|
|
|
|
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/15/2009 9:20:28 PM | Great title lol
The question is once a relationship is over how long do wait before looking for a new relationship, I was talk with someone the other night and she said her rule was the male had to be single for 12 months.
I have a friend who is still bitter 15 yrs on, others are ready to move on whilst still in relationships.
so what are your rules
are guys different from girls
Is it diffrent if you do the dumping | |
|
Spella
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 2 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/15/2009 11:42:33 PM | That's a very personal question that seldom people answer-LMAO!
Personally I think sometimes you can be so over a relationship that by the time it finally ends you are ready to move on.
I think you should focus on whether it's right for you.
You should begin to date when you decide it's time to date.
Don't let other people rush you.
Don't let other people slow you down.
You do it when it feels right for you.
It is hard to say how long you should wait to start a new relationship. Are you ready in the first place? If you are still carrying past hurts, then it is better not to. Perhaps you should really be using this time to evaluate what you really want out of a relationship. It also does not hurt to date around a little, so that you can decide what you are looking for. If you are looking for someone else to fill the void inside you just for the sake of filling in the void, then this is not a good idea.
On a personal level I felt it was important to set aside time to be on my own. Without the clutter and away from the noise, I certainly found out more about myself. This was time well spent!
And of course, travel, see the world, read books and pick up new interests!
Dont go jumping into a relationship just to be in one.... but dont pass up on an opportunity that could mend all your past pains...  | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 12:27:19 AM | I agree with spella
It is different for everyone, but you will know if you are ready to move on or not | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 1:00:20 AM | And I agree with Spella and Samara8
But to respond to your question from my own personal experience, difficult to say...in my case it can range anytime between the next day (as likewise with Spella) or the longest for me, nearly three years and a bit. I've noticed that its when its an uphill climb while in the relationship, the day it finally ends I quickly dust myself, even relieved and get on with my life. Mind you, it takes me a long time to call it quits and to get at that stage....I wrangle in as much time as I can....I count all the costs other than financials (cos I am not an accountant), the emotional investment and such and try to sell the idea of working it out. I am a fool like that. There's the optimist in me telling me that if people put their heart and soul to it and is HONEST, there are plenty of scope in settling differences. Its when you have a partner who can lie with a straight face and led a secret life different to that one you perceived you've had together, that I feel gives it the kiss of death and I find myself able to pick up the pieces at the speed of light. Sometimes its good like that, no heartaches to carry over and feel scarred.
The only time I was miserable for three years (and a bit) was when I didn't see it coming, because she was gentle and kind, and all that I hoped for, and because I was blind to my own selfishness....a mixed feeling of shock, loss, regret and loneliness...the longest I had ever been lethargic in my life. I didn't enter into a serious relationship then and went about finding myself and pretended to have a great time, most of the time. But yes, it was miserable and soul destroying ALL OF THE TIME with each passing day....I will never forget it, nor do I want to.
At the end of the day, you'll know when the time is right beyond any shadow of a doubt...and the most beautiful partnerships it seem is when you aren't looking and they find you first before you find them. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 1:04:14 AM | I have to agree that I do think this is one of the most personal questions there is and the answer is probably different for every one of us.
I do think it is important to grieve for a lost relationship and take time out to rage against the world in general. It is also an awesome opportunity to reconnect with yourself and grow somewhat if you can manage to be alone. I have noticed that for many people being with "anyone" is better then being with "no-one" but its personally not something I would do.
If you are still carrying past hurts, then it is better not to.
Im not sure about this bit though. Our lives do move on but im not convinced we ever actually "get over" some things. I often think it is more a case of we learn to live with things and build our lives in front of the scars we have been left with. I think if we waited until we were carrying no past hurt, then we would never get anywhere or move on and make a new life for ourselves....or maybe thats just me. Betrayal on a large scale or death of a loved one marks you permanently I believe and it is part of what makes you what you are today and not to be forgotten.
Personally, its been 3 years for me and im not 100% sure im ready. Its scarey as hell thinking about starting again but I sure dont want to be known as "The old cat woman of the Sunshine Coast" in another 10 years time.
