[QUOTE=Davidil;1228093]Both hilarious and very sad.
Guys, don't get me wrong, I used to a really romantic guy when I was young.... but then reality hits you in face. I truly wish I was wrong.... too bad I'm not.[/QUOTE]
You are DavidBrennan and I claim my five pounds.
[QUOTE=Mr.Perfidy;1228062]I try and solicit marital advice from happily married, loyal people that I know who are older and have been married many years.
Never met one though- adviceless.[/QUOTE]
I have the opposite problem. I may well never marry since I want nothing less than my parents have. 35 years and still in love. Happily married and loyal does happen, but it didn't happen by accident. They have put the work in to earn their happiness.
As for admiring other people outside of my SO- finding someone attractive, and even having the occasional dirty thought about someone else, doesn't automatically mean that I want his P in my V. It just means that I'm capable of appreciating beauty and of keeping my wayward thoughts as . . . thoughts. It's the same as admiring a pretty, but undatable, person as a single person.
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]my b/f and i have been together almost 11 years. we love each other's company, laugh and the sex remains great. we respect each other and don't fight over petty shit.
we don't live together. perfect for us both.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[quote]You are DavidBrennan and I claim my five pounds. [/quote]
Haha, gettin the jump on the ooool banhammer
[I]Comments to Davidil's post in red. About the only thing true in that post is that men have an instinct to father children with many women (which Davidil doesn't even say directly), but there is also a strong instinct to couple with a woman and make sure the children you have survive. It is the old quantity versus quality balance. And that is how love developed, a chemical reaction meant to make sure that couples would stay together and raise their offspring - in monogamy.[/I]
There is a lot of research saying that we're non monogamous, that we're not designed to stay in long term relationships with just one partner.
In the small tribes that Gork used to live in, everyone were sharing everything - the food, the security and.... sexual partners.
[COLOR="#FF0000"]No. The victors got the women, the rest were either dead or lived without women. As for sharing possessions, there is no proof that would have gone on everywhere, and there is a reason it stopped where it did go on. Such societies never see any progress, since people have no reason to increase their workload if they have to share the results with every leech in the society. Just look at the few people still living like Stone Age tribes today, which are the darlings of the "social anthropology" leftists, praised as "harmonious". Those tribes share their possessions, yes. And that is exactly why they are still stuck in the Stone Age, living short lives of hard labor, with no written language, no sense of who they are and where they are going, fearing spirits all around them as the cause of everything that happens, subjecting men, women and children to superstitious rules.... With permanent poverty comes permanent ignorance, as there is no science. It is a hard, ignorant life.[/COLOR]
That made sense because when everybody is sharing everything everyone is safer. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Not at all, it leads to poverty and starvation. Just look at the early settlers in the northeastern USA, who starved because they started out sharing all the tools and all the food. The journals from that time showed that people stopped working because the laziest did practically nothing, so others didn't want to work either. When the land was finally divided between the families, output quickly tripled.[/COLOR] No woman or child is dependent on ONE man. When everybody is sleeping with everybody - nobody knows who fathered who so the males protect all the children.
[COLOR="#FF0000"]Bogus theory. Why would men protect children that are not theirs? That goes against everything we know about the species. People protect their own children, and so it was in the Stone Age too.[/COLOR]
Monogamy was basically "invented" by the elite to organize society so private property could be accumulated and taxed, for social classes to be created, for wealth to be passed on from one generation to the next. Monogamy is what brought us here, to the where our civilization is today, but it is no longer necessary.
