Men and their.. insatiable lust

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

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?

Really?!???? I was actually not aware of that. Is it like that in Ireland?
Maybe that explains why all the Irish families I know of have 3-6 children. I keep marvelling at the numbers of young people in Ireland. :eek:

Well, then me and my husband-to-be will marry in another Church.
What a disgrace. No offense to Catholics. I'm sure there are many Catholics who are angry with this "rule".

And impotence being a reason for... annullating marriage? What stupid, ****y nonsense. One thing is for sure, that is not a rule made by God, but by the church. :mad: What stupid freakish....!! Arrrrgrggrrggrgrrrhrrh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Makes me want to pewk right in that Pope-boy's face!!!!!!!

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

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.

I think we are getting confused over terms. I don't see sexuality as necessarily fixed or categorical in an absolute way either, but that (above) is not what "bisexual" means. A bisexual is not necessarily someone who is sleeping with both a man and a women at the same time, it simply means that a person is sexual attracted to both genders.

lazydaisy wrote:

Monogamy is not in our genetic programming.

What are you actually basing that on? Yourself and DublinDude keep saying it, but so far you haven't actually explained why you think so. I have explained a ton of reasons, justifications and evidence that forming family units, based around raising children, with the male included is very much a part of our "programming", and that this is rather unique to humans. Yourself and DublinDude has simply said "No, your wrong" .... to be honest it is getting a bit pointless repeating what i have said when you really don't seem interested in proper engagement.

lazydaisy wrote:

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.

As I have said already, the phenomon unique to the human species of living well past your reproducive window is evidence that that is wrong. Caring for offspring is a fundamental instinct, not just in humans but in most mammals.

How do grandparents fit in to you view of human behaviour?

lazydaisy wrote:

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.

And ... ?

EamonnKeane

Our specific purpose in life as males is to fúck with as many females as possible to spread our genes and ensure the survival of the next generation.

But humans are different from virtually all animals, because humans have a large brain and walk on two legs. Wlaking on two legs means strong pelvises are required. Strong pelvises means that a woman's vagina can only be so wide. So babies must be born with small skulls. This means that a lot of development (like in our two-legged counterpart, the kangaroo) takes place outside the womb. So human babies are born utterly helpless and take 10-13 years to reach biological maturity and twice as long for mental maturity. This means a lot of help is needed raising a child, making caring fathers necessary.

That said, mena re still naturally more promiscuous because a man with lots of resources (food) could afford to support and care for two or more women and their children. Also, a man who got another man's wife pregnant - without him knowing - would get all the benefit of passing on his genes without any of the work. (

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Yourself and DublinDude keep saying it, but so far you haven't actually explained why you think so.

Please see this post by me -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50342841&postcount=133

dublindude wrote:

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.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

What are you actually basing that on? Yourself and DublinDude keep saying it, but so far you haven't actually explained why you think so. I have explained a ton of reasons, justifications and evidence that forming family units, based around raising children, with the male included is very much a part of our "programming", and that this is rather unique to humans. Yourself and DublinDude has simply said "No, your wrong" .... to be honest it is getting a bit pointless repeating what i have said when you really don't seem interested in proper engagement.

Okay, I second your sentiments. However, what do you base your statements on? I'm asking you before lazydaisy asks you. That way it's a little less embarrassing.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

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.

Like I said to you before, pretty much with the exact same question, using fire fighters as evidence that humans don't have an instinct to move away fire is a bit silly. Your point about individual men who choose not to have children proves very little either way.

Instinct isn't a law (I swear if I have to say that again, i'm going to scream )

Vangelis wrote:

Some may have a natural flair for calm in a critical situation, so "fight or flight" does not cover all situations.

Men in suits ... running into blazing buildings ... fighting fires ...

Vangelis wrote:

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.

That exactly what I've been saying ...

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Like I said to you before, pretty much with the exact same question, using fire fighters as evidence that humans don't have an instinct to move away fire is a bit silly. Your point about individual men who choose not to have children proves very little either way.

Not in my opinion, but if you say so. So does yours. But I agree: Instinct isn't law!! I never said it was.

Men in suits ... running into blazing buildings ... fighting fires ...

