|
xssve -> RE: A serious discussion about cuckolding (3/8/2012 10:35:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
Here's another:
http://www.hotwifelife.com/articles/not-without-my-wife/
This link had four pages of text. The words prostitution and polyandry were not included in any of the pages. The other link I could not access, as it only took Me to a log in screen for the New York Times.
If a breeding unit consists of one man and more than one woman, it's polygyny, if it's one woman and more than one man, it's polyandry. It's usually defined in terms of marriage in the abstract, but in praxis it's often much less formal.
Also see why handsome men make worse husbands, they get around a lot more and tend to be less attentive to their primary mate, they're more likely to be "bulls", and less likely to confine themselves to an exclusively monogamous relationship, so a typical polyandric breeding group, i.e., the most statistically likely, would include a group consisting of a female, a monogamous cuck, and a non monogamous bull.
Again, that would be the most statistically likely, a monogamous Bull is not out of the question, just statistically unlikely.
Prostitution is complex, socially, the Pimp is simultaneously a cuck and a polygynist (one man, many women), while the prostitute is a polyandrist (one women, many men), though this is not a widely accepted social definition, it's just a handle describes the breeding strategy, and if sex is involved, it's a breeding strategy.
It originally occurred to me when I was frequently being confronted with the perception that polygyny is "natural" and "normal", while polyandry is some sort of feminist weirdness - if you count prostitutes, polyandry is far more common and widespread than polygyny ever was - which again, makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, the woman is getting to pick and choose the fathers, while obtaining resources from multiple men - again, not that it works that way in terms of our common modern understanding of prostitution, but it does describe a possible social order of Gynocentric cultures, where women lived and raised children communally in a temple, priestesses, entertaining male suitors of their choice, who were required to make offerings (resources). e.g., the Bible makes a strong distinction between kedeshah or Qedasha, a temple prostitute, and zonah, a secular prostitute - the former were persecuted, the latter were not - i.e., "modern" prostitution may be a somewhat distorted version of Temple prostitution, which had religious underpinnings.
If we were talking about the average primate, no arrangement/definition would really apply, they're just plain "poly" - although pair bonding occurs, and there are exceptions within the order, the family Hominidae is not considered a pair bonding family.
For the record, I would disagree that this means monogamy in general is "unnatural" - humans display substantial adaptations that other members of the family Hominidae do not, there is no reason to suspect that monogamy is not one of these, it's simply not universal (see erotic plasticity). Humans are generalists, and display a wider wide range of behaviors than any other species, and for all intents and purposes, it would seem that both monogamy and poly are equally "natural", and of the subgroups, polyandry is as natural as polygyny.
All nature "cares about" are results.
http://www.google.com/#q=cuckolding+couples+happiness+study&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&ei=G-RYT9WyKrL_sQLEu-3QDQ&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9970e3d003ee7d92&biw=1280&bih=736
|
|
|
|
