is all about.
This system motivates males to be the alphas, which can have positive ramifications for the productivity of the society as a whole -- growing more crops, inventing a better wheel, etc. Yes, it can have negative ones, too -- guys fighting to come out on top.
Polygamy such as you describe assures women that they are mated to alpha males, as it is in a woman and her children's benefit to be the third wife of an alpha male than it is to be the only wife of an omega male. Thus, I'd say their needs were important, and any so-called patriarchy may simply be a better way of serving female's interests than some available alternative. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:41:30 AM | You make some good points, life of leisure.
Society is probably more stable because almost all males have an opportunity at a relationship, which they might not if society were dominated by alpha males.
However, alternative relationship configurations could also satisfy this societal objective, so monogamy is not the only effective model. As an example, extended relationships involving multiple men and women in commited polyamorous relationships could also work.
Anyway, the monogamous model works fairly well overall, and the minority who don't subscribe to it will do their own thing regardless, either ethically or unethcally, so not much is going to change, in my opinion. | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:14:06 AM | "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."
How this for evidence: We're here, the Neanderthals are not. Which means we won, they lost. Until cryptozoologists can prove that Neaderthals are still living in some isolated part of the world, they are to be considered extinct. And the only evidence that Neaderthals and modern humans interbred at all is one possible hybrid. If interbreeding happened on any great scale, there would be more fossils, and modern day human would show more evidence of Neanderthal ancestry. DNA tests have proven that we do not. Extinction is nature's way of telling you that you haven't made the cut.
"Science doesn't claim that humans evolved from monkeys. "
Have you ever seen impressions of the various -pithicuses and Homo-whatevers? Walking on their knuckles, swinging from trees, covered with hair, etc. That's what I call a monkey, or if you want, an ape.
"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."
The key word is vestigial. Which means they don't work, and we don't need them, which is why they disappear. I am well aware of the theory of "ontogony replicates philogony" I'm also aware that the scientist that came up with that was charged with fraud for doctoring the images. Perhaps it is you who needs to read up on scientific theories, including those that cast doubt on Darwinism. Notice I said scientific, I am NOT talking about Creationism.
"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."
I've heard lots of people make that exact claim, and I'm refering to those urges the individuals allegedly have and can't control. Both that and the topic of the post are attemps to use science to sanction bad behavior. They are not exact, but they are similar, just like apples and oranges are both fruits.
"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."
Which is my point exactly. Our more highly evolved brains enable us to control and temper those urges. We are not required to do them in a certain way just because monkeys, lizards, frogs, fish or bacteria do them. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:34:52 AM |
They weren't citizens at all, they were wives.
I used "citizen" very lightly.
Obviously, so long as birth ratios are roughly 50/50 not every man can have multiple wives.
Is the birth rate roughly 50/50? I know that the mortality rate for boys used to be higher than that of girls--and women outlive men. Of course, post-menopausal women are not important in the biological aspects because they can no longer bear children.
as it is in a woman and her children's benefit to be the third wife of an alpha male than it is to be the only wife of an omega male. Thus, I'd say their needs were important, and any so-called patriarchy may simply be a better way of serving female's interests than some available alternative.
If the women were allowed to choose their mates--alpha or not--and were granted the rights of citizenship, I would agree with you on the last point. Throughout the centuries, women were given little opportunities to make decisions about their lives.
However, since women did gain their identities from first their fathers and then their husbands, being the third wife of an alpha male would carry more status.
Kongzilla, you still don't get it. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 11:46:04 AM |
Gwendolyn2008 wrote: Of course, post-menopausal women
are not important in the biological aspects because they can
no longer bear children.
Post-menopausal women provide resources such as food,
clothes, protection, child care, education, wisdom and experience.
Your gene line will die if your offspring fail to reach reproductive maturity
and the odds diminish if they grow into ignorant or sickly adults.
Women's role in propogating the species is more than just popping out babies. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 2:38:38 PM |
Women's role in propogating the species is more than just popping out babies.
My statement about post-menopausal women was totally tongue in cheek (especially since I am one). However, some societies in some eras have not been in agreement. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 2:54:43 PM | Gwendolyn2008.....popping out babies.......
Well......propogating the species is what it's all about.....been going on for ages.....and many different thoughts on what is right and wrong.....religious beliefs, moral codes, lust vs human dignity.......and it's not all pretty........thank goodness the number of defects are low......and society and medicine can deal with the problems.......life goes on.....men get horny and find a willing female.....is it a partnership or just human desire....and then everyone makes jokes and becomes an expert.... | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:13:05 PM |
propogating the species is what it's all about.
First, my anal English teacher's soul can no longer look at "propogate" without correcting the spelling to "propagate."
There, I feel better now.
When people ask me the meaning of life, I usually respond, "To perpetuate the species." Biologically speaking, that is our purpose in life. However, we are not strictly ruled by survival of the fittest any longer, and cultural evolution influences who will live to propagate and who will not. People live longer all the time, and many people who would have died either at birth, infancy, or childhood are living to reproduce because of advanced medical care.
