Men and their.. insatiable lust

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Was it not so bad, or did we just not know cause people couldn't seperate?

People could separate 50 years ago. Maybe not in Ireland, but in my country. In my country it's been acceptable since the early 1900's.

But that is all I can say.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

In which cultures do men sleep with their mothers? (seriously, not saying you are wrong, I don't know)

In Japan. The mother sleep with their sons so they will stay home and study. It's a big problem.

Incest - slightly OT but interesting -

The reason the vast majority of teenagers think their parents are sad/gross/etc once they hit puberty is to protect them from incest. It means they won't flirt with their parents and have sex with them. This is not cultural.

Wicknight: although I do believe Vangelis is reading my posts, could you please ask her if she's from the US? I'd bet serious money she is. Thanks.

Anto and Moe

Sex you say? Men don't think about sex all the time... sex... It just sorta slides of the toung really... it's the 's' and the 'x'... sex, sex, sex... sex, sex, sex, sex, sex... What was I saying...?

lazydaisy

Wicknight - argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im getting so frustrated! I feel like we're talking in circles. I said the incest maybe the one taboo which is universal- I dont think there are many if any cultures which approve of incest. When I say cultural - I mean that its part of a matrix of values that people agree upon collectively and not out of biology in the way that food, f****** and flight, and fight are.

DublinDude I can tell you I am from the US but I dont think Vangelis is. And the biblebelters in the US are still very horny people who are into way more than letter writing. The marry 14 year olds for god's sake. What has where she comes from got to do with anything anyway?

Actually until 1995 nothing was grounds for divorce in Ireland, so we should leave this theocracy out of it. No maybe women didnt get stoned to death for adultery, but they were certainly incarcerated and tortured [magdalene laundries] for getting pregnant out of wedlock, gratis the Irish Taliban. And please tell me we are not using Ireland as a basis for assessing what is instinct and what isnt. At this point, guilt has probably been inscribed into the Irish DNA.

WIckinight maybe you have a physioligcal response to feeling guilty but that doesnt mean everyone does. The example about stealing someones toy- the only reason you felt guilty was because you knew it was wrong, and the only reason you knew it was wrong was because some had taught you that it was. .Yes, the reason you feel bad about smashing your brothers gameboy is perhaps because of empathy? that you know what it feels like to lose something? But maybe your selfish enough to focus on your own feelings of being a bad person than on the sufferring your brother has endured at the hands of your sibling rivalry for your mother's love, also an instinct to survive as she is the food source.

Shame/honour/ are not the same as guilt. Nor do they necessarily have physiological responses. Fear of course has biological responses, but that atavistic and there to ensure our survival. Guilt is totally about control. Just ask anyone with an Irish mother.

I never said Romanians were primitive. I have no idea about the paternity in Romanian families. I was pointing out that there are already different models to raising families. We all have different values but when you start placing morality on a biological framework you are pointing to moral absolutes which is dangerous.

The name on the birth cert is the name the mother names. The name on the birth cert has nothing to do with guardianship rights. The father only has that if he is married to the mother, at least in Ireland and the UK, unless you can get the mother to sign special guardianship papers.

Why should your spouse get mad at you for sleeping with someone else? What right have they to tell you what you can do with your body? Oh yes, that's right the right marriage gave you to tell someone else what they can do with their body for the rest of your life! Meaning you can only f*** the person you registered with the state to f*** for the rest of your life.

For you Vangelis, [Dublin dude- I have to fight fire with fire sometimes around here]

Just one more illustration of guilt and shame? Isnt it taught? Doesnt the Bible tell us that innocence is a state of guiltlessness and that we lose it not because we are bad but because we are ashamed? I dont think Adam and Eve felt guilty until someone told them they should. This to me tells us it's a learned response and not an instinctive one.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

For you Vangelis, [Dublin dude- I have to fight fire with fire sometimes around here]

Just one more illustration of guilt and shame? Isnt it taught? Doesnt the Bible tell us that innocence is a state of guiltlessness and that we lose it not because we are bad but because we are ashamed? I dont think Adam and Eve felt guilty until someone told them they should. This to me tells us it's a learned response and not an instinctive one.

Why do you bring up Adam and Eve when you don't believe in the Bible?
Is that an attempt to appeal to me? If so, it doesn't work.

Otherwise, the things I'd like to say are allready in the articles I have posted.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Im getting so frustrated! I feel like we're talking in circles.

We are so I will keep my response brief (lest Vangelis give out to me again )

lazydaisy wrote:

WIckinight maybe you have a physioligcal response to feeling guilty but that doesnt mean everyone does.

True, people who feel not guilt or empathy are generally considered psychopaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

lazydaisy wrote:

The example about stealing someones toy- the only reason you felt guilty was because you knew it was wrong,

The reason I felt guilty was because my brother is very upset, and I have an emotional response to that. This response is not taught, it wasn't a rational decision, I didn't go "Umm.. my brother is crying, I must have done something wrong, I have been taught that doing something wrong is bad, so I must now feel bad"

A 9 year old child is not making rational decissions about why he should feel bad ... he just feels bad, he doesn't understand exactly why.

lazydaisy wrote:

Shame/honour/ are not the same as guilt. Nor do they necessarily have physiological responses. Fear of course has biological responses, but that atavistic and there to ensure our survival. Guilt is totally about control. Just ask anyone with an Irish mother.

No offense lazydaisy but you seem to have a deep resentment to someone or something that in the past has made you or people around you feel guilty. And because of this you seem to want to blame all these emotions on that entity (which seems to be the Catholic church if I am following correctly) Sorry about that and all, but dismissing the entire discussion because of this is rather frustrating.

I am not saying institutions like the Catholic church cannot make someone (unfairly) feel guilty about something. But it is ridiculous to suggest they invented the emotion, that before the church no one ever felt guilty.

Relgious institutions (and other institutions) can manipulate the general population through a set of emotions, mostly fear and guilt. But they didn't event these emotions and implant them in our minds. That isn't even biologically possible now, let alone 2000 years ago. You can't invent new emotions.

lazydaisy wrote:

I was pointing out that there are already different models to raising families.

