RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 5:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 quote: ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 why just have a king and a queen what does this represent. one man one woman interesting that is all through out history.. again when does the minority thought take over the majority rule In the fact that this is your concept not the worlds. History teaches us what works and what does not so we do not have to go through stupidity again.. if you want facts in the bible read a lot of the new testiment about what being faithful to your wife or husband. Bible = Fact. How's that 780 year lifespan thing coming everyone? History = fact WARNING: Below is a history rant. Read at your own peril. No. History is the interpretation of the past based on available evidence. There are only "facts" in history when no counter evidence is available and all of those who are doing the interpretations agree on what this evidence means. Since individuals and societies all have examples of counter evidence there are few "facts" about human civilization on a general level. Let's take dates for example. In Greek and Roman history there is basically universal agreement on the major dates for events so we generally consider these to be "facts" but with minds even ready to evaluate any new evidence we might find. However in ancient Egyptian history there is yet no universal agreement on dates and indeed three debated timelines though many scholars take the more middle set of dates as a good estimate.

sweetNsmartBBW -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 5:20:43 PM)
History is not always fact. Unbiased history, perhaps...but since history it is written by people that often have an agenda- the fact theory does not quite wash. Depending on where history is written- how it is recorded- and by whom- you can get two (or more) very different accounts of the same events.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 5:46:01 PM)
well then alot court trials would never happen if it was not for evidence and fact finding. to come to a means of discribing what happen only eye witness accounts.

fairfaxswitch -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 5:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaMistressa What about the nature of women who do not wish to have children, or who are gay or bisexual? Your entire argument is based upon childbearing. We generally consider the opinions of a majority to determine what constitutes 'natural', dont we?

Grlwithboy -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 6:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fairfaxswitch quote: ORIGINAL: LaMistressa What about the nature of women who do not wish to have children, or who are gay or bisexual? Your entire argument is based upon childbearing. We generally consider the opinions of a majority to determine what constitutes 'natural', dont we? look outside. Look at the biomass. Look within a species. Diversity is the rule. Huge sweeping diversity.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 6:28:12 PM)
everything in the universe has a constant it is what makes stability

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 well then alot court trials would never happen if it was not for evidence and fact finding. to come to a means of discribing what happen only eye witness accounts. wow your definition of history is really short....did the world not exist before you were born? or does what happened just not matter? quote: everything in the universe has a constant it is what makes stability and even to the constant there is invariably an exception, somewhere....

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:52:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 well then alot court trials would never happen if it was not for evidence and fact finding. to come to a means of discribing what happen only eye witness accounts. wow your definition of history is really short....did the world not exist before you were born? or does what happened just not matter? quote: everything in the universe has a constant it is what makes stability and even to the constant there is invariably an exception, somewhere.... and it is the exceptions that often cause the most damage to universal harmony..

Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:00:17 PM)
I haven't read through all of these but, I'm going to chime in. There was a thread, around here, not too long ago that made a pretty good case (I think) that I support ... *I don't believe that humans* are naturally monogamous. I think that it is our "default position" to be multi-sexual/amorous/whatever. I believe that, a long time ago, the "powers-that-be" decided that they knew what was best and told the whole (known) world that "God doesn't want you to engage in adultery". I'm a fairly religious man but, I find that to be just so much chin music. There is little doubt in my mind, when I look at all the "infidelity rates and surveys" that it just isn't that. For too many people, monogamy is "forced" or "expected". The whole idea of a "Bachelor Party" before a wedding is the groom's "last night of freedom". What crapola! People stay married and "faithful" for years, becoming more and more miserable instead of being able to share their joys and desires with people who are supposed to be their "best friend". As an example: I served in the Army with a guy that used to make us all sick, talking about how his wife was his best friend and what a great relationship they had but, he had to sneak around and accumulate "cover stories" to be able to go to a strip club. Such a best friend that you have to lie about simple, natural, desires? And I don't believe it's just men. Any lady who has ever fantasized about having two men at once, in my mind, is expressing some level of "polyamorous" desires. Whether or not they act upon them is another matter but, I have even had "submissives" express deep, strong desires to be shared but, bristle at "sharing their dom with another woman". It seems to me like the societal taboo against infidelity has been linked to a lady's self worth and I find that to be akin to a sin; moreso because these modern, "liberated" ladies buy into it. We have shackled our society with the idea that giving freedom to our urges is "bad" and, since I consider myself to be spiritual and a Christian, let me point the finger right where it belongs: RELIGION. Let's just look at that for a minute? "God wants you to be monogamous." and "Sex, before marriage, is sin." Again; crapola. The Biblical verse (if you choose to rigidly live your life by that) says: "Go forth and multiply". Marriage isn't mentioned. As a matter of fact, from that rather open-ended statement, one can infer that you should multiply as much as possible with as many as possible. After all, at that time, we needed to populate the earth. Once the (known) earth became a bit "crowded", all of a sudden some grand decree came down from God that we had to marry before sex. That didn't come from the Great Creator (in my mind). It came from manipulating fools that wanted to control the people that were "under" them because only THEY had a connection with "God". Let's look at "sex is a sin"? "God" is the AUTHOR of sex. He invented the shit! He made it pleasurable so that we would engage in it OFTEN. He encouraged it (until certain power-hungry human beings decided He'd had a change of heart). I canNOT believe that sex is a sin, any more than I can believe that homosexuality is (and I don't believe that, either). Anyway, enough of my ranting. I just find the whole "woman are naturally monogamous" to be crap that has been stuffed down you ladies' throats and I think it's time you spit it back up. Peace and comfort, Michael**

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:09:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Anyway, enough of my ranting. I just find the whole "woman are naturally monogamous" to be crap that has been stuffed down you ladies' throats and I think it's time you spit it back up. No thank you. I truly want to marry someone and be with that person for the rest of my life. When I'm in a relationship I have no desire to see other people. You can date as many women as you want and they can date as many men as they want and I will make it a point to keep my mouth closed and not criticize your life choices. But telling everyone to reject monogamy is basically the same as telling everyone they have to be bisexual. Just because it gets you off doesn't mean it won't make someone else want to vomit. And vice versa.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi You can date as many women as you want and they can date as many men as they want and I will make it a point to keep my mouth closed and not criticize your life choices. But telling everyone to reject monogamy is basically the same as telling everyone they have to be bisexual. Just because it gets you off doesn't mean it won't make someone else want to vomit. And vice versa. Nowhere did I intend to tell people they had to be polyamorous. What I DID do, I think, is to make a fairly compelling case against monogamoy being "natural". I do NOT deny that some people live monogamous lifestyles and appear to be very happy, doing so. I merely pointed out that for a lot of people, monogamy was something that needed to be "worked at"; that they felt that they were "giving up something". Monogamy, to me, is a truly romantic state of being. It's a wonderful aspiration but, I don't believe that humans, as a species, are naturally disposed to it. Peace and comfort, Michael

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:26:24 PM)
Yes and that's why I didn't criticize the bulk of your post. I found it to be valid argument until you got to the point where you said "I think it's time you spit it back up" and dismissed the idea that anyone could be naturally monogamous. Not everyone feels like they're giving up something; quite a few feel like they're gaining something.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Anyway, enough of my ranting. I just find the whole "woman are naturally monogamous" to be crap that has been stuffed down you ladies' throats and I think it's time you spit it back up. Let's look VERY carefully at my wording: I DO believe that monogamy is a "movement" that has been forced upon us. I was stating my beliefs. So tell me: do you doubt that's what I believe or do you think my beliefs are "wrong"? Peace and comfort, Michael

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I canNOT believe that sex is a sin, any more than I can believe that homosexuality is (and I don't believe that, either). if homosexuality is a sin, then so is eating cheeseburgers and shellfish....its in the same book...why do they just want to pick and choose which of God's law's to follow? (btw i am furthering your point, not contesting it)

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:38:28 PM)
I think I might have misread the last sentence of your post. I took it to say that you feel anyone who enjoys monogamy has had "crap shoved down their throats and should spit it back up" but perhaps you were just saying that the idea that monogamy is natural for EVERYONE is crap. I'm still going with ThinkingKitten's answer of one is natural for some, the other is natural for others. I'm reminded of that scene in Brave New World where Lenina wants to see the same guy twice and is criticized for her feelings of 'attachment' - the current morality says more is better. I'm not a Christian or a Jew so I don't go for the 'go forth and multiply' thing. I consider myself a Westerner and a believer in rational thought and moderation. I was asking the question of what is 'natural' on a theoretical level - I also think striking out in anger is 'natural' but humans should moderate their desires. Which is where religion and morals come in...but are irrelevant to the question. I'm thinking a communal type atmosphere is most 'natural' biologically for humans - extended family and close knit clan ties. That would not preclude either monogomy or polyamory, hence it being a personal choice. But as far as considering monogamy an ideal that needs to be "spit up" I disagree completely. That's what the sexual revolution was all about - and I personally consider that to have had quite a few negative consequences that haven't yet been cleaned up. I guess however it's in a man's best interest to have non-monogamous women. He gets to enjoy the pussy without having to buy a ring [8D] (note: the emoticon represents me being facetious. Please do not reply to this final paragraph as though it were said seriously)

