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

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



Message

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 9:58:21 PM)

i think its wrong for my partner to go the strip club by him self...especially if he doesn't invite me...i want to go too!

edited to add: since we seem to be communicating in edits, rather than on the other side, Satyr, ummm translate? and use smaller words and short sentences?



Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:11:49 PM)

Chelle, a "Shabbaz goy" is a non-jew who receives a small amount of money for turning on the lights and lighting candles, etc. in a synagogue because Jewish beliefs prevent work from being done on the Sabbath (shabbaz).
 
 
 
 
 
Peace and comfort,
 
 
 
 
 
Michael



mnottertail -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:14:23 PM)

LOL,

Adoni elhaynu, Adoni echod.

Mail me a fiver.

Ron



xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:15:13 PM)

Yo when did I say whoever disagreed with me is not normal??? I said I don't approve of everyone's life choices but that doesn't make them abnormal freaks.  People are way too sensitive about being 'judged' which is why I generally just coddle people and tell them "no its okay, you're okay, I'm okay everyone is damn okay" but just because it's "okay" doesn't mean I approve of it. 

And you know what? I don't have to approve of it.  Nobody is going to stop living their life the way they want to simply because some internet person doesn't approve of it.  Who cares whether or not I approve?  In fact if somebody needs approval for their choices they probably aren't ready to be making them.

Also - just because someone thinks infidelity is wrong doesn't mean they won't do it.  I haven't ever cheated because that is one moral I have that I follow to the letter.  However I also think stealing is wrong - doesn't mean I've never done it.  It just means that when I did it, I knew I was doing something wrong.  I have a SERIOUS problem with people who adjust their morality so that everything they do is moral.  For God's sakes are we that scared of doing something wrong that we have to instead change our mind and say it's right? 

And you're right, I do think that supports the idea that monogamy isn't natural.  I stated quite a few posts ago that after reading the posts and thinking about it I think that neither monogomy nor polygamy are natural, but rather that a clan atmosphere is natural and mono/poly is an individual choice.  And I would like to stress, yet again, that natural does not mean moral.  It simply means natural - the inherent instincts of the organism.  Morals are entirely different, they are a product of a higher consciousness that take some damn work to adhere to.  Throwing out morality because "its too damn hard to do the right thing" is like saying everyone should be on welfare because "it's too damn hard to wake up every morning and go to work" - might sound nice but won't lead to a healthy and productive society.

And as far as this goes....
quote:

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?


I can only answer for myself.  If I were in a monogamous relationship I wouldn't go to strip clubs or hookers.  I most likely wouldn't be able to banish all thoughts of other men from my mind BUT at the same time I wouldn't encourage and feed the fantasy so it turned into lust.

And I would say that fantasies flitting through one's mind are different than fantasies intentionally encouraged, and definitely different than fantasies acted upon.  If I had a thought in my head to stab a man who broke my heart it wouldn't make me a natural born killer.  If however I cultivated the fantasy, and encouraged it to develop I would probably have some natural violent tendencies, and if I brought the fantasy to fruition then yes, I would be a killer.

As I stated at the beginning of the post, thoughts can only be thought of once you have learned the language of a society, and that means you're already ingrained in it.  There is no way to consider thoughts to be natural instinct because they have been influenced by every single thing you've experienced up until the thought was conceived.  They might be natural, they might be conditioned, they might be a product of both, but there is absolutely no way to determine.



Satyr6406 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:17:59 PM)

But, we ARE natural killers! We're "hunter/gatherers". The point is that 'society" has told us that murder is wrong! You're making my point!
 
 
 
 
 
Peace and comfort,
 
 
 
 
 
Michael



xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:26:39 PM)

How am I making your point?  This thread has nothing to do with whether or not humans are natural killers.  It also has nothing to do with morality.

I specifically differentiated between "nature" and "morality" several times.  Nature = instinct.  Morality = limiting instinct through social conditioning.

I was asking about the nature of the organism.  Once again I will repeat that I do not consider monogamy to be the natural state of the organism.  I've said that at least three times now after reading the replies to my OP.

You are arguing that morality inhibits natural instinct.  Well duh.  That's kind of the point of morality.  If you want to discuss whether morality is beneficial or not, I will say that it is beneficial and we can go from there.  But either I'm seriously missing your point or you're seriously missing mine because I don't see a contradiction in our beliefs of whether monogamy is natural.



