| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:59:37 PM | Well I can tell you as a man, I have never cheated on a woman I was with, whether the relationship was serious or not, but I have been cheated on a time or two by women, so apparently it is not just the male sex that does this kind of unforgivable behavior.
cowboy | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:10:21 PM |
GreySpot wrote: It's pretty well accepted that long term
relationships work better if the partners are monogamous.
If it's pretty well accepted then it should be easy to cite evidence.
What references can you direct me to that suggest monogamy
works better than polyamory? | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:12:51 PM | > Is the birth rate roughly 50/50? I know that the mortality rate for boys used to be higher than that of girls
It's in the 1.04-1.07 range, meaning more boys than girls are born, so the surplus of males in the scenario I was talking about is actually bigger than if it were 1.00 (50/50).
The ratio at implantation is much higher, something like 1.15, but more male embryos don't make it to birth because males are basically nature's experimental models and so there are many failures.
The mortality rate for boys is still higher than that for girls, and this continues at least until middle-age because males take more risks, have more dangerous occupations, commit more suicide and violent crime, and are more disease prone. (Hey, who said being an experimental model was easy?) It's also partly because the mortality rate of women giving birth has virtually vanished in the last century (as the dreaded patriarchy built out the public health infrastructure): from 60.8 per every 1,000 women giving birth in 1915 to just 0.8 in 1997 (a factor of 75 reduction).
> Laws are necessary ... Some laws are arbitrary, and laws that regulate sexuality ... are such laws.
I think you really fell off the beam here and just don't see the need for sexual law and order or how best to achieve it. The particular examples you gave ("the innocent, children and rape victims") seem to indicate that you think regulating male sexuality is perfectly justified, but that regulating females is largely an "arbitrary" injustice. While I may be casting it in terms which are too black and white, I think such an approach is a tried and failed experiment. And it's easy to see why it doesn't work.
The easiest and most effective way to regulate sexuality is via females because if they're not having any fun the males aren't either, so you get two for the price of one; it may at first appear that the males are largely unregulated and can just do whatever they please, but in practice this is an empty freedom. The converse approach fails because you can be 99% effective in regulating the males and there are still enough little swimmers in the remaining 1% to impregnate all the females. You don't get the two for one leverage, those very non-monogamous males who manage to escape regulation get all the girls, and thus those males who formerly obeyed and supported the rules have little motivation to continue doing so since they get nothing out of doing so while the cheaters and players prosper. The net effect is sexual chaos and anarchy, and the system eventually collapses under its own weight. About the only thing such a system is good at is breeding better male predators.
Apologies for being a bit behind the thread and drifting off-topic a little.
| |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:28:50 PM | | You can find so many people these days both male and female running around seeing how many people they can sleep with all the while wondering why it's not really doing anything for them so they move on to the next sexual encounter and keep repeating the cycle until they wake up and realize that there may be more to it than that. It's very difficult to feel any connection with someone you sleep with if you don't truly love them. Spent so much time hearing while growing up how just the guys focus on sex when in actuallity females focus on it just as much as the guys if not a bit more. Guys just tend to have a bit more difficult time hiding it... plus for some it seems like a major accomplishment when they do because a guy generally has to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get that far, taking her on a few dates, and all kinds of things while all the woman pretty much has to do is say yes. I know from the military, many of the wives can't wait until the male soldiers leave overseas, then they go out the same night on the town sleeping around like crazy with anyone who doesn't have any moral dilema sleeping with someone else's wife. I even know this girl that is straight, yet when asked by a lesbian in a club to go down on her in the bathroom, she did. There are those that grow up with a strong moral upbringing and end up in a sexual encounter more of lust and after that in their guilt of violating their moral upbringing go sleeping around with anyone that says yes because they feel like they cannot possibly get any worse. Reguardless, would suggest some integrity though. If you are in a relationship, break it off before sleeping around instead of cheating on the person behind their back. Sooner or later that will know you did reguardless if they tell you up front about it... | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:32:08 PM | I think the idea are genetically predisposed to *want* to cheat, due to the continuation of their DNA through as many women as possible, does that mean they're predisposed to actually cheating? **** if I know, but I'll tell you this women seem to have as hard a time keeping to 1 partner as men so I'm not sure if you can even use that as a valid point, let alone excuse. I think we all know there's no excuse for cheating. If your partner isn't putting out, or just isn't doing it for you, you can tell them, leave them, divorce or whatever long before there's any need to actually go and sneak around behind their back.