You just ridicule it because you don't agree with it. Ridicule is a powerful weapon to despirit another person with, a defense mechanism, yes maybe even.. an instinct. Bleh.

CathyMoran

My take on cheating and lust from some of the men I know: it can take an emotional reason for a man to cheat, be it that they are unhappy in a relationship or unhappy in themselves, they may cheat on someone that they are in lust with if one is available but if they are at a real emotional low any girl will do.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

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.

You sound like you dated him, TBH.

lazydaisy wrote:

I modified the word bisexual with the word practising to identify a group which were not monogomous.

That’s still incorrect. Bisexuality means that one is sexually oriented towards either gender, not both genders. A practicing bisexual may well be in a relationship with either a man or a woman but not necessarily both at the same time.

You’re confusing it with polygamy, et al. Demographically there’s certainly an overlap, but that does not imply that they are the same thing. For example, I’ve known bisexual women who are quite against the idea of polygamous relationships... despite my best efforts.

Corinthian, please dont put words in my mouth.

Perish the thought.

CathyMoran wrote:

it takes an emotional reason for a man to cheat

First time I’ve heard an erection referred to as an emotion.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Okay, I second your sentiments. However, what do you base your statements on? I'm asking you before lazydaisy asks you. That way it's a little less embarrassing.

Actually mostly that BBC documentry .. and secondary school biology class (no I didn't go to a religous school) .. and a number or articles I have read from time to time.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I am not just making this sh*t up

You certainly see a lot about "Monogamy is dead", the "Myth about monogamy" on the internet and in magazines like Cosmo etc. And you read all the time articles in womens and mens interest mags like "Why do men cheat?", "Is it unrealistic to expect a man to stay with one partner for life?" etc etc

To be honest, these "issues" are not what I am talking about.

Firstly monogamy doesn't mean marriage! You can be in a monogamist relationships for 4 months then move on to the next one. You can be in a monogamist relationship, have a child, raise him till he is 10 and then start a new sexual relationships with another woman. That is still totally within the theories i put forward.

Marriage is a cultural phenomon, one that has as much to do with human society as human instinct. Yes it might be based on a more primal urge to form a family unit to raise children, but it isn't the direct response to that instinct. LazyDaisy asked me how I would feel about my theories after 20 years of marriage, how would I hold on to my idea that monogamy is natural then? That line of thinking is completely missing the point. Who says I will be in the same monogamist relationship in 20 years time? In 10 years time?

If you ignore modern contraceptives, a man has sexual intercourse it results in a child. It is part of human instinct for that man to at least partial feel a connection to that child and feeling of responsibility to care for the child until it is old. That instinct doesn't occur in all mammals, in fact it doesn't occur in most. It does in other species, such as birds (90% of birds form monogamist relationships to produce children). It does occur in humans.

While this human male is helping to produce and raise the children with a human female, it serves very little evolutionary purpose for him to go out and create more children with other human females that he will then also be responsible for.

How does this translate to the modern idea of cheating? It doesn't, because in modern times sex is not done to produce a child. A man can screw around with a load of women and not produce any children that he then feels responsible for.

As I have said, modern human existance de-emphasises sex for reproduction, through birth control, and their for the biological instincts governing parenting don't come into effect as much because the male isn't producing children

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

You sound like you dated him, TBH.

Moody today, are we?

Wicknight wrote:

You certainly see a lot about "Monogamy is dead", the "Myth about monogamy" on the internet and in magazines like Cosmo etc. And you read all the time articles in womens and mens interest mags like "Why do men cheat?", "Is it unrealistic to expect a man to stay with one partner for life?" etc etc

A bit moody today we are too.

No, I don't watch monogamy this and monogamy that. Never heard of the Cosmo magazine either. And I hate gossipy woman mags or man mags.
This attack of yours full of presuppositions is not really wealthy.

So okay, we leave out marriage. Fine. Because that does not suit your view of the world, but it suits mine. Monogamy is neutral, secular.. Perhaps. Marriage not so we abandon marriage. The rest I leave to lazydaisy.

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

First time I’ve heard an erection referred to as an emotion.

