Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 194

Thread: Want to go Primal? Drop the wife or husband (Rule #11) page 18

  1. #171
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    920
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidil View Post
    Sorry but this sounds like bullshit. If you're married a virgin its because you're super shy or otherwise have serious social issues and have a problem finding partners or you're extremely asexual. It has nothing to do with your brain being programmed.
    I was given enough chances. From about the age of eight boys (and in some creepy cases, men) showed interest. I just (as mentioned earlier in the thread), didn't feel anyone was suitable, so my sex-drive was "switched off". A boy/guy could be cute, fit, socially important or hot, but, regardless of how much I liked him, I didn't want sex with him. I wanted to give my body to a man who would be a good provider and father and, for some reason, none of the boys I liked/dated were EVER deemed to be in that category. So I never felt the desire. Once I met the right guy I actually found him arousing from pretty much the start. Everything that had never happened with another male happened with him: he looked right, smelled right, his proximity was always 100% desired and I'd find my body "preparing" itself for him when we spent time alone together.
    This differs from asexuality in that I WAS sexually awakened. I was aware of sex, of the pleasure of masturbating and of the fact my friends found sex better. But I never felt that way inclined until I met a man I found stable.
    And now he's the only man I respond to sexually and the only one I desire.

    Deeply religious people and others who (consciously or inactively) "save" themselves for whatever reason report a similar experience of not being sexually awakened until you have sex for the first time, regardless of when you do it (18, 25 or 50) and of never having desire for anyone but your partner when you do this. The problem is, we live in a very sexual world where polygamy is socially desirable and where children pressure each other into early sex, so few people are able to rationalize their sexual desires before they have a sex life. We have sex too young and too often to view it rationally, from a non-sexualised perspective.
    I think that's where you're hitting the wall with my argument: you've never seen it from this side of the fence, have you?
    --
    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...

  2. #172
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    This makes the assumption that one night stands would have been frowned upon. Why would they?

    /@Kochin

    I think there is a piece to the puzzle missing in this whole discussion. It has been stated that women want monogamy so that a man will stick around and protect her and her children. It has been stated that a man wants monogamy because he doesn't want to get stuck raising someone else's child.

    But both of these statements rely on the premise that early humans understood that sex==>>babies. I don't think this is necessarily so.

    Given that women often have sex without having a baby (especially when BF% is low) and that conception and figuring out that a child is on the way are rather far apart in time, I don't think this connection was really apparent.

    People have sex. Women have babies. Two separate subjects. When women have babies, the tribe raises them and life goes on.

    All our morality and social mores are rooted in the fact that we know sex could mean a baby. Caring whose baby it is only becomes an issue when there is property to be handed down, in other words, it is an economic concept.
    Great point.

  3. #173
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,524
    I think the problem is that, when you have sex for the first time outside an emotional relationship (which wouldn't have happened in a tribal scenario, where one-night-stands would be impossible, as you knew everyone), you associate it with personal pleasure and not human interaction. And, when you have sex for the first time with someone you're bonded to, the oxytocin release will encourage you to stay with them. If that relationship fails, it then weakens the impact of subsequent sexually-released oxytocin, the same way exposure to porn, sugar or drugs numbs your reception of them. This means that when you start a relationship immaturely and have sex inside that relationship (be it a one-night-stand or a teenage relationship formed due to weak social bonding), you're "defusing" your natural potential for monogamy. This probably serves a purpose, otherwise we would have lost it. But it doesn't change the fact that humans (and females especially) have natural potential to be monogamous
    this is the most interesting comment in the thread so far and the only thing that made me pause and think. (from Kochin)
    Last edited by Mr.Perfidy; 06-26-2013 at 12:28 PM.
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

  4. #174
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
    this is the most interesting comment in the thread so far and the only thing that made me pause and think. (from Kochin)
    I think she's overestimating the emotional component of tribal relationships. The deep emotional connection is a romantic concept that occurred simultaneously sometimes but not prior to having sex in the tribal context.

    Her discussion of pleasure centers in the brain ironically is disproving herself. The body can only crave the experiences that it has already had. This goes with food; you can only crave a strawberry if you've had one before. This also goes with sex; you can only crave sex in exciting situations with new partners if you've experienced it (and had good prior experiences obviously). If you keep your body from ever feeling these things, you get stuck at the curiosity level rather than the craving level. Strong belief and religion can easily cut through these curiosities so you feel basically "complete" with this one life partner.

    Personal question Kochin: Are you religious?

