1 Woman for the rest of your life?

LegacyUser

Playboy wrote: »

Well the whole idea is a bit wishy washy to me .. I dont believe in true love or the perfect mate if you want to phrase it that way. I believe we have to adapt our behaviour in order to conform to societal norms. We can have millions of people that we could fall 'in love' with to varying degrees. The success of that relationship will depend hugely on external environmental pressures and opportunities that arise outside of that relationship with potentially other or even better partners (better being determined by looks, wealth, health status, intelligence etc).

Why is it wishy washy?

Lots of factors affect relationships, that's obvious enough. But I think you're overlooking the biological basis for love, and the quite obvious evolutionary explanation for love.

I mean, there are hormones and endorphins involved in the love process, love is not a social construct. Studies suggest love is very much like a drug addiction (and breakups are analogous to withdrawal). While external factors are important, there's no denying that the most important factor in a proper relationship is what's going on biologically, the chemical interactions in the brains of both parties that draw them together and block their desires to be with others.

And evolutionarily speaking, were two people to have a child together, that child has a much better chance of survival if both parents are there to care and provide for it. Therefore commitment to one partner makes perfect evolutionary sense in terms of raising children. It's like nozzferrahhtoo said - creating as many children as possible shouldn't be the metric of success here. Being around to care and provide is a very important factor which shouldn't be overlooked.

Playboy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Playboy I think the moderator asked once already that you drop the personal insults. They add nothing and serve only to obfuscate your own points. Let us not give the mods any more work to do than they already have shall we? Remember: Insults demean only the insulter, never the target. Ever.

You need to adjust the way you debate. Asking if i know how to use google is a way of trying to provoke a reaction .. its agressive even if its not overt. Just as with the other piece of advice you gave me earlier. Why dont you just come out and ask me if I'm stupid? Or do you always prefer subtle or passive agression which allows you to paint the person you got a reaction from as the agressor? I'm sure the moderator can figure it out .. your subtlety aint that subtle I'm afraid

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Suffice to say if the best evidence you have for your points is the order in which google returns results, then you have moved into a very strange realm of evidence indeed that I am not willing to follow anyone into.

so now you have got it after i have had to explain it thress times .. your reaction now is to dismiss it lol. I'm not writing a journal article here .. all im doing is indicating to you the prevelance of accepted ideas within science that you were disputing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not, and would not, express any doubt that it is potentially successful. I said more than once in the thread that evolution has come up with many answer to successful reproduction which leads animals to massive, medium and small numbers of off spring in a mating season and/or a life time. Some animals spew out 1000s of off spring in a season or even in a day while some only one in a whole lifetime. This tells us that promiscuity and increased numbers of off spring likely have much less to do with evolutionary success than many people assume.

My disagreement was only with the line that said that evolution tells us we “should” have evolved promiscuity when it in fact does no such thing. Nor, as you claim here is the existence of promiscuity evidence for any such thing directly. Correlation does not imply causation and there is a lot more work to be done to establish such a link. In evolution science "X exists therefore X must be successful" is never good enough. There are, to name one of many examples, traits that piggy back on other successful traits and are in fact themselves detrimental and harmful, but their association with successful traits carries them along. In fact some genes have been successful in our DNA by making a point of doing absolutely nothing at all.

Just as likely, to give one of a long list of examples I could flood the thread with, is that promiscuity has less or little to do with reproduction and more to do with the fact sex and/or the successful wooing of a mate very quickly becomes linked to the reward and pleasure centres of our brains both directly (cause it feels good) and indirectly (social congratulatory attitudes of peers to name one of many) and so is not an inherited trait but a learned one.

In all likelihood its both mixed in with quite a few other elements I have not cared yet to mention as yet.

Thats all very well and good but the prevelance of something would usually lead to an investigation to establish a correlation. We dont have conclusive proof but i I think there is a stronger argument for than against at this point.. no? Evolutionary psychology would side with me I think and thats where this debate mostly occurs. Men can never be certain that they are the true parents of a child so a promiscious strategy could be beneficial .. after all the male does not want to invest large amounts of enrgy and resources into rasing another mans children .. hence why men are supposedly more sexually jealous and females more emotionally jealous. Dont Jewish people trace their jewishness/ancestry through the mother for this very reason?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It appears we may have at some point started talking past each other. I am in entire agreement here. I do not believe in a "true" or "perfect" love either or that there is one person out there for all of us. I think there are in fact quite a massive number of people likely to be able to kick off the proper series of biochemical and psychological events that we call "love" which leads us to such levels of commitment.

