Men and their.. insatiable lust

Zombrex

I think people in the western world tend to apply our ideas of a relationship like marriage onto situations like the one you describe, and we assume that if a man has 4 or 5 wives he must do to each of them, at the same time, exactly what a western man would do to his one wife, i.e. have sex with each of them, raise children with them, be madly in love with each of them, all at the same time.

The reality is that it is often not one western marriage multiplied by 5, but in fact an arrangement where each women assumes a certain role based on her position in the family time line, that can change at different times.

The doc I saw (again on the BBC, about 4 years ago), the man only slept with one woman at a time, and considered only one of the girls he was "in love with" (it wasn't put quite like that, but that was the idea). After a few years, and after she had bore him children, he moved on (with the wifes consent) to another younger woman, but still stayed married to his first wife, still helped raised their children, though they needed less care because they were older (youngest was 3 oldest was 6, I think). This was repeated a few times, and each subsequent wife eventually assumed the role of mother rather than love, and they all helped raise all the children together.

So while in this relationship the man had many wives, and he at one time or another slept with all of them, it was very much a monogamist relationship with each. The man did not over stretch himself by having a number of children with a number of different women at the same time. Therefore he was able to concentrate his parenting at a specific wife for a extended period of time, before moving on to another.

I am not saying all tribal family relationships are like this one. The point I am making is that because a man is in a multi-wife marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean he is actually sleeping with all of them ... though he might well be, Mormans who take multiple wives sleep with all at the same time AFAIK.

Vangelis

Wick, I'm glad you brought up an example you knew of too. It's good for the discussion I think that we use some stories from real life so that this doesn't just become a debate on principles alone.

Still, and that may be irrelevant, it seems strange to me that a man can "fall in love" or it was termed that way, with a woman after a woman. His purpose was after all to raise families with each woman. I have a difficulty believing that this man had what we would call a romantic relationship like the ones people establish with eachother in Europe/US/Russia etc. Dropping out of a relationship in which you have developed many emotions and an affectionate attachment to seems almost unhuman to me.

I wonder how much in-breeding there is in such tribes. Do the children of these mothers who have been impregnated by the same man have new children with eachother?

I know about the Mormons. But they're in-bred though. *snorts*

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Dropping out of a relationship in which you have developed many emotions and an affectionate attachment to seems almost unhuman to me.

People do it all the time, just in western culture its called either breaking up with someone, or divorse, depending on the circumstances. Just in this African culture, they move on emotionally, but keep the realisation that they have children together and a responsibility. Though it isn't exactly an equal oppertunity culture

I think one of the biggest causes of anger and resentment in something like a western divorce is that people feel the other person is breaking a life long commitment to always feel exactly the same towards that person. And if things change, rather than just excepting that things in life change, they see it as breaking of that promise. And this can lead to great animosity between the two people involved, and have a very damaging effect on children involved. I am not saying people shouldn't be upset when a marriage breaks down, but you just have to look at the way so called "love" can turn to blind hate in an instant to realise that there is more than simply losing and emotional connection going on. The sense of betrail is huge, even though all the person is doing is falling out of love, which can hardly be helped.

I believe in love, I believe in commitment. I kinda believe in marriage. I believe that love and commitment can be life long.

But I also believe that it is rather unhelpful to start a relationship believing that love and commitment must be life long. You see so many people getting married to one of their first or early boyfriends/girlfriends, they are married for say 10 years, slowly grow to hate each other, and then one or both realise "what the hell am i doing"

I think experience in relationships has a lot to do with long lasting ones. Without experience it is very hard to know if what you feel is something you will always feel as strongly.

When we are young relationships involve a lot more emotions than just love, they include neediness, lust, re-assurence etc etc. You only have to go onto Personal Issues to see that amount of "My girlfriend of a year left me 6 months ago and I still want to kill myself" type emotions young people have. That isn't love, it is more support giving and obsession. If you need one person that badly to help you get through life, to be your crutch, then the problem is with you, not with them leaving you. As my friend says "I want to want someone, I don't want to need someone" ... or words to that effect

I think people in the western world are very unrealistic when it comes to marriage these days. I also thing that this has a lot more to do with cheating than a biological instinct to spred ones seed.

BTW I blame Disney :cool:

Vangelis

Hmm Wick, this is an interesting turn of the discussion.

You believe that thinking that commitment must last may not be good.
Then what does an insecure, undecided mind do to a relationship that one hopes will last for life? In my opinion, the motivation is important and an insecurity around whether the relationship should last or not could impair the strength of the relationship.

