Support NeoGAF

[nVidiot_Whore]

Lashed out? Really? It seems you can't have a discussion without playing victim since you didn't even respond to what I said.

What in the world did you "say"?

"Because it's a preference?" That doesn't explain why whatsoever.. it's essentially "because" using a few more words.

Other than that you simply asked why it mattered. My post explained that. I'm having a discussion I find interesting, and the answer to that question is a part of the discussion.

When did I say I desire to have exclusive "sex right"? Let me know if you actually respond to my post so there's something to discuss.

You quoted my post that was all about "sex rights".

It's the discussion I want to have. If you don't want to discuss it with me, don't respond to me.. instead, you completely ignored my post.. provided no real feedback to the questions I was asking.. essentially suggesting my questions are stupid, and thus my discussion is stupid.. and then bitched at me when I didn't "respond to your post" how you wanted me to?

SMH.. you post had little or nothing to actually respond to other than your accusation that basically "no one cares" about what I'm talking about.

I care.. now go about your business and ignore me if you dont' care about what I'm discussing.

 

[Stet]

Who said cheating wasn't a bad thing? I certainly haven't. Very few have.. in fact, I haven't seen a single person say that it isn't a bad thing.

What exactly am I "hung up on" again?

I'm having a side discussion because really a thread purely on "cheating" isn't that interesting. People talked about why people cheat.. people have also started discussing defining relationships in a way that makes "having sex with someone else" not "cheating." They are all related discussions, because they have to do with relationships, sex, sex drive, motivations for having sex, etc.

So that's 2 people who have the inability to actually explain why they desire to have exclusive "sex rights" to their partner, and instead get defensive and lash out at me.

I'd say it's surprising, but it isn't.

I think the reason you're not getting what you're asking for is because you're asking a leading question by calling it "sex rights." Your and other peoples' assumptions are that monogamy is based on property which is a fun historical perspective to have, but doesn't really offer any evidence besides a correlation of property ownership and monogamy throughout history.

Stating that monogamy "isn't natural" because it doesn't follow evolutionary rules of some sort, and then saying that monogamy arises from feelings of jealousy and ownership is rather contradictory as well, because several species of animals also practice monogamy for reasons unrelated to either of those things.

Some people just like to be in a relationship in which certain things are reserved entirely for the person they've chosen to be with. Why does that offend you?

 

[Subprime]

That might have some weight to it, but as a society we're nowhere near ready to accept widespread polygamous relationships. Suggesting otherwise is just an excuse for cheaters. There's no denying that some people can live with having an open relationship, but it definitely doesn't work for many people.

I had a bisexual GF that felt she deserved the right to have sex with chicks "on occasion" while she was dating me. I told her that I wasn't comfortable with that because I was giving all my attention to her, plus it made me feel like I wasn't satisfying her completely. Of course she denied that up and down, but she essentially wanted to have her cake and eat it too. It simply wasn't fair to me. So in my experience on this topic, I'm heartily in the group against cheating. It's a severe break in trust if it occurs and its unacceptable IMO. (In no way am I disrespecting bisexuals here. I know many, many bisexuals are in monogamous relationships. Just thought I'd share a personal story.)

What your girlfriend proposed has nothing to do with cheating. She wanted to be non monogamous. This is completely different.

Why does it matter if we can't satisfy our partner completely? Do we get pissed off when they see a comedian? Clearly we should be the only one to make them laugh! And fuck, when they eat other peoples food, the gaul. Its just a biological function that is heavily tied with emotion.

 

[Ashhong]

I hate stories like these. Make me worry about my own relationship

 

[mjc]

And someone actually states one of the main goals of monogamy.

To feel better about yourself, by believing that you are somehow the only thing your partner "needs" or "wants"... all flying in the face of evidence that you aren't in fact all your partner needs or wants.

And her actions made it an obvious and blatant lie.

You weren't giving her everything she wanted or needed. She lied to protect your feelings of insecurity, which is only natural for most people.