When I say that one can find a person that takes them over "body and soul" I am merely referring to finding ONE such person, not that there only IS one such person. However when you find such a person much of the commitment you make to them both consciously and unconsciously precludes those "other" potentials in many ways from being able to do the same. Remember hormones can act not only as a response to a stimulus, but as an inhibitor from that same stimulus elsewhere causing the same response.

In short what I am (and have been) saying is that finding such a person means in many cases that you do not have to deal with the temptations you refer to in the creation of this thread because they simply are not there to be dealt with in the first place. The textual equivalent of confusion and blank faces you are getting from many of the other posters on the thread is because they simply do not experience the temptations or urges of which you speak.

I think there has been a mixed response from both men and women if you read the whole thread. Most people were not denying that they had the urge just that they were willing to sacrifice in order to be with one person. Unfortunately I think many people have interpreted the subject of the thread in error and havent really answered the question asked.

Playboy

cybersquirrel wrote: »

Why is it wishy washy?

Lots of factors affect relationships, that's obvious enough. But I think you're overlooking the biological basis for love, and the quite obvious evolutionary explanation for love.

I mean, there are hormones and endorphins involved in the love process, love is not a social construct. Studies suggest love is very much like a drug addiction (and breakups are analogous to withdrawal). While external factors are important, there's no denying that the most important factor in a proper relationship is what's going on biologically, the chemical interactions in the brains of both parties that draw them together and block their desires to be with others.

And evolutionarily speaking, were two people to have a child together, that child has a much better chance of survival if both parents are there to care and provide for it. Therefore commitment to one partner makes perfect evolutionary sense in terms of raising children. It's like nozzferrahhtoo said - creating as many children as possible shouldn't be the metric of success here. Being around to care and provide is a very important factor which shouldn't be overlooked.

I dont deny the existence of some form of 'love' but I dont buy into the whole romantic notion of love that we get sold on Valentines day. There obviously is a strong chemical reaction when two people meet to mate but thats the same in all animals. The urge to reproduce is probably the strongest intinct we have after drinking and eating. I dont believe that men and women have evolved to to the point where monogamy is our natural state. We might get there eventually but not for a very long time. There are compelling arguments for both sides and I guess the point of the thread was to try and get some honest opinions from people about how comfortable they are with monogamy... do they find it difficult or easy, at what point in a relationship does it start becoming difficult? When the honeymoon period ends in a relationship and this chemical reaction has dampened to an extent... then what? What if you meet another person who you have that same chemical reaction with? Is it easy to say no because you have conciously committed to another or do people find this fight with biology chemistry very difficult?

Bottle_of_Smoke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It amazes me how men seem to think women don't have sexual urges to be with multiple partners. If I could sleep all round me in a society where it was celebrated, I would. I want to have sex with probably every third man I meet. But we are also suppressing our natural urges due to huge social pressure. Women want to sleep around, but if they do they are seen as a slut. You don't have half the pressure and restrictions we have. That biology is bull abt women, we want lots of multiple partners too, but society and stigma dictate otherwise...

To be fair most aren't expressing that on this thread. Unless you're speaking generally

Bottle_of_Smoke

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually biology does not tell us any such thing, and it all depends on how you are defining "did well" as to whether there is "no doubt" here.

The common misconception of evolution tells us that the trick is simply to have as much off spring as you can. This is a massively over simplified view of Natural Selection.

In fact if you were forced to over simplify things in such a way, you would be somewhat closer to the truth if you defined “do well” as ensuring your off spring has as much successful off spring as possible.

Depending on the environment you are reproducing in, having a single off spring in your entire life and successfully nurturing it as a strong member of the species is much more effective than pumping out 100 grunts, most of which fail, die or reproduce weakly themselves.

Evolution and Natural Selection has led to nature attempting both. Some creatures pump out hundreds of off spring in a single mating season, while some nurture a few cubs, while others have a single off spring in a life time.

A promiscuous gene is therefore not any “better” or "worse" by definition and in fact in many cases can be much worse as most of the off spring lack nurture as one of the parents has long left and is reproducing elsewhere which off spring whos parents lack such tenancies have more nurture and protection.