I never said there wasn't

lazydaisy wrote:

We all have different values but when you start placing morality on a biological framework you are pointing to moral absolutes which is dangerous.

No I am not ...

Really I wish you would get this idea that I am trying justify someone oppressing you

Firstly, seemingly, I was saying marriage is a biological law that you must followed, next I was saying feeling guilty is good for you, now I am saying morality is written in stone ..

In fact I am not saying any of these things, but I think you have already pigion holed me into what ever stereotype you have of me in your head.

Please try and actually read what I am saying before you jump to conclusions about what you think I am saying. Its very annoying

lazydaisy wrote:

The name on the birth cert is the name the mother names. The name on the birth cert has nothing to do with guardianship rights. The father only has that if he is married to the mother, at least in Ireland and the UK, unless you can get the mother to sign special guardianship papers.

That is sort of correct ... every child in Ireland must be registered with in 3 months of the birth. This information at this registry is recorded on the child's birth certificate.

If the parents are not married then the both sign a declaration naming the father as the father. If the mother is married by the husband is not the father again they do this.

There is no other way around this, otherwise you could have anyone just walking off the street and being awards parentship of a child. If the mother refuses to sign the declaration the father has to take legal steps to prove to the state he is actually the father. This is normally, afaik, a simple blood test.

http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html

lazydaisy wrote:

Why should your spouse get mad at you for sleeping with someone else?

Its called jealousy ... or was that invented by the Catholic church as well?

lazydaisy wrote:

What right have they to tell you what you can do with your body?

They don't have any rights .. it doesn't stop them from getting piss off though. If my girlfriend was sleeping around behind my back, telling me I have no right to get mad wouldn't calm me down much.

lazydaisy wrote:

Oh yes, that's right the right marriage gave you to tell someone else what they can do with their body for the rest of your life!

Lazydaisy did someone make you get married??

Are you really arguing that if someone gets married their partner has no right to get pissed off if they cheat on them? They should just turn the other cheek cause they have no right to expect anything from them? You are kinda missing the point of marriage here ...

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning you can only f*** the person you registered with the state to f*** for the rest of your life.

I certainly ain't liking the idea of one person for the rest of my life at the moment with all my relationships lasting less than a year, so I won't be saying "I do" anytime soon.

But Jesus you really seem to have issues with the idea of marriage and settling down with someone. If you don't want to do it, don't do it.

lazydaisy

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else. Im going to stop using the word cheating, because that implies sneaking around a lying, which is not always the case when people have mulitple sex partners, and no one likes being lied to so it's a different and a distracting argument.

If your girlfriend lent her car out to someone would you get pissed off? What if she was dancing with someone else? And even if you would get pissed off, would you feel like you could say something without looking like an obnoxious controlling git? The thing is no one would think you were out of line for getting mad at your girlfriend for sleeping with someone else because the culture backs you up and supports you in these feelings of how dare you share your body with someone other than me. If the culture didnt back you up, you would be much less hesitant to express or possible even have those feelings.

I have a deep resentment of the clergy which uses guilt as a way to control peoples lives in and out of the bedroom. And for the emotional abuse they have inflicted in people. I dont take offence of you noticing this resentment.

As for jealousy, yes I am as prone to the green eyed monster as anyone, but it is an ugly malevolent and dangerous feeling. It also seems to only be produced where feelings of ownership are present. So what I'm saying is- if you're feeling jealous it's a sign that you feel like you have entitlements over something/someone. If you didnt feel like you owned something in the first place you wouldnt be feeling jealous. And its not a universal feeling. There are plenty of people who dont feel jealousy.

I do think it is our instinct NOT to be monogamous but we have agreed culturallly that it is for the best, so we have designed our lives around this model. Now that lifespans are increasing, economies are shifting it seems that we are rethinking this model.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else.

So no one would be pissed if there was no law against "bedding someone else"?

In Europe and the US there is no law against unfaithfulness, so law is excluded.

lazydaisy

Vangelis,

Adultury is grounds for divorce in many states in the US and probably in Europe too.

You do realise when you divorce you have to submit legal documents to a judge and put down reasons why you want to dissolve the marriage and then the judge decides whether or not to grant the petition. Adultery is considered breaking the marital contract. So there are laws around it. You wont go to prison for it, but there are definitely legalities around adultery because there are legalities around marriage.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else.

Are you saying that wrong, or some form of oppression? Anyone has the right to be pissed off about anything. It is a basic piller of freedom to be allowed to be pissed off.

lazydaisy wrote:

Im going to stop using the word cheating, because that implies sneaking around a lying, which is not always the case when people have mulitple sex partners, and no one likes being lied to so it's a different and a distracting argument.

If a partner agrees to his/her spouce having sex with other people then why would they be pissed off. The pissed of and angry aspect only comes into it when someone is cheating.

lazydaisy wrote:

If your girlfriend lent her car out to someone would you get pissed off?

Lent her car? No I wouldn't, unless she had previously told me I could use it and then gave it to someone else when I needed it.

lazydaisy wrote:

What if she was dancing with someone else? And even if you would get pissed off, would you feel like you could say something without looking like an obnoxious controlling git?

If I trusted my girlfriend I would have no problem with her dancing with another guy. If I didn't trust my girlfriend she probably wouldn't be my girlfirend.

lazydaisy wrote:

The thing is no one would think you were out of line for getting mad at your girlfriend for sleeping with someone else because the culture backs you up and supports you in these feelings of how dare you share your body with someone other than me.

My relationship backs me up. If you are in a relationship with someone it is normal that you clarify at different times what stage you are at. If you both agree that you are only seeing each other and then one person sleeps with someone else, they have broken that trust in the inital agreement, and I fully understand the partner being hurt and pissed off by that.

lazydaisy wrote:

If the culture didnt back you up, you would be much less hesitant to express or possible even have those feelings.

