Men and their.. insatiable lust

lazydaisy

Fly algeric,

Can you show me where I said that with a link? I looked for it on this thread and couldn't find it. Sorry to be a pest, I just dont remember saying that.

Unfortunately fly, it's not rocket science, and yet so many men and so many women are oblivious to how it works. But it is more complicated than for men, that is true. That is such a good idea about the state supplying a rabbit and some duracells! Genius. They should hand them out at the end of primary school or first day of secondary! Do you know how many problems that would solve?

Wicknight- you are whats known as a serial monogamist. When you are married and can't just break up with someone when you find yourself wanting to f*** someone else, believe me you will no longer think monogamy is instinctual. Your own, UNBACKEDUP claims about the adulterous habits of American women, scarper your own claims that monogamy is an instinct. Where did you get that stat by the way AL Jazeer. net?

fly_agaric

lazydaisy wrote:

Fly algeric,

Can you show me where I said that with a link? I looked for it on this thread and couldn't find it. Sorry to be a pest, I just dont remember saying that.

My mistake.:o Sorry about that. Edited to Vangelis!

lazydaisy wrote:

Unfortunately fly, it's not rocket science, and yet so many men and so many women are oblivious to how it works. But it is more complicated than for men, that is true. That is such a good idea about the state supplying a rabbit and some duracells! Genius. They should hand them out at the end of primary school or first day of secondary! Do you know how many problems that would solve?

I was joking. But if it really is a good idea, I'll take all the credit for it - not Thaedydal!:)

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

You said it was an instinct, which is biological drive, the same thing that makes salmon go upstream to mate, or birds to fly south in the winter. So, yes, you are saying its genetic and biologically determined.

Er, I know...?

lazydaisy wrote:

Whose not monogamous?
Unfaithful westerners. Oh yeah, they are few and far between.:rolleyes:

How many westerners never form monogamous relationships, be they long term relationships or marriage, at least once during their lives?

As I have already said, you have to already be in a monogamous relationships to cheat in the first place. It is in our nature to form these relationships. Yes some people while break trust and cheat, just like some people will lie, steal, cheat in other areas of life. Like I said it isn't a law. Biology isn't a law. The very nature of humanity is that we have control over our instincts.

lazydaisy wrote:

Practicing bisexuals.

Bisexuals can't form monogamous relationships? What are you basing that on, cause I know a few who would disagree.

lazydaisy wrote:

People who choose polyamory for a lifestyle.

Like I said, not a law.

lazydaisy wrote:

Tribal cultures.

Such as? I think you will find most tribes in Africa but great weight behind the idea of family units. Yes men may have other wives, but these wives live together and help raise the children of their husband, even if they aren't theirs. This again fufils the needs of the family unit. The husband is unlikely to have children out side of this family unit.

lazydaisy wrote:

INHO, it is an instinct to find someone and a choice to stay faithful.

Ok, but I ask you how many men cheat on their partners and wives and then raise the children they created while cheating? Not many I would imagine. Birth control, or simple head in the sand I-am-not-deal-with-consequences makes it easier for men (or women) to cheat without invoking the natural biological conclusion of sex to produce offspring. This is an unnatural disruption (sex for pleasure rather than reproduction) to natures cycle, and it is this unnatural disruption that facilitates and promotes cheating, not nature itself. I would argue the modern nature of cheating on a partner is a largely artifical and unnatural occurance, rather than the true nature of humanity.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

I would argue the modern nature of cheating on a partner is a largely artifical and unnatural occurance, rather than the true nature of humanity.

I disagree.

The statistics about cheating would prove you wrong.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

When you are married and can't just break up with someone when you find yourself wanting to f*** someone else, believe me you will no longer think monogamy is instinctual.

I'll be married won't I, that is a monogamy based long term relationship, designed around the idea of producing a family unit. Like I have said about a million times, you have to be in a monogamist relationship in the first place to cheat. How can you can say that it is not natural to form these relationships when everything you are talking about starts off with these relationships.

lazydaisy wrote:

Your own, UNBACKEDUP claims about the adulterous habits of American women, scarper your own claims that monogamy is an instinct.

How exactly?

