Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want to go Primal? Drop the wife or husband (Rule #11)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
    I would be totally and completely miserable if I had to give this up to go back to hooking up with people.
    I have no idea who would make that choice given our relationship.
    Though I do understand why someone would choose getting out and hooking up over a crappy angry tension filled relationship.
    Been there, done that! LOL
    Unlike the OP, I am not advocating that there is only one natural way for everyone. I think relationships such as yours and Zoe's are wonderful. It's just that I have seen soooooo many of the other crappy, angry, tension filled kind that I just wish people could feel free to explore other options and not feel constrained by a pattern, must meet perfect soulmate, get married, have kids & mortgage, grow old together. That doesn't work for everyone.

    So, I'm not saying your happiness isn't real. I know it is. I also know an awful lot of people who are faking it, making each other miserable til death do us part, just because they made a promise based on a social pattern that is very modern in origin.

    Comment


    • Oh, don't mistake.
      That is purely n=1 for THIS relationship.

      I've been in short relationships that I've ditched.
      I've been in alternative relationships that were plural.
      I've lived the hooking up with a different girl, or two, "every night is a crazy party" life.


      I don't believe in the 'there is only one way to do it' moralistic version that is sold AT ALL.
      I just happen to be extremely happily monogamous right now.
      And in all likelihood for all of the foreseeable future as well... baring something happening to my current partner that forces a change.
      Last edited by cori93437; 06-24-2013, 02:22 PM.
      “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
      ~Friedrich Nietzsche
      And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

      Comment


      • It's not just a moralistic outlook, it's also rather a fairy tale for many people. But we are told, particularly the girls, that you are not complete until you find that perfect person you are destined to be with. Your soulmate, <sigh> Hogwash.

        If two equally self sufficient people find each other's company to be an enhancement to their lives, then they can hook up for a night, a year or a lifetime. That's great.

        It is when a person feels like they are missing something in themselves without a partner. That is the societal construct that I think we would be better off without.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          It's not just a moralistic outlook, it's also rather a fairy tale for many people. But we are told, particularly the girls, that you are not complete until you find that perfect person you are destined to be with. Your soulmate, <sigh> Hogwash.

          If two equally self sufficient people find each other's company to be an enhancement to their lives, then they can hook up for a night, a year or a lifetime. That's great.

          It is when a person feels like they are missing something in themselves without a partner. That is the societal construct that I think we would be better off without.
          Agreed.
          When a person feels that... nothing else in the world will fix it. Not a partner, not a baby, not food, nor drink, nor religion.
          It's a horrible message to set up.
          Are you married yet?
          Are you a mother/father yet?
          No?!
          Then you CANNOT possibly be happy and fulfilled in your life!


          Look inside and love yourself, then good things will happen for whatever length of time that is.
          Enjoy~
          “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
          ~Friedrich Nietzsche
          And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            Anyone we can or have studied does not really count as paleolithic. I really don't see where you get the idea that not understanding the link between sex and babies leads to pedophilia.
            Because it does. Trobrianders are the only extant human group that don't/didn't understand the sex-baby connection. As they don't/didn't understand it, they assume/d sexual organs are just for fun, that sex is a sort of game. So parents have sex with children, children among each other, adults among each other, brothers and sisters, cousins, brothers and brothers, aunts and nephews... Anything goes. They begin erotic play among each other and with adults around the age of eight.

            PS: Modern sex-ed has begun to show them that incest probably isn't all that great, but, until recently, this still held true. Pedophilia is still common.
            Last edited by Kochin; 06-24-2013, 03:08 PM.
            --
            Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

            --
            I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
            I'd apologize, but...

            Comment


            • The reason incest is relatively uncommon is that people tend not to be sexually attracted to those who they were raised with or who they raised. There is some sort of psychological blocking mechanism that tends to prevent this attraction in that case. Looking at an N=1 case of one tribe cannot lead us to conclusions that can be extrapolated across all humanity.

              I have also read more skeptical commentary on how well that tribe recognized the connection between sex and conception, along the same line as occasional reports about "new stone age tribe discovered!", later followed by the admission that said group was fully aware of civilization and had been trading with them all along.