There is much beyond "merely" reproducing. As the poster before my last post said, someone needs to be around to pass on knowledge and other various tasks. We have perfected the task of reproduction to such a fine art that in reality, we no longer have to worry about the species dying out because of lack of births but rather the opposite.
.men get horny and find a willing female.
This is a light smack of the patriarchy; believe it or not, women get horny, too. I personally can attest to that (even at my great post-menopausal age). This forum is aimed directly at men who claim that monogamy is not innate, but the same applies to women. Men and women seek different types of partners at different stages in their lives. Monogamy means being partnered with one person at a time, but how many of us stay with that one partner for a lifetime? We might not have several wives or husbands at a time, but how many have several lovers/wives/husbands over a lifetime?
lust vs human dignity
Lust does not negate human dignity. There is nothing wrong with a little honest lust now and then.
Our society (and others) worship sex. Our sex lives were controlled so long by religious factors that today, we don't know how to deal with our sexuality. We try to regulate it, we place moral restraints upon the act, and penalize people because of sex. Perhaps someday it will even out--or not. | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:40:29 PM | I find this entire thread ironically humorous.
Unless you are here as a Virgin looking for your first committed partner or a widow(er) looking for another relationship NONE of us are "monogamous". We left one relationship and are looking for another, and statistics say that'll happen 3 to 20 times in each of our lifetimes.
Dare I make a generalization and say that NONE OF YOU are "monogamous" for life.... just until the current relationship ends.
Serial monogamy.... I'd say it's the pot calling the kettle black.
James, Seattle, WAshington, USA, Earth | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:46:36 PM | Oh, and on another note. To presume because you as a woman have no desire to 'stray' that MEN should feel the same what but somehow are lacking in self-control or ethics, is just wrong.
That would be like a MAN saying "Why can't women work out for a couple of months and be able to lift 300 pounds and bulk up like me?". Men and women are DIFFERENT.
Do a websearch... Look for Transexuals who were women and reassigned to men. Look for their commentary on sex drive, lust, and the straying eye once these 'women' started Testosterone treatments; it is astounding. Without fail, they ALL say they now see the world in an entirely new light.
To presume men and women are the same is to make a HUGE error in judgment.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:51:57 PM |
Our society (and others) worship sex. Our sex lives were controlled so long by religious factors that today, we don't know how to deal with our sexuality. We try to regulate it, we place moral restraints upon the act, and penalize people because of sex. Perhaps someday it will even out--or not.
Sex will always be here regardless of our country puritanical past, and now with the net and virtual sex coming on the horizon need we want a living,breathing partner at all? Just look now at the success rate of the net on the people who can find there match, only 10% !
So where are these other 90% looking and hoping for? A virtual relationship with there lap top? yikes! Half of marriage fail in the US, 50%, and 90% here looking for a mate fail to materialize! Why?
You may not agree but it is laws that set us freer for our pursuit of happiness,it's not perfect but it is what it is and the Supreme Court been busy in trying to find the 'common good' for all.
imo I rather have a human being who been thought life's and downs and moved on and not the ones here who remind us all [whine] that they can't let it go... Have a nice day. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 3:56:47 PM | propagate (spelling corrected)
And of course it is'nt necessary any more........the test tube can handle that....or the sperm warehouse.......or I could be cloned.......but then I would'nt get to enjoy sex....and what a waste of my body......no warmth and cuddles....yuck....
worship sex.
Not so much, worship.........but used to influence our thoughts and purchaseing habits.......sex sells.........we want what makes us attractive....but not only to our partner, but others we want to impress.....gotta have those new Nike shoes......
Men can be monagamous.......or not......depends on the female and her ability to remain his main focus.... | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:09:28 PM | Gwyndolin2008
When your britches are itchin......and someone comes along to make em stop itchin.....there must be a reason.......you don't want to scratch around anymore.....you give up the internet....you make them important......you put them first....no more looking for greener grass......the bugs are gone.....and you cuddle and hug.....peace at last.... | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:16:00 PM | *Just Jim* wrote: Half of marriage fail in the U.S.
According to the statistics I've seen, approximately 75%
of marriages fail in the U.S. (About half end in divorce,
and about half the marriages that end in death are not providing
significant levels of fulfillment, satisfacti0n, intimacy or love.)
devilwentdowntogeorgia wrote: I would say I'm monogamous by nature.
If your GF was bi-curious and wanted to experiment, would you
tell her she isn't allowed to introduce another lady into your relationship? | |
|
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 5:40:03 PM |
Unless you are here as a Virgin looking for your first committed partner or a widow(er) looking for another relationship NONE of us are "monogamous". We left one relationship and are looking for another, and statistics say that'll happen 3 to 20 times in each of our lifetimes.
