|
Anonymous #1
|
monogamy 1
#18982374 - 10/15/13 05:42 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
the concept of monogamy seems strange to me. neither person wants the other person to have sex with or form any sort of emotional connection with someone else, out of fear that said the partner would "leave" them.
it causes people to get jealous and fight, and often even claim ownership over other people. "That's my girl, dawg".
if you like multiple people deeply, why would you have to leave one for the other. why does society say we should only love one other person? why is it called "cheating", as if loving one another is some sort of game?
I think shutting off the flow of love to anybody is a bad idea. "Oh sorry, I only love _____. I'm not allowed to love or care about you too."
what do you think? I think that's the way it should be, everybody feeling embraced with open arms and being there for each other as one.
the other day our fellow shroomery member g00ru said something that I found potentially thought-provoking to the extent of saving it. tell me what you think
Quote:
g00ru said: putting up walls around yourself is exactly the problem with modern society, creating an emotional ice age. it allows so many unfortunate things to go on unchecked 
|
Anonymous #2
|
|
Been thinking about this a lot lately. Its not the natural order of things but what can you do?
I'm in a long-term exclusive relationship, but lately have found myself falling in love with another woman (love, not lust... well both actually but the love part is the important one) and I'm fairly sure its mutual. But with all the societal expectations of what a relationship should be, it feels like even talking honestly and openly with this other woman would be considered cheating by my partner.
sigh...
|
Cyclohexylamine
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out



Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 14,327
|
|
I agree OP.
-------------------- Yes this is tymo - I just changed my name Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to awake from that dream? How would you know the difference between that dream world and the real world? There is NOTHING better than feeling that warm dissociative fuzz creeping up your body from IM K Something abut that anaesthetic rush... Qualitative Research Chemical Effects and Experiences The Wonderful World of Methoxetamine The 3-Meo-PCP Chapters, Part One
|
Yogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
My 2cents... Monogamy exists because it is the least complicated form of relationships. Polygamy is the most complicated and isnt my cup of tea.
I suggest you get a casual partner and try swinging. My perfect relationship would be polyamorous though with a primary relationship and a secondary relationship.
Check this out. poly
|
Mescalean
Burke is love, burke is life.


Registered: 01/18/12
Posts: 6,755
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18982958 - 10/15/13 07:40 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I like monogamy.
-------------------- FREE BURKE
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
It's a contract. If you don't like it don't sign on. My contracts are none of your business and your contracts are none of my business. I would be hard pressed to find a reason why I should give a shit about what anybody else thinks about my sexual agreements and especially not barely legal tyros. I can assure you that I do not give one millionth of a shit about your relationship arrangements. Mind your own fucking business.
--------------------
|
Yogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
|
Mescalean
Burke is love, burke is life.