cloudboy -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:39:13 PM)
Its too bad Amayos has been decommissioned, for he had strong views on this matter. Without going into the bowels of your question: I think women tend to have a romantic view of monogamy v. a utilitarian one (family and child rearing.) I think this is as much cultural as it is biological. (Seeking true love and "the one.") As for utilitarian thinking, its quite common to see women excited about marrying into a lifestyle: aka a man who fits their checkist of: income, status, background, etc. Sometimes within this paradigm, who the guy actually is -- is besides the point. This way of thinking also has little to do with monogamy. As for lifetime monogamy, women and men are equally unsuited to it yet it remains a firmly entrenched, damaging, and self limiting goal.

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 Anyway, enough of my ranting. I just find the whole "woman are naturally monogamous" to be crap that has been stuffed down you ladies' throats and I think it's time you spit it back up. Let's look VERY carefully at my wording: I DO believe that monogamy is a "movement" that has been forced upon us. I was stating my beliefs. So tell me: do you doubt that's what I believe or do you think my beliefs are "wrong"? Honestly? I take that to mean your beliefs are that you think it is time women ("you ladies" meaning women as a whole and not the individual women currently in your life) spit it back up. Meaning that your belief is a generalization as to what is best for every woman (the definition of 'you ladies' when unqualified by limiting adjectives) and yes I do think that belief is wrong. If however you did not mean those words at face value, and instead were saying that you believe women who choose to spit it up should have the right to spit it up, I completely agree with you. That's not what the words say though, and I'm disagreeing with the words that you had posted.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty if homosexuality is a sin, then so is eating cheeseburgers and shellfish....its in the same book... Wow! Leviticus (I think that's the book) says that cheeseburgers are a sin? The KKK is gonna be pissed when they find out that there "Eliminate Homosexuality Beer Bust And Bar-B-Que" is a big no-no with "The Big Guy"! Okay, I may actually piss my pants at that one! Peace and comfort, Michael

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:44:08 PM)
meat and cheese together? go to a kosher restraunt and try and order that...

Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi Honestly? I take that to mean your beliefs are that you think it is time women ("you ladies" meaning women as a whole and not the individual women currently in your life) spit it back up. Meaning that your belief is a generalization as to what is best for every woman (the definition of 'you ladies' when unqualified by limiting adjectives) and yes I do think that belief is wrong. If however you did not mean those words at face value, and instead were saying that you believe women who choose to spit it up should have the right to spit it up, I completely agree with you. That's not what the words say though, and I'm disagreeing with the words that you had posted. What I meant was that women should not have to believe what (mostly) men have shoved down their throats for millenia. By buying into that reasoning, instead of allowing for the possibility that women should have choices, it impedes the very soul of some women. It is almost belittling women who just don't "feel monogamous". It makes them think that they're "wrong", "dirty", "slutty", "evil", "deranged", etc. You seem to acknowledge choice which is a good thing but, you also seem to say that anyone that disagrees with your choice is, obviously, not "normal". I don't buy that, one bit and, as I stated; there have been any number of studies that bear me out and any look at infidelity statistics will show you that nearly as many women as men "cheat" (or have cheated) in their relationships. While 90% of the people polled believe that infidelity is wrong (both genders), 60% of men and (up to, depending upon which poll) 45% of women have engaged in it. If monogamy were "natural" wouldn't infidelity be easy to avoid? Wouldn't less people engage in it? I think that's a fairly easy answer to the dilemna. If monogamy were "natural", we'd have far less "cheaters" and far few people (even in "happy" relationships) "complaining" about how it isn't easy. But, let's go deeper ... If you're in a monogamous relationship, is it okay to watch porn? Is it okay to go to strip clubs? Is a bachelor(/ette) party (complete with hookers or male strippers to "service the guests of honor") acceptable? Is it okay to "lust in your heart" as long as you don't bring such thoughts to fruition? If you fantasize about ANYONE other than your partner (EVER) are you TRULY monogamous naturally or are you suppressing urges for the sake of your relationship? Peace and comfort, Michael P.S. to Kitty: I grew up in Brooklyn. I was a "Shabbaz goy". I know from Glatt Kosher

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.910156E-02