This is all true. We have an innate desire to prove ourselves worthy to our partners. I might not have had as much of an issue with it if she valued communication as much as I did. I really had to work to make any kind of ground on certain topics. Communication and trust are essential to a working relationship, and when one or the other is lost it opens doors to things like cheating.

Edit: And to be clear, she was essentially asking me permission to fool around with chicks on the side. It takes a great deal of trust to allow that to happen. I don't think I'd be in the wrong to claim that for lots of people there's a definite emotional aspect to sex, and that's where the fears stem from in terms of cheating. I should mention that our relationship as it was went down the drain because she had to move away for school. Not for reasons between us.

 

[The Elite]

I hate stories like these. Make me worry about my own relationship

If you feel the need to worry, something is already wrong.

Do you have suspicions?

 

[soul creator]

Because it's a preference?

"monogamy is pretty much all I've ever known" folks are far less likely to understand that it's even possible to have a "preference" when it comes to relationship types. That's what all this "hey, monogamy isn't the only way to do things!" talk is meant to address.

If everyone apparently obviously knows that monogamy is just a preference, and is no more or less valid than anything, why do people keep pursuing monogamous relationships, and end up cheating on their partners? Why do people keep framing monogamy as if it's the "ideal" way for everyone, and that any other relationship type is somehow "less serious"?

Why does it matter why they like it? What is inherently beneficial to having sex with multiple people over having one partner?

It's not inherently beneficial 100% of the time for every person in the world. But again, if you have a problem with people who push 1 relationship type as the ideal over everything else, you should be directing your ire at the massive majority of monogamy supporters in modern society, not people who discuss alternatives to that.

You seem to be getting hung on the wrong thing. No one cares about people who have multiple partners, it's about people cheating on others.

Yep, no one cares about it, which is why our legal system is based on around monogamous marriage. No one cares, which is why the largest religions in the world make very specific rules about marriage, and often involves "traditional" monogamy (or very male-focused polygamy) at the expense of everything else. No one cares, which is why every movie or tv show is based around finding that one single "soulmate" to spend the rest of your life with, and anything that goes against that norm is rarely discussed. No one cares, which is why people get overly defensive about monogamy at the mere mention that "hey, maybe monogamy isn't the only way to do things"

Of course people "care".

And again, everyone already agrees with you that "cheating (lying to your partner) is bad". Now, are we actually interested in moving past that and trying to figure out why people keep cheating (even though we apparently all know it's bad), which is what the OP was actually asking, or should we just be angry and say "cheating is bad" over and over? Cuz that's definitely worked wonders. Maybe if we type it in all caps this time, people will finally stop cheating on their partners

We're discussing on a message board, not giving counseling to a recent divorcee, so it seems like the discussion should go a bit more deeper than just "cheating is bad, cheaters are scumbags". Again, I don't mind agreeing with you on that, but it doesn't have to be the sole direction of the discussion.

I'm not sure why people can't understand why cheating is a bad thing.

I do understand that. Just like how I understand that killing people is bad. But it seems like a more fruitful discussion would be had if we actually try to understand the mindset behind it, and how to potentially express those desires in healthier ways, as opposed to just saying "nope, cheating is bad, end of story!" over and over. I get it though, "cheating is bad, don't do it!" is certainly the more straightforward option. Too bad it doesn't actually solve anything :/

Our societal attitudes towards sexuality is directly related to how people view their individual sex lives (and how those sex lives end up playing out). We don't live in a vacuum.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I think the reason you're not getting what you're asking for is because you're asking a leading question by calling it "sex rights."

Sure, could have worded it differently. No-one is misunderstanding my question though.. they are just refusing to provide answers.. yet want to reply to me to essentially berate me for asking the question.

Some people just like to be in a relationship in which certain things are reserved entirely for the person they've chosen to be with. Why does that offend you?

Where did I indicate that it offends me whatsoever?

It doesn't, at all, nor have I indicated that it does.

But you are just repeating the "just because" statement. You essentially just re-formed my question as a statement.

My question, re-worded using your lingo:

"Why do people desire to reserve sex as entirely for the person they've chosen to be with?"