I think I made the same point.
Sex will always be here regardless of our country puritanical past,
When we move beyond our need--and want--of sex, we will move beyond being human to something else, and it might not be as much fun.
You may not agree but it is laws that set us freer for our pursuit of happiness
Laws are necessary because most people cannot internalize ethical behavior (but then, ethics are subjective). I choose to obey laws such as stopping at stop signs because I realize that chaos and harm will ensue if I do not--a choice, just like monogamy. Other laws, I do not even have to think about whether I will obey; I don't think I could kill another human. Some laws are arbitrary, and laws that regulate sexuality (outside of protecting the innocent, children and rape victims) are such laws.
I rather have a human being who been thought life's and downs and moved on and not the ones here who remind us all [whine] that they can't let it go...
What DO we seek? For most of us, it goes beyond sex--sex is easy to come by. I know whom I seek, but he isn't so easily found, online or offline. I have the feeling that when he comes, we will chose to be monogamous.
When your britches are itchin
Ah, but much more than my "britches" itch. A partnership is more than sex.
peace at last....
Eternal peace would be boring. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 6:14:56 PM | Eternal peace would be boring.
Ok.....a normal amount of pissing and moaning should be understood.....life is a **** sometimes. Jealous women cause lots of headaches. Monagomous men are turned into terrible ugly people for looking at the cheerleaders flaunting their stuff.....but don't shut a man out of your life just because he has eyes.......Wanting it and getting it are different......but we have been educated since bible school, on what is right and wrong....as we get older the priorities change.....lust might just mean I need a root beer float....or someone to play cards with to end the bordom of which you speak....I won't even ask for a pole dance... | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:46:44 PM | (i've never met an emotionally healthy women that juggles several sex partners at once over an extended period of time, unlike the many men i've met who are very comfortable in that lifestyle.) hey i would luv to have a harem of men, and i am emotionally stable so i dont know what type of women u know.  | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:00:43 PM | A woman who was seeing several men ran into one
of them at a movie theater while she was on a date.
He said angrily, "Hey! We just had sex on Friday...
and now you're out with another man on Saturday!?
She replied puzzled, "You want to switch days?" | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:02:04 PM |
While I can see that it's possible for a person to care about more than one person enough to want an intimate relationship with them ... meaning that it's as true to their inner feelings as monogamy is to others ... I can also see others using that conveniently (i.e. stating they are polyamorous) when in fact they are just mindless cheaters.
How by any stretch of logic can it be "cheating" if your lover tells you in advance that this IS NOT a commited, traditional, monogomous relationship? The person who tries to pull the ol' "J'accuse!" after the fact is the true deceiver - pretending to accept what they later vilify.
All I ask is that they somehow find a way to label themselves or their profiles so that those of us who are truly interested in monogamy ... can easily identify them and stay the h3ll away from them. Seems like they'd just be antagonized by us and we sure wouldn't want to have anything to do with them either...
Fair enough, and true enough. I've certainly been stung a couple of times by men (very nice, men, actually, but that's beside the point) who either pretended or kidded themselves about wanting a pleasant, non-committed relationship. Suddenly, without any agreement on my part, we were a "couple." Very distressing.
... so maybe Admin should come up with "Poly" and add that to the "seeking" list.
But non-monogamy also doesn't NECESSARILY mean polyamorous. To tell the truth, that actually sounds like a wretched MULTIPLICATION of all the negative aspects of "planned" monogomy. Instead of one person asking, "What are you thinking? "What are you feeling?" "Where is this going?", I picture an annoying gaggle of new-agey deep-thinkers staring into one another's eyes in quivering, emotion-laden delight, and declaring themselves one big group-hug of a soulmate conglomerate. Yikes!
I'd like Admin to offer "Rebound" as a "Looking For" option. Everyone seems to tsk-tsk being the "rebound" girl or guy thing. Sounds great to me. A pleasant, limited relationship with someone just dipping their toes back into the dating scene. At worst, he gets to enjoy the company of a woman who enjoys the company of men (no cost - I always go dutch). At best, it becomes a brief but intense physical relationship with a man who doesn't want to "own" me, doesn't expect me to "love" him, and who has also probably been sexually deprived for ages. Yay for me! Health risks minimal, for both. Emotional risks minimal, for both. Yeah, I'm cool for being a rebound date, for as long as I can pull it off. Hmm. One or two lovers a year for the next decade or so, until I croak or can no longer attract someone I'm also attracted to. Yup. I'm game. | |
|
| |
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:47:57 PM | I don't understand what this discussion is all about. Neither man nor woman is naturally monogamous. So what! It's a choice. It's pretty well accepted that long term relationships work better if the partners are monogamous. Incidently, monogamy is pretty much non existant in the animal kingdom. Check out:
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (Hardcover)
by David P. Barash Ph.D. (Author), Judith Eve Lipton M.D. (Author) | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