              Comment


              • I'd like two husbands. A bad boy to screw my brains out and a bff with whom I could ride ferries, go to zoos, sit and shoot the shit over coffee or drinks, etc. I've never found them in the same person. Hence, I'm single or a serial monogamist.
                "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                B*tch-lite

                Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kochin View Post
                  Because it does. Trobrianders are the only extant human group that don't/didn't understand the sex-baby connection. As they don't/didn't understand it, they assume/d sexual organs are just for fun, that sex is a sort of game. So parents have sex with children, children among each other, adults among each other, brothers and sisters, cousins, brothers and brothers, aunts and nephews... Anything goes. They begin erotic play among each other and with adults around the age of eight.

                  PS: Modern sex-ed has begun to show them that incest probably isn't all that great, but, until recently, this still held true. Pedophilia is still common.
                  Extant being the key word. Perhaps at one time they were the norm. We judge them by our rules as "pedophiles" but if it is to them all just a fun game, where is the pathology?

                  I think one of the things our society does is keeps children as children for a lot longer than is strictly necessary biologically. When I was in Vanuatu I saw little kids being trusted with adult duties very early. I remember this toddler being sent out to gather wood. He was barely taller than the machete his father gave him.

                  Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                  The reason incest is relatively uncommon is that people tend not to be sexually attracted to those who they were raised with or who they raised. There is some sort of psychological blocking mechanism that tends to prevent this attraction in that case. Looking at an N=1 case of one tribe cannot lead us to conclusions that can be extrapolated across all humanity.

                  I have also read more skeptical commentary on how well that tribe recognized the connection between sex and conception, along the same line as occasional reports about "new stone age tribe discovered!", later followed by the admission that said group was fully aware of civilization and had been trading with them all along.
                  And then there is the controversy surrounding Margaret Meade's work in Samoa which may or may not have been a case of, "Let's see how big a whopper we can tell these white folks. Man, they will believe anything!"
                  Last edited by Paleobird; 06-24-2013, 09:12 PM.

                  Comment


                  • I am with the OP, but I also am not totally opposed to monogamy in the event of an unbelievable match. Not counting my chickens on that though. My life is pretty complete without this mythological love.

                    Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                    I'd like two husbands. A bad boy to screw my brains out and a bff with whom I could ride ferries, go to zoos, sit and shoot the shit over coffee or drinks, etc. I've never found them in the same person. Hence, I'm single or a serial monogamist.
                    Hahahaha
                    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-24-2013, 09:15 PM.

                    Comment


                    • If girls get their period when they're are 12-14, it means that biologically they are meant to be sexually active at that age. Same thing for boys at 13-15... ever thought about that?

                      (Disclaimer - I don't think its ok to have sex with 12 years old, this is for the sake of debating what's "natural")



                      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                      Extant being the key word. Perhaps at one time they were the norm. We judge them by our rules as "pedophiles" but if it is to them all just a fun game, where is the pathology?

                      I think one of the things our society does is keeps children as children for a lot longer than is strictly necessary biologically. When I was in Vanuatu I saw little kids being trusted with adult duties very early. I remember this toddler being sent out to gather wood. He was barely taller than the machete his father gave him.

                      And then there is the controversy surrounding Margaret Meade's work in Samoa which may or may not have been a case of, "Let's see how big a whopper we can tell these white folks. Man, they will believe anything!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                        The reason incest is relatively uncommon is that people tend not to be sexually attracted to those who they were raised with or who they raised. There is some sort of psychological blocking mechanism that tends to prevent this attraction in that case.
                        Yes. In Israel, in the Kibutz where all the children sleep in the same room and hang out 24 hours from a very young age, people from the same age group never hook up.