That's HER(or his) experience that she expressed.

lazydaisy

Wicknight,

The point I was making about low male sperm motility was that it suggests that in evolutionary terms, women did f*** around and that they should f*** around so as to ensure that she gets the best genetic material. And guys, you should watch out because apparantly sperm quality is on the decline. Which means we may be going back to being sluts very soon.:p

We know instinct isnt law do you? Law are rules made up by people to govern and preserve law and order. Instincts are animal preprogrammed behaviors.

Monogamy is a petit bourgousie solution to a petit bougeousie problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/237index.shtml

Here's a link that asserts FEMALES ARE HARDLY EVER FAITHFUL.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/K/kamasutra/shape.html

This is really fun:
http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-412.htm

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

You just ridicule it because you don't agree with it. Ridicule is a powerful weapon to despirit another person with, a defense mechanism, yes maybe even.. an instinct. Bleh.

I don't mean to ridicule, but like I said, the fact that some police officers are trained to handle dangerous and life threatening situations without being over come with panic, doesn't really have much barring on the fact that fight or flight is a very real human instinct.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

I don't mean to ridicule, but like I said, the fact that some police officers are trained to handle dangerous and life threatening situations without being over come with panic, doesn't really have much barring on the fact that fight or flight is a very real human instinct.

My point is that this "instinct" you're speaking of is changeable. Some panic, some don't. I followed a couple of programmes on National Geographic about planecrashes and personal experiences of planecrashes. The surviving passengers tell that some panic and some sit still, calm eachother down, hold hands, pray and keep a low voice. And they all know that the plane will crash. That is a direct real life example, if I may broaden your "physical violence" into something like disaster and death.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

The point I was making about low male sperm motility was that it suggests that in evolutionary terms, women did f*** around and that they should f*** around so as to ensure that she gets the best genetic material. And guys, you should watch out because apparantly sperm quality is on the decline. Which means we may be going back to being sluts very soon.:p

Certainly possible, given as you said the most basic instinct in humanity is to survive. Cultures where the female traditionally takes more than one male mate are rare amoung humans, but have appeared in areas as far apart as South America, Africa and Asia, which would lead one to conclude that the phenomon is not just cultural but part of human biology adapting to certain enviroments.

lazydaisy wrote:

We know instinct isnt law do you?

Do I have to say it again .... [SCREAM!!!!!] ... help me out here Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Here's a link that asserts FEMALES ARE HARDLY EVER FAITHFUL.

Define "faithful" ... cause it sounds like you are talking about something like marriage, and I am not. You also I would imagine are talking about cheating, which is a cultural term, not a biological/evolutionary term. "Cheating" and "Faithful" aren't defined in the natural world, only in human culture.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

My point is that this "instinct" you're speaking of is changeable. Some panic, some don't. I followed a couple of programmes on National Geographic about planecrashes and personal experiences of planecrashes. The surviving passengers tell that some panic and some sit still, calm eachother down, hold hands, pray and keep a low voice. And they all know that the plane will crash. That is a direct real life example, if I may broaden your "physical violence" into something like disaster and death.

True, but I would imagine they are all panicking, just some are doing it in different ways. But thats not to say that humans can't control their instincts. Buddiest monks have been known to set themselves on fire (in protest) and sit there perfectly still burning to death without saying a word, let alone screaming.

Thrasher

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Wicknight - sorry I'm jumping into this discussion late, but it's the first time I saw this post. I've read through the discussion and would like to point out, what I believe is the fundamental flaw in your logic.

In fact, in the three billion years it has taken us to get to this point, Homo sapiens is the only species that doesn't perform sex just for pleasure. No other species has had the foresight to understand the impact of sex - it has always been based on instinct and always for immediate satisfaction. (And the the vast majority of cases, it is the male as the initiator). Pro-creation is a result of - not a reason for - animals to have sex.

By looking at coupling animals and stating that the intent is to pro-create is quite a large leap. (i.e. "the end justifies the means" is not a valid argument). Conversely, Homo sapiens having developed the technology (contraception) to have sex for pleasure does not mean that sex by all other species is for pro-creation purposes only.

The sad truth is that after 3 billion years of evolution, the majority of us exist as a side effect of a night of sweaty passion. Of course, monogamous relationships (married, or not) are structures that support the raising of a baby - but if pro-creation were not possible in the bedroom (i.e. it had to take place in vitro), there would be very few of us around today.

