Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.
Long Onion wrote: » Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted, or what else am I going to say as she might be reading this.
Confab wrote: » You've just answered your own question.
WindSock wrote: » Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?
WindSock wrote: » Also, lame answer: Love
Long Onion wrote: » Well .... ? Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?) Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus. Any thoughts?
Long Onion wrote: » Don't quite see what you mean - do you mean that biology pre-programmed men to be monogamous so they would invest in their kids? I would not agree with this - fathers and mothers still have affairs without neglecting their kids.
Not a lame answer, but, I suspect, a common one. Can you only love one person at a time? Or do you remain monogamous because you love the person and expect that this is what they want from the relationship - in which case we are back to the original question about the default option. I suspect that the whole issue is rooted in insecurity at some level.
GaNjaHaN wrote: » I remember hearing that our cousins the chimpanzees are mostly bisexual and regularly partake in gang-rape.
They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.
GaNjaHaN wrote: » I'd imagine loose bronze age women were the cause of a lot of killings back in the day.
WindSock wrote: » Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs? Also, lame answer: Love
WindSock wrote: » Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day. Any agressive uprisings are quickly put down by orgies. They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.
Poor Uncle Tom wrote: » Who decided monogamy was the best way forward? I agree, it's over rated, Teak and Iroko have excellent qualities for hardwoods as well.
scanlas wrote: » There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically. Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour. Sound familiar.............. To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake. Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Still it's good for the old gas pipes.
johnathan woss wrote: » I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed. Why do you hate other men so much ?
Davidius wrote: » Monogamy is so much easier if anything. You only have to get one. Besides, it's easier to keep track of your sperm.
WindSock wrote: » Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day.
Long Onion wrote: » Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans
Dragan wrote: » I would think your line of argument is slightly skewed. Beyond the need to pump out babies, in most points in history men had very little need for women beyond a bit of sexual release and looking after the house. Men had the jobs and controlled the economic flow, as you so aptly pointed out. However, the logic that this would somehow make them require a singular lover is very much misplaced. Be you noble, or serf, your wife was below you. As such, it would be FAR more beneficial to a woman to be married to a man, and supported by a system that promotes loyalty and fidelity to your partner, as a woman with no support would die in the street, so, she could gut fish, or sell fish...if you get me. Now, all broad generalities i admit, but applicable to the argument nonetheless.