                        Its aldo the same mechanism that makes couples after 2-3 years to stop having sex. (Or hardly have sex)

                        Comment


                        • Here you go little envious person:


                          Macintyre, S. & Sooman, A. (1992) Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet, 338, 839.", according to the wikipedia page for the Sperm Wars book:

                          Sperm Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



                          Worldwide, it has been calculated from studies of blood groups that about 10 percent of children are in fact not sired by the men who they think are their fathers. This is also the average level found in Western industrial societies [...] There is a real need for an extensive study using modern techniques such as DNA finger-printing. So far, the nearest thing to such a study comes from paternity tests cariried out by child-support agencies. They are responding to absent "fathers" who demand such tests in an attempt to avoid or delay the financial support of an ex-partner. Internationally, child support agencies are reporting a nonpaternity rate of about 15 percent - higher than the average 10 percent - suggesting that men who appeal have more grounds than most for doubting their partners' fidelity.
                          All figures for nonpaternity are the proportion of children actually born. The nonpaternity level for children conceived is even higher. This is because a woman is more likely to abort a child conceived via a man other than her long-term partner. Almost certainly this happens primarily when her partner either knows or has a good chance of finding out that he is not the real father. The abortion is an attempt by the woman to avoid the costs of infidelity discussed in scenes 9 and 11.
                          Although properly controlled DNA fingerprinting studies have not been carried out on humans, they have been carried out on a wide range of appearently monogamous birds. The results for different species suggest a range from 0 percent to over 50 percent incidence of males raising other males' offspring. These levels are comparable with, but on average are probably slightly higher than, the levels found in different groups of humans [...] So it would seem that the average male bird has even less reason than the average man to be reassured by a passing resemblance to its offspring.


                          Originally posted by Lockstock View Post
                          Uhh, would you care to cite the study that states "10%" of people are born NOT from who they think their father is.
                          Throughout this whole thread you've done nothing but pull fake statistics out of your @ss.

                          But thank you for doing the women of a world a service by being their fantasy. Enjoy it while it lasts mate. Wait until your a saggy old man who cant get any women because your no longer anyone's fantasy, and when you find a decent women, she runs away after seeing your 'special badge' LOL

                          You come across as a massive douche bro.

                          Comment


                          • Funny funny people!

                            If you all were truly "living primal", no one would be on a computer.

                            I see many of the men responding about how many women they have done who were married or in some sort of relationship.

                            I see many of the woman going on about how they just "can't" or "won't" be monogamous.

                            For the OP, you are trolling and stirring the shit pot.

                            No relationship happens without work. If someone is in a relationship and is constantly on the "hunt" for another partner, then that someone shouldn't be in a relationship (serial monogamy is BS). Just tramp around and sleep with whoever and be responsible for the natural consequences.

                            Saying that there are no or few happily married couples is just sour grapes. I just love all the stats being thrown around this thread. I guess the whole "if it's on the Internet, it true" thing is running rampant.

                            Sure, plenty of marriages fail, and plenty succeed. No one is 100% happy all the time.

                            It's threads like this that really show who's evolved and who is not...

                            Comment


                            • Five Shocking Stats About Men and Sex | Psychology Today

                              The stereotype about the sex-starved man and the disinterested woman may be more than just a cliche. As it turns out, the instant a woman enters a secure relationship, her sex drive begins to plummet. Four years in, a German study found, fewer than half of women wanted regular sex. And after 20 years, only 20 percent did.

                              Comment


                              • Yes, comparing being on a computer to how your whole sexual life is structured ("only" your most basic primal need) is real intelligent.


                                Originally posted by Rusty View Post
                                Funny funny people!

                                If you all were truly "living primal", no one would be on a computer.

                                I see many of the men responding about how many women they have done who were married or in some sort of relationship.

                                I see many of the woman going on about how they just "can't" or "won't" be monogamous.

                                For the OP, you are trolling and stirring the shit pot.

                                No relationship happens without work. If someone is in a relationship and is constantly on the "hunt" for another partner, then that someone shouldn't be in a relationship (serial monogamy is BS). Just tramp around and sleep with whoever and be responsible for the natural consequences.

                                Saying that there are no or few happily married couples is just sour grapes. I just love all the stats being thrown around this thread. I guess the whole "if it's on the Internet, it true" thing is running rampant.

                                Sure, plenty of marriages fail, and plenty succeed. No one is 100% happy all the time.

                                It's threads like this that really show who's evolved and who is not...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X