Registered: 01/18/12
Posts: 6,755
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18983041 - 10/15/13 07:53 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You can love and care for someone too. Just not fuck them. Its an easy rule to follow. Automatically whenever i hear a woman argue against monogomy 3 things pop up.
1. Slut 2. Parents were in a fucked relationship 3. Daddy never gave you enough attention.
Loving someone and fucking someone are 2 different things. I love and care for my brother. Last thing I want to do is fuck him.
-------------------- FREE BURKE
|
Yogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Mescalean said: You can love and care for someone too. Just not fuck them. Its an easy rule to follow. Automatically whenever i hear a woman argue against monogomy 3 things pop up.
1. Slut 2. Parents were in a fucked relationship 3. Daddy never gave you enough attention.
Loving someone and fucking someone are 2 different things. I love and care for my brother. Last thing I want to do is fuck him.
you can definitely love more than one person... if not dont have kids...
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
Mescalean said: You can love and care for someone too. Just not fuck them. Its an easy rule to follow. Automatically whenever i hear a woman argue against monogomy 3 things pop up.
1. Slut 2. Parents were in a fucked relationship 3. Daddy never gave you enough attention.
Loving someone and fucking someone are 2 different things. I love and care for my brother. Last thing I want to do is fuck him.
But it's different if you hear a man say it?
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Lol, it honestly just depends on how meaningful you want your relationship to be.
if you have two relationships your dividing the 'strength and effort' because your spending 10 minutes here, and ten minutes there, i dont see this lasting. you will choose one over the other, and it will probably be for sexual reasons. what happens at family functions? you bring all three?
also forget about having kids, i wouldn't my kids being traumatized either. a family and a home, 1 wife, 1 husband, OR 1 wife and 1 wife, OR 1 husband and 1 husband are the proper setting...
--------------------
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
|
Quote:
itchmynipple said: what happens at family functions? you bring all three?
also forget about having kids, i wouldn't my kids being traumatized either. a family and a home, 1 wife, 1 husband, OR 1 wife and 1 wife, OR 1 husband and 1 husband are the proper setting...
Can't really comment on the first part of your post, you might be right, but the above seems like you're just appealing to tradition. What would be traumatizing about your parents having multiple healthy relationships?
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
itchmynipple said: also forget about having kids, i wouldn't my kids being traumatized either. a family and a home, 1 wife, 1 husband, OR 1 wife and 1 wife, OR 1 husband and 1 husband are the proper setting...
The "proper setting"? Who the fuck do you think you are to decide the "proper setting" for everyone on this planet? It's fine to have an opinion, but this sure doesn't sound like one.
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Sleepwalker said:
Quote:
itchmynipple said: what happens at family functions? you bring all three?
also forget about having kids, i wouldn't my kids being traumatized either. a family and a home, 1 wife, 1 husband, OR 1 wife and 1 wife, OR 1 husband and 1 husband are the proper setting...
Can't really comment on the first part of your post, you might be right, but the above seems like you're just appealing to tradition. What would be traumatizing about your parents having multiple healthy relationships?
appealing to traditions because it works. its my personal comfort zone, from what ive seen with friends whose parents lasted.. why change it? this is me were talking about right now, maybe its different for you, (no attitude)
I dont think it would be cool for a kid to grow up confusing mommy and for lack of better term, daddys legal affair. he gets into a fight with his real mom and decides he likes daddys other lover better.. stuff like this can play with a kids mind... i would know, i grew up similiarly... even with step-moms step-dads, sometimes it messes with these kids heads, in my case it did, i had a shitty ass mother who left, i had a step mom who i accepted as a replacement but when that ended i had nothing again, its just a cycle. i think a good home is what a kid needs unless you manage to keep everything under wraps and his thoughts away from what you are doing behind closed doors.. just my opinion...
but i forgot to add with he family functions... if two guys are sharing the same woman, which function/event does she go to? and vice versa.. does she divide this too? in other words she will pick and choose which one she likes better, n maybe next time go with the other person next time, but when that time comes, she most likely will choose which or whoever she likes more at the time
--------------------
Edited by itchmynipple (10/16/13 01:07 AM)
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
pwnasaurus said:
Quote:
itchmynipple said: also forget about having kids, i wouldn't my kids being traumatized either. a family and a home, 1 wife, 1 husband, OR 1 wife and 1 wife, OR 1 husband and 1 husband are the proper setting...
The "proper setting"? Who the fuck do you think you are to decide the "proper setting" for everyone on this planet? It's fine to have an opinion, but this sure doesn't sound like one.
also to pwnasaurus, please, just ignore my comments/views, its everytime with you 'who the fuck are you' or some shit, its like really dude? I just dont want to hear it anymore. maybe its because you like to play spellcheck police on minor shit, or maybe your a serial comment killer, either way, its whack dawg
--------------------
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18984420 - 10/16/13 01:01 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yogi1 said: My 2cents... Monogamy exists because it is the least complicated form of relationships. Polygamy is the most complicated and isnt my cup of tea.
I suggest you get a casual partner and try swinging. My perfect relationship would be polyamorous though with a primary relationship and a secondary relationship.
Check this out. poly
for some reason its the people i dont care about much that i would enjoy a swinger relationship with... maybe im just conditioned or the jealous type, who knows.. i just would rather me and my female companion to focus on eachother and keep building.. its these ideals that i accept, even if they were here before me it doesn't mean i'm not aware and conscious of other paths, ill watch from afar ;]
ive seen good relationships and bad ones.. the bad ones make relationships seem fuckin horrendous and pointless... but the good ones being rare, seem all the more worth it...
--------------------
Edited by itchmynipple (10/16/13 01:06 AM)
|
Beside the Garden


Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 606
|
|
I feel simalar to OP. See different people bring different sides out of me you know, my sexuality is all over the place and it would be limiting to "contract" with one person but this is how most are and compromises are made.
Different people bring out different levels possessiveness also.
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Beside the Garden said: I feel simalar to OP. See different people bring different sides out of me you know, my sexuality is all over the place and it would be limiting to "contract" with one person but this is how most are and compromises are made.
Different people bring out different levels possessiveness also.
'it seems the less possessive i am, the more i am wanted and vice versa'
--------------------
|
Beside the Garden


Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 606
|
|
On a whole or with the person your with?
|
itchmynipple
;)

Registered: 05/28/12
Posts: 1,660
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Beside the Garden said: On a whole or with the person your with?
i was regarding the person im with.
possessive to others in what aspect? like i wouldn't tell my friend he cant chill with that person, but if it was my friend trying to chill with my ex, i would just drop him instead of trying to pursuade him. with objects im not possessive, it distracts you from true purpose and happiness, in a way. i try to keep things like this seperate as much as possible, sometimes i slip. but on another area of being possessive ill smoke anyone up when the money is around nah mean?
--------------------
|
Beside the Garden


Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 606
|
|
Yeah man i hear ya. I meant possessive about let say amber she can and be with whoever cuz we are cool like that and i know who and how she is. Tiff I could share with my boys or another female but if she ran off with them, id be upset. I have never judged a women for promiscuity in fact i find a lot of sluts honest like that. Megan is like me we have an understanding and respect, so i trust her choice in other men and don't ask and i know that she wouldn't ditch me for them without giving me an awareness of her intentions first. Sam can kick rocks and get lost if she looks at another man. Brittney is someone i could have multiple GF with that is also her GF. And so on
These are just fictitious names but kinda what im saying.
really it would be nice to find someone to build a strong bond with that understands me that could be monogamous but we would probably bring others in as sexual food to feed on.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18986401 - 10/16/13 02:16 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yogi1 said:
Quote:
Mescalean said: You can love and care for someone too. Just not fuck them. Its an easy rule to follow. Automatically whenever i hear a woman argue against monogomy 3 things pop up.
1. Slut 2. Parents were in a fucked relationship 3. Daddy never gave you enough attention.
Loving someone and fucking someone are 2 different things. I love and care for my brother. Last thing I want to do is fuck him.
you can definitely love more than one person... if not dont have kids...
Love does not equal fucking
--------------------
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
|
i dont see how people can argue that its impossible to romantically love more than one person at a time. I see no reason why you couldn't. In fact it makes sense biologically
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Yogi1 said:
Quote:
Mescalean said: You can love and care for someone too. Just not fuck them. Its an easy rule to follow. Automatically whenever i hear a woman argue against monogomy 3 things pop up.
1. Slut 2. Parents were in a fucked relationship 3. Daddy never gave you enough attention.
Loving someone and fucking someone are 2 different things. I love and care for my brother. Last thing I want to do is fuck him.
you can definitely love more than one person... if not dont have kids...
Love does not equal fucking
|
Beside the Garden


Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 606
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: i dont see how people can argue that its impossible to romantically love more than one person at a time. I see no reason why you couldn't. In fact it makes sense biologically
Yup
|
Mescalean
Burke is love, burke is life.


Registered: 01/18/12
Posts: 6,755
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
No it doesnt differ for men.
Also you can see plain as day I said fucking and love are different.
If you can't be with one person don't do relationships.
This whole "free love" 70's bs reminds me of an ex of mine. Into yoga and all that bs, thinks shes enlighted, has multiple partners and doesn't believe in monogomy. "Like omggg everyone should just share their love with everyone" thats why youve had the clap 3 times....
In reality shes nothing more than an ex junkie whore who can't keep her legs closed.
-------------------- FREE BURKE
|
Sheekle
FREE BURKE



Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 53,153
|
|
Quote:
Mescalean said: No it doesnt differ for men.
Also you can see plain as day I said fucking and love are different.
If you can't be with one person don't do relationships.
This whole "free love" 70's bs reminds me of an ex of mine. Into yoga and all that bs, thinks shes enlighted, has multiple partners and doesn't believe in monogomy. "Like omggg everyone should just share their love with everyone" thats why youve had the clap 3 times....
In reality shes nothing more than an ex junkie whore who can't keep her legs closed.
So you're basing your opinion on monogamy/polygamy on a single relationship that went sour
-------------------- "Ur cat died because he hated u" - Koods "I hope JSB kicks your ass one day." - Vandago "you are the biggest 'internet guy' I have ever come across"- Jokeshopbeard "The more I see you post the more I realize you're just this fuckin tie dye loser who trolls the Shroomery 24/7." - Herbologist "Sheekle you cannot vile the dice of bullshit you have posted on this forum over the years, I like databases" - thelastoneleft "or maybe i just come from a blood line of superior intelligence" - trees R.I.P Kelsy, ?/?/?? - 6/11/16
|
Mescalean
Burke is love, burke is life.


Registered: 01/18/12
Posts: 6,755
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Sheekle]
#18986711 - 10/16/13 03:36 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No based off of the behavior I've seen from people who preach polygamy.
-------------------- FREE BURKE
|
Thayendanegea
quiet walker



Registered: 02/20/12
Posts: 7,596
Loc: 7 Lodges Nation
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Sheekle] 1
#18986718 - 10/16/13 03:37 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think everyones answers should be followed with "at this time in my life" I pride myself in being a open minded person and my opinions have changed , sometimes radically, because of this. In my 20's and even 30's, I would have agreed with the OP....Now, after finding a woman that I love in every imaginable way, I simply could not fall in love with anyone else because there is no way that I could duplicate what I already have. lol (at this time)  M
-------------------- Look Deep Into Nature,and Then You Will Understand Everything Better. Albert Einstein
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Mescalean said: If you can't be with one person don't do relationships.
Just because you dated a hoe that didnt love you back you want to tell us there's only one type of relationship... Thats retarded...
I'm going to give you your logic right back,
"Monotheism is the only type of theism, if you want to be polytheistic then be atheist"
|
Beside the Garden


Registered: 06/03/13
Posts: 606
|
|
Quote:
baltimark said: I think everyones answers should be followed with "at this time in my life" I pride myself in being a open minded person and my opinions have changed , sometimes radically, because of this. In my 20's and even 30's, I would have agreed with the OP....Now, after finding a woman that I love in every imaginable way, I simply could not fall in love with anyone else because there is no way that I could duplicate what I already have. lol (at this time);) M
"at this time in my life" Open non judgy perspective
|
TheWiz
Happy Little Shroom



Registered: 11/21/11
Posts: 191
Loc: Southern IL
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
I will never, ever, ever, for as long as I live, agree to be monogamous. I can't imagine a worse curse than to be expected to fuck one person for the rest of my life. I've met quite a few really cool girls that respect that, one of whom I've known for the past 2 years and live with. I think most people would feel a lot better off if they weren't trying to adhere to it, honestly.
-------------------- I'd hit it.
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: TheWiz]
#18995157 - 10/18/13 11:33 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheWiz said: I will never, ever, ever, for as long as I live, agree to be monogamous. I can't imagine a worse curse than to be expected to fuck one person for the rest of my life. I've met quite a few really cool girls that respect that, one of whom I've known for the past 2 years and live with. I think most people would feel a lot better off if they weren't trying to adhere to it, honestly.
Sometimes you just want to fuck someone else 
It always made sex with my partner better and more appreciated too.
--------------------
|
ClockCode
A Lonely Hypha