Possibly, but if the culture didn't "back you up" you probably wouldn't be in the situation anyway because the inital agreement (we are only seeing each other) wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't the "done thing" to do culturally.

lazydaisy wrote:

I have a deep resentment of the clergy which uses guilt as a way to control peoples lives in and out of the bedroom. And for the emotional abuse they have inflicted in people. I dont take offence of you noticing this resentment.

Good, just try not to let if cloud your perceptions of what I am saying

lazydaisy wrote:

So what I'm saying is- if you're feeling jealous it's a sign that you feel like you have entitlements over something/someone.

Well there is a difference between someone like a stalker who feels they have rights to expect certain behaviour from someone they barely know, and a husband who has entered into a serious relationship with another person. Just because you feel jealous over someone doesn't mean you have a right to expect some level of behaviour over them (the stalker situation).

But at the same time just cause there exists people who get very unhealthly attached to someone (like a stalker) doesn't mean that a person like a husband has no right to be angry if their wife is breaking a level of trust (like kissing/sleeping with someone else)

You seem to be over simplifying the situtations a bit.

lazydaisy wrote:

If you didnt feel like you owned something in the first place you wouldnt be feeling jealous. And its not a universal feeling. There are plenty of people who dont feel jealousy.

True, but I think it would be hard to form serious emotional bonds with a person ("love," I suppose) if you had no issue with them "speading the love" so to speak. Might be wrong, thats just the way I feel about it.

I am not saying people don't get jealous for stupid reasons. I have seen a hundred times a guy in a put flip out and get aggressive cause his girlfriend is chatting to a bloke. That isn't health, or good for the realtionship, and is a reflection more of his insecurities than anything the girl is doing.

I think the answer to a health realtionship lies somewhere in the middle. Trust based on communication and mutual understand of where your partner is in the relationship is the way to go. If someone wants a more open relationship and you don't, the answer is not to go along with it and get more and more upset, the answer is to break up and find someone looking for what you want.

I agree with you that it is wrong to assume someone must conform to the standards you set for them.

lazydaisy wrote:

I do think it is our instinct NOT to be monogamous but we have agreed culturallly that it is for the best, so we have designed our lives around this model. Now that lifespans are increasing, economies are shifting it seems that we are rethinking this model.

Well as you know I don't agree that it is against instinct to form monogamous relationships around family units (as explained very well by psi)

To be honest I think it is more that we have mastered the issue of reproduction we are rethinking the traditional models

The majority of sex in the western world never results in a child, so we are intelliectually overcoming the instinct to form families based around children.

No children no instinct to form a family unit.

With the children removed from the picture we no long form the same relationships with each other, and the attactments are not a strong. So we become bored quicker in relationships, and move on quicker now there are no children getting in the way.

If this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know. I think it is good that young people are not rushing into marriage as fast as they were because it is not as expected of them as much.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

You do realise when you divorce you have to submit legal documents to a judge and put down reasons why you want to dissolve the marriage and then the judge decides whether or not to grant the petition. Adultery is considered breaking the marital contract. So there are laws around it. You wont go to prison for it, but there are definitely legalities around adultery because there are legalities around marriage.

There isn't a law against it, but it is justifcation for a "fault" divorce. The reasons for this is simply marriage is considered a contract between two people and the state to recongise the union. Under this there are certain expectations that both parties agree upon (one of them being you ain't going to screw around your partners back). If a person breaks this agreement it is grounds to terminate the agreement.

I am not really following what the objection to this ... it is just like any contract taken on good faith. If you don't like it don't sign up for it

lazydaisy

I don't have anything against it, I am just pointing out that the state legislates over marriage and it is a legal and political institution which has dominion over our bodies. It also enforces monogamy in the west, other wise bigamy and polygamy wouldnt be illegal. Adultery is grounds for dissolving a legally binding contract. Marriage is contract you made with a single member of the opposite sex [in some countries this extends to the same sex] and with the state. I was reminding Vangelis that marriage is very much tied up with the law as is adultery.

Yes anyone can get angry about anything, but there are cases where society will not endorse that anger, and adultery is a case where society will endorse it. If your partner/spouse is having sex with another person, why would you be pissed off? Why? There is no rational explanation for it. Who cares what they are doing when they are not with you? What you think that means they dont love you? They may not love you even if they are sleeping with just you. The only reason is out of pure possessive old fashioned jealousy and control anxiety.

Am I saying marriage is oppressive? I'm saying it is legislative and political. If you equate that with oppressive that is entirely up to you. If you equate that with the preservation of order than that is also up to you. It is definitely related to power.

Its not clouding my perceptions of what you are saying. What you are saying is still a product of a highly conservative culture regardless of how I feel about the clergy. Universalising western notions of monogany is eurocentric and the subtext of what you are saying is a little scary. ie People who sleep around are "unnatural."

You seem to be attaching emotional bonds to sexuality, which is not always true for everyone. "Spreading" the love as you say does not necesarily equate with multiple sex partners.

The majority of sex doesnt result in a child? Maybe not. I dont have the stats on that. But it results in pregnancies that's for sure, but these pregnancies often don't make it to labor table. About 1/3 pregnancies result in miscarriage and then there are abortions to calculate. I dont know how well weve mastered reproduction. I definitely think we've made a mess of the mating ritual. Every other animal seems to know what the story is, but we're a mess. I guess thats for another thread though.

Its your girlfriends car, she can do what she likes with it. If you need to get from a to b, take the bus or get your own car.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I don't have anything against it, I am just pointing out that the state legislates over marriage

Of course, that is what "marriage" is. Marriage is a legal union recongised by the state. If the state didn't legislate over it it wouldn't be marriage

lazydaisy wrote:

and it is a legal and political institution which has dominion over our bodies.

I still have no idea what you mean by "dominon" over our bodies.

If you enter any contract with anyone and break the terms of that contract the other party has a right to make the contract void.

