Is monogamy really possible??

[Goober Mcfly]

Hey DenWa, are Lil'Miss and I still on for this Saturday?

 

[red]

is a dream a lie if it don't come true or is it something worse?

 

[Kaelyn]

Exactly what I was TRYING to say DenWa!!!

 

[Shades]

My bet is that lots of spouses suspect or maybe even believe that their partner is up to something but really don't want to know. If they did then the pressure would be on them to do something...re-act one way or another.
Relationships are complex. We don't always want to be told and know everything about our partners and our relationship. Instead we draw on what is important to us and ignore or suppress our feelings about what is less important as long as it is not in our face. We may not like the extra weight our partner may have put on...but for the sake of all else that is good in the relationship...mentioning the extra poundage is a topic best avoided.
Perhaps not the best analogy...but best I can do for now.

 

[tompeepin]

Paternity testing, do you really want to know?

... I mean, the women can be carrying Mark's baby but is married to Jim for his resources. And Jim may think Jane loves him but she doesn't. But Jim doesn't know this. Yet, Jim think Jane is a great fuck and thinks he is dominant in the relationship when in reality, Jane is because she made Jim raise another man's child without him knowing it.

Too fuckin' funny and too true! Hahaha

I read a statistic that said that up to a third of children might not be the offspring of their father.

Another interesting statistic is that of how many people have "cheated" or had sex with someone other than their partner. It is near 50% in the UK, US and Canada. The lowest of the three being in Canada, yes bible thumpers in the US Bible belt seem to like to get a little trim on the side.

Now tell me that monogamy is instinctual for the human species. Humans can be monogamous if they control their instincts but it is instinctual to desire variety. Yes we all have a choice .

 

[anastazia]

I believe that if someone is with there true Love then there is monogomy but every one is different and everyone feels differently. I also think that it depends on how serious people take there marriage or there wedding vows. I find marriage to be very sacried.

 

[DocOdd]

Well, I think the advice about what people are wired to do is pretty worthless. Theories about that are incredibly common these days, lots of them are in conflict with one another, and the evidence is generally very sketchy. Evolutionarily speaking, the obvious strategy isn't always the most successful, so those who say that we're "wired" to use the obvious strategy are not only ignoring the evidence that lots of people don't act like that, they're also showing a serious lack of imagination when it comes to possible strategies.

Individual variation seems to be vast in this area (as in lots of other areas). Personally, I don't hobby (or cheat in other ways) when I'm in a serious relationship. Obviously, I prefer for my serious relationships to be with someone with similar tendencies, though this hasn't always happened. But I'm intrigued enough by variety that when I'm not in an LTR and feeling lonely, seeing lots of different SPs seems like a great way to improve my mood.

 

[Peace4u]

Of course monogomy is not only possible,but actually a reality in there lives. It takes two people a man and a woman who love and trust in each other and have a strong faith in God.Men who are involved in this hobby do it for pure pleasure and lust,i beleive.

 

[galt]

No....it's not a reality.
There has also been recent research on the design of the penis. This research suggests that the penis, in fact, works as a plunger of sorts during intercourse. Some antropologists suggest that the design of the penis is very specifc, as to allow it to pull, and vacuum (for lack of a better pharse) ...

I have a clogged toilet and my penis just isn't doing the trick...guess it's off to crappy tire for a plunger. DAMN!!

 

[drlove]

DenWa has it right.

 

[peeler_feeler]

DenWa has it right.

Agreed

 

[drlove]

...lots of people don't act like that...Personally, I don't hobby (or cheat in other ways) when I'm in a serious relationship...But I'm intrigued enough by variety that when I'm not in an LTR and feeling lonely, seeing lots of different SPs seems like a great way to improve my mood.

People "don't act like that" because they choose not to. However, by so doing, they are ignoring nature's prime directive, which for a man is to (attempt) to inseminate as many women as possible - all things being equal. By your own admission, (kindly refer to your quote above) when you are not giving in to convention by confining your sexual expression to one woman in particular, you enjoy sowing your wild oats as much as the rest of us.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[gala]

Arguments about what your body is supposed to do are stupid. These are the same things people try and say to argue that homosexuality is wrong, that sex is for having children only, and that people shouldn't be flying in planes. Get a grip. You don't have to do what your body was "meant" to do, you can choose different.