Registered: 11/12/12
Posts: 546
Loc: The Highest Desert
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18995224 - 10/18/13 11:44 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There are many instances of monogamy in nature, sillies. One particular sexual preference is not more valid than another, so shut that shit down. Our species evolved as a monogamous relationship forming one and that's how it be son. It also doesn't cause people to become jealous and fight, I'd say being jealous and immature causes people to fight. Your monogamy -> fighting is non-sequitor.
"It's not the natural order of things" 
You can change it up if you want, but that doesn't mean anybody else gives a fuck. As miserable as zappa is he's usually right, if you don't want to sign then don't. 
Quote:
psyconaught said: i dont see how people can argue that its impossible to romantically love more than one person at a time. I see no reason why you couldn't. In fact it makes sense biologically
Wrong, don't go throwing that shit in there.
-------------------- Psilovibing
Edited by ClockCode (10/18/13 11:46 AM)
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
ClockCode said: There are many instances of monogamy in nature, sillies. One particular sexual preference is not more valid than another, so shut that shit down. Our species evolved as a monogamous relationship forming one and that's how it be son. It also doesn't cause people to become jealous and fight, I'd say being jealous and immature causes people to fight. Your monogamy -> fighting is non-sequitor.
"It's not the natural order of things" 
You can change it up if you want, but that doesn't mean anybody else gives a fuck. As miserable as zappa is he's usually right, if you don't want to sign then don't. 
QFT.
If you want to be polyamorous go for it. Personally I don't .
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
pwnasaurus said:
Quote:
ClockCode said: There are many instances of monogamy in nature, sillies. One particular sexual preference is not more valid than another, so shut that shit down. Our species evolved as a monogamous relationship forming one and that's how it be son. It also doesn't cause people to become jealous and fight, I'd say being jealous and immature causes people to fight. Your monogamy -> fighting is non-sequitor.
"It's not the natural order of things" 
You can change it up if you want, but that doesn't mean anybody else gives a fuck. As miserable as zappa is he's usually right, if you don't want to sign then don't. 
QFT.
If you want to be polyamorous go for it. Personally I don't .
Looks like we're in agreement.
--------------------
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18995412 - 10/18/13 12:32 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong, don't go throwing that shit in there.
but it does make sense from a biological standpoint. Not sure why you got butt hurt over my statement, the simple fact is that from a biological and evolutionary standpoint it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible. i'm not advocating for polygamous relationships because personally it doesnt appeal to me, i just want one girl. the point i was making is pretty much to each his own. You cant knock anyone else having a polygamous relationship because thats what works for them. And if you really want to deny that biologically it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible then theres no point in having a conversation with someone who blatantly ignores facts and science.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
ClockCode
A Lonely Hypha