One of the terms of marriage is that the other person doesn't have romantic relations with someone else. (Of course this doesn't have to be the case, lots of people have open marriages) That is one of the terms of the contract. If you don't want o follow that don't enter the contract, just like if you think you can't supply McDonalds with 200 burger buns a day don't sign something that says you will (bit of an obscure example I know but I was just in McDs).

lazydaisy wrote:

It also enforces monogamy in the west, other wise bigamy and polygamy

Again, only if you get married and your partner doesn't like you sleeping with other people. If you don't want monogamy don't get married to someone who does.

I would accept that the Irish state does not provide enough support for people in non-marriage relationships. Is this what you are objecting too? Because I am really not following your objection to marriage as some kind of oppression of ones bodies?

lazydaisy wrote:

Yes anyone can get angry about anything, but there are cases where society will not endorse that anger, and adultery is a case where society will endorse it.

That is true (to a point). Adultry is seen as a very serious breach of trust, probably because it has the ability to cause a whole lot of pain and completely change the dynamic of a relationship especially marriage. For example if a woman makes a home with a man, raises children with him and then finds out he has been cheating she might not want to be part of that family anymore. This will have a major impact on the lives of all the family, the wife, husband and children. It is a big deal.

lazydaisy wrote:

If your partner/spouse is having sex with another person, why would you be pissed off? Why? There is no rational explanation for it. Who cares what they are doing when they are not with you?

Have you ever actually been in a longer term serious romantic relationship? Because I am trying to find some common ground here, and without explaining the entire make up of the human ritual of romantic relationships as if you are from Mars it would be kinda hard to answer that question in any short period of time. I would have no idea where to even start.

lazydaisy wrote:

Am I saying marriage is oppressive?

You seem to be saying anyone who expects that their partner is not sleeping with half the town is oppressing them. I would assume this also applies to marriage.

lazydaisy wrote:

People who sleep around are "unnatural."

Bangs head of wall (again) ... I have never said that, or even implied that no matter how much you wish I had.

What i have said is that there is a biological instinct to form monogamous relationships to raise children. I said this cause there is! It is a biological fact, as Psi explained. It is absolutely no reflection on morality of "sleeping around"

There is also a biological instinct not to go into water. Does that mean anyone who learns to swim is "unnatural". No, of course not.

I have no idea what you even mean by "unnatural" in this context. As I have pointed out a billion times humans have no been ruled by their lower brain functions (instinct) for the last 50,000 years. The entire human existance in the 21st Century is "unnatural"

Please get off your high horse

lazydaisy wrote:

The majority of sex doesnt result in a child? Maybe not.

If you think about how many times the average person has sex and the number of kids they have you can easily see that the majority of sexual intercourse in the western world does not result in a child.

lazydaisy wrote:

I dont know how well weve mastered reproduction. I definitely think we've made a mess of the mating ritual. Every other animal seems to know what the story is, but we're a mess.

Every other animal follows a simple set of instincts and markers. We have the joy of intelligence and consiousness, so things are a bit more complicated for us as our consciousness allows us to be aware of and control our desires and our intelligence allows us to circumvent the biological realities faced by other animals (ie you have sex you have a baby)

lazydaisy wrote:

Its your girlfriends car, she can do what she likes with it. If you need to get from a to b, take the bus or get your own car.

Well if she hadn't told me I could take it I would have no problem with her giving to someone else. If she had told me I could use it and then gave it someone else without telling me I would be pissed off, that would be rude.

lazydaisy

Wicknight,

Stop being so arrogant and patronising. I am not on a high horse. First you say monogamy is instinctive. Then you say that animals run their mating rituals on insctince but that we have more complex consciousness and intelligence. You are contradicting yourself all over the place.

BIGAMY IS ILLEGAL. You can be severely punished for marrying two people. It has nothing to do with the contract made among the individuals. It is the state's decision to criminalise it. It is part of how we have all decided to oraganise our culture.

I know marriage is a legal contract. Ive been saying that from the beginning. It polices the body. It ensures that either party in the contract preserves its sexuality for the other one. That is how it has dominion, power over the body. Once you start talking about Catholic marriages then we bring it to a whole different level.

The fact is there is no reasoning for getting annoyed at someone for sleeping with someone else. None whatsoever. We have just all bought into it. You cant supply one reason. You talk about a cheating husband. Up until the 70s women accepted that husbands cheated.

What biological instinct to avoid water? What???? We come from water. We are made up of water. What are you talking about?

Sex often results in pregnancy but pregnancy does not often result in a child.

I AM NOT OBJECTING TO ANYTHING HERE. I dont care if people get married or not. I'm not saying that jealousy doesnt exist, I'm not saying that its easy to be with someone who is sleeping with other people, what I am saying is that monogamy is not instinctive and that having multiple sexual partners isnt inheritantly bad or evil or unnatural, but that we have been conditioned to think so because we have been taught that we have entitlements over another persons body.

Why do you keep talking about oppression? Maybe it is. I dont know. Maybe people like being dominated so they volunteer for it. I have no idea. But we definitley have rules and regulations over our sexualty and it is to curb our instincts not to encourage them.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

First you say monogamy is instinctive. Then you say that animals run their mating rituals on insctince but that we have more complex consciousness and intelligence.

That is exactly what I have been saying. Nail ... on ... head ...

It isn't a contradiction at all, what you think humans are no different than any other animal? Did dogs also invent the Internet or put a man on the moon? Humans have not been ruled by their instincts in the last 50,000 years.

lazydaisy wrote:

I know marriage is a legal contract. Ive been saying that from the beginning. It polices the body. It ensures that either party in the contract preserves its sexuality for the other one.

Only if you want to stick to the contract. Why would someone sign up to something they fundamentally don't agree with?????? Is that not fraud?

lazydaisy wrote:

The fact is there is no reasoning for getting annoyed at someone for sleeping with someone else. None whatsoever. We have just all bought into it. You cant supply one reason.

There is no reason except it is a part of human nature.

Sure you might as well say there is no reason to get annoyed if someone steals your car. No reason to get annoyed if someone at work tells everyone you sleep with children. No reason to get annoyed if you spill your drink and everyone in a resturant starts laughing at you. Except it is human nature.