  5. #175
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    I think she's overestimating the emotional component of tribal relationships. The deep emotional connection is a romantic concept that occurred simultaneously sometimes but not prior to having sex in the tribal context.

    Her discussion of pleasure centers in the brain ironically is disproving herself. The body can only crave the experiences that it has already had. This goes with food; you can only crave a strawberry if you've had one before. This also goes with sex; you can only crave sex in exciting situations with new partners if you've experienced it (and had good prior experiences obviously). If you keep your body from ever feeling these things, you get stuck at the curiosity level rather than the craving level. Strong belief and religion can easily cut through these curiosities so you feel basically "complete" with this one life partner.

    Personal question Kochin: Are you religious?
    You've basically taken my point from another angle.
    My point was that humans are often truly monogamous until we "break" into polygamy, after which we lean towards polygamy. You've just turned it around but, at its core, the argument is the same. Just a "chicken or egg" scenario.

    And no, not in any traditional sense. I have my own beliefs based on personal experiences, but my contact with religion has been limited and I've never followed a religious belief system. The closest I came was when at 13 I found that, having never read it, I had somehow come to almost exactly identify with the Zen perspective on life's purpose. I don't anymore, but that was an odd time for me.
    --
    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...

  6. #176
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kochin View Post
    2.5 years in. Sex increasing in frequency. The more I know him, the more I want him. I want to have 8 kids with that man. He's perfection.

    As I said, humans can lean one way or the other. In a monogamous society, they would never experience another human and, therefore, never care for it. In a non-monogamous society they would eventually disassociate sex from the oxytocin bond and not bother with stable partners. Society would shape our sexual behaviour and whatever was preferable would become "you". This also explains how, even outside of religious folks, marriages that start with the woman or both partners being virgins (or having only had sex with that partner and/or one former partner) have a sub 2% divorce rate, whilst over 50% of all "normal" marriages are impacted by infidelity. They have "tuned into" the polygamous side of themselves and can't stop desiring other people. The others have "tuned into" the monogamous side of their sexuality and become monogamous. Therefore, if you have sex with many people, your brain decides that is normal and encourages polygamous behaviour. But if you don't "break out" of monogamy (done by having 2+ sexual partners in your life), your brain tells you monogamy is normal and you are happy to stay with one person forever.
    Monogamous societies are, in theory, possible if every single person waited until marriage. They would even be very pleasurable for a lot of people because the brain would only *know* their one partner. It's a utopian ideal that is never achieved because just a couple rotten apples will spoil the whole tree. Then, everything slowly/quickly goes downhill as adultery, cuckolding, and bastard children run rampant.

    Two more issues with monogamy:
    1. Fertility. What if you marry someone who's infertile? And if you've never gotten pregnant (let alone had sex) before this point, you would never know this fact. So those plans about starting a family? Throw them out of the window unless you're willing to break your concept of "one life partner". Monogamy fails.

    2. Economics. Marriage was traditionally about monetary transfer, and it was the lucky woman who found a wealthy man to marry. After that, the woman was at the beck and call of the man in order to stay in his favor. Men could leave their women with no reprocussions. Men had all the power.

    Now, there is a far far greater percentage of wealthy men in this country (and arguably fewer attractive females, but I won't touch that topic). Women have more options, and they also have legal backing for alimony and child support. Previously, men would not accept these terms, but they are generally "forced" to because the women can go elsewhere to find a different man who will. Men are begrudgingly entering marriages and getting sucked dry from their women after divorce.

    The bottomline is that polyamory is the natural course for the human physiology and psychology. Many have made their points on why this is the case, so I will not repeat them. The "nuclear family" needs to be disarmed in America and replaced with something better. The concept of family life is one of our nation's biggest issues because it spans so many important topics. It's not just sex; it's social connection/participation, child welfare and abuse, and more.

  7. #177
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kochin View Post
    You've basically taken my point from another angle.
    My point was that humans are often truly monogamous until we "break" into polygamy, after which we lean towards polygamy. You've just turned it around but, at its core, the argument is the same. Just a "chicken or egg" scenario.

    And no, not in any traditional sense. I have my own beliefs based on personal experiences, but my contact with religion has been limited and I've never followed a religious belief system. The closest I came was when at 13 I found that, having never read it, I had somehow come to almost exactly identify with the Zen perspective on life's purpose. I don't anymore, but that was an odd time for me.
    Well you're saying humans are truly monogamous until we "break" into polyamory, but I say humans naturally break into polamory at very young ages (8-15 years old as a very rough guideline). It is only religious custom that prevents this natural course of events. This religious custom has not been widespread throughout history either. It only comes from certain (read: not all) agricultural societies that then spawned into the modern society that we live in today.