Now some people want a life alone, some people aren't suitable for lasting relationships because they lie, cheat, abuse or or independable. But a lasting relationship takes effort and a will to make it last, which I experience myself, but that effort isn't great. It's lovely to make my boyfriend happy and be understanding and patient with him. *pauses to reflect dreamingly on my last kiss*

Saying that life changes does not alwys justify a break-up. Of course it is a valid reason, and inevitable in some situation. But I like to think that we need to humble ourselves a bit. And accept the hardships and let their love conquer the conflict. "I never promised you a rose garden." That way one can avoid unnecessary sorrows as a result of a break-up that shouldn't need to be done. I believe in romance and lasting togetherness, and the mere act of believing helps.

You have a good point on young "love". But I disagree: You don't necessarily need to have gone in and out of relationships to finally learn how to make things work. Some learn from their mistakes, but it saves a lot of time if you can learn from others' mistakes for instance, or even if you're someone with a lot of self-insight and 'wisdom' about yourself and what you are looking for.

Unrealistic expectations? That might be. In that case I blame individualism.
We're taught to be unique and love ourself. Narcsissism, isn't that what they call it? When will we be inspired to care more for others?

I still can't believe that the Africans have the same bondings that for instance I have to my boyfriend. *pauses to dream again*

the hopeful romantic Vangelis

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

And I am explaining that while human males share the instinct common in all animals to, as you put it, f**k with as many femals as possible, there also exists a strong instinct, specific to humans, to form family units based around monogamist partnerships. The evolutionary reasons for this are quite simple and I have explained them a number of times.

Lets observe evolution shall we. Let me paint you a picture-

Guy in club spying girls. Do you think he has a strong instinct to "form family units based around monogamous partnerships" or do you think he would rather fúck?

Anyone that suggests that his principle reaction, while looking at the way x girls ass moves while she dances or how far up y girls skirt he can see, is not to fúck girl x or y is a liar. Back to my thought-

Instinct- fúck
Rationalisation- form monogamous relationship

You do not check out the opposite sex to form a loving relationship, you check them out as your buried instinct is wondering how many good offspring you can produce with that person and how good it is going to be in the process.

K-

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Guy in club spying girls. Do you think he has a strong instinct to "form family units based around monogamous partnerships" or do you think he would rather fúck?

Young guy in a night club ... yeah that encompasses the entire section of human behaviour

Firstly, he is probably under 30. Why? Because most men over thirthy have formed "family units based around monogamous partnerships already". Of course that must be completely unnatural...

Secondly, how many of your friends are interested in purely sex, and how many are there to get a snog or shag but would also like to see the girl again. Most of my mates, the single ones, are looking for something a bit more than random sex when they go to a club.

Thirdly if he is in a club he is probably drinking. Drink shuts down the more evolved parts of the human brain, cause a person to act on more basic impulses, such as the desire to shag anything with a pulse.

And finally, how many of people in a club are conscious of any of their instincts in the first place?

Kell wrote:

Anyone that suggests that his principle reaction, while looking at the way x girls ass moves while she dances or how far up y girls skirt he can see, is not to fúck girl x or y is a liar.

A liar! Them be fighting words ... outside young man!

Kell, you seem to be missing that fact that you are talking about a very specific circumstance.

It would be like using a meeting with a wedding planner to prove my point about instinct to form family units. I doubt a man in with a wedding planner is thinking about f**king, he is most likely thinking about his wife, the wedding, the family they will have, the house they will raise this family, pentions, life insurance, everything that goes into a family unit. Using that as evidence than men never think about f**king women is nonsense, just like using a horny drunk 18 year old in a night club as evidence that is all they think about is also nonsense.

I would also ask, after your boy has shagged his prize, and she is now pregnent with his child, what is he thinking? Abondon the girl and the baby, move on to the next one? Possibly, but more likely thinking about support the child.

We have instincts to have sex, but we also have instincts to protect the children that result in that sex, hence the family unit.

Kell wrote:

You do not check out the opposite sex to form a loving relationship, you check them out as your buried instinct is wondering how many good offspring you can produce with that person and how good it is going to be in the process.

You check them out because they are attractive. they are attractive because evolution has engineered them that way, otherwise we would never have sex and we would have died off millions of years ago.

BTW why are people under the impression that there is only one instinct in the human species? Where did that come from?

Vangelis

Wicknight, all that you wrote there you have allready stated. It's time you free yourself from your feeling of obligation to repeat yourself.
For your own best, mate.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Wicknight, all that you wrote there you have allready stated. It's time you free yourself from your feeling of obligation to repeat yourself.
For your own best, mate.