Emperor1956 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:43:09 PM)

Fast Reply to a few things:

First, whether you believe in the premise of the OP or not, if you base your entire argument on Christianity's influence, then you are ignoring the 12,000 years or so of human history that occurred prior to the birth of Jesus, as well as the approximately 3/4 of the world's population that isn't Christian and has no use for Christianity.  I.E. you are basing your argument -- regardless of what side you take -- on an ethnocentric, narrow view.  Of course, the people who push both the Xian and the anti-Xian agenda no matter what the issue is tend to be ethnocentric and narrow, so no big surprise.  Do you really think the societies of ancient Asia and Africa didn't deal with issues of monogamy?  Get over yourselves and get outside your white, Christian, American world view.

Second, you cannot discuss the issue of women being monogamous if you don't address the issue of controlling conception.  All of this talk about "women's choices" is pretty much crap -- except for the vanishingly small number of women who delayed/avoided conception thru hit-or-miss herbal remedies, sexual avoidance (being lesbian or a nun), starvation (which prevents ovulation, but has some other undesirable side effects) or biological quirk, throughout human (and humanoid) history, most women were pregnant or nursing throughout their entire adult lives.  Monogamy is not a choice, it is a requirement, when you are 16, starving, and -- if you get enough to eat -- you ovulate and get knocked up...again.  That describes the life of the "Western" woman up until about the mid-eighteenth century.   Allow women to control their own conceptions, and you have a sexual revolution.  Or haven't you been paying attention since about 1960?

And by the way, someone chose to erroneously define "Shabbos goy".  It is NOT a non-Jewish person who provides services in the synagogue.  It is a non Jew who provides services in the home of an observant Jew on the Sabbath when those services are otherwise forbidden to the homeowner because of the restrictions on work and creation observed by religious Jews on the day of rest.  The person who does similar tasks in the synagogue was called the "sexton" (in English) or the "shamus" (in Yiddish).   Historically this was a non-Jew paid by the community to keep the synagogue clean and neat; it has evolved into a paid custodial position which can be held by a Jew or a non-Jew.

Glad we got that taken care of.

E.




MstrSkyWoIf -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:48:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squeakers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl

ShiftedJewel, if you're gonna throw Christianity in there - "...But society, or to be more blunt, the Christians, saw that as sinful and pushed monogamy, as well as heterosexual relations only, on many societies", at least get your facts straight.
 
If one believes in the Holy Bible and Christianity and all that - as I do - one has to start at the beginning, i.e. Genesis. According to such, there was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Julie and Stacy and Karen, nor Adam and Eve and Roger and Mario and Andre, JUST Adam and Eve. They were exclusive. You can say they kinda didn't have a choice as it was only them two but their offspring were also monogamous as were theirs and so on for several generations. I'm not making assumptions, I'm basing it on fact given in the Word; when man became polygamous, the Word says so, it tells of David and his many wives and other Kings and their many wives. With this in mind, one would have to deduce that monogamy was the natural state of affairs until man and/or society made it otherwise. This is the position I personally hold but I will now be quiet for this is not a thread on Christianity nor its effects on this lifestyle or vice-versa.

Sorry for the hijacking, xoxi..."And now back to your regularly scheduled thread..."
You are reinforcing the point that it is a society thing.    The Christan Society believes that it should be monogamous hetrosexual.    I would like to take it a step further, MANY Christians believe that a couple who live together, live in sin because they are not married.    And it is my belief that if I were to enquire a person who is a leader in a Christian Religion (not all because I am sure with the diversity of Christian Religions out there some may not have a problem with it)  if my lifestyle of serving a Master and engaging in BDSM were following the Christian Societies values, I would more than likely get lots of negative feed back.   


Ok before any one gets there ass in a uppror the fallowing is only my opinion and I do not judge anyone who lives different then I do or who in fact does not agree with me. We all are born with free will and free choice and I respect your right to chose what is wright for you just as I hope you respect my wright to chose what is wright for me.

As a Christian myself I do not feel the heart of the lifestyle goes against the Christian religion at all. As BDsbaby points out that We started out with Adam and Eve. Now do not get me wrong as a Christian I also do not believe I was put on this earth to judge anyone and in fact feel we are to love all man kind. So what you do is your business. I also do not feel as a Christian I go against any of the bibles teaching being Dominant as it states Woman shall be submissive to man. That said and it is only my opinion I do feel that the need for more then one partner by a Man or woman is based on the inability to commit emotionally to one mate and may also be society driven in the fact if he or she has more then one sub he must be special.... I often wonder and again it is only my opinion if woman or men who agree to be one of many have a lower self worth then those who desire one on one relationships.