If Biology were telling us that we "should" evolve towards multiple partners then the people claiming that have a hell of a lot of monogamous species to account for in their theory.

Well when I said 'do well' I meant in genetic terms solely.

I'm surprised by the popularity of this post. I think you have criticised my interpretation but then gone on to use the exact same if inverted logic:

Depending on the environment you are reproducing in, having a single off spring in your entire life and successfully nurturing it as a strong member of the species is much more effective than pumping out 100 grunts, most of which fail, die or reproduce weakly themselves.

Sure 100 grunts are no use, but what if you had 20 mediocre offspring instead of 1 super offspring. Your 1 would look prettier sure, but the guy who had 20 mediocre offspring's genes will be more prevalent in the future.

In socioeconomic demographics where promiscuity is more prevalent birth rates are higher. I think for humans it is pretty safe to say promiscuity will lead to more prevalence of genes.

I think this discussion is getting dragged off topic by offended women. I'd imagine it was started here to discuss men's opinion on men having one partner, not to discuss the preferences of women. I really don't know why women are being discussed at all to be honest.

Maguined

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think this discussion is getting dragged off topic by offended women. I'd imagine it was started here to discuss men's opinion on men having one partner, not to discuss the preferences of women. I really don't know why women are being discussed at all to be honest.

I'd agree the topic was focused on how monogamy affects men but I don't see how it would only be men's opinions on this issue that would be considered valid?

Bottle_of_Smoke

no anyone can post sure we dont even know what sex posters are. Just that the thread should be about monogamy for men and mens opinions on monogamy

Maguined

Grand so, I misread what you were saying, I had just noticed one or two posts over the last while that were basically implying female opinions were not welcome and was afraid you were making something similar which I would not have expected from yourself.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lol not at all. I can categorically state I welcome female contribution here. Just thought the thread was getting dragged off topic

HavingCrack

I know this post may not make much sense so bare with me :P.

I think if a man is in a 'perfect' monagomous relationship ( I know perfect is subjective and doesn't exist 100% but just presume its 90% or whatever) with a woman, emotionally, sexually, socially etc it in effect 'cancels' out the desire to be with other females. It isn't a sacrifice because sex with lots of other women simply can't give the same satisfaction as this single relationship. Effectively the pressure to cheat doesn't exist. Sure you could walk down the street and say 'wow she's good looking' but this feeling is so overwhelmed by your relationship that it effectively isn't a loss.

Hopefully I made some sort of sense there :pac:.

nozzferrahhtoo

Playboy wrote: »

You need to adjust the way you debate.

You worry about the content of your posts and I will worry about mine. You do not get to dictate how I write until such time as you apply for the moderator role.

Playboy wrote: »

Asking if i know how to use google

I think you will find I did no such thing. I asked if you were aware how google itself works. Knowing how to use X and knowing how X actually works are two massively different things.

Playboy wrote: »

all im doing is indicating to you the prevelance of accepted ideas within science that you were disputing.

Finding one result written by a law graduate is not the same as showing something is a prevalent idea in science.

Playboy wrote: »

Thats all very well and good but the prevelance of something would usually lead to an investigation to establish a correlation.

Investigation yes. Agreed. However what is happening here is not an investigation but an assumption that the prevalence of something must automatically mean it was selected for at a genetic level and that we "should" evolve that way because clearly it is more successful. These are the errors I am attempting to correct. I have listed many reasons why a monogamous situation is just as likely to be selected for and there is no reason to think we "should" evolve towards either, or that we have. In fact most of the signs show that selective pressures in humans are towards monogamous low yield reproduction.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well when I said 'do well' I meant in genetic terms solely.

As do I.

Carrying a "promiscuous gene" (something you have not established we actually do carry, but let us leave that aside for now) in no way means those who had it "did well".

As I said it depends entirely on what you mean by "did well". If you simply mean they likely had more off spring then you are likely to be entirely correct. However in terms of Evolution and Natural Selection simply having more off spring does NOT automatically equate to "doing well".

So simply declaring that there is "no doubt" that those who are promiscuous "do well" is a massive assumption and an over simplification of evolutionary biology.

Joey the lips

I met my women when i was 17. I am 36 now. So i am with her longer than i was without her.

When i met her i never thought i would be with her forever. I dont even know if it was love or lust. I just knew i wanted her.