It is human nature ... you might not accept that as a reason, but I doubt you will find many who agree with you.

lazydaisy wrote:

You talk about a cheating husband. Up until the 70s women accepted that husbands cheated.

I doubt they accepted it (as in it didn't annoy them) ... I would imagine it was more it did really upset them but they had no options but to put up with it.

lazydaisy wrote:

What biological instinct to avoid water? What???? We come from water. We are made up of water. What are you talking about?

We come from water ... serious are you taking the piss?

There is a biological instinct in humans to avoid water. Why? So we don't f**king drown. I would have thought that would have been obvious.

Humans have to learn to swim, we are crap at it because we had little evolutionary need to know how to swim. Toss and dog in a pool and it will doggy paddle to the side. Dogs have developed an instinct of what to do when in water. That is why you throw a ball in a pool the dog will follow it. They are not that scared of water.

Toss a rabit in a pool it will drown. Toss a human in a pool who has not learnt to swim he will drown.

The instinct serves a very important purpose, it stops human doing stupid things and jumping into a lake when they can't swim.

lazydaisy wrote:

Sex often results in pregnancy but pregnancy does not often result in a child.

And...? You seem to be missing the point of my inital argument, that humans have over come the biological system to produce children. If they do this through the pill, condoms or abortions it is rather immaterial. The have no children so the instinct to raise these children is not present, and the instinct to form a family unit is not present because there is no "family"

lazydaisy wrote:

I am saying is that monogamy is not instinctive and that having multiple sexual partners isnt inheritantly bad or evil or unnatural

Did you read Psi posts about the biological nature of human behaviour with relation to monogamy? Seriously, did you read it and understand it?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50381667&postcount=192

psi wrote:

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 two main 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.
...
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).

There is nothing about morality in it at all. There is nothing about "inheritantyl bad." There is nothing about "evil". There is nothing about "unnatural" ... seriously where are you getting this crap?

It is biology, pure and simple

I have never said there is anything right or wrong being monogamous or not being monogamous. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ... :mad:

I only entered this discussion because DublinDude was stating that it is part of human nature to want to have as many sexual partners as possible even if it means cheating on your parter and that monogamy is unnatural, something you echoed. That is simply not true

There is a very real instinct in humans to have sex. But there is also a very real instinct in humans to form monogamous relationships around raising children. So the claim that monogamy is not part of human nature but an invention of human religion and culture is simply incorrect.

But that doesn't mean anything in the context of morality right or wrong ... it is simply biology and evolution, neither of which have anything to do with that decision

If you are looking for a justifiction to have multiple partners it is as pointless to look at human instinct as it would be for me to use instinct as a justifiction for saying we must all be monogamous (which I have never done, or would never do).

Human instinct is not a law we must follow

People should not be looking purely to human instinct to justify and vilify any human behaviour. (I believe I might have said that before ... about 20 times .. :rolleyes:)

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Stop being so arrogant and patronising.

I am not being arrogant and patronising, I am being pissed off because you are

a) not actually listening to what I am actually saying

b) continuing to imply I am stating something that I am not

GuanYin

I'll go one further (I've been criticised before for my "now for the science bit" posts, so I try and limit the details, how and ever).

There seems to be strong evidence for a molecular basis for monogamy, that is, we may have identified the molecules in our bodies that tell our brain to be monogymous.

There seem to be specific male and female chemicals released into our brains during sex and these chemicals have been shown to direct social interactions as well, such as partner preference (a complex "reward system" in the body) and in males, possessiveness.

The big news is that when these chemicals are introduced externally into test animals, they ONLY influenced animals that are naturally monogymous. The polygymous species were un-affected.

This suggests that our neural pathways have actually physically evolved for us to be monogymous. I'll go into more detail if anyone actually wants to read it.

The key punchline is that all this talk about men being naturally lustful etc, is a nonsense. Like I said, all the reputable studies on infidelity have shown that females are just as likely to stray as men.

Cheating is most likely a socially acquired action. The reasons its associated with men has alot to do with societies structures and the taboo's around it. There are plenty of traits of the human race that our contrary to our evolutionary direction, mainly acquired by social influence. However, by suggesting that men are the ones in our species that stray, is a false assumption that this whole thread is based on.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Wicknight,

Stop being so arrogant and patronising. I am not on a high horse. First you say monogamy is instinctive. Then you say that animals run their mating rituals on insctince but that we have more complex consciousness and intelligence. You are contradicting yourself all over the place.

Different animals evolve differently. What is instinctive inone, doesn't have to be instinctive in another. Some animals nurture their young, others abandon them. Monogamy, is likewise evident and specific to some animals and not others. We're one of the species that it is.

BIGAMY IS ILLEGAL. You can be severely punished for marrying two people. It has nothing to do with the contract made among the individuals. It is the state's decision to criminalise it. It is part of how we have all decided to oraganise our culture.

Our culture yes, not all.

I know marriage is a legal contract. Ive been saying that from the beginning. It polices the body. It ensures that either party in the contract preserves its sexuality for the other one. That is how it has dominion, power over the body. Once you start talking about Catholic marriages then we bring it to a whole different level.

Actually no, there is no "policing" of sex in a marriage document. The law will legally punish people for some breeches of the marriage contract, all it will do for an offence of infidelity is allow the contract to be ended.

The fact is there is no reasoning for getting annoyed at someone for sleeping with someone else. None whatsoever. We have just all bought into it. You cant supply one reason. You talk about a cheating husband. Up until the 70s women accepted that husbands cheated.

To be fair, I don't think thats true. Society accepted it, but society was male dominated at that stage.

What biological instinct to avoid water? What???? We come from water. We are made up of water. What are you talking about?

puzzled me a bit too. By an large, its quite likely that we're disposed to settling near water, by instinct. We do instinctively try to stay afloat though or at least, not submerge. - incidently, the water content of our body would have no bearing on our interaction with water.

Sex often results in pregnancy but pregnancy does not often result in a child.

actually in humans the survival rate for gestating foetuses is extremely high. What do you mean by "not often"? Do you mean sex doesn't always lead to pregnancy? Your actual post there makes no sense.