Kellendra -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 10:52:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Satyr6406

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

 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? 
 Michael 

Am one of those childless and monogamous kind of women.
Have been so for 12 years and I don't think monogamy is a natural state for anyone male or female but is something that  does require constant work.
I love my husband, that is not changed by my attraction for others I am not dead afterall. I just choose not to act on it.
So I agree (for myself only, can not speak for others) with what Michael has said about suppressing urges for the sake of a relationship.
I admit to it, that is perhaps my only difference.



Perplex -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 6:30:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Satyr6406

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.
 


I won't argue with what you believe.

If you look though at natural humans (still in tribal societies, africa, alaska, mongolia, terra del felgo (pardon the spellign of that one) you see a mixture but the ideals of monogomy are practiced, just not between man & wife, but between same-sex long time friends/hunter (crafter/gatherer) partners, the marriage bed is only the place to go to make babies.

so I'm not so sure you can blame priests directly for this one, yes for five thousand years they have been the ones pounding the drum but I suspect it started back further with alliances between tribes, to ensure the offspring of the daddy were actually the daddy's ..in matriacal societies ensuring your rights is a bitch..pardon the pun... and as we civilized this DNA bonding...ensuring you kid was your kid and you're not giving half the village's hunting rights away to some little bastard...grew into what we have today.  so the sum & total of man's existance on the planet has been divorce lawyers. 

now try to have pleasant dreams tonight. 



thetammyjo -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 7:57:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

Second, you cannot discuss the issue of women being monogamous if you don't address the issue of controlling conception. All of this talk about "women's choices" is pretty much crap -- except for the vanishingly small number of women who delayed/avoided conception thru hit-or-miss herbal remedies, sexual avoidance (being lesbian or a nun), starvation (which prevents ovulation, but has some other undesirable side effects) or biological quirk, throughout human (and humanoid) history, most women were pregnant or nursing throughout their entire adult lives. Monogamy is not a choice, it is a requirement, when you are 16, starving, and -- if you get enough to eat -- you ovulate and get knocked up...again. That describes the life of the "Western" woman up until about the mid-eighteenth century. Allow women to control their own conceptions, and you have a sexual revolution. Or haven't you been paying attention since about 1960?


Explain further this connection between monogamy and pregnancy?

Once you are pregnant I think would be exceedingly rare to get pregnant again during that time. Therefore what exactly prevents a woman from having multiple lovers after she is pregnant or before she is?

I haven't personally been pregnant but my mother and my sisters and some friends have. They've told me that they stayed sexually active during the first several months if not through most of their pregnancy. In fact of few of them said it freed them emotionally to have more sex because "what else can happen now?"

A pregnant woman will benefit from a support system to help her through that period and the immediate years afterwards but why would that support system need to be the offspring's biological father or any one person in particular?



BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 8:31:21 AM)

Again, I did not make my post to start an argument as to what the Bible says and about whether it's valid or not, but...
quote:

Cain and Abel took wives. Either there were more people there then just the Adam and Eve family or in the beginning incest was the going trend?

I guess you forgot the part where God told Eve that her birthing pains would "multiply"; I know some "assuming" has to be done at this point, but it seems that if her pains were to "multiply" there had to be some in the first place, which means she already had children, before the named Cain and Abel...
 
quote:

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.

I'm pretty sure that when that statement was made, there were still only Adam and Eve so obviously they were to multipy with each other..
 
Much as I'd like to go on in this fashion, I do not want to hijack this thread - I was merely putting in my .02 worth. I probably won't be back any time soon since there are other threads I'm much more interested in, but thanx for listening and answering and questioning...  





BDsbabygirl -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 8:47:54 AM)

One more thing, on the actual topic of this thread -- While I haven't ready every single post here, I have read quite a few of the "women are only monogamous because of society, but they are really ignoring their instincts" post, so I would like to speak to that...
 
I cannot speak for others and I refuse to generalize, but I am and always have been, completely monogamous, as in while I am not dead and I do notice other attractive men, when I am with someone, I have absolutely no thoughts about anyone else, for I only have eyes and thoughts for my man. Even when I notice other attractive men, it's in the same way that I notice a fine work of art - it's nice, but I'm only admiring it, not desiring it. I never, ever feel desire to hook up with another male when I am with someone and happy (lest anyone point out that my Dom is actually a cheat on my 'legal' husband; hubby and I are over, except for the paperwork, so he is not my focus, Big Daddy is). On other boards, it's been said that no one person can be someone else's all and in my case, that's simply not true. Big Daddy fulfills me completely and I have no desire for anyone else...
 
not male, anyway. I do have desires for females, on occasion, and we may explore that later on, but as for just opposite sex, no, I have no desires for any other males, doesn't even cross my mind.
 
