Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

Long Onion

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Mr Benevolent

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

You've just answered your own question.

WindSock

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Also, lame answer: Love

stovelid

Long Onion wrote: »

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted, or what else am I going to say as she might be reading this.

fyp

Long Onion

Confab wrote: »

You've just answered your own question.

I get your point, I suppose I was geeting at the fact that society just expects that monogamy is the default option. Mutual decisions aside, what makes it the default?

WindSock wrote: »

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Don't quite see what you mean - do you mean that biology pre-programmed men to be monogamous so they would invest in their kids? I would not agree with this - fathers and mothers still have affairs without neglecting their kids.

WindSock wrote: »

Also, lame answer: Love

Not a lame answer, but, I suspect, a common one. Can you only love one person at a time? Or do you remain monogamous because you love the person and expect that this is what they want from the relationship - in which case we are back to the original question about the default option.

I suspect that the whole issue is rooted in insecurity at some level.

Min

Monogamy is the best way to stop the spread of sexual diseases, in Africa where some had more than one sexual partner it was found to be the number one reason for the spread of diseases like HIV.

wudangclan

copy-pasta'd thoughts on robert bakers book 'sperm wars'.

The title immediately drew my interest, but the book description clinched it. Baker explores some recently discovered facts about sex that completely debunk some age-old biological assumptions.


Hogamus, higamus
Men are polygamous
Higamus, hogamus
Women, monogamous


It turns out that this old bit of folk wisdom isn't quite so true or wise after all. What is true is thatten percent of children are not fathered by their legal "fathers"; less than one percent of a man’s sperm is capable of fertilization (the rest is there to fight off all other men’s sperm); vaginal mucus encourages some sperm but blocks others; and a woman is far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with her regular partner.

In other words, nature itself expects people to be nonmonogamous, at least biologically, and has adapted reproductive strategies to this fact. Society may take a dim view of infidelity, group sex, partner-swapping, and the like, but these practices nevertheless may enhance an individual's reproductive success compared with long-term monogamy.

stateofflux

Long Onion wrote: »

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

we are conditioned in western society to be monogamous by the church and by the government as it causes less hassle and keeps church and govt in power and wealth. in my opinion most people are possessive by nature and can't handle polygamy due to jealousy and/or insecurity ....basically no one wants to risk being alone.......

WindSock

Long Onion wrote: »

Don't quite see what you mean - do you mean that biology pre-programmed men to be monogamous so they would invest in their kids? I would not agree with this - fathers and mothers still have affairs without neglecting their kids.

No, so they know that the kid is theirs and not someone elses. Moreso on the womans side that they are to remain monogamous. This I suppose is more a social condition that arises out of biology.
In regards to childers being born, it would confuse the child on who their parents are and the whole inheritence thing would get complicated.

Not a lame answer, but, I suspect, a common one. Can you only love one person at a time? Or do you remain monogamous because you love the person and expect that this is what they want from the relationship - in which case we are back to the original question about the default option.

I suspect that the whole issue is rooted in insecurity at some level.

Lame as in an easy answer. If you truely love some one, they are your world and you don't want to be intimate with other people. Although some might.

Sea Sharp

I remember hearing that our cousins the chimpanzees are mostly bisexual and regularly partake in gang-rape. I'd say, whilst not being as bad the instinctive human it is not what we like to acknowledge.

It's safe to say that monogamy is the result of religious influence. And it probably made a constructive contribution towards the evolution of the modern human social structure

I'd imagine loose bronze age women were the cause of a lot of killings back in the day.

However now it's 2009, you should view a healthy sex life as being constructive in the same way as a healthy diet or regular exercise.

WindSock

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I remember hearing that our cousins the chimpanzees are mostly bisexual and regularly partake in gang-rape.

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day. Any agressive uprisings are quickly put down by orgies. They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Sea Sharp

They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Unlike the Celts, Romans and Greeks. Or pretty much the majority of ancient cultures.

There ye go, a positive contribution to society made by Christianity.

stateofflux

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I'd imagine loose bronze age women were the cause of a lot of killings back in the day.

lol...thats brilliant..:pac::pac:

scanlas

WindSock wrote: »

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Also, lame answer: Love

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

Poor Uncle Tom

Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

I agree, it's over rated, Teak and Iroko have excellent qualities for hardwoods as well.