Monogamy is a "reality" in the sense that apparently 50% of the population or more practice it. Cheating is a "reality" in the sense that apparently 50% of marriages have some cheating going on.

I agree with the comment above about deception. If you're above board with your partner do whatever you damn well please. Maybe you like to swap wives and you're happy with that. Maybe your partner likes to watch you fuck other people. Maybe your partner doesn't mind if you go out and get something extra on the side, or you don't mind if she does. Whatever--so long as it's on the table, I can't see where it's anybody's business to tell you what to do.

What I think is wrong is deceiving people who trust and care about you, whether it's deceiving them about sex, or deceiving them about your financial situation, or anthing else you know they would judge "important" and "you should have told me".

You ought to be honest at least with your family, if not in general.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Of course monogomy is not only possible,but actually a reality in there lives. It takes two people a man and a woman who love and trust in each other and have a strong faith in God.

What does "God" have to do with it? In biblical times there was nothing wrong with a man having as many wives as he could afford in addition to concubines and "common" prostitutes. Absoulutely nothing said wrong about it.

Adultery was a property crime against the husbands ownership rights over his wives. THere is no incident of adultery in the bible of a married man having sex with an unmarried women, that was not adultery as long as the "other women" was single - not owned by her husband.

Not to mention marriage was usually at 12-13 yrs old based on a family "deal". Often the bride/groom didn't meet till their wedding day and had been "bethrohed" to each other by their famililes a long time before.

In historic cultures few were monogamous unless forced upon them by a King or dictator.

Likewise in the animal kingdom, monogamy is rare.

 

[DocOdd]

People "don't act like that" because they choose not to. However, by so doing, they are ignoring nature's prime directive, which for a man is to (attempt) to inseminate as many women as possible - all things being equal. By your own admission, (kindly refer to your quote above) when you are not giving in to convention by confining your sexual expression to one woman in particular, you enjoy sowing your wild oats as much as the rest of us.

Thanks for proving my point.

So choice is something magical which is not determined by biology? I realize there are people who believe that, but there's zero evidence for it, and it sits ill with your otherwise hardcore biological determinism.

As far as a "prime directive", it is obviously the case that I have some of the traits that I do because genes which express themselves as those traits were good at getting themselves copied over time. Why they were good at that varied; again, there are lots of strategies for maximizing copies in the long run. Maximizing them in the short run isn't always the way to go. I've also got lots of traits that are more random in origin, and for that matter many of the strategies by which genes get themselves copied have become obsolete.

Now, I doubt anybody would deny that we subjectively enjoy sex and seek it out because that has to be a part of almost any gene-copying strategy, but again the details of with who and exactly how often are going to vary a lot from individual to individual, because there are different strategies which work better at different times, and again a lot of what we are is just produced by chance, so it's at best highly misleading to speak of a "prime directive" which pushes in only one direction.

To take the example which you claim proves your point, I always have safe sex with SPs. That doesn't do a lot to pass on my genes. So my genes seem to be screwing up their pursuit of the prime directive (unless this is part of some more subtle strategy, which is entirely possible, though I can't suggest one off-hand). Does that mean I'm doing something wrong? Not unless your importing some moral evaluation which goes far beyond the biological facts.

 

[G-Spot Seeker]

Times are a changing though...

Although it is widely known that more men tend to stray than their female counterpart, more and more women are becoming like men...fooling around on their bf's or spouses. In today's society where women have become much more independent and empowered with the same liberty's as the guys, they are exploring their sexual fantasies and desires as much as men are.

 

[drlove]

So choice is something magical which is not determined by biology?

Exactly. Adhering solely to inate biological drives breeds promiscuity. It's nature's way of ensuring that we don't all end up cross eyed and retarded as a result of inbreeding (during prehistoric times) reference: Gene Simmons. Choice is simply that. You are choosing to ignore your primal urges in order to obtain something else which you deem salient. I.e. (long term relationship, stability, security and what have you.)