Does my desire for female sex mean that I am not monogamous after all? Perhaps, but I would like to point out that when I think of other women, it's strictly a one-time thing, not something ongoing as in polyamory or "cheating". And once I've lived that fantasy, I probably will be completely monogamous, for once that desire has been fulfilled, I will desire nothing more than to continue my life with Big Daddy and with him only.
 
 



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 10:12:30 AM)

quote:

I guess you forgot the part where God told Eve that her birthing pains would "multiply"; I know some "assuming" has to be done at this point, but it seems that if her pains were to "multiply" there had to be some in the first place, which means she already had children, before the named Cain and Abel...


Whether Eve had 50 or just 2 children... some place along the line the sons "took wives".... so once again, either they were not the only inhabitants on this world or incest was the going thing. Whether her birthing was painful or not has no bearing on it what so ever.
 
And by the forth chapter in Genesis, look it up...It's in the "begets" part. Lamech took unto him two wives, wow, poly so early on?
 
Jewel



LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 10:31:02 AM)

the point of things are you can be monogamous or you can be anything you want. be a fractal person if you want to never be complete always trying to find that next buzz or rush or life experience to heighten your awareness.
   But you will be chasing the moon so to speak cause it will never be enough and there will always be a distraction in your growth path. Look at it this way. In any given profession. People study and work hard to be the best in the profession. Relationships should be the same way. We all want the best out of a Relationship with someone. Some people have the idea that you can multi partner a relationship and expect it to last a long time. Some do but thats a minority. kinda of like playing the lotto
 
 If you want peace and happiness maybe you need to look at what it takes to commit and build something to be with someone..
 
I think it is normal to be monogamous. it creates less stress and everyone grows together. If the communication is good.



FullfigRIMaam -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 10:37:15 AM)

The short answer for myself and as far as I've known thus far, is that monogamy is a nature thing for women, maybe because of our ability/need to nurture and propagate for the future.   Having said that, my statement I believe applies only to a majority (>50%), and we've had a lot of variations on what transpires between what one is born with, and what one ends up with at the end of the communion between nature and nurture.   M



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 11:00:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

the point of things are you can be monogamous or you can be anything you want. be a fractal person if you want to never be complete always trying to find that next buzz or rush or life experience to heighten your awareness.
   But you will be chasing the moon so to speak cause it will never be enough and there will always be a distraction in your growth path. Look at it this way. In any given profession. People study and work hard to be the best in the profession. Relationships should be the same way. We all want the best out of a Relationship with someone. Some people have the idea that you can multi partner a relationship and expect it to last a long time. Some do but thats a minority. kinda of like playing the lotto
 
 If you want peace and happiness maybe you need to look at what it takes to commit and build something to be with someone..
 
I think it is normal to be monogamous. it creates less stress and everyone grows together. If the communication is good.


I really don't want to rain on your parade but my husband and I are one of the most well adjusted couples I've ever met. Our communication is awesome, our relationship is enviable, and our marriage is incredibly secure and happy. We aren't looking for that next buzz or life experience to bring us to "ghandi" stature, we're extremely happy. We're poly because that's what we choose to be. The stress level in our home is all but non-existant, it's a peaceful, enjoyable place to be. I've read enough of your posts to know exactly where you stand on poly... as I'm sure you have done the same for me. So hopefully you also know by now that I couldn't give a rats ass if the whole world went poly or if we were the only ones.

The point of the OP was whether monogamy was nature or nuture. That's the discussion I was/am involved in and am simply explaining my point of view.

Jewel



LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/9/2007 11:28:12 AM)

as i said there are always a few exceptions. Dose not make it the rule of the world. just like cells your always going to have some that change and cause different things but the majority of cells are going to do their programmed fuctions  



Wickad -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 12:20:09 PM)

(fast reply)

I've always found it amazing that misogyny has been so effective as to have women policing the boundries placed on us by a pathology that hates us.  

Wickad



xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/10/2007 12:21:45 PM)

Wickad - that is a very strong statement.  Please elaborate?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125