Capt'n Midnight

WindSock wrote: »

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day. Any agressive uprisings are quickly put down by orgies. They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Tis a pity we went down the aggressive route of the Chimps rather than those on the other bank of the Congo.

what a very different world it could have been, it's reckoned that up to 25% of our ancestors died violent deaths from each other

Capt'n Midnight

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

I agree, it's over rated, Teak and Iroko have excellent qualities for hardwoods as well.

Still it's good for the old gas pipes.

johnathan woss

scanlas wrote: »

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

Poor Uncle Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Still it's good for the old gas pipes.

Tut, tut, hardly the green option, Captain.....:D

Earthhorse

It was me OP. I decided it.

Sorry, I did try and cc you on the meeting request but my Outlook's been playing up recenlty.

****: did this even send. :mad:

scanlas

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

Why do you hate men so much? I don't get it.

orourkeda

Eat, Bang and be merry

wudangclan

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

this post stands alone as correct,in my opinion.
why attack him for posts in other forums?

Davidius

Monogamy is so much easier if anything. You only have to get one.

Besides, it's easier to keep track of your sperm.

scanlas

It works out better for the men who wouldn't normally be getting sex without it.

orourkeda

Davidius wrote: »

Monogamy is so much easier if anything. You only have to get one.

Besides, it's easier to keep track of your sperm.

CONDOMS

4zn76tysfajdxp

WindSock wrote: »

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day.

Like me, without the sex part. Rest of it is spot on though.

minidazzler

Personally I don't agree with Monogamy. I would be exclusive with a girl, but only have sex with one girl for the rest of my life???

Whoever I settle with better be into Key-parties.

orestes

Long Onion wrote: »

Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans

The whole swans mating for life thing is a myth. Was heartbroken the day I found that out, damned romanticism

Dragan

scanlas wrote: »

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

I would think your line of argument is slightly skewed. Beyond the need to pump out babies, in most points in history men had very little need for women beyond a bit of sexual release and looking after the house. Men had the jobs and controlled the economic flow, as you so aptly pointed out.

However, the logic that this would somehow make them require a singular lover is very much misplaced.

Be you noble, or serf, your wife was below you.

As such, it would be FAR more beneficial to a woman to be married to a man, and supported by a system that promotes loyalty and fidelity to your partner, as a woman with no support would die in the street, so, she could gut fish, or sell fish...if you get me.

Now, all broad generalities i admit, but applicable to the argument nonetheless.

scanlas

Dragan wrote: »

I would think your line of argument is slightly skewed. Beyond the need to pump out babies, in most points in history men had very little need for women beyond a bit of sexual release and looking after the house. Men had the jobs and controlled the economic flow, as you so aptly pointed out.

However, the logic that this would somehow make them require a singular lover is very much misplaced.

Be you noble, or serf, your wife was below you.

As such, it would be FAR more beneficial to a woman to be married to a man, and supported by a system that promotes loyalty and fidelity to your partner, as a woman with no support would die in the street, so, she could gut fish, or sell fish...if you get me.

Now, all broad generalities i admit, but applicable to the argument nonetheless.

It wasn't easy for those men to get that sexual release though.

Most men were generally low status with little power, marriage allowed a man to lock in a woman and know that her children were his ( or so he thought). Women did benefit greatly from marriage, they got a lifetime of support in exchange for exclusive access to their sexuality ( so it says in the contract anyway). But the rules of marriage run counter to a woman's natural instincts. She was designed to mate with alpha types and diversify her offspring. Marriage and it's connotations combined with a woman's contradictory natural instincts is the cause of that whole madonna/whore complex, or whatever you call it. The reason women are still afraid to express their sexual desires even today is that it makes it harder for her to get a high quality husband and lowering her status. You often hear men say about hot openly sexual women, I'd shag her, but not a chance I'd go out with her or marry her. They fear she'll go around shagging other men. They are in the mistaken belief that the seemingly nice ones don't have the sexual apetite of the openly sexual ones.

So marriage has benefits and drawbacks for both sexes. It's certainly out of alignment for a man and woman's natural instincts.

philologos

Long Onion wrote: »

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Monogamy simply comes out of respect for other human beings, and out of compassion for them. Not only for other human beings but for yourself. It's about commitment and being able to say that you want to be with someone in particular because they are special and can offer you something that nobody else can.