 

[Stet]

"Why do people desire to reserve sex as entirely for the person they've chosen to be with?"

Because a relationship is about sharing specific things with a person you've chosen to share them with. For some people, this means sharing a bed. For other people, this means sharing a house. For still others, it means sharing in reproduction.

There are couples who never reproduce. There are couples who choose never to get married. There are couples who choose never to live together. There are couples who choose never to have sex for whatever reason. Do you assume that those things are inherently unnatural?

The reason you're getting answers that you assume boil down to "just because" is obviously because you don't understand the feeling that goes along with them.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

"monogamy is pretty much all I've ever known" folks are far less likely to understand that it's even possible to have a "preference" when it comes to relationship types. That's what all this "hey, monogamy isn't the only way to do things!" talk is meant to address.

If everyone apparently obviously knows that monogamy is just a preference, and is no more or less valid than anything, why do people keep pursuing monogamous relationships, and end up cheating on their partners? Why do people keep framing monogamy as if it's the "ideal" way for everyone, and that any other relationship type is somehow "less serious"?



It's not inherently beneficial 100% of the time for every person in the world. But again, if you have a problem with people who push 1 relationship type as the ideal over everything else, you should be directing your ire at the massive majority of monogamy supporters in modern society, not people who discuss alternatives to that.



Yep, no one cares about it, which is why our legal system is based on around monogamous marriage. No one cares, which is why the largest religions in the world make very specific rules about marriage, and often involves "traditional" monogamy (or very male-focused polygamy) at the expense of everything else. No one cares, which is why every movie or tv show is based around finding that one single "soulmate" to spend the rest of your life with, and anything that goes against that norm is rarely discussed. No one cares, which is why people get overly defensive about monogamy at the mere mention that "hey, maybe monogamy isn't the only way to do things"

Of course people "care".

And again, everyone already agrees with you that "cheating (lying to your partner) is bad". Now, are we actually interested in moving past that and trying to figure out why people keep cheating (even though we apparently all know it's bad), which is what the OP was actually asking, or should we just be angry and say "cheating is bad" over and over? Cuz that's definitely worked wonders. Maybe if we type it in all caps this time, people will finally stop cheating on their partners

We're discussing on a message board, not giving counseling to a recent divorcee, so it seems like the discussion should go a bit more deeper than just "cheating is bad, cheaters are scumbags". Again, I don't mind agreeing with you on that, but it doesn't have to be the sole direction of the discussion.



I do understand that. Just like how I understand that killing people is bad. But it seems like a more fruitful discussion would be had if we actually try to understand the mindset behind it, and how to potentially express those desires in healthier ways, as opposed to just saying "nope, cheating is bad, end of story!" over and over. I get it though, "cheating is bad, don't do it!" is certainly the more straightforward option. Too bad it doesn't actually solve anything :/

Our societal attitudes towards sexuality is directly related to how people view their individual sex lives (and how those sex lives end up playing out). We don't live in a vacuum.

Giving counseling to a divorcee? You keep going to things I'm not even talking about. Why do you guys keep attacking people instead of answering questions asked to you? As I said before I'm asking what's so great about going against polygamy? None of you have answered this yet. You say in your post that the problem is a lack of choices then the problems ISN'T monogamy, it's that you don't' have more choices accepted by society. So why are you guys singling out people explaining why monogamy is inherently good when you have yet to state why multiple partners is inherently good after at least myself have asked multiple multiple times? There seems to be an edge of people making monogamists explain why we should be like them instead people being more accepting in general. You don't come off as being impartial and looking for more acceptance and makes your post seem contradictory. And I meant people don't care as in they're not really affecting you. Plenty of people have extra marital affairs and many assume it will happen at one point. People would be punished a lot harder than now if they really did care that much about getting involved in other people's lives.

 

[Opiate]

I am going to remind everyone to avoid hyperadaptationalism. Do not assume that every genetic pattern has an obvious, specific adaptation. Some genes are there by chance rather than because they have very specific uses, or they have obscure or archaic uses we can only begin to hypothesize about.

Here, I'll start with one: do you feel that homosexuality has a strong genetic component? If you think there is (I do), what is the genetic advantage to being homosexual? For the purposes we're discussing here, it's even worse than being a monogamist -- homosexual couples are entirely incapable of breeding altogether.

Secondly: if we can agree that homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality, and transexuality are all things with at least some degree of genetic predisposition, why would our sexual variation be limited in regards to monogamy/polyamory? Why would it not follow the already observed pattern, which is: "human sexuality runs a wide spectrum of genetic values, and it's unlikely that all people are genetically predisposed to one extreme or the other?"

Thirdly: monogamy can and does occur in actual, real species in the world. Specifically, it occurs in species with offspring which are particularly vulnerable at young ages and for whom it is absolutely mandatory that two parents be present and available to raise the child. Birds are the most common example, because their chicks are incapable of flight until they reach adolescence, and flight is an absolutely essential part of the survival mechanisms. I'll repeat: these behaviors and adaptations can and have been observed. So we know there are, in fact, evolutionary advantages to monogamy (Although again, there don't have to be advantages, as some genes occur by chance anyway in some subset of any special population. Avoid hyperadaptationalism), just as there are advantages to polyamory (which have been discussed at length by other posters).

Lastly, I want to remind everyone to avoid the naturalist fallacy; that is, to assume that "natural" things are better for us. Many species and also many humans are naturally violent and aggressive, and yet we do not permit these behaviors as they may have been useful functions thousands of years ago but are not valuable in our current environment; many "natural" foods can be disastrously poisonous, such as many mushrooms; many medicines, such as chemotheropy, are clearly unnatural but are also hugely beneficial.

All of these arguments are distinct and separately argue in favor of the existence of monogamy (and all but the last argument suggest monogamy is likely a genetic factor in at least some humans). None of these argue that polygamy should not exist for anyone, or is not also a genetic predisposition for some people; just that it's logical and likely to assume that some people may be predisposed to monogamy, while others likely are very nonmonogamous, while still others will fall somewhere in between.

Sure, could have worded it differently. No-one is misunderstanding my question though.. they are just refusing to provide answers.. yet want to reply to me to essentially berate me for asking the question.

I feel several people have, including me -- both above and previously. We're providing logical explanations for this existence not just of monogamy, but of a wide variety of sexual preferences.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

This is all true. We have an innate desire to prove ourselves worthy to our partners.

I think it's even more basic than that; we have the innate desire to feel good about ourselves.

It's the same reason many people are promiscuous. They feel good about the fact that someone wanted to mate with them, someone found them attractive enough to mate with them, and of course, the actual physical pleasure making them "feel good."

And it's the EXACT reason some people are "cheaters," but will also absolutely DEMAND their significant others don't cheat. They'd kill their S/O for cheating, but do it themselves.. both actions, the cheating and the expectation of exclusivity stemming from the same insecurity. I've known a lot of guys like that.. they aren't especially kind to women, aren't especially good lovers, etc.. they are often the "dickhead guy that gets all the girls" stereotype... and if they do have a girlfriend, they are often quite controlling of them.

I don't think I'd be in the wrong to claim that for lots of people, there's a definite emotional aspect to sex, and that's where the fears stem from in terms of cheating. I should mention that our relationship as it was went down the drain because she had to move away for school. Not for reasons between us.

And that is another related motivation; fear that they will in fact, find something else they'd rather "give themselves" to, by allowing them to give themselves partially via sex.

It all boils down to wanting to believe you are the only person capable of achieving such a feat, and in a world where very few people can be "the boss", "the president", "the king", etc. it makes you the "king" of your own domain..

I think it all relates very well to my theory.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Because a relationship is about sharing specific things with a person you've chosen to share them with. For some people, this means sharing a bed. For other people, this means sharing a house. For still others, it means sharing in reproduction.

There are couples who never reproduce. There are couples who choose never to get married. There are couples who choose never to live together. There are couples who choose never to have sex for whatever reason. Do you assume that those things are inherently unnatural?

The reason you're getting answers that you assume boil down to "just because" is obviously because you don't understand the feeling that goes along with them.