Dont go jumping into a relationship just to be in one.... but dont pass up on an opportunity that could mend all your past pains...
Could not have said it better then that myself!
So.....any takers??? | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 2:29:05 AM | ^^^ I agree with everyone. How rare is that????
Anyone who tries to impose or live by rules like "must be single for x timeframe before dating again", or even "must not date again until have been single a week for every month were together" perhaps needs to ease up on the mathematical formulas and try to listen to their own inner voice. It varies. Quite simply, you're ready when you know you are.
Our lives do move on but im not convinced we ever actually "get over" some things. I often think it is more a case of we learn to live with things ...//... and it is part of what makes you what you are today and not to be forgotten.
 Once there is paint on the canvas you don't scratch it off, but you can paint more layers... knowing that the colours underneath contribute to the overall effect. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 5:27:33 AM | Geez me too agree with most of what has been written, however firing up the brain cells just a bit I do seem to remember the old marraige guidance council which is now relationships australia recommending two year break....and to be honest that would have not been long enough for me...I think I only just started to come out of the grieving process 3 years later....its now five years and I am great.....so while I agree its a personal thing getting into a relationship too soon after is a disaster waiting to happen....even now I tend to do the crab thing and scuttle in sideways for a look first...ready to beat a hasty retreat if I dont like what I see
I think its is worthwhile remembering that we grieve not just the loss of the relationship and therefore that person in our day to day lives but also the lose of the dream ...or the potential if you like that we had met THE ONE.....not too mention the lose of selfesteem that often comes with relationship failure...what did I do wrong...it takes time to understand and digest what went wrong.......the problem is of course that during the period immediately after a break up that we are most vunerable...and can therefore make the wrong choices...who doesnt miss the intamcy that only comes with a longterm relationship????....I know I certainly do | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/16/2009 8:52:15 PM | Once there is paint on the canvas you don't scratch it off, but you can paint more layers... knowing that the colours underneath contribute to the overall effect.
Absolutely. I second that canvas and never mind the Pollocks.
Have theory over many things, none of which have any empirical nor logical standing. Theory number 1978564 - techniques subconsciously used to navigate finding and the getting over of men. Seem to choose one name in particular as do several female members of my family. Peter. So decide to fall in love with the name and just transfer it forward thus perpetuating myth of continuity and no need to mourn loss of Peter. Also covers cute backside when not thinking and calling current bf ex's name. And or avoid all Peters cos I am still single despite tolerating the different characters which come with phoenetic sound I am obviously enamoured of.
Some bright spark told me takes half the time of the relationship to recover. So finally I am free...sheesh took almost a decade....maybe I agree to fault of being stubborn. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/19/2009 5:33:09 PM | when a horse bucks you off !! what do you do ???
I get back on and yell "yee har" (on a different horse ofcourse(sometimes)) | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/20/2009 11:17:19 AM | How long is long enough, is an interesting question. Depending on your feelings is probable the thing most likely to lead you into irrecoverable error and is no doubt the most courageous thing that anyone could recommend to anyone else.
The fertility clinics are, for example, full of unfortunate individuals who trusted their feelings. Many will have thought, having coming this far, I should try and advance my career just one more level, than another and so on. Others might have done the same with their educations, just one more degree, than another, after all, having come this far it would be “illogical” not to continue wouldn’t it?
“You know how it is; you put things off for a day and before you know it it's a hundred years later.” The Doctor, in "Arc of Infinity"
The problem is that humans and many, if not most, other animals are particularly susceptible to the gamblers fallacy. The general form of the fallacy is simply that people in numerous situations having already committed time or other resources to some end feel that they are “logically” compelled to commit even more. The most obvious examples of the gamblers fallacy is the gambler who having previously lost money feels compelled to stay in the game. The most common example is having had your phone call placed on a cue and being asked to wait until it can be answered, people often feels it is “logical” not to hang up having already spent time waiting. Numerous other examples could be cited and in every case the answer is that sunk cost are sunk, past investment is irrelevant to determining the best course of action, the only pertinent consideration is what is the best use of time or resources right now regardless of how much has been previously invested in any particular project. Unfortunately the human mind resists this logic. It would appear to be a proclivity which is deeply wired into the human psyche, for no doubt good evolutionary reasons, which nevertheless does more often than not lead to suboptimal decisions.