To take the example which you claim proves your point, I always have safe sex with SPs. That doesn't do a lot to pass on my genes. So my genes seem to be screwing up their pursuit of the prime directive (unless this is part of some more subtle strategy, which is entirely possible, though I can't suggest one off-hand). Does that mean I'm doing something wrong? Not unless your importing some moral evaluation which goes far beyond the biological facts.

The point is, that while you are practicing "safe sex" you are doing so under duress from two sources:

1) An SP and/or SO in some cases will not let you have sex with her otherwise

2) This is due to fear on your part and hers of pregnancy, STD's etc..

However, as I've stated before, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL - I.e. assuming no possibility of pregnancy or risk of disease or any other negative consequences, isn't it true that every red blooded male would prefer to have BBFS as opposed to using a condom?? I think we all know the answer to that one. Again, the prime directive to attempt to procreate and diversify the gene pool comes into effect.

 

[DocOdd]

However, as I've stated before, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL - I.e. assuming no possibility of pregnancy or risk of disease or any other negative consequences, isn't it true that every red blooded male would prefer to have BBFS as opposed to using a condom?? I think we all know the answer to that one. Again, the prime directive to attempt to procreate and diversify the gene pool comes into effect.

How can you not see that you completely undermine your point when you include "no possibility of pregnancy" in the category of "all things being equal?" Your prime directive is all about producing pregancies.

 

[tompeepin]

Are human's instinctively monogamous animals?

It is true that the capacity to reason plays a big part in human behavior. Not only genes but also environment is a big factor in human behavior.

The question DocOdd is: are humans instinctively and genetically monogamous animals? Is it reward addiction that drives human monogamy? Or is it socio-environmental issues behind human monogamy (due to human's capacity to reason)?

I doubt that it is genetic and instinctive, but rather a complex combination of the other two.

(Monogamous Animals May Be More Likely To Die Out)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030527084621.htm

(Addiction Mechanism Regulates Bonding In Monogamous Animals)
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040021223042data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.sensualism.com/love/addiction.html

(Mating for Life?)
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/HYBRIDVIGOR/issue1/mating.htm
"[Humans] have a big brain; we can decide all sorts of things. Just because there's biology does not mean we are destined to follow any particular biological route (1)."

So again; are humans genetically and thus instinctively monogamous? No one is arguing the humans can be monogamous. The question is: is it natural or derived? It is interesting to note that if humans were naturally monogamous, after they mated for life, there would be no desire to mate again if a mate died.

 

[Bud Plug]

What I think is wrong is deceiving people who trust and care about you, whether it's deceiving them about sex, or deceiving them about your financial situation, or anthing else you know they would judge "important" and "you should have told me".

You ought to be honest at least with your family, if not in general.

I'm sorry, but that is neither reality nor realistic. No marriage could withstand 100% honesty. We all need to believe a few things that might not be true (religious beliefs are only one example).

When in your relationship are you supposed to be honest? You may never have wanted to be with another person until you've been married several years. The idea that marriage is a contract and its ok as long as the other person agrees with it ignores the fact that everything about your relationship may change during the marriage. You can't have a contract where the rules need to be constantly changed.

Once you realize that your current relationship cannot meet your needs, you can either tear your life apart and start again (foolish, as I don't think any single relationship can fulfill all your needs), or you can accept that some mistakes can't be undone and the best you can do in the circumstances is compromise. That compromise might even involve the so-called "high principles" of honesty and openness in your marriage. Not all noble principles can be maintained without treading on some other value.

Honesty and openness cannot cure all ails in a marriage. It will end as many marriages as it will save. The classic honest communication that comes to mind is "I don't love you anymore".

As long as family laws are designed to ruin the relationship between non-custodial parents and their children, and are financially punitive on the bread-winner spouse, practical people will compromise their values rather than destroy the lives of themselves and their children - and society is probably better off for it!