I AM NOT OBJECTING TO ANYTHING HERE. I dont care if people get married or not. I'm not saying that jealousy doesnt exist, I'm not saying that its easy to be with someone who is sleeping with other people, what I am saying is that monogamy is not instinctive

Well your opinion is grand, you're entitled to it. However,it doesn't make you right. In fact you're wrong

The evidence says otherwise.

and that having multiple sexual partners isnt inheritantly bad or evil or unnatural, but that we have been conditioned to think so because we have been taught that we have entitlements over another persons body.

No sorry, it may not be bad or evil, but it not what we, as a specied, physiologically evolved to do.

Whatever opinion you have, it doesn't match the multitude of scientific evidence that clearly indicates that humans are a monogymous species.

I'd guess that its the exact opposite scenario to what you have said.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Humans have to learn to swim, we are crap at it because we had little evolutionary need to know how to swim. Toss and dog in a pool and it will doggy paddle to the side. Dogs have developed an instinct of what to do when in water. That is why you throw a ball in a pool the dog will follow it. They are not that scared of water.

Toss a rabit in a pool it will drown. Toss a human in a pool who has not learnt to swim he will drown.

It seems humans can instinctively swim. Babies show great aptitude for swimming and waterbirths are considered "natural" by many. I'm not quite sure why we are deprogrammed from swimming, but it may be to do with fear or anxiety.

Some strong evidence support sthe theory that humans evolved on the seashores rather than the savannah plains. Just for a point of information.

lazydaisy

Our culture yes, not all.

The evidence says otherwise.

QUOTE]

Doesn't that indicate to you that it is not an instinct? You're saying that we are monogamous in the same way dogs can swim? You've got to be kidding.

What evidence? What you saw on that BBC documentary?

What I said is that sex often leads to pregnancy but pregnancy does not often lead to a child. It makes plenty of sense. 1 out of 3 conceptions miscarry. Then there are pregnancies that are terminated. That means there were pregnancies but no children! Not to mention that women ovulate only once a month. Sex rarely leading to children... how can you say that when it is so immeasurable?

Actually that is true that women had to accept infidelity, and still in many parts of the world they still do. The point is if monogamy were instinctive no one would be unfaithful, just like dogs can swim when they hit the water, then people would stick with one partner. But people don't stick with one partner. People have multiple partners all the time. You should visit the Personals of boards.ie. Its a myth that we are monogamous. Maybe half of us are. The rest are all having flings and are lying about it.

And to repeat what has been said a million times already, there are plenty of cultures in which people are not monogamous,which would indicate that it is not part of biological evolution or of instinct.

You're not making any sense. The very fact that you call infidelity an offence tells you that its a policing of the body.

This article would suggest very different ideas than what you are proposing. What evidence? Show me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Doesn't that indicate to you that it is not an instinct? You're saying that we are monogamous in the same way dogs can swim? You've got to be kidding.

Thats precisely what I'm saying.

What evidence? What you saw on that BBC documentary?

This article would suggest very different ideas

than what you are proposing. What evidence? Show me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

That article is a lay article written by people, who probably have no more a grasp of the actual research as you do.

Looking at the "external links" they provided. Of the 3 scientific papers listed, one is nearly 30 years old, another has no actual information that is included in the article and the third doesn't deal with humans in any great detail.

If you want to read up, I suggest you try these:

Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9404-9.

The benefit and the doubt: why monogamy?
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Mar;24(1):55-61.

The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover: on the evolution of the human reproductive strategy
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Dec;24(4):273-7.

Interpreting hominid behavior on the basis of sexual dimorphism.
J Hum Evol. 1997 Apr;32(4):345-74.

Both oxytocin and vasopressin may influence alloparental behavior in male prairie voles.
Horm Behav. 2004 May;45(5):354-61.

Cellular mechanisms of social attachment.
Horm Behav. 2001 Sep;40(2):133-8. Review.

Neuroendocrine bases of monogamy.
Trends Neurosci. 1998 Feb;21(2):71-5. Review.


All from highly rated, peer reviewed scientific journals (meaning that each one was approved by a jury of peers before publishing, as opposed to someone just publishing their opinions).

What I said is that sex often leads to pregnancy but pregnancy does not often lead to a child. It makes plenty of sense. 1 out of 3 conceptions miscarry. Then there are pregnancies that are terminated. That means there were pregnancies but no children! Not to mention that women ovulate only once a month. Sex rarely leading to children... how can you say that when it is so immeasurable?

The misscarriage rate is actually 1/7 assuming pregnancy occurs in what we would now view as nromal breeding ages (16-35).

Abortion is a social influence, not a "natural" one, so that argument holds no water.

So basically all of your argument here is based on erroneous data.

Actually that is true that women had to accept infidelity, and still in many parts of the world they still do. The point is if monogamy were instinctive no one would be unfaithful, just like dogs can swim when they hit the water, then people would stick with one partner. But people don't stick with one partner. People have multiple partners all the time. You should visit the Personals of boards.ie. Its a myth that we are monogamous. Maybe half of us are. The rest are all having flings and are lying about it.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as I have stated earlier. Its still got no basis in reality or fact.

I think I have already (twice in fact) explained that social contibutions can easily override natural instincts. You seem to selectively ignore aspects of posts that don't suit your view point.

And to repeat what has been said a million times already, there are plenty of cultures in which people are not monogamous,which would indicate that it is not part of biological evolution or of instinct.

Again, social influences, and remember there is a distinct difference between polygamy and serial monogamy.

You're not making any sense. The very fact that you call infidelity an offence tells you that its a policing of the body.

I was both paraphrasing you and reasoning with your own terms. Even if it were, my use of language is hardly likely to overturn scientific fact.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

It seems humans can instinctively swim. Babies show great aptitude for swimming and waterbirths are considered "natural" by many.

I think it is more babies have a natural ability to hold their breath, learnt in the womb where they didn't "breath", but this ability is gradually lost. They aren't really swimming, if a parent doesn't pick them up out of the water in time they will eventually drown.

psi wrote:

Some strong evidence support sthe theory that humans evolved on the seashores rather than the savannah plains. Just for a point of information.

I release that and I didn't mean to imply that humans avoid water as in they won't camp beside the sea, a lake or river. The opposite is of course true, most settlements grow up around forms of communication like a river. But humans do not posses an instinct to swim, it must be taught and learnt, unlike a lot of animals such as dogs. Because of this there is an in build fear in humans about submerging in water, which must be over come to learn to swim. Well that is my understanding anyway

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9277984

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Doesn't that indicate to you that it is not an instinct? You're saying that we are monogamous in the same way dogs can swim? You've got to be kidding.

It is an indicator that humans long ago stopped being completely ruled by instinct.

lazydaisy wrote:

Sex rarely leading to children... how can you say that when it is so immeasurable?

Because in the western world most people have 2 or 3 children, and I am willing to bet they have had sex a bit more than 2 or 3 times in their lives, or even only 10 times.

When in a relationship I would normally have sex at least once a week. Thats a least 52 times a year, about 208 times in an average 2 year relationship .. obviously this isn't exact but it highlights that if I am having sex 208 times in 2 years and have no children them my sexual relationships never lead to children, let alone rarely.

I am doubt I am an exception.

lazydaisy wrote:

The point is if monogamy were instinctive no one would be unfaithful

Says who?

You are assuming something you were criticising others (including myself) for doing in the first place (which we actually never were doing anyway), that being saying that humans must stick to their biological instincts, that it is a law that must be followed. That is nonsense.

You seem to be looking for human instinct to justify a certain behaviour, or more specifically lack of behaviour, ie to make monogamy unjustifable. I would ask why are you looking for this in the first place?

Human instinct does not rule human society or culture. Just cause monogamy is a biological and evolutionary instinct in humans it doesn't mean it has any bearing over the morality of modern human culture.

It seems to me you just want to be able to say monogamy is unnatural and therefore groups like the Catholic church are wrong to push it.

What you don't seem to get is that it is perfectly acceptable to say that the Catholic church should not push monogamy on people while ignoring if it is instinctive or not because humans are not ruled by their instincts.

lazydaisy wrote:

But people don't stick with one partner.

Some people do, some don't. This fact only has bearing on the evolutionary history of humans if humans were an animal ruled solely by instinct. We are not.

Not everyone cheats on their partners, some people do. Some have one partner at a time, some have multiple partners at a time. Some get married and never sleep with another person in their lives, some get married and screw around on their wedding day.

Monogamy is not unnatural with regard to human nature, it is not an invention of modern human culture, it is not going against human instinct, in fact it is a human instinct. What bearing you think this fact has on modern human behaviour I have no idea.

Neither the instinct to have loads of sex, or the instinct to form monogamous family units defines modern human relationships is in stone.

lazydaisy wrote:

And to repeat what has been said a million times already, there are plenty of cultures in which people are not monogamous,which would indicate that it is not part of biological evolution or of instinct.

No, it wouldn't, only if you are starting off on the premiss that we all must only follow basic human instinct.

Neither myself or Psi were starting off on this premiss, you seem to be the only one who is, even though you are (unfairly) giving out about other people doing exactly what you are doing (saying that humans must follow instinct)

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Vangelis,

Adultury is grounds for divorce in many states in the US and probably in Europe too.

You do realise when you divorce you have to submit legal documents to a judge and put down reasons why you want to dissolve the marriage and then the judge decides whether or not to grant the petition. Adultery is considered breaking the marital contract. So there are laws around it. You wont go to prison for it, but there are definitely legalities around adultery because there are legalities around marriage.

Adultery needn't be the reason for divorce. This arguement is not durable.

Vangelis

Question to Wicknight!

So the deal is that monogamy is natural for human beings.

What then happens when people are unfaithful or choose to live in "open" relationships(hate that name)?

Are they cheating on their own nature?

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

Question to Wicknight!

So the deal is that monogamy is natural for human beings.

What then happens when people are unfaithful or choose to live in "open" relationships(hate that name)?

Are they cheating on their own nature?

Why to wicknight? I think I answered this question at least twice now in perfectly understandable terms - why direct the question at him, bar to accuse him of retreading arguments he has already made so you can accuse him of going around in circles?

Look, its a perfectly simple concept. Humans are the "great thinking ape". They have set themselves aside from the rest of the animal kingdom, by being able to reason, rationalise and respond. Thats not to say instinct is alien to us. Evolutionary instinct got us where we are today. It is the reason we are us.

The biology of the animal instincts are still present and apparent in our body - most people have heard of the chemical nature of these such as dopamine & serotonin (reward system in the brain) and adrenaline (fight or flight). All the physiology that dragged us through the evolutionary process is still there and functioning.

The difference between us and the animals? Well, we can process our responses, we recognise them.

Consider a gazelle. It sees a lion spring suddenly from a nearby bush. Messages are sent to a section of its nerves called the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which then activates its adrenal glands to secrete chemicals, such as adrenaline and noradrenaline, which key up it's body for fight or flight. It instinctively flees to escape.

Consider a human. We see a lion spring suddenly from a nearby bush. The same biochemical process occurs, with one distinct difference. We process the sensation in our cortex and call it "Fear". We return to our fellow humans and describe the process. The "fear" is passed on through this description to other humans. We tell stories about it, myths are created, the area may be named "lion's bush" or whatever. We may even return to Lion's Bush, prepared, with weapons.

We are "the story telling ape". We can communicate in a far more complex manner than any other animal. On the foundation of this, we have set up societies and hierarchies far greater than any other animal. Our reasoning and rationalising has lead to the development of philosophy, theology, religion, social morality. We harness the power of electrical energy and how do we use it? We create means of communicating with people over great distances from a laptop so we can explain to each other how we evolved to do so in the first place.

The laboured point is, physiologically the same instinctive biology occurs in both scenarios. The difference is we have the intelligence to set a totally different cascade of events into motion.