The rules of thumb, the mathematical formulas, that some have suggested are of course equally unlikely to provide the optimal answer for those who devised them let alone anyone else. What they do have to recommend them is that there adoption implicitly recognises that depending on your feelings is likely to lead to irrecoverable error. They have in common the advantage that keeping them, forces you to try and break the nexus between the irrelevant past and the present. There is a reason that the parting of the ways is, more often than chance would suggest, often coincident with some other event. If things haven’t improved by my thirtieth birthday, or the kids leave home, or the dog dies, I am out of here; people use this strategy to overcome the gamblers fallacy all the time.
While it is obviously true that in some circumstances there is such a thing as a decent interval and that at each end of the spectrum upon which it lies, there is no doubt an indecent interval. Nevertheless the two previous considerations would suggest that if irrecoverable errors are to be avoided then the best possible rule of thumb to adopt, is not to wait at all but to try now and see what happens, whether you feel you are ready or not. The worst that can happen is that you will find that you are not quite ready and perhaps disappoint a potential suitor. Unfortunate as that would be, with a little honesty on the one side and a little understanding on the other, little damage is likely to be done to anyone, ships do pass in the night and they do occasionally bump into each other, ever so lightly.
Hopefully most people will understand, hopefully, most people will remember that to err is human, and whilst the quality of mercy is not strained, you should find that in these circumstances, that it pours down as the gentle rain from heaven, if only because they recognise, that there but for the grace of God go I.
So if you think that you are the exception, that the force is with you always; then trust your feelings. On the other hand, if you have confidence in a heuristic rule that tells a bird, that more often than not, if the nest that it is building has been damaged by a strong wind, it is probable best to stick with it; then again trust your feelings. In either case you should probable have a look at the zoning regulations, there may be a limit on just how many cats you are allowed to have. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 11 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/21/2009 7:49:27 PM | ^^^ Great post, but a lot of what you said there seems to have more to do with the question of how long to endure a flagging relationship, rather than how long to wait between relationships which makes it difficult to respond and stay on topic.
The general form of the fallacy is simply that people in numerous situations having already committed time or other resources to some end feel that they are “logically” compelled to commit even more.
The concept you described there ...if that's applied to length of time between relationships...are you saying that people might end up feeling compelled to stay single til the end of their days just because once they started being single, they figured it was best to perservere and not look for another relationship ever? The concept is not really backed up by membership numbers on dating sites, later in life relationships after a period of being single, second marriages, etc. It doesn't seem to me that people feel in any way compelled to retain whatever their current relationship status is for the duration...they merely respond to the most preferable option at the time, and what is preferable can only be judged by the person concerned in their own unique subjective fashion.
The situation you described... the couple who put off having kids due to advancing their careers...at the time they made those choices they were, subjectively, their preferred choices. Other people looking on might think "hmmmm I dunno about that for a choice" but they aren't living those peoples' lives and can only judge based on their own unique subjectivity about their own lives. So if the couple who chose their careers suddenly realise they want kids after all, that doesn't mean their earlier life decisions were wrong...and for an observer to see their struggle now to have kids via IVF later in life as evidence that earlier decisions were wrong, is oversimplifying what it is to live a life. Everything each of us decides comes with an opportunity cost. That doesn't make it wrong even if you later decide to try to recover the opportunity your choices cost you.
The most common example is having had your phone call placed on a cue and being asked to wait until it can be answered, people often feels it is “logical” not to hang up having already spent time waiting.