Having said your post is a lot more reasonable than the one quoted below:

scanlas wrote:

To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

Ever thought that a lot of women (probably the vast majority) seek to be in a monogamous relationship? It's nothing to do with misogyny in any respect, but to do with respect for one another. Apparently that's something that people have left truly behind.

Rosita

Long Onion wrote: »

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife

What is your issue with monogamy then? You sound like a member of the Pioneers giving out about abstinence.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

Monogamy simply comes out of respect for other human beings, and out of compassion for them. Not only for other human beings but for yourself. It's about commitment and being able to say that you want to be with someone in particular because they are special and can offer you something that nobody else can.

Having said your post is a lot more reasonable than the one quoted below:


Ever thought that a lot of women (probably the vast majority) seek to be in a monogamous relationship? It's nothing to do with misogyny in any respect, but to do with respect for one another. Apparently that's something that people have left truly behind.

I never said it was anything to do with misogyny, a lot of men don't like women expressing their sexuality out of insecurity and fear. They could love women more than anyone else, but it threatens some men. By the way I never said there was anything wrong with monogymy. It just tends to cause a lot of sexual frustration in both sexes. That boils over a lot in cheating and the surprising rate of non paternity.

I don't see how monogymy comes out of respect for other human beings, it comes out of two people loving each other. Open relationships can also come out of love, often more so than monogomous ones. A lot of people who say they love each other as well don't actually love each other, it's more of two egos feeding off each other. You see that in couples who are continually fighting over stupid things.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

I never said it was anything to do with misogyny, a lot of men don't like women expressing their sexuality out of insecurity and fear. They could love women more than anyone else, but it threatens some men. By the way I never said there was anything wrong with monogymy. It just tends to cause a lot of sexual frustration in both sexes. That boils over a lot in cheating and the surprising rate of non paternity.

This is clearly a sexist portrayal though. It's true in the reverse also. Some women could feel threatened by a particularly attractive man in a relationship. That doesn't mean in any meaningful way that cheating is acceptable socially.

scanlas wrote: »

I don't see how monogymy comes out of respect for other human beings, it comes out of two people loving each other. Open relationships can also come out of love, often more so than monogomous ones. A lot of people who say they love each other as well don't actually love each other, it's more of two egos feeding off each other. You see that in couples who are continually fighting over stupid things.

I do. If you cause someone to be emotionally attached to you, one should be trying not to hurt their feelings if they want to be seriously involved with them in a relationship.

Love is more important than sex IMO, that's probably why we differ.

Couples who fight over stupid things are not the overall product or aim of monogamy.

scanlas wrote: »

It works out better for the men who wouldn't normally be getting sex without it.

Seriously, watch this and tell me that it's not equally valid:

scanlas wrote: »

It works out better for the women who wouldn't normally be getting sex without it.

scanlas

Firstly I never said sex was more important than love. If I indicated that point it out to me.

The main benefit of marriage to women in general is support and commitment, especially for a family. Women can have sex anytime a lot more easily than men. The reason women criticise women who openly sleep around is because they are a threat to the market price for sex, that being support and/or commitment. So support and commitment from marriage is the main benefit.

Put it this way, if everyone could have sex with whoever they wanted whenever they wanted the number of men deciding never to have a monogomous relationship would be a lot greater than the number of women deciding never to have a monogomous relationship.

anonymous_joe

Monogamy merely exists because civilisations roots are found in agrarian societies.

This tends to lead to inheritance via primo geniture, i.e. the eldest son. In a monogamous relationship, you've a decent chance of being the father of your son, thus avoiding any complications of inheritance, etc.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

The main benefit of marriage to women in general is support and commitment, especially for a family. Women can have sex anytime a lot more easily than men. The reason women criticise women who openly sleep around is because they are a threat to the market price for sex, that being support and/or commitment. So support and commitment from marriage is the main benefit.

The main benefit of marriage is support and commitment irrespective of gender.

The reason anyone criticises anyone who has loose sexuality is because they do not regard it highly, they regard it as a mere bodily activity rather than anything of worth.

scanlas wrote: »

Put it this way, if everyone could have sex with whoever they wanted whenever they wanted the number of men deciding never to have a monogomous relationship would be a lot greater than the number of women deciding never to have a monogomous relationship.

What are you basing this on? Please back this up with sources if you have any.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

The main benefit of marriage is support and commitment irrespective of gender.