This process applies to us with regard to almost all biological instincts.

Take adoption, or rather, giving a child up for adoption. The instinctive nature of humans is that of a nurturing animal. We naturally spend a great deal of effort ensuring the survival of your young. The hormones during and after pregnancy dictate this (granted that many societies press the "family environment - this too is a social factor - compare our family unit attitudes with that of Germany or France).

Why then should a young mother give up her child for adoption? The reason is almost always socio-economic or traumatic in nature. Where does socio-economic pressure come from? The society (or community).

Basically, you're trying to simplify things to suit your need, by taking either or cases and scenarios. You just can't do that.

We cheat our nature every day. If we hadn't, we'd still be roaming about being eaten by Lions. You have to understand the difference between biological instinct and society driven pressure and see hwo it applies and influences every case.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

What then happens when people are unfaithful or choose to live in "open" relationships(hate that name)?

Are they cheating on their own nature?

I don't accept the position that doing something that doesn't necessarily follow biological instinct is "cheating" ... swimming isn't cheating, flying isn't cheating, Bob Marley having 10 billion kids by 10 billion women isn't "cheating"

You are typing on a something made from reprocessed oil (keyboard) using electricity to power a device made largely of sand and metal (computer) to send electrons to light up a grid of phospherous (monitor). Nothing about that is "natural".

Nothing about human existance (culture, science, society) since about 50,000 years ago has been based simply based on natural biological instincts. We are not like other animals. For people to calm we are slaves to instinct, either to shag or to not shag, is nonsense.

To simply say not following a base instinct is unnatural is not fair (not saying you are saying this). As I mentioned before it is not natural for humans to swim in water, or to fly (one of the reasons both these things scare a large proportion of the human population, at least at first). That is not to say there is anything "wrong" with swimming or flying.

What the instincts in humans does do is to slightly direct social and cultural patterns in humans. Despite what Lazydaisy seems to want to believe, the foundation for monogamous relationships in humans can be traced much further back than the Jewish church. The idea of monogamy is present in all cultures around the world, and as Psi pointed out evidence shows that it has been presentent since very early humans.

Yes the various religious churches choose monogamy as a structure, most definately for the wrong reasons (possession, control, conformaty) and defined a very strict set of codes around it, but that is not to say that they invented the concept monogamy.

I would also point out that "marriage" is not the only definition of monogamy. Someone who sleeps with one person one week and moves on to a different person the next week is actually following monogamy. The idea that monogamy means you only sleep with one person in your life is nonsense.

I think Lazydaisy just wishes the Judo/Christian churches had invented monogamy so she would have an excuse to saying what the Judo/Christian/Islamic churches expect of people is unnatural. But I am not posting in this thread to provide excuses to follow or not follow any form social/relationship structure. I don't think anyone should look to biological and evolutionary instincts in humans for that excuse, or any excuse, to justify human behaviour. Saying it is or is not natural to follow any form of human behaviour is completely missing the point that what is "natural" (ie define by evolution and biology) has very little to do with modern humans

With reguard to "open" relationships in the western world, in my very limited experience of seeing them I have found that they sometimes lead to great resentment and jealousy. If this is down to any human instincts, or cultural expectations I don't know.

Of course I'm sure that isn't always the case, I am sure you find people who are genuinely happy to be in an open relationship. But I would imagine the situation where one person goes along with the idea to make the other person happy is more common

But it would be a huge over simplification of modern human emotions and social interactions to say this is simply because of a human instinct.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Why to wicknight?

People just want more and more wicknight ... 24/7 ... 365 days ... its my curse :cool:

dalk

I'll try not to generalise too much.

As stated already, worldwide, regardless of social or religious background monogamy is a common state for humans (probably the most common arrangement). However, I think there is an argument to be made that life-long monogamy is something of a societal construct (inheritance etc).

Depending on the figures you view (in Western society at least) the average length of a monogamous relationship is between 4 and 9 years. This ties in nicely with the biology of love. If the initial passion doesn't lead to attachment, then the relationship fizzles out. (From a biological perspective that passion may result in a child, and the relationship should last long enough (4 to 9 years) to see the child through its most difficult years... So nature is kept happy).

Of course, talking about humans, there are less certainties and more variation. As mentioned earlier, we are for the most part not ruled by our instincts. You can be confident in saying that swans pair for life and never break up. And i think i can be equally confident in saying that some people will live together happily with one partner for life, while their neighbour might not be able to stay faithful with someone for more than a month, or a year or two etc... Which of those scenarios is more human, more normal?

You might be able to say one is more common than the other, and vice versa, but both scenarios is 'normal' human activity. That's people for you. Yes a swan leaving its mate and running off with another swan would be deemed abnormal, an aberration. But a woman/man running off with another woman/man, certainly isn't uncommon, so how could it be deemed abnormal or unnatural.

Anyway, it all somehow works, because what it boils down to is that we are here because of millennia of successful pregnancies...(regardless as to whether they were together for 5 mins or 50 years )

lazydaisy

So wicknight, are you saying that anything other than an orgy qualifies as monogamy?

Im sorry, but monogamy is swimming upstream against our instincts. Im not ascribing morality to this conversation. You are in fact by using words like CHEATING.

Let me ask you what you consider counts as sex? How do you define CHEATING, a word you like to toss around. Just so I know what you mean.

Be clear and state what you mean by instinct. Im not sure at this point you know what it is. You do realise that saying something is biological and instinctive implies that anything that is different from that is abberrant and unnatural.

Im not saying we have to follow instincts. Im saying monogamy is not an instinct. That is all I am saying - it is a social and sometimes legal arrangement.

As for jealousy - we can choose our emotions. It's part of being an adult.

In the western world, MIDDLE CLASS contemporary white people have two to three kids. Have you been to Latin America? Have you visited the poorer regions of your own country? Have you spoken to previous generations? It is a select constituency that has 2-3 kids which incidentally is shrinking in Europe. Once again you are ascribing your own values to entire populations.

I will also ask you to refrain from your usual pattern of condescension and patronising overtones.