People only feel the need to lie when they know they're doing something wrong. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 10:44:00 PM | Everyone can keep talking about monogamy, nature verses nurture all we want, but I do want to clear up one untrue item that keeps getting repeated over and over.
Couples who are in non-monogamous or polyamorous relationships *CAN* and *DO* have sex with more than one partner without "cheating"... Cheating implies, well... CHEATING, but if everyone involved with it is okay with it, than it's most definitely NOT cheating.
We now continue with your regularly scheduled programing. . .
Thankyouverymuch,
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/10/2008 11:08:26 PM | ^^^^ Excellent distinction.
Thank you for clearing it up.
Cheating is having sex behind your partner's back.
That is, cheating involves deception.
If you're upfront about it, by definition you're not cheating
no matter how many concurrent partners you have. | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 8:32:56 AM | SeattleRain, I second the thanks for making a salient point.
This might be off topic, but it is a reply to another post.
think you really fell off the beam here and just don't see the need for sexual law and order . . . seem to indicate that you think regulating male sexuality is perfectly justified, but that regulating females is largely an "arbitrary" injustice.
I don't see how having stringent laws against taking advantage of children or laws against rape can be considered regulating male sexuality. A sexual predator is a sexual predator--period, male or female. If men commit the most rapes, then that is self explanatory.
Examine aberrant (by our social codes and mores) microcosms of religious societies; in fact, one is in the news right now--the group in Texas wherein men have apparently been taking pubescent "brides" and impregnating 14 year old girls. Casting my mind back over such group behaviors, I can remember some where women were indicted (there was a case here in MO), but the leaders were always men; it has always been a case of men taking more than one wife (and often teen wives), and not the women having more than one husband.
Teen brides are out, and I think almost all of us would agree to that. But the number of partners that legally consenting adults AGREE to have (and AGREE is the keyword) shouldn't be the government's business. I have the strong feeling that most of the women inside the compound in Texas were not given much of a choice.
Ditto for gay marriages and partnerships--outside of religious arguments (which are ultimately moot if one doesn't subscribe to that religion), there is no argument against gay marriages that stand.
Why not legalize prostitution? What is the real reason? Is it because prostitution is demeaning to the women or because of religious bias?
Please explain how laws should be implemented to regulate female sexuality--or male sexuality. We have stoned adultresses, but males who commit adultery have received much less censure and punishment (check out the Hebrew scriptures; there are laws for women who cheat, I can't find any for men who cheat). Adultery shouldn't be regulated laws and, in large part, with no-fault divorces, those laws have become obsolete.
Should we have laws prohibiting premarital or any sex outside of marriage? Who is going to regulate that? I remember a law called "Prohibition"; it didn't work, either.
I was going to say more, but this post is already way too long. | |
|
| |
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:12:04 AM | Certain women constantly complain about the infidelity of certain men and the introduction of not a "line" but an entirely relevant scientific fact is a copout? LMFAO! Confusing the natural with the civilized world doesn't substantiate our kennings anywhere beyond our own self serving delusions.
If you want a devoted man and are having trouble finding one there's a simple and logical course of action; look elsewhere instead of allowing yourself to be consumed by the unsubstantiated however emipirical stereotyope of your own bad choices. | |
|
| |
| |
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:27:50 AM | What references can you direct me to that suggest monogamy
works better than polyamory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How's about all those adults living on the Texas perverted religous compound?
Polyamory seems to cause a definite decline in IQ, that's obvous. | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:28:50 AM |
Confusing the natural with the civilized world doesn't substantiate our kennings
How does monogamy equate "civilized"?
If you want a devoted man and are having trouble finding one there's a simple and logical course of action; look elsewhere
I totally agree. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:39:10 AM |
How's about all those adults living on the Texas perverted religous compound?
Polyamory seems to cause a definite decline in IQ, that's obvous.
The Texas case is not representative of polyamory. The women in that compound were not given choices about their lives. Even if they agreed, they were raised/brainwashed into thinking that the way they lived was THE way. And not only the women were brainwashed; the young males were also indoctrinated.
We are products of our culture, and within the culture, our religion and personal upbringing imprint us. If we were raised in a society that accepted multiple partners, we would accept it as natural. People in India tend to be Hindus; people in the Mid-East tend to be Muslim. It takes huge shifts in paradigms for a whole culture to change its way of thinking.
The western world reveres the philosophy of ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and Socrates, yet within Greek society, homoeroticism was rampant and accepted. Greek teachers had sexual relations with their students and no one thought the worse of them. How can a society that abhors homosexuality and pedophilia still honor men who indulged in those actions??? | |
|
| |
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:49:57 AM |
If I were a wife with a wealthy husband, I suppose the
availability of prostitutes would not be a good thing.
Ah, but David, it is my understanding that there are $20 prostitutes, so even the poor men can seek them out.
If a woman chose to stay with a man who solicits prostitutes, that is her problem. That also goes for women who stay with men who indulge in affairs. Leave their derrières!
I am consistently amazed at these forums. There are women and men moaning and groaning about a plethora of problems from cheating partners to not being able to find a partner because they are too "nice" or any other reason.
Why can't the faithful and/or nice people find each other? In this forum alone, there are many men and woman who claim that they would be eternally faithful. Where are all the cheaters coming from? Why are people constantly hooking up with only "bad" people?
If you have one bad experience, keep your eyes wider open the next go 'round. If you seem to always hook up with someone who isn't faithful or who abuses you in some manner, why is that? | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:51:35 AM | When it comes to homo sapiens as far as I know monogamy is a construct of civilization. If it were not natural do you really think we would have the extent of purported problems we do? What interest does a man have in risking he become a social pariah other than to satisfy a natural compulsion?
Infidelity is an act of self absorbtion, not community which civilization demands. | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 10:26:17 AM | Ah, but David, it is my understanding that there are $20
prostitutes, so even the poor men can seek them out.
Yes, street hookers go down to $15, and those are the ones
women participating in LTRs/marriages with rich men
needn't worry about. The female rivals to fear are mistresses
kept by married men, or women who accept expensive dates
and gifts from men they don't love. They're almost impossible
to fight because they're not doing anything illegal.
Double Cabin wrote: What interest does a man have in risking
he become a social pariah other than to satisfy a natural compulsion?
The men I know who have multiple partners are not social pariahs.
Double Cabin wrote: Infidelity is an act of self absorbtion,
not community which civilization demands.
It's good to be careful about mixing infidelity up with polyamory.
They're two different things. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/11/2008 10:30:34 AM | David Lewis,
Do YOU have concurrent partners? Just curious if that's what prompted the other thread about multiple dating.
My distaste toward it was due not so much to the topic itself, but to what I perceived was an assumption on your part that competing for a multiple dater is healthier than choosing only the kind of man who is monogamous.
Only the kind of man who IS monogamous by nature is MY kind of man. The multiple dater can go fling about all he wants, and my lack of desire to vie for him is just that: a LACK OF DESIRE.
You framed it as a lack of confidence, and I'm just wondering why, but it seems to be about whether you're attractive as a multiple dater (who's HONEST about it, of course). | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 10:35:24 AM | I am consistently amazed at these forums. There are women and men moaning and groaning about a plethora of problems from cheating partners to not being able to find a partner because they are too "nice" or any other reason.