Yes granted i might have just wanted to "Get into her knickers" so to speak but over time that changed. Now i dont mean i learned to love her. I always felt something its just over time i realised what it was.

If you set out relaxed in a relationship then it will progress or fade. I think every relationship has its defining moments. Like when you look forward to her getting home or when you look forward to putting the kids together and lighting the fire with a blanket thrown over you on the couch.

If someone told me i would be in bed for 1 third of my remaining life i would suddenly feel awake however this is the reality.

Dont think about it and it wont feel so clostrophobic.

Josh_Calvert

one good woman for life is more than enough.finding one good woman for life is near impossible.humans are designed for serial monogamy...rather men are designed for serial monogamy trading for a new woman according to age + sexuality.women are programmed to hold down one leader male while sneaking off with younger males with healthier sperm as she goes along.

vicecreamsundae

i completely disagree with this whole thing of "men are programmed to want to sleep with as many women as possible and women are programmed to find one man who can provide and protect" stance. talk about looking for an excuse to justify selfishness haha.

I find it a real cop out. It's simpler than that. It's not about 'society's expectations', it about responsibility as a grown up human being for how your actions affect the people you care about and who care about you. Basically that you can't have your cake and eat it. If you are in a monogamous relationship and you find yourself still wanting to sleep with lots of other people, deal with it!! decide what's more important... the person you supposedly love, or your desire to sleep with others, and pick one. it's as simple as that.

wouldn't it be great if we could do both? sure, just like it would be great if money grew on trees. unfortunately in the real world , our actions have real consequences. male, or female.

Playboy

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

If you are in a monogamous relationship and you find yourself still wanting to sleep with lots of other people, deal with it!! decide what's more important... the person you supposedly love, or your desire to sleep with others, and pick one. it's as simple as that.

Its getting a bit ridiculous now the amount of people that dont read the thread and answer a question that isnt being asked. This isnt about sacrifice or doing the right thing for the sake of other people. This is trying to understand how men do manage to "deal with it" as you so eloquently put it. Do men find it difficult to just deal with? What works what doesnt? Do men have to constantly make a concious effort to resist natural inclinations or biological urges all the time? How does having to do this affect men and the satisfaction they get from life?

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

wouldn't it be great if we could do both? sure, just like it would be great if money grew on trees. unfortunately in the real world , our actions have real consequences. male, or female.

Well in the past they have had their cake and eaten it in many societies and still do today. Maybe that was a more natural state for men and men were happier whereas the arrangement in modern society might suit women better? I'm not saying that is the case but its a question worth asking.

Of course there are consequences for our actions... noone is saying there isnt. But depending on how society is structured and organised then people interpret behaviour differently. A man having a mistress would likely have been seen as acceptable in many societies in the not so distant past but it is no longer acceptable today .. why is that? Was it because men were abusing a position of power within that society which forced women to accept that status quo that made them deeply unhappy .. or were women ok with it as long as it was discreet and didnt take from the family?

Bottle_of_Smoke

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

i completely disagree with this whole thing of "men are programmed to want to sleep with as many women as possible and women are programmed to find one man who can provide and protect" stance. talk about looking for an excuse to justify selfishness haha.

Its like one poster saying that. Pretty obvious to me through infidelity statistics both sexes are programmed to play around.

vicecreamsundae

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its like one poster saying that. Pretty obvious to me through infidelity statistics both sexes are programmed to play around.

nobody is programmed to do anything. we choose our actions.

Playboy

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

nobody is programmed to do anything. we choose our actions.

I'm afraid there is a lot of evidence from science that would disagree with you. Whether we have any free will is a debate that is being lost also ..we perceive that we have free will but in actuality our actions and choices are pre-determined responses due to our genetics and external environment. See Daniel Dennet and Steven Pinker for some interesting views on the topic.

Greyfox

HavingCrack wrote: »

I think if a man is in a 'perfect' monagomous relationship ( I know perfect is subjective and doesn't exist 100% but just presume its 90% or whatever) with a woman, emotionally, sexually, socially etc it in effect 'cancels' out the desire to be with other females. It isn't a sacrifice because sex with lots of other women simply can't give the same satisfaction as this single relationship. Effectively the pressure to cheat doesn't exist. Sure you could walk down the street and say 'wow she's good looking' but this feeling is so overwhelmed by your relationship that it effectively isn't a loss.