It is logical, if you really need to speak to the person you are calling, and there is no other way to reach them, and hanging up would only mean having to go through the same process, but once again from the back of the queue. You imply it's a mindset of mindlessness but the alternative to enduring the frustration is to not achieve the purpose of the call. How is abandoning your initial goal, simply because you don't have the patience for what is required to get there, any more sensible? I think the truth is, that you have to know when the balance swings. Don't stay on hold for some inane purpose, or where it's possible to talk to someone else who is easier to reach, or to email instead...but don't hang up when this is the only way to reach the only person who can give you what you ultimately want at this point.
Depending on your feelings is probable the thing most likely to lead you into irrecoverable error and is no doubt the most courageous thing that anyone could recommend to anyone else.
Again, I see your application here more in light of when to break up, rather than when to get back into dating...but either way, I still think trying to apply logic to emotions only holds observational value. Interesting to theorise, yes, always. But being a participant, by its inherent nature, involves the experience of subtleties and details not (and never) visible to the observer's eye. And hey, being a participant takes courage anyway.
Nevertheless the two previous considerations would suggest that if irrecoverable errors are to be avoided then the best possible rule of thumb to adopt, is not to wait at all but to try now and see what happens, whether you feel you are ready or not. The worst that can happen is that you will find that you are not quite ready and perhaps disappoint a potential suitor.
I think the worst that can happen is that, when you go against your own inner voice, you put your essential self out of kilter. External consequences are secondary to not being true to yourself, and any perceived failure is easier to absorb when you know you at least made the best choices for you at the time. So if you start dating when you don't feel ready, or avoid dating when you do feel ready...and either one can be caused by a perceived pressure from friends/society rules...you do yourself a disservice. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 12 | |
| |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/23/2009 8:12:43 PM | The above post demonstrates commonsense, rationality and intelligence. Post #12... not so much.
However, remove the word 'chimp' from the following and, I swear to God, this is an average Friday night in my town!
Every female chimp is trying to get the attention of the alpha male and advance her bloodline and improve her social standing.
That doesnt mean that she wont have a thing on the side with another male with lesser standing.
The males would all like to be the next alpha - but in the mean time they make do with humping the alpha males girls while he isnt watching.
Monogamy ? - everybody plays the game as long as it suits their interests.
This is why I stay in at night and lock my doors. It's a zoo out there! | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/25/2009 12:31:02 AM | Hi Kev, what interests me is what you say there... 'others are ready to move on whilst still in relationships'....
the question I have is do they actually move on or do they seek to keep what they have but conduct romantic liasons outside the relationship?
Does this always involve deceit or do more people than I know have open relationshps and anyway how open is open? | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/26/2009 6:15:14 AM | I was interested to read the previous posts (msg 12,13) which discussed the value of comparisons between humans and the other primates. While the first was an example of the “naturalistic fallacy” and the second a demonstration of why you cannot exclusively derive “ought” from “is”, they are collectively, I think, of some relevance to question. In particular the feelings of failure that often accompany being a party to a failed relationship which do necessarily inhibit a person’s ability to move on with the rest of their lives.
The comparative primate research has, among many other thing, I think conclusively demonstrated that humans are not inherently monogamous. We could, no doubt discuss the relevance of testicle size and a rather attractively process called flow back, though I think that there are few who now doubt that in terms of our physiology and psychology humans have all of the hallmarks of having been at best serially monogamous throughout their entire evolutionally history. If one considers the lengths that societies have in the past gone to in terms of prohibitive laws and social customs to coerce people into behaving in a way the gives at least the appearance that monogamy is the norm, it seems surprising that relationships of extended duration are now still not hard to find. If we add to this the fact that in the social circumstances in which we now live were, to give just one example, something as simple as a young couple, who meet and marry in a small town, do by moving to a larger city, significantly increase the probability that their marriage will end in divorce, it is amazing that so many relationships appear to endure. It is these relationships, those that do appear to endure for an extended periods of time, that are the unexpected observations, the ones that require explanation, they are the outliers.
It is of course true that the possibility of success does depend upon being able to persuade yourself that the most unlikely outcome of a relationship is inevitable in your own special case, in the hope that your self-induced delusion will turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Essentially sticking your fingers up at the statistics and throwing yourself whole heartedly into a life of reciprocal altruism informed by the unwavering belief that your partner is doing the same. The fact that nature and the social environment seem to have stacked the cards against us does not mean that the ideal relationship is not worth aspiring to or that those who have managed to succeed in building one are not to be envied.
However if the best possible, imagined future, doesn’t eventuate then to believe that finding that your relationship has taken the most likely course constitutes a personal failure, is akin to being a high school science teacher who harbours a deep senses of failure as a consequence of not having won the Nobel Prize for physics. Clearly despite the difficulty, once you have accepted that you are not the unlikely exception, the sooner you will realise that you’re feeling of failure are without merit. They are in fact nothing but additional investments of emotional energy and time in your previous relationship and while probable unavoidable and to some extent may be necessary, they are not free. This perspective does of course apply to any kind of investment in a previous relationship from feeling of bitterness all the way to grief.
Unfortunately as previously explained (msg 10) a person’s feelings are likely to encourage continued investment in the previous relationship long past the point where they themselves would in hindsight consider it to have been in there own best interests. Therefore I believe that the question (how long is long enough) amounts to asking for how long should you continue to invest in a relationship after your partner, for whatever reason, is no longer an active participant. The answer, given that, while time is an ocean it does end at the shore, must surely be the shortest time possible, the sooner you try, the sooner you might find that you can, and then get on with your life.
As I read this back I am struck by how simple it all sounds. I am sure that it does bottle some tiny slither of the truth, which is all that anyone could hope to do in so few words. But these things are so complicated. I spent half of my life looking on helplessly while someone very close to me, a man in midlife, who had loved and been loved, who had delighted in the consolations of marriage and had small children who could only have benefited from the affections of a stepmother, effectively locked himself away in what amounted to a mausoleum for a quarter of a century. It was, not surprisingly considered by all to be one wasteful tragedy that proceeded from another, that would if nothing else have broken the heart of the loved and lost if she had been able to see it. While I suppose Joy was right “That’s the deal”. I still can’t help wondering if in the end he thought it was all worthwhile, having wandered for so long, alone, in the “Shadowlands”. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/26/2009 4:02:01 PM | Sombre... Some of us are intellectuals - thank God - wish I could think of something intelligent to say...
One thing about us zoo animals (no 14) is we are all different....trick is not to get depressed about it | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/27/2009 1:45:37 AM |
So you're saying we should learn what we should be doing from the other primates...because you don't think human society is any different? OK...biological differences in relation to breeding mechanisms aside...
chimps sometimes eat baby chimps from other families... so... should we start doing that?
There are many human cannibals in the world. I’m sure they look on the young as tender yearlings like we look at cattle.
So by having cannibals in human society, yet not in every part of society, that would actually be a case for being “similar” to chimp societies, not dissimilar wouldn’t it.
But which primate should we try to emulate...because different species of primates don't even have the same social structures as each other.
I’m sure the social structure in Nth Brissy is much different to the social structure of many and varied African tribes as an example. Again, pointing to similar I would think.
Bonobos are verrry closely related to chimps...and yet in stark contrast to the chimp's male dominated society, the bonobos are a female dominated society. (Hey, let's be more like the bonobos. ...apparently they are genetically closer to us humans than plain old chimps anyway.)
OK, got me there……But hey, bring it on. Hmmm…Housedad, I like the sound of that....lol
Within some groups of primates mothers will calm their young sons by having sex with them, and females will only form friendships after sexually pleasuring each other, and males will rub their penises and scrotums against another male's penis/scrotum to smooth over a fight. So where does all of that fit into your thoughts about human society being no different to other primates even though we like to think we are?
Ok, one at a time
mothers will calm their young sons by having sex with them
One word will suffice here……Alabama
I'm sure there are other examples, like little mining towns in W.A.
females will only form friendships after sexually pleasuring each other
Plenty of lesbian activities in the human race. Some of those would be one night stands that develop into friendships, if not relationships…sounds similar
males will rub their penises and scrotums against another male's penis/scrotum to smooth over a fight.
And plenty of gay activities in the human race.
There would be plenty of soothing "penis/scrotum rubbing" after a **** fight at the local gay club.
Again, this would point to the chimp societies actually being similar to the human socities as each of the above examples aren’t definitive of a “chimp” society or a human society. Yet they can be found in both.
I agree that the chimpanzee society isn't indicitive of a white picket fence society in Nth Brisbane, yet travel into the valley at night and it seems there are more similar traits than not. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 18 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/27/2009 5:47:19 PM | this would point to the chimp societies actually being similar to the human socities as each of the above examples aren’t definitive of a “chimp” society or a human society. Yet they can be found in both.
Big difference between 'being found in' and 'being normal/expected/accepted social behaviour'. Human females have been known to give birth to say, 9 babies at a time...but despite that fact it would not be accurate to say that having 9 babies is a common reproductive characteristic of the human. The behaviours of primates that I mentioned are common and usual within those primate societies...and were not examples of minority behaviours within the relevant species.
I'll just answer a couple of your points, but all could be responded to similarly.
There are many human cannibals in the world.
Many???? Maybe I just don't date in that broad a circle.
Remember that we were essentially discussing our own relationship psychology before the 'other primates' comparison was raised, and therefore are looking at things from a point of view of common human behaviour in western society, because (like it or not) that is who most of us here are. We don't practice cannibalism, and would consider anyone who did, a criminal. And I doubt those groups of humans who reportedly still practice cannibalism as accepted behaviour within their society, are on PoF. (If they are, I'd like a new mail filter added to the site please Markus. )
All chimp societies will eat the babies of another family...not just one obscure group of chimps living in a remote jungle region that someone saw once and made a documentary about....all of them do it. It's part of their normal/expected/accepted social behaviour. Citing obscure examples of human behaviours within small pockets or subcultures doesn't offer us evidence of common human characteristics . So really, unless people (us) in western society are eating other people's babies as a normal consequence of bumping into another family down at the park, then it cannot be said to be a common human behaviour within the paramaters of this discussion.
And plenty of gay activities in the human race.
There would be plenty of soothing "penis/scrotum rubbing" after a **** fight at the local gay club.
You are perhaps referring to a situation where two gay men who are a couple, have a fight, and then have make up sex. The primate behaviour I was referring to involves a common/accepted/expected practice whereby hetero males choose to rub penises with other males instead of fighting with them. It's not for me to tell anyone how to resolve conflict in their life, but I can categorically say that in my experience it would not be considered a common human behaviour to do the same.
I agree that the chimpanzee society isn't indicitive of a white picket fence society in Nth Brisbane, yet travel into the valley at night and it seems there are more similar traits than not.
Chimp society is similar to the Valley culture? Errrm...Chimpanzees only mate within a particular breeding season. So are you saying that people in the Valley only have sex in certain months of the year? Cos that's not what I've heard.  | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 2:21:27 AM | Oh god, the purpose of studying our closest primate relatives is not to find models of how we should behave but rather to help us to understand the evolution of our own “superior” cognitive abilities, to help us identify what behaviours that we exhibit, might be informed by our instincts. Unfortunate our friends always seem to get a bad rap; we tend to focus on the less attractive aspects of their behaviour while in fact they also exhibit may fine qualities that we would prefer to think of as exclusively our own. Now it would appear that they are cannibals. I have searched in vain through the indices of more than a few books for a reference to chimpanzees or bonobos practicing cannibalism; eating their own kind.
They do often kill and eat small monkeys, trading the meat with the females for sex, anyone for a steak dinner. In fact the only evidence of great apes, gorillas, orang-utans, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans practicing cannibalism relates to us, humans, our friends seem to be completely innocent, they don’t seem to eat their own kind or each other, though we have been known to eat them. They do of course kill their own kind, wildlife reserves that house more the one band of chimpanzees keep them strictly quarantined from each other, for the well founded fear, that if they should meet there would be war if not genocide though they are hardly alone in that regard either.