So now I don't understand feelings?

Yet, you can't describe these feelings.. but claim to understand them?

If you understand them so well.. explain them to me.

These are pretty simple questions.. and yes, your answer do boil down to "just because", and not because I lack some understanding of feelings. It's simply what you are saying.

"Why do people chose exclusivity"

"Because people choose exclusivity"

You can't explain the "why" though.. or at least refuse to. I find it a bit odd. Dodge the question, claim the asker of the question doesn't "understand" the answer you didn't really give, etc.

I don't see why it's so hard to admit to.. I certainly share the same feelings, I'm not claiming I don't. There are things I want to be exclusive between me and my partner, and the "why" is as plain as day.. because it makes me feel valuable. If I am worth ignoring a desire, that means something to me.

This desire doesn't really come from a very positive place though, at least not in my opinion.. if I had complete security in myself and my own value I wouldn't require rather arbitrary "exclusivity".. but I at least question this desire that I can readily admit stems from a level of insecurity.

But I question myself on it because I honestly believe it improves my attitude and outlook on the world, and actually makes me feel more secure by identifying my rather arbitrary and to me, negative desires.

But I also desire this exclusivity to some extent simply because it's more practical. I want to spend a lot of time with my SO, I don't want to have to find multiple SO's to fill my "companionship" time.. my girlfriend feels the same way. Which is why despite the fact that I have sex with a lot of different women, I don't spend much time with them.

And of course, that's just me.. other people may have their own reasons.. which is why I asked the question in the first place. I'm honestly curious to hear people describe it.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I am going to remind everyone to avoid hyperadaptationalism. Do not assume that every genetic pattern has an obvious, specific adaptation. Some genes are there by chance rather than because they have very specific uses, or they have obscure or archaic uses we can only guess at.

Here, I'll start with one: do you feel that homosexuality has a strong genetic component? If you think there is, what is the genetic advantage to being homosexual?

Secondly: if we can agree that homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality, and transexuality are all things with at least some degree of genetic predisposition, why would our sexual variation be limited in regards to monogamy/polyamory? Why woudl it not follow the available pattern, which is "human sexuality runs a wide spectrum of genetic values?"

Thirdly: monogamy can and does occur in actual, real species in the world. Specifically, it occurs in species with offspring which are particularly vulnerable at young ages and for whom it is absolutely mandatory that two parents be present and available to raise the child. This can and has been observed. So we know there are, in fact, evolutionary advantages to monogamy (Although again, there don't have to be advantages, as some genes occur by chance anyway in some subset of any special population. Avoid hyperadaptationalism).

Lastly, I want to remind everyone to avoid the naturalist fallacy; that is, to assume that "natural" things are better for us. Many species and also many humans are naturally violent and aggressive, and yet we do not permit these behaviors as they may have been useful functions thousands of years ago but are not valuable in our current environment; many "natural" foods can be disastrously poisonous, such as many mushrooms; many medicines, such as chemotheropy, are clearly unnatural but are also hugely beneficial.

All of these arguments are distinct and separately argue in favor of the existence of monogamy. None of these argue that polygamy should not exist for anyone, or is not also a genetic predisposition for some people; just that it's logical and likely to assume that some people may be predisposed to monogamy, while others likely are very nonmonogamous, while many will fall somewhere in between.



I feel several people have, including me -- both above and previously. We're providing logical explanations for this existence not just of monogamy, but of a wide variety of sexual preferences.

What do you mean by the second bullet point? In what way is sexual variation limited in monogamy/polygamy? Do you mean that most are monogamous or there is another variation besides monogamy/polygamy?

 

[Opiate]

What do you mean by the second bullet point? In what way is sexual variation limited in monogamy/polygamy? Do you mean that most are monogamous or there is another variation besides monogamy/polygamy?

We seem to be asking the question: "does monogamy occur naturally?"

I'm making this logical argument: in almost all other aspects of human sexuality which have been explored (I gave a host of examples: homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transexuality), we have discovered that humans show a very wide variety of genetically predisposed preferences. Some people are predisposed to be heterosexual, while others are predisposed to homosexuality, and still others to transexuality, and so forth.