I don't believe this is true, I also think most men would have a very hard time accepting the bit in bold. For me I believe this whole debate comes down to the "is the women I'm with now worth the sacrafice" question. I would never cheat on someone I was with but the temptation is always their even when I was in love. The fact that you can't be with another women is the huge price you pay when you enter a relationship although it's a price worth paying if your in a good relationship

I think your post is wrong but it would be really nice if one day I meet a women that proves you were right

HavingCrack

Greyfox wrote: »

I don't believe this is true, I also think most men would have a very hard time accepting the bit in bold. For me I believe this whole debate comes down to the "is the women I'm with now worth the sacrafice" question. I would never cheat on someone I was with but the temptation is always their even when I was in love. The fact that you can't be with another women is the huge price you pay when you enter a relationship although it's a price worth paying if your in a good relationship

I think your post is wrong but it would be really nice if one day I meet a women that proves you were right

I'm not saying the temptation isn't there, just that the relationship is better than other women.... everyone is entitled to an opinion though .

[-0-]

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

i completely disagree with this whole thing of "men are programmed to want to sleep with as many women as possible and women are programmed to find one man who can provide and protect" stance. talk about looking for an excuse to justify selfishness haha.

I find it a real cop out. It's simpler than that. It's not about 'society's expectations', it about responsibility as a grown up human being for how your actions affect the people you care about and who care about you. Basically that you can't have your cake and eat it. If you are in a monogamous relationship and you find yourself still wanting to sleep with lots of other people, deal with it!! decide what's more important... the person you supposedly love, or your desire to sleep with others, and pick one. it's as simple as that.

wouldn't it be great if we could do both? sure, just like it would be great if money grew on trees. unfortunately in the real world , our actions have real consequences. male, or female.

Well said.

Lads I don't know about you but I love my girlfriend and would do absolutely anything for her. There's no way in hell, even if I was drunk or worse, that I would cheat on her. If it turns out that she's the one, and we get married, well then I would have no issues with her being the only woman for me for the rest of my life. She's fantastic and is the love of my life.

If you can't say the same about your current girlfriend then you should ask yourself why you are bothering (unless of course it's a relatively new relationship).

-Corkie-

I dont normally post in threads like this. I am married 6 years now and I wouldnt swap my wife for anything. I love her more than anything. I read a few posts above and its no wonder some fellas cannot find a partner. I will be so happy spending the rest of my life with her..:)

Deise Vu

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

i completely disagree with this whole thing of "men are programmed to want to sleep with as many women as possible and women are programmed to find one man who can provide and protect" stance. talk about looking for an excuse to justify selfishness haha.

I find it a real cop out. It's simpler than that. It's not about 'society's expectations', it about responsibility as a grown up human being for how your actions affect the people you care about and who care about you. .

Not trying to be facaetious but if men are more promiscuous than females doesn't that make it a mathematical certainty that more women are promiscuous than men? I think most men get an undeserved bad press on this subject.

smash

Zombie thread brought back for halloween?

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

+1 to this.

As men (or women, whichever is applicable) you are making a choice to supress natural urges due to society's stipulation that relationships must be monogamous (for the most part).

Its a question of finding the woman that is worth the sacrifice for imo.

I stick with what i said two years ago on thread!

riveratom

I'd be happy with a fourth date really, never mind getting married and wondering if one woman is enough.

Gauss

I have to agree that it is very difficult to suppress the urge to have sex with other women regardless to whether you are in a relationship. I would love if there was a pill that turned it off as someone who has cheated and cause pain.

oldyouth

I married my first girlfriend and am happy out. Even though it was a long time ago, it would have been considered at the time to be totally unusual not to have played the field. When I met her, we did/enjoyed everything we had wanted to do and it's been enough for me since. I doubt there's any aspect or experience that we haven't tried since we've been together.

What I'm saying, basically, is that I've done most of what is out there but just with the woman I love.

Gauss

oldyouth wrote: »

I married my first girlfriend and am happy out. Even though it was a long time ago, it would have been considered at the time to be totally unusual not to have played the field. When I met her, we did/enjoyed everything we had wanted to do and it's been enough for me since. I doubt there's any aspect or experience that we haven't tried since we've been together.

What I'm saying, basically, is that I've done most of what is out there but just with the woman I love.

You're lucky then you weren't born with the constant background urge to pursue other woman. I'd guess most men have this urge in varying degrees.