LOL .. no! ... must ... keep ... writting ...

if only people would read my posts in the first place

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

BTW why are people under the impression that there is only one instinct in the human species? Where did that come from?

Natural selection?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Natural selection?

The impression not the instinct

GuanYin

Kell wrote:

Lets observe evolution shall we. Let me paint you a picture-

Actually, from an evolutionary point of view, humans are predisposed to monogamy, soI don't know why you threw this is (expect perhaps to make your argument sound better).

To simplify the jargon, two important physiological features of humans should be considered.

Firstly there is an overall negligable size difference between male and female (when compared to most other ape species). This indicates that unlike, say the gorilla, there is no alpha male tendancy with a large male protecting a harem fo females. There was no requirement for males to compete for females. Human evolution seemed to favour male-male co-operation (most likely the result of hunting strategy) and bi-parental nurturing (almost unique in humans among mammals - although most bird species do it) - both strongly pointing in a natural instinct towards monogamy.

The second physiological observation is the differing maturation rates in males and females. Although the male-female size ratios are the same in humans, this is also the case in some polygamous species - notably the chimpanzee. However, the tendancy among chimps is towards early male maturation, roughly at the same rate as females while the females show external signs of ovulation. This is not the case in humans, where female maturation still preceeds male maturation and there is no external indication of female ovulations.

To put this all in context, from an evolutionary point of view, the reason for polygamy is propagation. There are twomain approaches to this. One you keep a group of females with you and mate frequently with them, fighting off any male competitors. Or two you selectively target ovulating females through out your life. Humans are not equipped for either strategy, so polygamy seems an unfeasible evolutionary instinct.

As far as it being an inherent one back from the bad old days, it seems unlikely also. Recent work (2003) shows the same male-female physiological traits in Australopithecus afarensis as in modern humans. Making it extremely likely that one of our earliest hominid ancestors were monogamous (3.2 million years ago).

So why do men cheat. The answer is, they don't. Well they do, but most research suggests that don't cheat any more than women (by cheating we mean infidelity, Uni. Arizona caused a bit of a stir by publishing a paper entitled "men twice as likely to cheat as women" - they meant in exams).

The real difference is in WHY they cheat, with men more likely to cheat for superfiicial reasons such as thrill or boredom and women more likely to cheat due to emotional dysfunction in their relationship. This has a startling effect on cultural perception as it tends to make us sympathise with women cheaters while condemning males, effectively pushing all the onus of cheating, by association, onto men.

Another thing to note is that in recent years, the main cited reason for men cheating has started to change, with increasing numbers of men citing emotional reasons rather than superficial reasons. This tells us one of two things. Social and cultural tendancies have a large influence on infidelity or men are far more devious and intelligent than previously thought

Another point is the increasing tendancy of men and women to work together as equals for long periods. Effectively, you spend the majority of your day with work colleagues, thus you often cannot help but form strong emotional ties to them, often at the expense of emotional ties to family. It may just be coincidence that the recent (on an evolutionary scale) tend towards infidelity reflects the rise in heterogenous gender workplaces and the rise of the "rat race".

All in all, I'd put infidelity down to society and cultural influences. Evolution certainly doesn't favour polygamy in humans.

nice post!

Zombrex

cheers psi,

that summed up everything I have been trying to say on this thread, but didn't have the expertise to put in one coherent post (as Vangelis noticed ).

As klaz said, good post

Vangelis

*gasps*
*stumbles*
*faints*
*lies there for some time before rising*
*amazed by Wicknight's immortal stamina*

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

*gasps*
*stumbles*
*faints*
*lies there for some time before rising*
*amazed by Wicknight's immortal stamina*

I have that effect on most women .. :cool:

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

*gasps*
*stumbles*
*faints*
*lies there for some time before rising*
*amazed by Wicknight's immortal stamina*

Geez... get a room, you two.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

But it's provocative that people like this are allowed to publish such lies...
*weeps like a baby* Btw, I didn't know that you were a woman, simu. That's nice!

Well they only print them because people buy them (as you have done). Whats more you then advertised the book and the views of the book on a public forum. You can hardly hold the authors soley accountable, anymore than you can blame journalists alone for the standards (or lack thereof) of tabloid journalism.

I'm not quite sure what that actual topic of this thread is. I read your initial post and am none the wiser, it seems to have degraded into a "pub-fact" based diatribe against men and their "lusful" ways.

Your last post though. Is that flirting or a tantrum that people are actually challenging your views?

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

I have that effect on most women .. :cool:

I didn't mean it like that actually. I'm just amazed at how many times you need to repeat yourself and you still go on posting.

psi, I should have made a different thread-title, but I was irritated when I wrote it and didn't consider it too well. I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is: the initial debate point about lust and men has been diverted by monogamy and other things. It's just the art of conversation!

lazydaisy

The Corinthian wrote:

Geez... get a room, you two.

Ive been saying the same thing all along. Seriously, you guys belong together!

Vangelis

No we don't. My heart belongs to someone else. I wouldn't be interested in hooking up with an evolution proponent. (At least not if he called me primitive for believing in God.)

simu

Vangelis wrote:

No we don't. My heart belongs to someone else. I wouldn't be interested in hooking up with an evolution proponent. (At least not if he called me primitive for believing in God.)

Oh, tell more. Your love life must be so fascinating. Enrich us with your gossip.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Oh, tell more. Your love life must be so fascinating. Enrich us with your gossip.

Why are you pecking on me like that? I was only responding to what they're saying here, in my own way.

simu

Because it's tiresome to have to read such inane chatter in what is supposed to be a relatively serious forum.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

My heart belongs to someone else.

Can you please stop mentioning your by letter correspondance relationship in every second post? It's weird.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Because it's tiresome to have to read such inane chatter in what is supposed to be a relatively serious forum.

I'm not the only one.

dublindude, whatever you wrote there I suppose it was hostile, but I can't read it because you're on my Ignore List. You are welcome to put me on your Ignore List as well.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

I'm not the only one.

dublindude, whatever you wrote there I suppose it was hostile, but I can't read it because you're on my Ignore List. You are welcome to put me on your Ignore List as well.

Ignoring people who don't believe your religious, sex is sacred bull**** is highly mature :rolleyes:

Anyway...

When men are drunk they really want to have sex. Is this the alcohol or is this their inhibitions removed?

Vangelis

dublindude wrote:

Ignoring people who don't believe your religious, sex is sacred bull**** is highly mature :rolleyes:

Anyway...

When men are drunk they really want to have sex. Is this the alcohol or is this their inhibitions removed?

Put you off for a moment to tell you that I ignore you because you made offensive comments about my "letter correspondence" boyfriend. And I see now that you keep bringing the subject up. It's offensive because you clearly use it to ridicule me and make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm insecure in my relationship, with my sexuality. As if that is so much more mature! I'm not having that anymore. That's why I ignore you. And that has actually made my stay here at boards.ie more pleasant.

From my experience, not all soak drunk men want to have sex. But of course, I forgot. Your experience is superb and dominates over everyone else's.

Ciao

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

No we don't. My heart belongs to someone else. I wouldn't be interested in hooking up with an evolution proponent. (At least not if he called me primitive for believing in God.)

First some advice, if you claim you're using the ignore function, then use the ignore function. Replying to users you claim to have on ignore makes you look silly.

Secondly (and stay with me here, as I do have a point), you indicate you don't believe in evolution, which is fair enough. You point towards religious beliefs, so I therefore assume that your alternative belief is in creationism ala genesis. If this is the case, do you also adhere to biblical teachings that sexual intercourse if for the sole purposes of reproduction?

(now for the on-topic bit).

IF you do believe this to be the case, then this whole thread could be viewed as hypocritical, seeing as you posted in anger at the work of two scientists who put their beliefs (originating for their research or whatever) into publication.

In response, you start a thread condemning their beliefs, influenced, in part at least, by your own beliefs. Do you see the paradox here?

If you do not believe that intercourse is soley for the purpose of reproduction, may I ask why you selectively adhere to some teachings and not to others (as this is off topic, PM or another thread would be ok).

Beruthiel

psi wrote:

so I therefore assume that your alternative belief is in creationism ala genesis.

dinosaurs!!

sorry
couldn't resist

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

Put you off for a moment to tell you that I ignore you because you made offensive comments about my "letter correspondence" boyfriend. And I see now that you keep bringing the subject up. It's offensive because you clearly use it to ridicule me and make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm insecure in my relationship, with my sexuality. As if that is so much more mature! I'm not having that anymore. That's why I ignore you. And that has actually made my stay here at boards.ie more pleasant.

From my experience, not all soak drunk men want to have sex. But of course, I forgot. Your experience is superb and dominates over everyone else's.

Ciao

Well, your opinions on sex are certainly naive. Are you from the US? Seriously. You really remind me of a few girls I know from the US. The most naive people I've ever met!

Regarding your other point, you can believe whatever you want about men, but you would have a hard time trying to find a drunk man who doesn't want sex. So my original question again, is this his true self coming out, or just the alcohol?