The reason anyone criticises anyone who has loose sexuality is because they do not regard it highly, they regard it as a mere bodily activity rather than anything of worth.



What are you basing this on? Please back this up with sources if you have any.

Well I disagree, I think the main benefits to your average man are sexual.

How does a woman having sex with lots of people not regard it highly, surely she values it more highly to enjoy it so much. Do these people criticise women who enjoy playing a variety of sports because they must not regard sport very highly.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

Well I disagree, I think the main benefits to your average man are sexual.

This is the reason why I believe you put sex above love.

However, I believe that women do benefit from the sexual element of a marriage also. Unless you are really implying that women need to sleep around to enjoy sexual activity?

doctoremma wrote: »

How does a woman having sex with lots of people not regard it highly, surely she values it more highly to enjoy it so much. Do these people criticise women who enjoy playing a variety of sports because they must not regard sport very highly.

That isn't the right comparison. It is like one person playing the same game on many different teams. Where there is such an emotional connection to sexuality it is highly unfair to cheat on other people. It's morally repugnant to say the least.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the reason why I believe you put sex above love.

However, I believe that women do benefit from the sexual element of a marriage also. Unless you are really implying that women need to sleep around to enjoy sexual activity?



That isn't the right comparison. It is like one person playing the same game on many different teams. Where there is such an emotional connection to sexuality it is highly unfair to cheat on other people. It's morally repugnant to say the least.

You can have love without monogomy. You made a giant leap of logic to come to the conclusion I put sex above love. Also you seem to implying that it's wrong to put sex above love. A person's values are there own to make. It's not wrong if a person puts the taste of orange juice above love, that would be their own personal value judgement. Neither right nor wrong.

Women can enjoy sex more easily without marriage or monogamy, marriage therefore provides a greater sexual benefit to men.

Also, just because you are not in a monogomous relationship does not mean you are cheating. Ever heard of open relationships.

I mentioned women sleeping around and you jumped to the conclusion that they must be cheating. The sport analogy is valid. You say a woman who sleeps around doesn't regard sex highly, I maintain that she values it more highly because she wants a wider variey and/or more of it.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

You can have love without monogomy. You made a giant leap of logic to come to the conclusion I put sex above love. Also you seem to implying that it's wrong to put sex above love. A person's values are there own to make. It's not wrong if a person puts the taste of orange juice above love, that would be their own personal value judgement. Neither right nor wrong.

1. I'm not entirely sure that it is possible to have true love without monogamy.

2. Yes, I am saying it's wrong to put sex above love.

3. As for a persons values being their own to make. This is true within reason, but ultimately there are societal norms concerning things. How universal you deem morality or values to be is pretty much based on your worldview. It is clear that mine is in polar opposition to yours.

4. If I were in a relationship, I would consider it wrong to put orange juice above love for my partner. (I'm assuming that was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum?)

5. The choices we do make have either positive or negative influences on our circumstances and on the circumstances of others, they also have intentions behind them either good or bad.

scanlas wrote: »

Women can enjoy sex more easily without marriage or monogamy, marriage therefore provides a greater sexual benefit to men.

This is baseless. Utterly baseless, you haven't once given me a reason for your sexist claims so far.

scanlas wrote: »

Also, just because you are not in a monogomous relationship does not mean you are cheating. Ever heard of open relationships.

I assume you are referring to swinging and the like?

In the vast majority of cases in our society not being monogamous means cheating.

scanlas wrote: »

I mentioned women sleeping around and you jumped to the conclusion that they must be cheating. The sport analogy is valid. You say a woman who sleeps around doesn't regard sex highly, I maintain that she values it more highly because she wants a wider variey and/or more of it.

It's utterly invalid. It's the same as one person playing one sport for many different teams.

Yes, I do hold that anyone (not just women, before I get people claiming otherwise) who enagges in sexual activity with multiple partners is cheapening sexual activity as an act that is special and to be shared with someone that one loves and cares about. That's my moral take on the subject, people are entitled to differ.

In All Fairness

orestes wrote: »

The whole swans mating for life thing is a myth. Was heartbroken the day I found that out, damned romanticism

Fcuked off with the gasman, mate ? Rough.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I'm not entirely sure that it is possible to have true love without monogamy.