Instinct draws people together to form these units, based on the purpose of producing and raising children. There is nothing saying that modern human life can never change, that modern life won't cause break downs of these relationships. But to say the relationships aren't real in the first place is nonsense. Every culture on the planet has the idea of a family unit, it takes different forms and it isn't strict natural law, but it exists in all of them. Just coincidence? A fluke of chance, that these cultures would develop the idea completely independently from one another? Or evidence that it is part of our nature to form these relationships with each other as humans?

lazydaisy wrote:

Where did you get that stat by the way AL Jazeer. net?

How did you guess ...

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

The statistics about cheating would prove you wrong.

Aren't the cheating statistics about modern humans, in modern times? Do you have some cheating statistics from 10,000 years ago I don't know about?

AARRRGH

lazydaisy wrote:

Where did you get that stat by the way AL Jazeer. net?

Aljazeera is actually an excellent TV station. It's as unbiased as you think: it just points out how evil America is.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Aren't the cheating statistics about modern humans, in modern times? Do you have some cheating statistics from 10,000 years ago I don't know about?

I'd be pretty sure we were worse 10,000 years ago when we were more animal like.

It's not uncommon knowledge that most male animals spend a lot of time looking for pussy (not being crude, just stating the truth!)

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

It's not uncommon knowledge that most male animals spend a lot of time looking for pussy (not being crude, just stating the truth!)

Obviously you haven't actually read any of my posts :rolleyes:

It is very common knowledge that most male mammals spend all their time trying to pro-create as many times with different females as possible,and then die

It is also very common knowledge, if you actually read my posts, that humans are rather unique in this regard, that we have a number of very interesting differences from other mammals.

For a start we are also one of the very few animals who form complex social structures around the family unit, including, quite uncommonly, the family of the father as well as the mother.

We are also one of the very few animals that are designed, by evolution, to live far past our pro-creation window. I have already explained the evolutionary reasons for grand parents (something that is very rare in the animal kingdom), many times to a large number of posters who don't seem bother to actually properly read my posts. I couldn't be arsed doing it again

AARRRGH

No, this is just your opinion.

You talk like your opinion is the only opinion.

Why do you think we should all convert to your opinion?

I happen to disagree with you.

But I don't get angry about it.

...

I believe humans live incredibly in denial of their animal urges. I believe our society (which I know we need) is very false and forces us to have false "morals".

I know you feel different than me. It's not a problem. But please stop being so patronising.

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Why do you think we should all convert to your opinion?

"Convert" to my opinion ... ummm the cult of Wicknight, got a nice ring to it

dublindude wrote:

I happen to disagree with you.

Thats fine, but you don't really seem to have a reason, other than you appear to just not like what I am saying (not sure why?)

What parts of my argument (I would point out it isn't an opinion, rather its just how nature is), do you believe are wrong and in what way exactly are they wrong.

Do humans not form family structures around re-production?

Do humans not live past their re-production window, into old age? Is it not plauseable that this is because we have evolved a need for family units to raise and teach children?

These aren't my opinions, they are opinions of biologics and social scientist. They are also nothing to be threaten by. These are not moral judgements, just statements of biological theories and facts.

dublindude wrote:

But I don't get angry about it.

Glad to hear it ...

dublindude wrote:

I believe humans live incredibly in denial of their animal urges. I believe our society (which I know we need) is very false and forces us to have false "morals".

Ok ... no offense but it sounds like you just want an excuse to screw around a lot. Thats fine, but it doesn't really effect the biological facts of human species. And this isn't about right or wrong, it is about evolutionary instincts. I am not placing a moral judgement on any actions people take with the above statements. I think it is wrong to lie to people, or break someone you are supposed to care abouts trust, but the very concepts of "lies" and "trust" are part of human culture, not human biology.

But saying their is no instinct in humans to form monogmous relationships based around reproduction is simply incorrect. Why that matters so much to people I have no idea?

AARRRGH

BTW, just so you know... and this is a fact...

Species where the female is promiscous, the male has a larger penis and larger testicles. This is because the male has to compete with other sperm. Larger testicles = more sperm and larger penis = closer to the eggs.

Gorillas have tiny penises and testicles. This is because the females are typically monogamous.

Humans have large penises and testicles. So do bats. This is because the female is traditionally promiscous.

Search on Google for this. It's true.

Apologies I have not mentioned this already. I don't like backing up my points with facts!

PS Wicknight, I'm sure you're a lovely bloke. I dislike arguing on the internet.

Seraphina

you know this is a silly arguement, because at the end of the day, those who want to screw around (like dublindude it seems) will find a way to justify it.
i have no problem with this so-called 'insatiable lust' as such. i would have a problem with a guy forming a monogamous relationship with me, and then ****ing someone else. if you dont want to be monogamous, dont get into exclusive relationships. cheating isn't an instinct. cheating shouldn't even exist. you are either honest with yourself and your partner about your ability to commit, or you aren't.

i'd say there are plenty of men out there who are perfectly happy being monogamous, and sure they may have a wandering eye, but who doesn't? then there are others who just have no self control, and sleep with everything female. thats fine too, just dont lie to anyone about it and everyone is happy

AARRRGH

Why do people think I'm a big cheater just because I think humans naturally cheat? I've said I dislike cheating...

When someone says he understand why Palestinians fight the Israelis, does that make him a suicide bomber...?

lazydaisy

Wicknight wrote:

I'll be married won't I, that is a monogamy based long term relationship, designed around the idea of producing a family unit. Like I have said about a million times, you have to be in a monogamist relationship in the first place to cheat. How can you can say that it is not natural to form these relationships when everything you are talking about starts off with these relationships.


How exactly?

Instinct draws people together to form these units, based on the purpose of producing and raising children. There is nothing saying that modern human life can never change, that modern life won't cause break downs of these relationships. But to say the relationships aren't real in the first place is nonsense. Every culture on the planet has the idea of a family unit, it takes different forms and it isn't strict natural law, but it exists in all of them. Just coincidence? A fluke of chance, that these cultures would develop the idea completely independently from one another? Or evidence that it is part of our nature to form these relationships with each other as humans?

How did you guess ...

No one is saying the relationship arent real. People are saying that monogamy is not a biological instinct. It is a socially determined construct.

Family units also vary in structure. Look at the Maoris or African tribes.

Monogamy is not universal or biological. It is western, christian, and modern. It is not a fluke of chance, it is a product of culture and religion and property ownership and some would argue patriarchy.

If you want to look at the natural world, there are many examples of the females who want to f*** around but the males who make it impossible. Actually you can take a look at the human world too for examples of that.

And this procreation argument - are you kidding? the one thing that can be guranteed to get a man to run a million miles away is saying "i want to have your baby."

I didnt say bisexuals couldnt form monogamous relationships. You asked for examples of people who didn't practise monogamy and I gave you some.

There is a difference between instinct and choice. Instinct is biological programming which animals have very little if no choice over. Humans have next to none, arguable the only instinct we have is the will to survive. YEs, we have drives, and preferences, but these are distinguishable from instinct.

Wicknight you said

This is an unnatural disruption (sex for pleasure rather than reproduction) to natures cycle, and it is this unnatural disruption that facilitates and promotes cheating, not nature itself.

So I guess you don't like oral? I would definitely cheat on you. But I wouldnt marry someone who didnt like oral in the first place. Not because Im UNNATURAL but because that's ridculous.

Are you from the VATICAN?

AARRRGH

lazydaisy wrote:

So I guess you don't like oral? I would definitely cheat on you. But I wouldnt marry someone who didnt like oral in the first place. Not because Im UNNATURAL but because that's ridculous.

Had a few drinks tonight, have we?

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

the one thing that can be guranteed to get a man to run a million miles away is saying "i want to have your baby."

EXACTLY. So men who want to screw around want it for pleasure, right? But why do people here keep saying that it is an reproductive instinct? Get it? REPRODUCTIVE. Means that the man wants to screw around to have babies with women, because it is his instinct. Why the heck then does the woman scare him by saying she wants her baby?

This speaks for itself. The whole arguement that men want to screw around to procreate is flawed.

Vangelis

Corinthian, I have looked through the past three pages with posts and found no questions for me except those by dublindude, but I ignore him. (He is on my Ignorelist) So now he can call me a cheater of my own nature and an constipated christian pig and I won't notice. It feels good.

I see that Wicknight has had a few arguements more warranted than mine(if you believe in evolution!), and I cannot answer against these. He believes in evolution and I don't. So a further debate on how cultural or biological monogamy is is not possible because we have different standards, he and I.

I can't find anything else that I have not responded to.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Wicknight you said

This is an unnatural disruption (sex for pleasure rather than reproduction) to natures cycle, and it is this unnatural disruption that facilitates and promotes cheating, not nature itself.

So I guess you don't like oral? I would definitely cheat on you. But I wouldnt marry someone who didnt like oral in the first place. Not because Im UNNATURAL but because that's ridculous.

Are you from the VATICAN?

Er ... what ...

Firstly I love oral sex ... so I guess we can get married now :cool:

Secondly, oral sex is sex for pleasure, it holds very little evolutionary purpose. Sex with a condom is also sex for pleasure, using a product of our intelligence (condoms) to prevent the natural biological system in place (whats why I said it was an unnatural disruption, because it is!). I wasn't making a moral judgement on it, you are completely taking the term "unnatural" out of context there. I mean "unnatural" as in does not naturally occur in nature, not "morally wrong" ... Jez! I guy can't say anything around here! :eek:

AFAIK humans are one of the few animals (along with Dolphins and the Great Apes) who perform sex for pleasure rather than just pro-creation, and it is a sign of higher brain functions and intelligence that we do. It is also further evidence (if it was needed) that we are not really ruled by our instincts, at least not to the degree other animals are (which is another agrument against the idea that men must eventually, due to biological instinct, cheat on their partner), and that we have much greater control over our bodies than most other animals species.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

And this procreation argument - are you kidding? the one thing that can be guranteed to get a man to run a million miles away is saying "i want to have your baby."

Maybe if you are 18, but the vast majority of human males will at some point in their lives choose to have children.

lazydaisy wrote:

I didnt say bisexuals couldnt form monogamous relationships. You asked for examples of people who didn't practise monogamy and I gave you some.

Still not following you Being bisexual, as far as I know, has no more or less bearing on being in a monogamous relationship that being straight or gay? Are bisexuals more likely to have multiple partners at the same time, or less likely to enter long term relationships with a partner than straight or gay people? If so I wasn't aware of that.

lazydaisy wrote:

There is a difference between instinct and choice. Instinct is biological programming which animals have very little if no choice over.

Could not agree with you more.

Instinct in humans is simply a little push in a certain direction that evolution has worked out for us. It is by no means a law or even something that strongly effects us.

The only time instinct plays a major over-powering role in humans is when we, or our children, are threated with physical violence. It induces the state of panic in a human, where the higher brain functions are superceeded by more primiative instincts, the so called "fight or flight" response.

lazydaisy wrote:

Are you from the VATICAN?

Yes ... I am actually the Pope ... bet ya didn't see that one coming! :eek:

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

Corinthian, I have looked through the past three pages with posts and found no questions for me except those by dublindude, but I ignore him. (He is on my Ignorelist) So now he can call me a cheater of my own nature and an constipated christian pig and I won't notice. It feels good.

From what I could see he also posed a number of questions that you simply ignored that had nothing to do with calling you anything.

But hey, if avoiding things in life simply because they make you feel a little uncomfortable, then know yourself out.

lazydaisy

If a bisexual is only seeing one person, than they are at that time excersizing heterosexuality, that's how I would see it. I don't see sexuality as necessarily fixed or categorical in an absolute way. When they are practising bisexuality, they are seeing both a man and a woman, or men and women.

Actually, monogamy or at least official monogamy [i don't see being married and having affairs as genuine monogamy, more like multi-relational if you will] was the law for a very long time, you want to have sex you better get hitched, and this was enforced by cultural norms. In ireland up until very recently, if people wanted sex they had to get married and that is often why they did get married so they could have sex. So, if you had sex before marriage, it wasnt like it was criminlised in the sense that you would go to jail or you had to pay a fine, but women were ostracised and punished for it by their communities. If men wanted to produce sons to inherit their farms and their land then they would have to get married so they could secure paternal identity.

Instinct is more than a little nudge from nature. It is programming. Monogamy is not in our genetic programming. That doesnt make it bad, or a bad idea, it just makes it something that we have all agreed to as a norm and something to aspire to in order to be sucessful and or survive in our society.

From what I can see the only instincts we have are food, f******, fighting, and fleeing. There is nothing in there about partnering up with one person.

You want to talk about evolution? There is a theory behind low sperm motililty which suggests that it was a response to the many partners women would have. It says that sperm development found a way to knock out the competition from other genetic material which may have been given to the female that day.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

If a bisexual is only seeing one person, than they are at that time excersizing heterosexuality, that's how I would see it. I don't see sexuality as necessarily fixed or categorical in an absolute way. When they are practising bisexuality, they are seeing both a man and a woman, or men and women.

That may be as you see it, but that's not actually what the word means:

Individuals attracted to both males and females, like people of any other orientation, may live a variety of sexual lifestyles. These include: lifelong monogamy, serial monogamy, polyamory, polyfidelity, casual sexual activity with individual partners, casual group sex, and celibacy. For those with more than one sexual partner, these may or may not be all be of the same gender.

So you are assuming that bisexuals are always polygamous, which is not far removed from the erroneous assumption that male homosexuals are always attracted to little boys.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe if you are 18, but the vast majority of human males will at some point in their lives choose to have children.

Not my husband-to-be. And it all depends on if the wife/woman wants children too. So what about those who don't want children then? They are not biologically abnormal, they've just CHOSEN a different way of life. Maybe they have a passion, a job, a mission that occupies them, or maybe they simply don't see raising a child as something meaningful and rewarding.

Wicknight wrote:

The only time instinct plays a major over-powering role in humans is when we, or our children, are threated with physical violence. It induces the state of panic in a human, where the higher brain functions are superceeded by more primiative instincts, the so called "fight or flight" response.

Naaaahh.. Have you seen an FBI agent confronting a trigger-happy criminal mental-hospital escapee? Some people are trained to calm down aggressive individuals who threaten to use physical violence, and they are very unafraid and calm themselves. Some may have a natural flair for calm in a critical situation, so "fight or flight" does not cover all situations.

I agree that we are not steered by instincts, but that they may give us a hint on where to go and what to do. I'm prone to call some instincts for needs instead. 'Needs' may cover a broader aspect of our urges, yearnings, desires and wants(not just sexual!).

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

So you are assuming that bisexuals are always polygamous, which is not far removed from the erroneous assumption that male homosexuals are always attracted to little boys.

My input.. The members of the Polyamorous organisation of Denmark(as one example) are mostly bisexual. So perhaps bisexuals are not mostly polyamorous, but those who live in multiple-partner relationships are mostly bisexual. At least in Denmark. :eek:

AARRRGH

The Corinthian wrote:

From what I could see he also posed a number of questions that you simply ignored that had nothing to do with calling you anything.

But hey, if avoiding things in life simply because they make you feel a little uncomfortable, then know yourself out.

Yes, as she stated before, her relationship ("future husband") is by "letter correspondance". I think she cannot handle the idea of him cheating (because he rarely sees her/whatever) so she blocks out all ideas of men cheating...

She has previously made many posts regarding cheating being a totally abormal, rare occurance on PI.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

I agree that we are not steered by instincts.

So we are steered only by what people tell us we should be steered like?

Wow, I'd hate to live in that zombie world...

Vangelis

Dublindude hasn't called me any names, I know that. But I'm sure he wants to. In his deep cheating heart he wants to.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

Dublindude hasn't called me any names, I know that. But I'm sure he wants to.

WTF are you talking about?

lazydaisy

I modified the word bisexual with the word practising to identify a group which were not monogomous. When they are only seeing one person, they are not at that time practising bisexuality even though they maybe attracted to both genders.

Corinthian, please dont put words in my mouth. I have enough on my plate here. Im assuming no such things that bisexuals are ALWAYS polygamous. I did not say bisexuals, I said PRACTISING BEXUALS as in people who are practising bisexuality.

Incidentally, Vangelis, do you know that if you get married in the Catholic Church and you dont or CANT produce children, the Church doesn't acknowledge your marriage. ANd also the Church accepts impotence for grounds for annulment because you cant reproduce with an impotent man?