Perhaps what you are thinking of is the reports that occasionally the males will kill an infant from their own group. In this respect too they are not alone. You have to remember that chimpanzees and bonobos bands are made up of related males and immigrant females. Every infant conceived and born within their band “should” be related to every male in that band; it would not make sense for them to habitually go around killing their own genetic descendants. However if a female arrived carrying an infant, in either senses of the word, then that would be another matter. Male lions will kill all the cubs of a pride of females that they take over from another male, and human children are far more likely to be killed by a parent who is not genetically related to them even if they think or have been lead to believe they are.
There is information that can be gleaned from the comparative primate research that is relevant to the question (how long is long enough) but neither cannibalism nor how Bonobos comfort each other when they are frightened seem likely candidates. In fact it seems to be one of their finer qualties, that we share with them that holds the key. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 20 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 5:18:43 AM |
I have searched in vain through the indices of more than a few books for a reference to chimpanzees or bonobos practicing cannibalism; eating their own kind.
Actually, I never said bonobos kill other bonobo's kids because they don't... I specifically said chimps kill and eat baby chimps from other chimp groups, which they do. I didn't mention monkeys at all.
Perhaps what you are thinking of is the reports that occasionally the males will kill an infant from their own group.
The females do that too, but nope, that's not what I am thinking of. But this is...
Chimpanzees go to (cannibalistic, raping, baby-killing) war with neighboring chimps; bonobos peaceably mingle. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:9OuZNGoWUWgJ:themelononline.com/tag/chimpanzees
The acts of cannibalism and infanticide are very apparent in the behavior of the chimpanzee. Many African studies show that wild chimpanzees kill and eat infants of their own species. (Goodall, 1986:151) http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:OQehGIfo8DMJ:www.essaysample.com/essay/000836.html
Unfortunate our friends always seem to get a bad rap; we tend to focus on the less attractive aspects of their behaviour The only reason I focused on those points about other primate societies, was not to make them sound bad or to claim superiority for our species, but only because it was the most efficient way to demonstrate that the original comment Kontraseptic made about our human society being no different to primate societies was (IMO) codswallop. Each primate society has its own social rules ...was the only point I had wished to make. Sometimes the original context and reasons we write about something get lost as the discussion continues, so I think now...I will give up and go make monkey (or possibly bonobo) noises in another room.
PS. Briz...here's another non-western-society obscure example that would have been great in your earlier post. This article compares lemurs going and slaughtering the babies of other lemurs with these humans called Yanomamo who go viciously slaughter the babies of other humans. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:r_OHtT4egb0J:www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm
My point still stands that it's still not describing "our" normal and therefore has no real bearing on our assessment of our own way of doing things here in PoF-land, however I am happy to add to your case. But after reading the following, I don't think we should look for answers to questions like "should we be monogamous" and "how long should we wait before dating again" from the Yanomamo people any more than we should from the chimps...check this out
A spouse who does not carry enough scars from her husband's blows feels rejected and complains miserably about her unbruised condition. It is a sign, she is certain, that her husband does not love her. Jebus. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 6:09:03 AM | ^^^Yes you are right; it appears that one cannot even depend on an index these day. It appears that there were by 2001 twenty known cases of wild chimpanzees killing and in most cases eating part of infants. In each case were the killer could be identified he was a male adult and the victims were the male infants of females that had recently joined their group. It is not clear if there motive is primarily to eliminate potential future rivals, to save their band the expense of raising an unrelated male or is nutritional, chimpanzees love meat, kill monkeys whenever they can catch them but they are not very good at it. The author of the book probable does not consider this behaviour to be cannibalism in the sense the term is applied to human behaviour though no doubt journalists would.
As for going to another room to make monkey or bonobos noises, stick with your own kind, carnivorous apes, chimps or bonobos, mimicking the sound of food in never a good idea and apparently all our friends agree, monkeys are delicious. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 22 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 7:46:43 AM | ^^^ Sorry to have damaged your image of chimps. :(
Had to come back from the other room where I was making some really decent bonobo noises and correct an earlier mistake I made.
article compares lemurs going and slaughtering the babies of other lemurs Apologies to the lemurs...I meant langurs, which I had never heard of before I read that article so the name didn't stick in the ol' brain.