  8. #178
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Monogamous societies are, in theory, possible if every single person waited until marriage. They would even be very pleasurable for a lot of people because the brain would only *know* their one partner. It's a utopian ideal that is never achieved because just a couple rotten apples will spoil the whole tree. Then, everything slowly/quickly goes downhill as adultery, cuckolding, and bastard children run rampant.

    Two more issues with monogamy:
    1. Fertility. What if you marry someone who's infertile? And if you've never gotten pregnant (let alone had sex) before this point, you would never know this fact. So those plans about starting a family? Throw them out of the window unless you're willing to break your concept of "one life partner". Monogamy fails.

    2. Economics. Marriage was traditionally about monetary transfer, and it was the lucky woman who found a wealthy man to marry. After that, the woman was at the beck and call of the man in order to stay in his favor. Men could leave their women with no reprocussions. Men had all the power.

    Now, there is a far far greater percentage of wealthy men in this country (and arguably fewer attractive females, but I won't touch that topic). Women have more options, and they also have legal backing for alimony and child support. Previously, men would not accept these terms, but they are generally "forced" to because the women can go elsewhere to find a different man who will. Men are begrudgingly entering marriages and getting sucked dry from their women after divorce.

    The bottomline is that polyamory is the natural course for the human physiology and psychology. Many have made their points on why this is the case, so I will not repeat them. The "nuclear family" needs to be disarmed in America and replaced with something better. The concept of family life is one of our nation's biggest issues because it spans so many important topics. It's not just sex; it's social connection/participation, child welfare and abuse, and more.
    You assume marriage and a nuclear family is necessary for sexual monogamy. Many societies throughout the world engage in lifelong partnership without a need for a ceremony or a ring. They just choose someone and settle. And yes, sometimes people in a monogamous society experiment and wind up engaging in polygamy, or a relationship ends due to death, banishment or ill health and the remaining party eventually moves on. Much in the same way that in a polygamous society not everyone engages in the "socially correct" behaviours of said society and some wind up monogamous. Some people DO naturally lean steadily one way or the other, but, in general, humans are flexible because we need to be. Because we sit between monogamy and polygamy dependent on what is preferable to that particular society.
    --
    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...

  9. #179
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Well you're saying humans are truly monogamous until we "break" into polyamory, but I say humans naturally break into polamory at very young ages (8-15 years old as a very rough guideline). It is only religious custom that prevents this natural course of events. This religious custom has not been widespread throughout history either. It only comes from certain (read: not all) agricultural societies that then spawned into the modern society that we live in today.
    Yet many people are also naturally monogamous and anyone raised in a monogamous society is far more likely to stay monogamous and be happy. Arranged marriages and marriage and wealth messed that up a bit. Naturally, in a monogamous society, you would select a mate of your own choosing, meaning the relationship was likely to last, as you'd find them sexually appealing, pleasant to be around and generally a good addition to your family. When you add wealth or religion, people start selecting mates they aren't actually compatible with, making the relationship less likely to work.
    As a monogamous society becomes wealthier, it is far more likely to turn into a polygamous society due to the increased demand for wealth and separation, eventually leading to monogamy appearing unnecessary (which it would be when the population have become polygamous).
    --
    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...

  10. #180
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,413
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Two more issues with monogamy:
    1. Fertility. What if you marry someone who's infertile? And if you've never gotten pregnant (let alone had sex) before this point, you would never know this fact. So those plans about starting a family? Throw them out of the window unless you're willing to break your concept of "one life partner". Monogamy fails.
    Somehow it seems like you are looking at this from a modernist point of view. The idea that everybody has the right to procreate and make that decision independently of the proposed other half of the genetic material of some potential offspring is weird.

    Historically, people had no right to expect to procreate. It was not uncommon for a couple to be infertile, and it was neither the man's nor the woman's prerogative to go out and find other partners to try to make it happen (except in the case of the need for royal heirs). Although it was generally assumed that the woman was the infertile member of the couple, in all likelihood it was as often the man with the fertility issue.

    Until very recently people just accepted that they weren't intended to have kids. You read lots of old stories of childless couples growing old together. You don't read stories about men and women abandoning marriages to try to spawn elsewhere. The idea of high technology producing extraordinary solutions to infertility that people should expect to be provided until their insurance company pulled the plug on funding was just not a concept.

Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •