Monogamy

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Monogamy

Postby MagsJ » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:32 am

Satyr wrote:
Magsj wrote:Did I hit a nerve? :confusion-shrug:

Of course...you know what power you have over me, you whore.
No matter how stupid you are, you, at the very least, have that. You and Kriswest.

Next tell me how you keep me around because I entertain you, how bad my writing is, or how you do not care what I think.

By the way, simpleton, stop derailing this thread. This is about monogamy.
Kris and myself have many similarities... must be the NA blood :evilfun:

I just don't understand your need for the profanities and ad homs towards others, because otherwise your posts would not warrant you for a ban - do you despise/disrespect others that much?
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb
Imageaes dhammo sanantano Pali: 'this is the eternal law'

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 12853
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Monogamy

Postby Stoic Guardian » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:48 am

Blurry wrote:Anyway, about monogamy. I read the first page and a half of responses here :lol: , and well...I don't have any specific responses. Can this question be definitively answered? At the end of the day, all I know is that monogamy doesn't suit me while it seems to suit others just fine. I've come to the conclusion that this isn't a question of natural/unnatural, broken/not broken, the simple fact is that some people are suited to monogamy and others aren't, and while I'm sure there is some technical explanation about brain chemistry that would break it all down, it still comes down to, "It is what it is". I'm beyond worrying about whether I'm a genetic dead-end and that's why I don't desire a family unit as strongly as some say I should, or whether anyone who thinks monogamy is our natural state is just a fool lying to themself. People are different, we prefer different things and situations, and this is all part-and-parcel.


I remember some report that certain animals leand absolutely towards one side or the other, Monogomy or Mate with how many they can.

And humans on average did not lead either way.

The answer is quite simple.

There is no "correct" way at least in a biological sense.

It can either way.

Some have their one and only.

Some have a choice few.

Some have many.

And some hold no sense of loyalty to any one and simply try to be with as many people as they can.

I'd say I fit in one of the first two, i'm not quite sure yet.
"Fascism combats, and must combat, without respite or pity, not intelligence, but intellectualism—which is, as I have indicated, a sickness of the intellect" - Giovanni Gentile

”After visiting these places, you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”- John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Stoic Guardian
Silvershirt Armchair Legionary
 
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:01 am

Re: Monogamy

Postby Lollipop King » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:11 am

Magsj wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Magsj wrote:Did I hit a nerve? :confusion-shrug:

Of course...you know what power you have over me, you whore.
No matter how stupid you are, you, at the very least, have that. You and Kriswest.

Next tell me how you keep me around because I entertain you, how bad my writing is, or how you do not care what I think.

By the way, simpleton, stop derailing this thread. This is about monogamy.
Kris and myself have many similarities... must be the NA blood :evilfun:

I just don't understand your need for the profanities and ad homs towards others, because otherwise your posts would not warrant you for a ban - do you despise/disrespect others that much?
Why do you assume "others" are everybody else?

I already told you what my "ad homs" are about. Take it and leave.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Re: Monogamy

Postby Calrid » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:23 am

Satyr wrote:
I already told you what my "ad homs" are about. Take it and leave.


Explain again to us morons in simple terms what your munificent ad homs are about? I am genuinely intrigued?
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Monogamy

Postby Kriswest » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:03 am

_________ wrote:No, as a matter of fact I am reserved and look at females I don't know only if they initiate conversation--but this is due to social anxiety and apathy towards sexual/romantic relationships as a result of a particularly devastating end to a three year relationship. The apathy stems from my not wanting to feel like dying again, if at all avoidable. I think I learned entirely by my own experience that I would rather not feel like total shit.

Just remember that the women feel pretty much the same way as you. That is Why we date and not commit when we first lay eyes on each other. We need to do a dance of learning and trusting before sharing our souls. So don't sweat the dating part, you are not commiting you are testing. A three year relationship is not that long of a time. At least you found out early before decades were committed. You will be fine if you remember the lady feels threatened just as you do. No rushing ,no falling ass over teakettle in lust or love. Just a dance of learning. Keep that in mind when you see a possible future prospect.
Image

I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16973
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Monogamy

Postby Trevor » Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:27 pm

I believe I have enough love for a number of women, but not the malevolence to do it behind their backs. I couldn't share a woman with any other men though.

On a sidenote, the mere thought of a woman I loved cheating on me would cause me to implode with rage and jealousy. Hope it never happens.

Edit: Actually, I don't think I would want a number of women. It's foolish of me to even suppose a single woman lacks enough sustenance for me.
Trevor
 

Re: Monogamy

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:27 am

Blurry wrote:Anyway, about monogamy. I read the first page and a half of responses here :lol: , and well...I don't have any specific responses. Can this question be definitively answered? At the end of the day, all I know is that monogamy doesn't suit me while it seems to suit others just fine. I've come to the conclusion that this isn't a question of natural/unnatural, broken/not broken, the simple fact is that some people are suited to monogamy and others aren't, and while I'm sure there is some technical explanation about brain chemistry that would break it all down, it still comes down to, "It is what it is". I'm beyond worrying about whether I'm a genetic dead-end and that's why I don't desire a family unit as strongly as some say I should, or whether anyone who thinks monogamy is our natural state is just a fool lying to themself. People are different, we prefer different things and situations, and this is all part-and-parcel.


Never, never be anything other than what you are. If monogamy isn't your choice, then it isn't your choice. Period. There is no choice other than what's 'natural' for you. I won't move any farther from my pedestal than you will from yours. That's life in all it's myriad forms.

I say this, yet I deplore the results of relative morality.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3502
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Monogamy

Postby Kriswest » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:11 pm

trevor wrote:I believe I have enough love for a number of women, but not the malevolence to do it behind their backs. I couldn't share a woman with any other men though.

On a sidenote, the mere thought of a woman I loved cheating on me would cause me to implode with rage and jealousy. Hope it never happens.

Edit: Actually, I don't think I would want a number of women. It's foolish of me to even suppose a single woman lacks enough sustenance for me.

Trevor, ever notice in photos of Mormons and other groups that allow or require multiple wives , just how miserable the man looks? Think about that. And this is a woman giving you this tidbit
Image

I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16973
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Monogamy

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:49 pm

Hi, Lady K.!!!
Near the beginning of this thread I stated that I was not moral enough for polygamy. Let me explain. From a biological perspective, morality enters minds long after deeds are done. I'd speculate that most people who have extra-marital affairs mate for reasons that have nothing to do with any morality other than that dictated by STDs.
Here was the situation. My brother was suicidal. My wife comforted him. Yes, she gave him sex. At first I thought the way I did back in the hippie daze. He needed that to bolster his self esteem. So what would that have to do with my own problems of jealousy or of possessiveness. Thinking thus, I found him in a bar and forgave him. But I'm a human, not a god. I could forgive but I couldn't forget. I left home.
For any of you who think there was free love in the 60s, there wasn't. Preferences for appearance still ruled most attractions that could lead to marriage. Group marriage in those days always seemed thwarted by jealousy.
Had I been moral enough back then, my outlook on my wife's affair would have been--forgive and forget because I needed to.
Polygamy does seem to be the biological preference; monogamy--the social necessity. But, with due disrespect for Dawkins, biology can and does extend into so much more than what genes want.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
"If you linger to curse the snake that bit you, you will die of its poison."
Arrogance hides a multitude of insecurities."
Perspectivism may mean never having to say you're certain.
User avatar
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Monogamy

Postby Kriswest » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:42 pm

Hi my good friend!!!! How are you and Thai?

In any relationship the female tends to be more possesive over the male for a very good reason. She is nesting and he is a vital part of that nesting. If he goes anesting with another female that will threaten the first female's nest. males are not really one nest type of crittur they can deal with more than one nest for quite a while. Now you take 3 or more women put them in one nest for years it can get stressful for all. Each woman wants her own nest, each woman needs that male for her nest.......Come to think of it most of the women in those photos look down right hellish too. Heck its hard for mothers and daughters to live together let alone strangers or friends. It is done but it sure never looks very happy. Frankly i can't figure out how that many people can stand to live together, its hard enough with just two and kids. You know darn well nerves will be shot. :D
Image

I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16973
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Monogamy

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:10 pm

Thanks, Lady K. Thai is getting fatter!
My ex-wife must have been a true hippie. Nesting for her was when she believed she couldn't go it alone. All of her husbands were default positions! I called her a butterfly, flitting from flower to flower. But she clung to her children from two marriages and saw the husbands or boyfriends as a somewhat stable place for them to visit her. Dammit, she was beautiful--looked like Natalie Wood. Monogamy for her meant being tied down. So many men; so little time!
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
"If you linger to curse the snake that bit you, you will die of its poison."
Arrogance hides a multitude of insecurities."
Perspectivism may mean never having to say you're certain.
User avatar
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Monogamy

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:11 pm

trevor wrote:Edit: Actually, I don't think I would want a number of women. It's foolish of me to even suppose a single woman lacks enough sustenance for me.
God man :wink:
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb
Imageaes dhammo sanantano Pali: 'this is the eternal law'

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 12853
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Monogamy

Postby Trevor » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:01 pm

Magsj wrote:
trevor wrote:Edit: Actually, I don't think I would want a number of women. It's foolish of me to even suppose a single woman lacks enough sustenance for me.
God man :wink:


God man?

I like the sound of that. It has a certain megalomanic ring to it.
Trevor
 

Re: Monogamy

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:15 pm

I meant 'good man' - damn these sticking letters :-? but people do see monogamy/celibacy as heavenly qualities I guess :P - I see you as a good man for thinking like that, and please don't take that in a patronising way :D

Not many people are monogamous these days, and serial-monogamy doesn't count :lol:
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb
Imageaes dhammo sanantano Pali: 'this is the eternal law'

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 12853
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Monogamy

Postby Philosopher8659 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:43 pm

I look at the whole thing this way.

The human mind learns by experience. This can be said in a puzzle, like the name of the Beast 666, "to regulate our behavior so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass." or simply as we say what we see.

The mind is evolving to regulate human behavior over time for the survival of man. A relationship is about raising children that respects certain ideals, and the ideal of what our job is as mind is one of the most important.

Secondly, every mind has the same definition, and thus the same function. The greatest thing, therefore that two people do together is time related, insuring the future through family, and in the pursuits of their life learning how to do their own work, as mind. Two working together give each other the gift of time through complementary activities.

This was once said in a metaphor, to become one, in body, mind, and soul. And, it is true, the health of any society can be measured in terms of its marital expressions. If one cannot add one and one to make a family, they cannot add a nation to become more than a heap of people.

A man, religiously and scientifically, is defined as one male and one female. It is both a physical fact and a psychological fact.
Philosopher8659
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:49 pm

Re: Monogamy

Postby Blurry » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:41 pm

I'm sorry, 8659, but either I didn't understand what you were trying to say, or I did and it still didn't make any sense to me. It sounds like a whole lot of social conditioning and religious expectation to me. That's not what I'm looking for.
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch
User avatar
Blurry
fuck
 
Posts: 4241
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm

Re: Monogamy

Postby Abstract » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:39 am

Blurry wrote:I know this has been discussed here before, but I find myself pondering it lately. Is monogamy "natural" to humans?

Speaking only of myself, I find it to be...difficult. I have very little interest in maintaining a monogamous relationship. That's not to say I'm incapable, I've certainly done it, but I quickly lose interest in the relationship and end up just continuing in it to satisfy the want/need of the other person to have me there. Of course I'd like to conclude that monogamy is difficult for everyone, but then I look around and see some people who seem so suited to it, and I have to wonder if this is a product of social conditioning, or if maybe some of us are just more suited to it than others, or perhaps there's something wrong with me, some psychological issue that makes it so undesirable.

So, I'm just looking for your thoughts on the matter, people.

Before that can be answered it would need to be understood what was meant by natural...wouldn't it? When we were primates we may not have been... in which case it evolved over time... all things occurring in nature are natural so in that sense it was natural... but was it our original state, and is it best... are perhaps better questions...maybe

If it is a man made concept... then it can be said to be as natural as a tank...
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: Monogamy

Postby Blurry » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:30 pm

Abstract wrote:
Blurry wrote:I know this has been discussed here before, but I find myself pondering it lately. Is monogamy "natural" to humans?

Speaking only of myself, I find it to be...difficult. I have very little interest in maintaining a monogamous relationship. That's not to say I'm incapable, I've certainly done it, but I quickly lose interest in the relationship and end up just continuing in it to satisfy the want/need of the other person to have me there. Of course I'd like to conclude that monogamy is difficult for everyone, but then I look around and see some people who seem so suited to it, and I have to wonder if this is a product of social conditioning, or if maybe some of us are just more suited to it than others, or perhaps there's something wrong with me, some psychological issue that makes it so undesirable.

So, I'm just looking for your thoughts on the matter, people.

Before that can be answered it would need to be understood what was meant by natural...wouldn't it? When we were primates we may not have been... in which case it evolved over time... all things occurring in nature are natural so in that sense it was natural... but was it our original state, and is it best... are perhaps better questions...maybe

If it is a man made concept... then it can be said to be as natural as a tank...


See, this is the kind of stuff I'm not looking for. I'm not a philosopher, but I do know that philosophy is not an arguing of semantics. The context of the OP tells you what I'm driving at.
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to.'" - Jim Jarmusch
User avatar
Blurry
fuck
 
Posts: 4241
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:18 pm

Re: Monogamy

Postby Abstract » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:23 pm

Blurry wrote:
Abstract wrote:
Blurry wrote:I know this has been discussed here before, but I find myself pondering it lately. Is monogamy "natural" to humans?

Speaking only of myself, I find it to be...difficult. I have very little interest in maintaining a monogamous relationship. That's not to say I'm incapable, I've certainly done it, but I quickly lose interest in the relationship and end up just continuing in it to satisfy the want/need of the other person to have me there. Of course I'd like to conclude that monogamy is difficult for everyone, but then I look around and see some people who seem so suited to it, and I have to wonder if this is a product of social conditioning, or if maybe some of us are just more suited to it than others, or perhaps there's something wrong with me, some psychological issue that makes it so undesirable.

So, I'm just looking for your thoughts on the matter, people.

Before that can be answered it would need to be understood what was meant by natural...wouldn't it? When we were primates we may not have been... in which case it evolved over time... all things occurring in nature are natural so in that sense it was natural... but was it our original state, and is it best... are perhaps better questions...maybe

If it is a man made concept... then it can be said to be as natural as a tank...


See, this is the kind of stuff I'm not looking for. I'm not a philosopher, but I do know that philosophy is not an arguing of semantics. The context of the OP tells you what I'm driving at.

makes me think of how some people think that all philosophy is is arguing over semantics...

What I said should have implied that I am not sure but leaning to the idea that monogamy is socially conditioned, and thus in other words a man made activity for the most part. And as such it is basically unnatural. but then it was made in order to adapt to conditions that may have arisen primarily due to the limitations of our environment... It may be that it is best... or at least can be given particular situations.. rarely is a thing best in all situations... So I would think there is no sense in it being necessary to be monogamous further it should neither be illegal to be alternatively married and such...
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: Monogamy

Postby Trajicomic » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:29 pm

trevor wrote:God man?

I like the sound of that. It has a certain megalomanic ring to it.

Magsj is beginning to understand, YES, God man!
Nothing is more Evil than becoming Man.
Image Image
I, Postman will go Up. :sci-fi-beamup:
Won't you Humans stay Down? :sci-fi-grayalien:
User avatar
Trajicomic
Lawful Evil
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:47 am

Previous

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]