Registered: 11/12/12
Posts: 546
Loc: The Highest Desert
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Wrong, don't go throwing that shit in there.
but it does make sense from a biological standpoint. Not sure why you got butt hurt over my statement, the simple fact is that from a biological and evolutionary standpoint it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible. i'm not advocating for polygamous relationships because personally it doesnt appeal to me, i just want one girl. the point i was making is pretty much to each his own. You cant knock anyone else having a polygamous relationship because thats what works for them. And if you really want to deny that biologically it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible then theres no point in having a conversation with someone who blatantly ignores facts and science.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
I'm not denying anything biologically, it just seems you're unaware that different organisms have different reproductive strategies. And let's not get all scientifically high and mighty here, you know nothing about me sir.
Strictly limiting the discussion to the animal kingdom, some organisms lay many offspring and give little care to their young. Other organisms have relatively few and give more care to their young. Clearly
Fish and reptiles are on the former side of the spectrum (the r selected species if you go for that, though I think r/K selection is outdated now). Whales, elephants, and shockingly humans belong on the latter end of the spectrum (K). Our young require a LOT of parental care, and simply "spreading your seed" isn't good enough. That's why humans have monogamous relationships, because it tutors their young to be adapted for the social life humans live (and other such).
I'm not saying there haven't been kids raised by polyamorous or polygamous parents, surely there's many well adjusted children with such parents. But a father spreading his seed to many women logically won't have enough time to be good parent and will subsequently have a higher chance of polluting society with poorly adjusted citizens. A lot of parents can't handle even one child.
Humans need parental care is why monogamy works. We're top dog and so we have a stable enough environment to NOT need to spread our seed. In fact at this point spreading our seed would probably lead to an even more dangerous population load.
Or maybe I'm just high.
-------------------- Psilovibing
|
Anonymous #3
|
|
Quote:
ClockCode said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Wrong, don't go throwing that shit in there.
but it does make sense from a biological standpoint. Not sure why you got butt hurt over my statement, the simple fact is that from a biological and evolutionary standpoint it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible. i'm not advocating for polygamous relationships because personally it doesnt appeal to me, i just want one girl. the point i was making is pretty much to each his own. You cant knock anyone else having a polygamous relationship because thats what works for them. And if you really want to deny that biologically it makes sense to spread your seed as much as possible then theres no point in having a conversation with someone who blatantly ignores facts and science.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
I'm not denying anything biologically, it just seems you're unaware that different organisms have different reproductive strategies. And let's not get all scientifically high and mighty here, you know nothing about me sir.
Strictly limiting the discussion to the animal kingdom, some organisms lay many offspring and give little care to their young. Other organisms have relatively few and give more care to their young. Clearly
Fish and reptiles are on the former side of the spectrum (the r selected species if you go for that, though I think r/K selection is outdated now). Whales, elephants, and shockingly humans belong on the latter end of the spectrum (K). Our young require a LOT of parental care, and simply "spreading your seed" isn't good enough. That's why humans have monogamous relationships, because it tutors their young to be adapted for the social life humans live (and other such).
I'm not saying there haven't been kids raised by polyamorous or polygamous parents, surely there's many well adjusted children with such parents. But a father spreading his seed to many women logically won't have enough time to be good parent and will subsequently have a higher chance of polluting society with poorly adjusted citizens. A lot of parents can't handle even one child.
Humans need parental care is why monogamy works. We're top dog and so we have a stable enough environment to NOT need to spread our seed. In fact at this point spreading our seed would probably lead to an even more dangerous population load.
Or maybe I'm just high.
also we have the ability to have self control and there is this magical thing called your willpower, trust. have fun without fucking eachother. I like to use them/these ideals, it helps me fall asleep at night. nuff said'
|
Anonymous #4
|
|
What helps you sleep at night is not rousing your insecure jealousy
|
Anonymous #3
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous said: What helps you sleep at night is not rousing your insecure jealousy

are you shitting me? im insecure and jealous because i sleep better knowing my partner and I are in a monogamous relationship? please, whats with you people playing the same card over and over regarding the subject; "your insecure and jealous." Not at fucking all, its just not necessary. maybe we treasure our relationship a whole lot more then you, something you might not be able to comprehend, maybe there simply is No room for another in our eyes. Maybe im just Not interested in another to begin with because the one i would be interested in the most is already here. i like my mornings with her, as well as the evenings, i like falling asleep. every day on repeat, and it does not get old.
|
ClockCode
A Lonely Hypha


Registered: 11/12/12
Posts: 546
Loc: The Highest Desert
|
|
Anon #3
I'm not ragging on polygamy or polyamory, by all means people should do what they want. I'm just saying it's not a strict biological imperative to spread your seed as far as can be (thus acting as a biological validation of polyamory or polygamy). I don't care that someone fucks ten wives or ten husbands I just don't want to see people justify it with "it's biology!". Spread with care, if at all (but overpopulation is a different discussion).
I'm a fan of allowing people to do the shit they want to do, but fumbling over obnoxious justifications is annoying. Just do what you want and live with it.
Just to clarify.
-------------------- Psilovibing
Edited by ClockCode (10/18/13 02:13 PM)
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
|
im not justifying anything. i made an off hand statement that many partners makes sense from a biological standpoint. did you know the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina (from other males) so yours has a better chance of taking? You also seem to have missed the part where i said i myself do not personally desire a polygamous relationship. Heres a fun fact, roughly 17% of the human population practice strict monogamous relationships the rest practice some sort of polygamy.
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Bender B Rodriguez
The Greatest


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 550
Loc: Aurora, CO
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous said: the concept of monogamy seems strange to me. neither person wants the other person to have sex with or form any sort of emotional connection with someone else, out of fear that said the partner would "leave" them.
it causes people to get jealous and fight, and often even claim ownership over other people. "That's my girl, dawg".
if you like multiple people deeply, why would you have to leave one for the other. why does society say we should only love one other person? why is it called "cheating", as if loving one another is some sort of game?
I think shutting off the flow of love to anybody is a bad idea. "Oh sorry, I only love _____. I'm not allowed to love or care about you too."
what do you think? I think that's the way it should be, everybody feeling embraced with open arms and being there for each other as one.
the other day our fellow shroomery member g00ru said something that I found potentially thought-provoking to the extent of saving it. tell me what you think
Quote:
g00ru said: putting up walls around yourself is exactly the problem with modern society, creating an emotional ice age. it allows so many unfortunate things to go on unchecked 
What you described is a possessive, controlling and unhealthy type of co-dependency, not monogamy.
Monogamy certainly allows for each person to be an individual and have strong, deep emotional connections with others.
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said: im not justifying anything. i made an off hand statement that many partners makes sense from a biological standpoint. did you know the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina (from other males) so yours has a better chance of taking? You also seem to have missed the part where i said i myself do not personally desire a polygamous relationship. Heres a fun fact, roughly 17% of the human population practice strict monogamous relationships the rest practice some sort of polygamy.
Do you have some sources to back up any of these claims? Not saying they're necessarily false, but you're making some pretty wild claims without any evidence to back them up.
|
Anonymous #4
|
|
Quote:
Bender B Rodriguez said:
Quote:
Anonymous said: the concept of monogamy seems strange to me. neither person wants the other person to have sex with or form any sort of emotional connection with someone else, out of fear that said the partner would "leave" them.
it causes people to get jealous and fight, and often even claim ownership over other people. "That's my girl, dawg".
if you like multiple people deeply, why would you have to leave one for the other. why does society say we should only love one other person? why is it called "cheating", as if loving one another is some sort of game?
I think shutting off the flow of love to anybody is a bad idea. "Oh sorry, I only love _____. I'm not allowed to love or care about you too."
what do you think? I think that's the way it should be, everybody feeling embraced with open arms and being there for each other as one.
the other day our fellow shroomery member g00ru said something that I found potentially thought-provoking to the extent of saving it. tell me what you think
Quote:
g00ru said: putting up walls around yourself is exactly the problem with modern society, creating an emotional ice age. it allows so many unfortunate things to go on unchecked 
What you described is a possessive, controlling and unhealthy type of co-dependency, not monogamy.
Monogamy certainly allows for each person to be an individual and have strong, deep emotional connections with others.
I get jealous when my chika goes out to eat with other males, in a mono relationship
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Then it sounds like you're pretty insecure about your relationship and untrusting of your partner.
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
pwnasaurus said:
Quote:
psyconaught said: im not justifying anything. i made an off hand statement that many partners makes sense from a biological standpoint. did you know the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina (from other males) so yours has a better chance of taking? You also seem to have missed the part where i said i myself do not personally desire a polygamous relationship. Heres a fun fact, roughly 17% of the human population practice strict monogamous relationships the rest practice some sort of polygamy.
Do you have some sources to back up any of these claims? Not saying they're necessarily false, but you're making some pretty wild claims without any evidence to back them up.
the article is fairly long so i'll post a pretty good summary from it
Quote:
Now, the irony doesn’t escape me. But in spite of the fact that this particular evolutionary psychologist (yours truly) is gay, for the purposes of research we must consider the evolution of the human penis in relation to the human vagina. Magnetic imaging studies of heterosexual couples having sex reveal that, during coitus, the typical penis completely expands and occupies the vaginal tract, and with full penetration can even reach the woman’s cervix and lift her uterus. This combined with the fact that human ejaculate is expelled with great force and considerable distance (up to two feet if not contained), suggests that men are designed to release sperm into the uppermost portion of the vagina possible. Thus, in a theoretical paper published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology in 2004, Gallup and coauthor, Rebecca Burch, conjecture that, “A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”
the last few sentences are the most important to what i was saying, and heres the source http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus
in regards to monogamy:
Quote:
“The human mating system is extremely flexible,” Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal wrote in a recent review in Evolutionary Anthropology. Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous. The vast majority of human societies embrace a mix of marriage types, with some people practicing monogamy and others polygamy. (Most people in these cultures are in monogamous marriages, though.)
and the source http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
pwnasaurus
Stranger



Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 12,317
Loc: Canada
|
|
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Now“A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”
the last few sentences are the most important to what i was saying, and heres the source http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus
This does not back your first claim up whatsoever:
Quote:
"the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina"
What the article actually says is that a larger penis can help displace semen within the vagina. There is no "design to remove semen" whatsoever.
Quote:
in regards to monogamy:
Quote:
“Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous. The vast majority of human societies embrace a mix of marriage types, with some people practicing monogamy and others polygamy. (Most people in these cultures are in monogamous marriages, though.)
and the source http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html
This also does not come even close to backing up your claim:
Quote:
roughly 17% of the human population practice strict monogamous relationships
The article states that 17% of human cultures (not 17% of the population) practice strict monogamy. It also explicitly states that in the remaining 83% "most people ... are in monogamous marriages".
You wildly misinterpreted the articles to try and prove a point that does not exist.
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
pwnasaurus said:
Quote:
psyconaught said:
Quote:
Now“A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”
the last few sentences are the most important to what i was saying, and heres the source http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus
This does not back your first claim up whatsoever:
Quote:
"the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina"
What the article actually says is that a larger penis can help displace semen within the vagina. There is no "design to remove semen" whatsoever.
Quote:
in regards to monogamy:
Quote:
“Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous. The vast majority of human societies embrace a mix of marriage types, with some people practicing monogamy and others polygamy. (Most people in these cultures are in monogamous marriages, though.)
and the source http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/science/monogamys-boost-to-human-evolution.html
This also does not come even close to backing up your claim:
Quote:
roughly 17% of the human population practice strict monogamous relationships
The article states that 17% of human cultures (not 17% of the population) practice strict monogamy. It also explicitly states that in the remaining 83% "most people ... are in monogamous marriages".
You wildly misinterpreted the articles to try and prove a point that does not exist.
--------------------
|
psyconaught
Chemical Connoisseur


Registered: 11/04/10
Posts: 6,100
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18996409 - 10/18/13 04:45 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i'll admit the population vs culture may have been misinterpreted by me, but i assure you that was not intentional, thank you for pointing that out but in regards to penis shape, my statement was Quote:
the human penis is designed to remove semen already in the vagina (from other males) so yours has a better chance of taking
and the quote from the article was Quote:
it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity
thats nearly identical to what i said. you also have to read the entire article, before that paragraph it explains how the 'mushroom' like shape of the penis that creates a ridge larger than the circumference of the shaft is what creates this effect
-------------------- Think for yourself, question authority
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Monogamy... yawn... monotony!!!
--------------------
|
TheWiz
Happy Little Shroom



Registered: 11/21/11
Posts: 191
Loc: Southern IL
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: monogamy [Re: Yogi1]
#18996973 - 10/18/13 07:12 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The book "Sex at Dawn" is great and argues that we did not evolve to be monogamous and that it's an entirely new idea that we've only projected backwards onto our ancestors. If you're curious about the subject, I highly recommend it.
-------------------- I'd hit it.
|
Anonymous #3
|
Re: monogamy [Re: TheWiz]
#18997669 - 10/18/13 09:39 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheWiz said: The book "Sex at Dawn" is great and argues that we did not evolve to be monogamous and that it's an entirely new idea that we've only projected backwards onto our ancestors. If you're curious about the subject, I highly recommend it.
Well, well, well he wants to get technical- we did not evolve for the purpose of using cell phones, and computers, or goingto school, or working, but yet here you are. monogamy is beautiful, i love the idea of it. i dont feel like partaking right now, but thats because im fine being single, i would be in a open relationship, but its best that person knows my romantic attraction to them is probably alot less then it would be for someone i wouldn't share. does that make me insecure? No i just would rather share something special with a beautiful person, and not something special with someone i don't have later plans with. i personally just dont see myself in a open relationship with someone im truly interested in, only a fuck buddy type of deal. i guess im shallow?
why be in a open relationship it sounds like a waste of time in my opinion, mine as well just be fuck buddies.
|
Yogi1
Squatchin
Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,015
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous said:
Quote:
TheWiz said:
why be in a open relationship it sounds like a waste of time in my opinion, mine as well just be fuck buddies.
Yes.
|
|