|
Squeakers -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 5:06:27 AM)
|
First of all, in the Native American society years ago, men often offered their women to other men, from outside the tribe to expand the gene pool otherwise, it would eventually become incestual within a small tribe. As a matter of fact, Lewis and Clark had an African man on their expedition and HE was in high demand to have relations with the Native American women. Source: my history 101 class and the book Sacajwea (Lewis and Clark Expedition) by Anna L. Waldo .
Personally, I think that monogomy is based on the concept that sex = love. Sorry but I disagree. Sex does not always go hand in hand with love therefore it can not be equal. Men and women can have a loving relationship but not a sexual one and people can have a sexual relationship with out love.
While, my personal belief is that it is wrong to have a sexual relationship outside your current relationship with out communicating it to another partner, I personally feel there is nothing wrong with being in a nonmonogamous relationship if all parties are aware and agree; for example swinging. In many cases, there are precautions taken to prevent a pregnancy from occuring outside the loving relationship and also precautions taken to prevent transmission of STD's. Not always, some people involve themselves in risky sexual behavior, for example, "I have talked to you online for xxx amount of time therefore I love you and know you well enough that we do not need condoms or STD testing of any type", but that is a whole other thread.
Touching on the statement quote:
A woman naturally wants the father of her children to help her in raising them, both financially and providing a stable home . Naturally? Personally I can not answer that statement. Financially---yes it is difficult to raise a child on one income, and the child support is NEVER enough and Never frequent enough however, a stable home is highly debatable. When I think of my own life choices, I know that a stable home or finacial help would not have occured if I had taken the route of a two parent family with the biological father. Actually maybe I can answer that question. Naturally, I wanted my children to grow up in a sane, healthy, non dysfunctional family therefore it was natural for me NOT to want him involved in the upbringing. Society allowed me to do this without the ridicule of being the only single parent family in the neighbor hood.
Look back in the 1800's. How many women stayed with abusive men and remained monogomous simply because society dictated they must remain married? Society would have frowned on a woman who divorced her husband because he was an abusive alcoholic who beat not only her but the children. Some women did leave the relationship but not many. Hell when I went to school very few peers were in single parent families. Many were in dysfunctional families and endured it simply because society dictated it.
I do not feel that biological differences have anything to do with it. It is how society dictates things. Years ago, society dictated that Dad went to work and mom stayed home and assumed the role of June Cleaver. Today more and more fathers are assuming an active role in parenting. Biologically a man is not able to become pregnant or lactate, but society created an alternative; formula and bottles. I believe that a man can be just as nuturing towards an offspring as a woman can and society has allowed that to happen.
Back to the monogamy, I think it really depends on the parties involved. In a D/s sense, some might say that a Master has the right to go forth and 'spread his seed' (not literally) some might say that if Master wants me to be with people other than himself, I will do so to please him. Is this natural? Is it based on what society 'laws' the society has laid down for us? NO. It is based on what two people are comfortable in doing.
|
|
|
|