Let's face it.........people here are'nt happily married...content at being single....maybe. | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 10:51:57 AM |
When it comes to homo sapiens as far as I know monogamy is a construct of civilization.
Several months ago, on a similar forum, a woman said that we are too western oriented and biased in our discussion of such matters. She was a student/teacher of anthropology and cited some "primitive" (I do not use that word derogatorily) societies existing in the ancient AND modern world that did not espouse polygamy--and it was based on economics. I wish I could remember where the cultures were located.
How do we qualify "civilization"? Were the Egyptians civilized? They espoused polygamy. Were the Jews civilized? Males could have more than one wife. China? The cradle of civilization, the Mid-East? Multiple wives were allowed in the latter two. Even in cultures where men were allowed one wife, mistresses and courtesans were not frowned upon. Even within the supposedly monogamously based Christianity, men VERY often had mistresses and society "winked" or turned a blind eye. The roster of famous men in the US (including presidents) bears witness to this.
Within early Christianity, the qualifications of elders of the church included the stipulation of "one wife," which indicates that more were not forbidden for men who didn't want to be "high up" in church status.
The female rivals to fear are mistresses kept by married men, or women who accept expensive dates and gifts from men they don't love. They're almost impossible
to fight because they're not doing anything illegal.
I agree with you--a married man is not likely to run off to be with a $15 hooker. I sometimes wonder if it is not the extramarital sex that both men and women object to, but rather the fear of emotional commitment that would lure the partner away. | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 11:19:07 AM | If you could get inside the head of a male you would know we are not monogamous by nature....We are constantly thinking of women & often times conjuring fantasies....i know some guys will say speak for yourself....i am & i would say in all honesty men know this to be true....if we could live out our mental thoughts we would've had sex with over a 1000 women by now.....
however, we also have intelligence *hard to believe, huh* and the ability to exhibit self-control as well as discipline....we have many other good attributes too that help us refrain from actually physically cheating on a significant other in our lives....i believe most men are truly trustworthy....we just don't always know what we want....but i do know this, we want a woman in our lives, we want a committed relationship, we want the woman to 'get' us and not try to change us, & most of all we want love & respect......
could easily add to the above list.....wondering if others agree or not? | |
|
| People may not be monogamous by nature, but they can overcome it
Posted: 4/11/2008 11:23:22 AM | "Men are not monogamous by nature ... but rather ... Men are monogamous as a result of nurture."
 Ladies take notes... The above IS right... Keep Full fulling each others needs and you got yourself a winner..Do what's right for you two , forget what society views things as. | |
|
| What's this Men are not monogamous by nature' line all about?
Posted: 4/11/2008 9:19:25 PM |
The Texas case is not representative of polyamory. The women in that compound were not given choices about their lives. Even if they agreed, they were raised/brainwashed into thinking that the way they lived was THE way. And not only the women were brainwashed; the young males were also indoctrinated.
We are products of our culture, and within the culture, our religion and personal upbringing imprint us. If we were raised in a society that accepted multiple partners, we would accept it as natural. People in India tend to be Hindus; people in the Mid-East tend to be Muslim. It takes huge shifts in paradigms for a whole culture to change its way of thinking.
The western world reveres the philosophy of ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and Socrates, yet within Greek society, homoeroticism was rampant and accepted. Greek teachers had sexual relations with their students and no one thought the worse of them. How can a society that abhors homosexuality and pedophilia still honor men who indulged in those actions???
Everyone always has a choice in everything no matter what. Just like with Hitler, everyone wants to lay the blame of the extermination of millions of innocent people at his feet. Yet not too many would look at the millions of Germans that thought what he was doing was "right" and participated in helping out. Not to mention the rest of the world that stood by and watched millions of innocent people getting slaughtered before they actually decided to do something about it. Yet as with many people generally being taught in society these days is that everything is everyone else's fault. It is so easy to point fingers at everyone else because it relieves the individual of taking responsibility for their own choices. You think Hitler would have had a chance if everyone stood together and said no in the first place... | |
|
Home
login 