Their are many couples who love each other who allow eachother to have sex with other couples because they value their love so much and want to see each other happy, the purest form of love IMO is when their is no jealousy.

Jakkass wrote: »

4. If I were in a relationship, I would consider it wrong to put orange juice above love for my partner. (I'm assuming that was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum?).

Although it's strange, I wouldn't find it wrong so long as you are honest about it. I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and values.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is baseless. Utterly baseless, you haven't once given me a reason for your sexist claims so far.

Your average single woman can have sex more easily than your average man. That's not sexist, that's a simple fact.

Jakkass wrote: »

I assume you are referring to swinging and the like?

In the vast majority of cases in our society not being monogamous means cheating.

I'm referring to open relationships (where you allow each other to have sex with other people), one night stands, f*** buddies, multiple relationships. I wasn't referring to swinging or cheating.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I do hold that anyone (not just women, before I get people claiming otherwise) who enagges in sexual activity with multiple partners is cheapening sexual activity as an act that is special and to be shared with someone that one loves and cares about. That's my moral take on the subject, people are entitled to differ.

Why is sex special and to be shared with one you love and care about? That's one side of sex that is great but there are other sides of sex that are great too, raw animalistic sex between two people who are attracted is great as well. What's wrong with that if both parties enjoy themselves?
You say it's your moral take on it, why is it immoral for two people to enjoy sex through attraction not love. Break that down for me, makes no sense. what does "cheapen" mean anyway? anything that makes two people feel good and enjoy themselves is a positive thing so long as no one else is getting hurt. How can you possibly dispute that?

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

Their are many couples who love each other who allow eachother to have sex with other couples because they value their love so much and want to see each other happy, the purest form of love IMO is when their is no jealousy.

I would be highly sceptical as to how genuine that is. If it does occur it is certainly much rarer than you make it out to be.

scanlas wrote: »

Although it's strange, I wouldn't find it wrong so long as you are honest about it. I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and values.

Moral relativism vs Moral universalism, that's what the main difference between us is.

scanlas wrote: »

Your average single woman can have sex more easily than your average man. That's not sexist, that's a simple fact.

If it is a fact you will have to back it up. Your "facts" seem to be nothing more than subjective rambling.

scanlas wrote: »

I'm referring to open relationships (where you allow each other to have sex with other people), one night stands, f*** buddies, multiple relationships. I wasn't referring to swinging or cheating.

I would consider monogamy to be a superior structure to any of these. I'd have moral issues with one night stands, "friends with benefits" or multiple relationships.

scanlas wrote: »

Why is sex special and to be shared with one you love and care about? That's one side of sex that is great but there are other sides of sex that are great too, raw animalistic sex between two people who are attracted is great as well. What's wrong with that if both parties enjoy themselves?

I think monogamy is special because you are saying to someone, I care about you so much that I only want to be involved with you. I want to share all that I have with you. This of course is inclusive of body for sexual relationships.

As for "raw animalistic sex", people are entitled to act like animals if they wish, however it is important to take into account that human beings are rational animals, not animals in the same respect to other creatures due to this ability to have self-consciousness which animals generally do not have. Sexuality for humans is deeper than in the case of animals because of this self-consciousness.

scanlas wrote: »

You say it's your moral take on it, why is it immoral for two people to enjoy sex through attraction not love. Break that down for me, makes no sense.

It's my moral take yes, and it's my moral take because I believe that sex should accompany a relationship in order to build upon it, I believe there is a cognitive value to it, and that being bound together physically shouldn't come before being bound together in love. What that binding together is debatable, I have personal views on what constitutes this, but this is the reasoning at it's most basic.

scanlas wrote: »

what does "cheapen" mean anyway? anything that makes two people feel good and enjoy themselves is a positive thing so long as no one else is getting hurt. How can you possibly dispute that?

It means that you devalue sexuality by giving it out to people as if it were free. Whereas if you reserve it for one individual, or at least a select few individuals throughout your life should relationships break down, you are saying that sex is meaningful for you, it isn't just something that is disposable, or something that doesn't matter the next day, but something that ultimately builds up relationships.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

It means that you devalue sexuality by giving it out to people as if it were free. Whereas if you reserve it for one individual, or at least a select few individuals throughout your life should relationships break down, you are saying that sex is meaningful for you, it isn't just something that is disposable, or something that doesn't matter the next day, but something that ultimately builds up relationships.

You seem to be implying sex should be treated as a commodity. Sex IMO is an terrible way to express love for someone. Hugs, kisses on the forehead, telling your partner how you feel, being kind and caring for your partner are ways to express your love to your partner. You say if you have sex for free you are devaluing sex, Does a hurling player not value his hurling by not charging his club or county to play, quite the opposite, he values it so much he plays for free. I say if you don't have sex that you want to you are devaluing yourself. You are saying you don't deserve the pleasure. (Assuming you are not cheating on anyone). So if you are a single woman for example with an intense desire to have sex with lots of different men and decide not to you are missing out on pleasure. Why miss out on pleasure, life is short.

Can you explain your reasoning why sex outside of monogomy is wrong? ( without just saying, it's my morals)

I think you place way too much importance on sex, I think it's something people do to enjoy and have babies that's it. Why do couples have sex, because it feels good. Why is sex so special? Love is more special in my opinion.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

You seem to be implying sex should be treated as a commodity. Sex IMO is an terrible way to express love for someone. Hugs, kisses on the forehead, telling your partner how you feel, being kind and caring for your partner are ways to express your love to your partner.

I have yet to see how I am the one who is saying that sex is a commodity in this discussion. That seems to be your role rather than mine.

See the last quote for further elaboration.

scanlas wrote: »

You say if you have sex for free you are devaluing sex, Does a hurling player not value his hurling by not charging his club or county to play, quite the opposite, he values it so much he plays for free. I say if you don't have sex that you want to you are devaluing yourself. You are saying you don't deserve the pleasure. (Assuming you are not cheating on anyone). So if you are a single woman for example with an intense desire to have sex with lots of different men and decide not to you are missing out on pleasure. Why miss out on pleasure, life is short.

I said if you give out sex too liberally, it cheapens the act, it removes significance or worth from it.

I don't mean worth as in financial worth.

You express the view that this is only applicable to women, which is simply nonsense. Your points are equally applicable to men.

Why miss out on pleasure? There is more to life than sex. Sex as an expression of love is more beneficial than sex as a meaningless act to be given out to anyone.

As for life being short, perhaps this life yes.

scanlas wrote: »

Can you explain your reasoning why sex outside of monogomy is wrong? ( without just saying, it's my morals)

I've already done this. If you disagree please state why rather than asking me to restate my reasoning.

scanlas wrote: »

I think you place way too much importance on sex, I think it's something people do to enjoy and have babies that's it. Why do couples have sex, because it feels good. Why is sex so special? Love is more special in my opinion.

I think a lot of people don't place enough importance on it.

Love and sex should be a part of the same thing rather than separated. You separate them out, however in the right context, I don't think they can be separated.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

I have yet to see how I am the one who is saying that sex is a commodity in this discussion. That seems to be your role rather than mine..

Nope, I've said people should have sex without expecting anything in return if they enjoy it and that's what they want to do. You are the one treating it like a commodity, increasing it's scarcity to increase it's value ( non monetary) are things you do with a commodity.

See the last quote for further elaboration.

Jakkass wrote: »

I said if you give out sex too liberally, it cheapens the act, it removes significance or worth from it..

Why should it be significant? The worth sex has is that it's enjoyable. So I assume you think if you have sex too often with your wife of husband it cheapens the act too. I play tennis, if I play tennis with too many people or too often does it cheapen the act of tennis or make it less signigicant. You seem to have some really weird mystical view of sex, it's just sex.

Jakkass wrote: »

You express the view that this is only applicable to women, which is simply nonsense. Your points are equally applicable to men..

Which points? I belive men should be allowed to have sex with lots of people to if that's what they want. Your jumping to conclusions.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why miss out on pleasure? There is more to life than sex. Sex as an expression of love is more beneficial than sex as a meaningless act to be given out to anyone.

I was discussing a hypothetical situation. Your the one treating sex like it's more important than it is. You keep going on about how we shouldn't devalue sex, why is sex so important, do you think we should be careful not to devalue singing by doing it too much or with too many people.

The truth is you've been brainwashed by religion. How do you explain the 5-15 percent non paternity rate, it would be even higher if the pill wasn't invented. We have evolved to cheat, I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is. Monogomy is a human perversion. It's forced. It's like jamming a square peg into a round hole.

Elliemental

Long Onion wrote: »

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

If you were tempted, you could always move to Utah

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

Nope, I've said people should have sex without expecting anything in return if they enjoy it and that's what they want to do. You are the one treating it like a commodity, increasing it's scarcity to increase it's value ( non monetary) are things you do with a commodity.

Value and meaning are important. They are the reason why peoples lives are fulfilled.

scanlas wrote: »

Why should it be significant? The worth sex has is that it's enjoyable. So I assume you think if you have sex too often with your wife of husband it cheapens the act too. I play tennis, if I play tennis with too many people or too often does it cheapen the act of tennis or make it less signigicant. You seem to have some really weird mystical view of sex, it's just sex.

It's this detachment of sex and love that I can't agree with. I think the reason why sexuality exists with us, and why God gave us this act is to further our relationships through mutual enjoyment of this act, and to reproduce. One follows from the other.

I'll leave your tennis analogy aside as it's flawed.

scanlas wrote: »

Which points? I belive men should be allowed to have sex with lots of people to if that's what they want. Your jumping to conclusions.

This isn't a question of "allowed", but rather it is a question of rights and wrongs.

scanlas wrote: »

I was discussing a hypothetical situation. Your the one treating sex like it's more important than it is. You keep going on about how we shouldn't devalue sex, why is sex so important, do you think we should be careful not to devalue singing by doing it too much or with too many people.

I'm not sure if I am the one making it more important. It just seems our understanding of sexuality in society has become lessened over time.

scanlas wrote: »

The truth is you've been brainwashed by religion. How do you explain the 5-15 percent non paternity rate, it would be even higher if the pill wasn't invented. We have evolved to cheat, I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is. Monogomy is a human perversion. It's forced. It's like jamming a square peg into a round hole.

Again, the insistence that we must ignore religion and what it says about our lives. If the understanding of sexuality that comes from Christianity promotes healthier relationships it's something that should be at least explored.

I have yet to see how monogamy is a perversion of anything. Children are raised with a mother and a father, and children are influenced both by them. Monogamy leads into the biological family unit.

I'll need you to back up the figures on the 5 - 15 front. Even if they are true, the conclusion should be to promote faithfulness rather than discourage it.

Prof.Badass

Long Onion wrote: »

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

scanlas wrote: »

So marriage has benefits and drawbacks for both sexes. It's certainly out of alignment for a man and woman's natural instincts.

Nobody decided upon it, it evolved by natural selection. Humans are naturally monogamous. You cannot deny that. If we weren't monogamous we wouldn't fall in love with each other.

When's the last time you heard of a free-love commune?

They were all the rage in the 60s but one by one they all collapsed because people inevitably fell in love and got jealous when their "lover" sleept with the others. Proof of our monagmous nature.
Believe it or not, we actually have special receptors in our brain's reward system that allow us to form pair-bonds and encourage males to take care of children. Most mammals don't.

However, just because we're monagamous doesn't mean some people won't cheat if they can get away with it. We never evolved any safegaurds against cheating because when we were evolving it was socially unaccaptable to begin within. The male who was cheated on would surely kick up a fuss. While it would make no evolutionary sense for him to kill his own mate she would have gotten a mighty beating. As for the cheating male, depending on the circumstances he could find himself the victim of a pre-historic murder.

However, the most important thing to bear in mind is that being in love doesn't last forever, and for very good reason. After being in love for a year or two kids would have entered the picture. A few more years down the line couples wouldn't be staying together because of being in love, rather they would stay together because they both have a common investment (the children) that they feel the need to personally see to.

It just doesn't make sense for people to stay in this "madly in love" phase forever, they'd end up neglecting their children. I'd assume sex would still be had as a release and to promote closeness.

The problem with society today is that people don't enter into the "kids" phase as early as is natural, and it makes no evolutionary sense for such a childless relationship to last. After going through a few childless relationships a person may find it hard move on from the "in love" stage to the parent stage despite now having kids in tow. Imo, such people who refuse to move on are selfish cúnts.

As for people who say they need casual sex.....

I'm perfectly happy to **** to my hearts content and pay the occasional visit to /s/ while i'm waiting on the right woman to come along (still got plenty of time ). Considering all the effort my friends go through on nights out to get laid (and only one has succeeded.....once...with a girl he could do well better than) I don't think I'm missing out on much tbh.