Anyway...enough of that...based on the discussion so far, this is what I've learned about the topic of how long to wait before dating again:
We are ready to date again when our knuckles no longer drag on the ground.
We are ready to date again when we decide to stop wasting time with monkeys.
We are ready to date again when we see someone we really wanna pick the nits off.
We are ready to date again when swinging (between trees) stops seeming enticing.
 | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 1:03:37 PM | How long is long enough?
….. Sorry….. Just read the whole thing….. (most of which I wish I hadn’t)….. starting from the last post to the first. Thought it was going to be a thread about comparative lengths which might eventually lead to a really interesting discussion. Surprise, surprise. Ends up a back and forth about monkey see’s, monkey do’s and monkey don’ts which seems more about ego tripping intellectual nonsense than an attempt to seriously discuss Kev’s post.
From personal experience within my peer group a substantial proportion of males form their ’next’ relationship whilst in the existing. Gals seem less inclined to behave like this. Me thinks this is much to do with hormones and guys not wanting to go without it for long. Personally I go a bit troppo if I don’t get laid once a week and at least thrice on Sundays. I think most of us would agree that males are generally more aggressive than the fairer sex and enter more easily and readily into relationships, whether or not there is always a love element within their commitment is another question again.
I was talk with someone the other night and she said her rule was the male had to be single for 12 months.
I think the gal who told you this Kev is either a very wise woman or one who’s been there and seen it before. At the risk of getting shouted down as usual. Guys NEED it more than gals and they’re quite to enter into superficial relationships to ensure a constant supply. 
Don’t go jumping into a relationship just to be in one etc.
Well said Spella.
I have to agree that I do think this is one of the most personal questions there is and the answer is probably different for every one of us.
An’ you an’ all for a change. Well said that is, from perhaps the most sensitive gal in this place, which only old boot straps can see.
Once there is paint on the canvas you don't scratch it off, but you can paint more layers*
And perhaps obliterate forever some of beauty of what was once there.
It's a zoo out there!
Ah, the diversity of it all. So many women….. so little time.
Every female chimp is trying to get the attention of the alpha male and advance her bloodline and improve her social standing.
Not so. And don’t bother getting all ’orrible with me, I’m not worth it.
As an Alpha Male of long standing let me tell you they’ve never lined up and dropped their drawers whenever I’ve clicked my fingers. Sure being alpha means you don’t have to look so hard, you sought of…. get sought out. Never the less you don’t always get wine and honey, you only get first choice, without any rule saying you will choose wisely. That’s the part it takes us Alpha’s a good while to figure out. The choosing of wisely (think about it).
Good night folks and sessies. Have a great week. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 1:14:09 PM |
and they’re quite to enter into superficial
Silly me. I should have said... 'and they’re quite HAPPY to enter into superficial'. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 2/28/2009 1:39:32 PM |
I think most of us would agree that males are generally more aggressive than the fairer sex and enter more easily and readily into relationships, whether or not there is always a love element within their commitment is another question again.
I'm not sure about your terminology here? For instance, I'm certainly not part of that collective "us" you refer to. The sentence would be truer if you replaced the "us" with "people who think in cliches and present tired old platitudes as novel insights".
Mind you, for the sake of brevity, you could just replace the "us" with "fools" and the sentence would be rock solid, if not completely fossilized.
Guys NEED it more than gals and they’re quite to enter into superficial relationships to ensure a constant supply.
Perhaps you could cite references for this assertion? Unless it's intended as humour? hahahaa I get it! You say stuff like that so people will underestimate your intelligence! Difficult as that would be to achieve...
That's why you make another attempt?
As an Alpha Male of long standing let me tell you...
Why would I let you tell me anything when you clearly don't have a clue?
....seems more about ego tripping intellectual nonsense than an attempt to seriously discuss Kev’s post.
Indeed. That's what I thought too. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