[COLOR="#FF0000"]Typical Marxist crap taught in "sociology" classes and the like. As if some evil plotters in the Stone Age would invent monogamy to start social classes. When some men had harems and others had no women, THAT was the BIGGEST "class" division of all times. We see from DNA that this is how things were at one point in the Stone Age - just a few men per tribe spreading their genes. (The fight over women is why men have bigger risktaking behavior, by the way. The risktakers would try new things, explore better hunting grounds, new methods, and dare to fight over land and women. They would either die or succeed, and when succeeding they would spread their behavior genes more than the non-risktakers.) Men have the instinct to spread their genes through many partners. However, they also have the instinct to make sure their offspring survives, which works in favor of monogamy, especially in cold and unforgiving northern climates where you can't just "spray and pray". A man had to have just a few children instead and focus on them together with his wife, achieving a division of labor between the two. With monogamy each man could have children instead of just a few harem owners. This drastically increased the number of children, and drastically increased their chances of survival as each child got more attention, training, food and protection from its parents than the children in a harem. This made sure the labor of all men, not just a few, would be invested in the upbringing of children, and that gave society a great boost forward. There is a reason religions and laws across the world, in separately evolving societies, have favored monogamous marriage. When the structure with monogamous marriages breaks down, it has strong negative consequences for the children. Children born out of wedlock have lower grades, commit more crime and lead unhealthier lives.[/COLOR]
Davidil, this is far from the first time that Sex at Dawn has cropped up here.
Here's a post I made in a previous thread:
[quote]At the end of the day people can have whatever relationships they want. I'm not opposed to polyamory whether I practice it myself or not. I think that the SAD authors built an alternative narrative that has elements of truth in it (greater plasticity and range of female sexual desires than male, for example), but is not superior to conventional ones.
Additionally, they cherry picked data to support their narrative, by:
a. Preferring bonobos to paleolithic human relationship structures
b. Preferring bonobos to chimpanzee relationship structures (when both are equidistant from us)
c. Discounting evidence which refutes their narrative like male teste with questionable science
d. Failing to address for the different social structures between a 'tribe' or 70 or so individuals (where everybody knows each other) and modern society (where most people in the same city are strangers to us)
e. Discounting agricultural societies when they don't fit the preferred narrative, including them when they do
f. Glossing over the polyamorous details of the one actual forager society (inuits) because they don't fit the preferred narrative
I can see polyamorous behaviour working successfully in a small tribal setting (like a commune maybe)? But I can't see it working on a large scale in a much larger society more successfully than monogamy does. [/quote]
[QUOTE=noodletoy;1228225]my b/f and i have been together almost 11 years. we love each other's company, laugh and the sex remains great. we respect each other and don't fight over petty shit.
[B]we don't live together.[/B] perfect for us both.[/QUOTE]That may very well be the secret to long term harmony.
Haha.... you don't live together. You've basically proved my point. Thanks.
I think like most things in life including degrees of the Paleo lifestyle, that monogomy is more for some than others. I have always been only with one person at a time. I frankly find sufficient satisfaction in that, even more than I can handle at times. I'm not just talking about sex either. For me there is a large amount of emotional effort that I extend toward my wife and even toward the one girlfriend I had had throughout high school that honestly left me with little to express toward another person. In fact I did not even want to. While yes I can look at another women and certainly think that she may be attractive, etc. but for me to cross the line of "adding" her to my eligibility list is just not happening.
However, I am not saying it is not ok for someone else to do their life another way than the way I do mine. I am just saying that the only rule about life is that there are no rules. We each need to make our own decisions about this and many other things. For me these decisions are abstractions of my own life which may or may not apply to anyone else. Just as someone eslse's life decisions are their own abstractions which might not be applicable to me. In either event I judge not, one way or the other for I am too busy living my own life to care all that much.
[QUOTE=Davidil;1227226]Why not? If we're all meant to eat a certain way, why we're not meant to mate in a certain way?
I agree that it might be "right" for some. 1% of people are asexual ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality[/url]) , and 10% or so are born gay. I think maybe 10% are born monogamous but most people are not, which explains the high divorce rates (70% in some countries)
I think this is a worthwhile discussion.
Yay, fake statistics pulled out of the air! Way to go!
The problem here is that I don't think of it in terms of genetics. It's not comparable to being gay or asexual, even though it is related to human sexuality.
I don't see my free choice and enjoyment of monogamy is A. genetic or B. needing to be universally applied.
You keep asserting that "the majority of people" or "everyone" *should* behave in a certain way. I disagree. I think people should behave how they want to (within rules of social decency, consent, etc) with no judgment from you, whether they see it as genetic or not.
I'm tired of this "worthwhile" discussion because it's usually just a random guy who just wants to have sex with lots of women. So what? Have sex with lots of partners then. Why do you need a justification for it?