On a side note, it's worth mentioning that males (and in rarer instances, females) of many species other than Homo sapiens masturbate.

Regards,
/T

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Wicknight,

The point I was making about low male sperm motility was that it suggests that in evolutionary terms, women did f*** around and that they should f*** around so as to ensure that she gets the best genetic material. And guys, you should watch out because apparantly sperm quality is on the decline. Which means we may be going back to being sluts very soon.:p

We know instinct isnt law do you? Law are rules made up by people to govern and preserve law and order. Instincts are animal preprogrammed behaviors.

Monogamy is a petit bourgousie solution to a petit bougeousie problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/237index.shtml

Here's a link that asserts FEMALES ARE HARDLY EVER FAITHFUL.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/K/kamasutra/shape.html

This is really fun:
http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-412.htm

I've read these links and regarding that one that suggests that females are hardly ever faithful. I'd like to know which women this "assertion" was based on. French, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, Colombian, Cuban, Scottish, Egyptian, Iranian... Or.. wooooaaah, this research was actually performed on ANIMALS.

That about animals "screwing around", I have to repeat Wicknight's statement that animals live on instincts while we humans have more complex sets of laws, customs and traditions, we can even debate to what degree monogamy and polygamy is right or wrong; and we create societies that other animals don't create. Some believe their god wants them not to live "freely" so to speak to "find the best sperm" as if finding the best sperm is the very meaning of life. We're more complicated than animals and we cannot just dissolve our society into a ****-for-free rabbit state.

Wicknight, I'll help you!
*goes bazooka and SCREAMS!!!!!!*

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

True, but I would imagine they are all panicking, just some are doing it in different ways. But thats not to say that humans can't control their instincts. Buddiest monks have been known to set themselves on fire (in protest) and sit there perfectly still burning to death without saying a word, let alone screaming.

Well, you believe that. Like I believe that it prooves that panic is not an instinct. Hey, tough monk! Talk about self-insight. :cool: Also, it's buddhist, not buddiest.

Thrasher

lazydaisy wrote:

The point I was making about low male sperm motility was that it suggests that in evolutionary terms, women did f*** around and that they should f*** around so as to ensure that she gets the best genetic material.

Hi lazydaisy - in evolutionary terms (especially for species with a long gestation, such as Homo sapiens' 9 months), the number of partners sexual partners chosen by the female will in fact have a detrimental effect on the quality of genetic material.

In these circumstances, it is in fact to the species' advantage that the female is particularly choosy in her choice of sexual partner, to make the most of the time invested.

/T

CathyMoran

More obs from me - this time men and women cheating: there are certain situations where lust just takes over and people cheat. Someones partner could be away for a very long time, if there is a very strong sexual as well as emotional aspect to it then it is hard not to cheat, especially when there is temptation around. Another situation is where you are in close proximity (face to face) with someone that you just get those magic sparks from. Really strong chemistry is stronger than glue while it lasts and you do not find it with a lot of people - ideally you end up with someone that you get those great sparks with and when it dies down (if it does) you have the memories to keep you going.

lazydaisy

Wicknight,

Im using the terms cheating because that was what was already in currency on this thread. I do think there are better words to be using, like non-monogomous, or poly amourous, multi-relational, etc. Whichever. I do agree that semantic diffuculties are leading to some confusion in our discussion. Faithful - usually means sticking to your monogamous contract. You know that. It was a word that the article chose to use, not me. No Im not talking about marriage either. I would like to scrap some of these terms, but unfortunately that is what people are using.

Vangelis, the link referred to females, not women, which are human females. Wicknight is not only asserting the animals live on instinct, but that monogamy, a complex relationship with its own set of rules and principals is also run on instinct. I included this link because Wicknight asked me and Dubguy for supporting resourses on where he saw examples of the females in natural states being promiscuous.

Socially and culturally women are not looking for top quality sperm, but top quality fathers to help raise and pay for their kids which doesnt have much to do with genetic material but on a purely bioological evolutiony standpoint, they are looking for good stuff. But I wonder if women had more money and were less dependent on men financially, would this be as big a priority.

I agree, we need some order put on all our lust. Who wants the spread of venereal disease? Oh god no. But the order we have placed, I am asserting is not instinctual, but artificial and cultural. Obviously monogamy offers some palliative for jealousy, but when you think about it what right has one person got to tell another person what he or she can do with their body?

Vangelis and Wicknight- I had suspected from the beginning that you had more in common than you thought. You should definitely meet for pints, and Vaneglis don't bring your boyfriend.:D

Zombrex

Thrasher wrote:

Pro-creation is a result of - not a reason for - animals to have sex.

I see the point you are making, that animals don't understand they are producing a baby, they just have sex cause thats what their urges tell them to do.

But at the same time, the evolutionary purpose (and I don't mean "purpose" in a God has a purpose way, I am not talking about intelligence) of sex, in all animals is pro-creation. Pro-creation is the only reason "sex" exisits, in humans or animals or plants. Pleasure is a device to get us to have sex, it isn't the reason, in a biological sense, for the act.

How evolution gets animals to perform sex, through the use of sexual drives and rewards ("pleasure" in a human context) can be seperated out by the higher animals to exist on its own. So humans (and other animals) can get the immedate rewards for sex without actually producing a child. That is sex for pleasure.

Thrasher wrote:

By looking at coupling animals and stating that the intent is to pro-create is quite a large leap. (i.e. "the end justifies the means" is not a valid argument).

Possibly in humans, who have managed to over come their basic biology. But coupling animals in the wild is done soley to produce children. It might not be a concious decision on the part of the dog or the lion, but that is why they do it.

Thrasher wrote:

Conversely, Homo sapiens having developed the technology (contraception) to have sex for pleasure does not mean that sex by all other species is for pro-creation purposes only.

Well a few other speices have been observed having sex for pleasure (as you said, great apes and dolphins masterbate), but the vast amount of others have not. They have sex when their evolutionary instincts tell them its time to make babies, because they don't have the brain power to make the connection between the pleasure-reward system manipulating them to have sex and babies, and as such they don't have the brain power to realise they can have the pleasure without the babies.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Wicknight is not only asserting the animals live on instinct, but that monogamy, a complex relationship with its own set of rules and principals is also run on instinct.

No, I'm not

lazydaisy wrote:

I included this link because Wicknight asked me and Dubguy for supporting resourses on where he saw examples of the females in natural states being promiscuous.

No I didn't, I asked for examples of cultures in the human world that have no concept of the idea of monogamy. Your assertion was that monogamy is a cultural phenomon and has no basis in human instinctive behaviour. In other words our higher brains invented the idea. I was pointing out that that is unlikely considering monogamy as a concept has appeared in nearly every culture in the world. Did these cultures all invent the idea independently, or did they learn the idea from one another? Or is it not more likely that the idea steams from more basic human behaviour patterns, and these cultures have just, independently, developed these instinitive patterns into differnent flavours. Which is why different cultures have different ideas about the idea of monogamy, but they all have some reference to the concept.

I maintain that if monogamist relationships based around family really had no basis in human instinctive behaviour, they would have never developed in culture in the first place.

Humans don't tend to develop completely alien social ideas, that have no relationship to their more basic behaviours. Most higher social ideas and structures (love, property, violence, law, family, work) can find routes in more primitive human behavioural patterns.

lazydaisy wrote:

I agree, we need some order put on all our lust. Who wants the spread of venereal disease? Oh god no. But the order we have placed, I am asserting is not instinctual, but artificial and cultural. Obviously monogamy offers some palliative for jealousy, but when you think about it what right has one person got to tell another person what he or she can do with their body?

It isn't about "right" or "wrong" ... these are human intellictual concepts. Saying that there is a biological basis for monogamy is not reflection or comment on the moral dimensions of monogamy.

Though I am glad you mentioned jealousy. I mentioned jealousy and guilt earlier as more evidence of the methods evolution has used to attempt structure human behaviour. Jealousy is certainly not a cultural invention. What we get jealous about can change by culture, but jealousy is a very real, and biological, neurological response. So is guilt. But like most of my posts no one actually bothered to read what I was actually saying.

lazydaisy

Hi Wicknight,

I already gave examples of non monogamy in this world. I also included marriages where people are having relations in addition to the marital one as examples of that.

Yes I realise that bringing in the concepts of right and wrong are distracting. That is another issue.

Jealousy, since we are talking about it, is not proveable as a universal,instinctive or biological feeling. It is often considered a product of the petit-bourgeousie, which is why I had made that comment about monogamy being a solution to a petit bourgeousie problem. Where women, and people are not considered as property, such as in some tribeal cultures, jealousy isnt existent. Jealousy is often regarded as a product of ownership cultures. As for guilt, not every one feels it, and I would argue that it is a perversion of fear, a very real and instinctive feeling that religion has capitalised on. But that's another issue and would be distracting to elaborate so that's all I'll say.

Also - the family structure that you refer to is also western and christian. Again, I would also say that within those families, headed by couples, when one or more of the couple is having additional relations it ceases to be monogamy. In fact if you notice, monogamy spread with the spread of the dominance of western culture and modern capitalism. Arabia and Asia were polygamous. As were most tribal cultures, poly amourous. Very often communities raised children, not nuclear or extended families. It seems to me that it pivots far greater on economic evolution than on basic human behavior patterns, instinctive or non instinctive.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I already gave examples of non monogamy in this world. I also included marriages where people are having relations in addition to the marital one as examples of that.

I have never claimed non-monogamist cultures don't exist, and that isn't what I asked you to show either.

lazydaisy wrote:

Also - the family structure that you refer to is also western and christian.

Not really, I have purposely tried to be very non-specific about what defines a "family unit" ... I don't necessarily mean 2 parents with 2.4 children, in a life long marriage performed in a church.

lazydaisy wrote:

Again, I would also say that within those families, headed by couples, when one or more of the couple is having additional relations it ceases to be monogamy.

That is certainly true in some instances, such as tribes in south america and africa. But interestingly in some African tribes, while the man may have a number of wifes, he sleeps with only one at a time, after a wife has produced him a child (or in some instances a son) then she is "relegated" if you will to live in more of a mother role than a love role.

These are still family units though

lazydaisy wrote:

In fact if you notice, monogamy spread with the spread of the dominance of western culture and modern capitalism. Arabia and Asia were polygamous. As were most tribal cultures, poly amourous.

"Arabian" and "Asia" are too wide a grouping to classify soley polygamous or monogramis.

Certain Asian cultures practised polgamomy, others were monogamist cultures. Some research theories that the Indus Valley civilization (one of the oldest in the world) was based around the idea of monogamy. Also some tribes of native Americans practised monogamy long before european settlers arrived in the Americas.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

That's HER(or his) experience that she expressed.

I'm sorry, I must have forgotten the :rolleyes: smiley for you to denote that I was being facetious.

Here it is again... just in case you misunderstand :rolleyes:

Vangelis

layzdaisy wrote:

Vangelis, the link referred to females, not women, which are human females.

That was my point. We shouldn't mix animal female with human females. We are far too different to be mixed up. Just because animals behave the way that link explained, does not mean that such behaviour is justifiable among humans. If that was the point you wanted to make then.

But lazydaisy, why did you tell me about the Catholic hurch's right to annulate marriages on those grounds? Did it have anything to do with the debate?

Wickinight wrote:

I maintain that if monogamist relationships based around family really had no basis in human instinctive behaviour, they would have never developed in culture in the first place.

Hehe. Wicknight keeps fighting. It sounds logical to me that our biology and our brains are reflected in the society we live in, our traditions and opinions.

Vangelis

I need to ask: Does anybody really know if African bushmen who have four wives fall in love with all four wives, sleep with all four wives and have children with all of them?

Because as Wicknight mentioned, the wives that a man takes after his fist wife are there to support the family. I saw a documentary about a family like this in South-Africa. The man had married a woman, with the woman's consent, and they had fallen in love and had a child together. They would have more children, so he needed more women to take care of his farm: milking cows, watching sheep, cleaning, cooking, making clothes, watching bonfires and fetching water from a well up to 3 miles away from where they lived. These were the everyday tasks of his other wives, but the first wife was the one he had a love relationship to and whom he would have children with.

Wife no 2 and 3 served no sexual or "romantic" purpose. It's a bit downgrading to say that love "serves a purpose" that way though. But to manifest my point. The other wives were workers an caretakers, not lovers.
It is my understanding that this is the common way in African tribes.