In other words, there is no "master plan" by which human sexuality has been made, and a strict set of preferences to which we all conform, genetically. Different people are born with different genetic makeups, and the differences in sexual proclivities can be very large.

So, given what we know so far about human sexuality, what are the odds that all humans are "naturally" polyamorous? (or, for that matter, all "naturally" monogamous?) The observed pattern would suggest that the odds are low; it is more likely that some of us are genetically predisposed to polyamory, while others are predisposed to monogamy, while still others are predisposed to some form of "serial monogamy" which falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Just as there is a wide spectrum of genetic predispositions in other areas of human sexuality, I assume there is a similarly wide spectrum of preferences in these regards.

 

[Stet]

So now I don't understand feelings?

Yet, you can't describe these feelings.. but claim to understand them?

If you understand them so well.. explain them to me.

These are pretty simple questions.. and yes, your answer do boil down to "just because", and not because I lack some understanding of feelings. It's simply what you are saying.

"Why do people chose exclusivity"

"Because people choose exclusivity"

You can't explain the "why" though.. or at least refuse to. I find it a bit odd. Dodge the question, claim the asker of the question doesn't "understand" the answer you didn't really give, etc.

I don't see why it's so hard to admit to.. I certainly share the same feelings, I'm not claiming I don't. There are things I want to be exclusive between me and my partner, and the "why" is as plain as day.. because it makes me feel valuable. If I am worth ignoring a desire, that means something to me.

This desire doesn't really come from a very positive place though, at least not in my opinion.. if I had complete security in myself and my own value I wouldn't require rather arbitrary "exclusivity".. but I at least question this desire that I can readily admit stems from a level of insecurity.

But I question myself on it because I honestly believe it improves my attitude and outlook on the world, and actually makes me feel more secure by identifying my rather arbitrary and to me, negative desires.

But I also desire this exclusivity to some extent simply because it's more practical. I want to spend a lot of time with my SO, I don't want to have to find multiple SO's to fill my "companionship" time.. my girlfriend feels the same way. Which is why despite the fact that I have sex with a lot of different women, I don't spend much time with them.

And of course, that's just me.. other people may have their own reasons.. which is why I asked the question in the first place. I'm honestly curious to hear people describe it.

I said you didn't understand the feeling behind it, not that you didn't understand feelings. It's not a bad thing, it's just a preference matter. The same way people think the evolution excuse is bullshit, you think the feelings excuse is bullshit. If you won't accept it, then you don't have to. But to continue to call for people to explain themselves and then act indignant when you don't get a sufficiently quantitative response is a pedantic waste of time.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

We seem to be asking the question: "does monogamy occur naturally?"

I'm making this logical argument: in almost all other aspects of human sexuality which have been explored (I gave a host of examples: homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transexuality), we have discovered that humans show a very wide variety of genetically predisposed preferences. Some people are predisposed to be heterosexual, while others are predisposed to homosexuality, and still others to transexuality, and so forth.

In other words, there is no "master plan" by which human sexuality has been made, and a strict set of preferences to which we all conform, genetically. Different people are born with different genetic makeups, and the differences in sexual proclivities can be very large.

So, given what we know so far about human sexuality, what are the odds that all humans are "naturally" polygamorous? (or, for that matter, all "naturally" monogamous?) The observed pattern would suggest that the odds are low; it is more likely that some of us are genetically predisposed to polyamory, while others are predisposed to monogamy, while still others are predisposed to some form of "serial monogamy" which falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Just as there is a wide spectrum of genetic predispositions in other areas of human sexuality, I assume there is a similarly wide spectrum of preferences in these regards.

Ah, ok. There probably is but we don't have words to define it yet. We just differentiate between none, one, and more than one. It doesn't matter how many times/people more than one. It would be interesting if people ever did a study about if there is a genetic link at all.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I said you didn't understand the feeling behind it, not that you didn't understand feelings. It's not a bad thing, it's just a preference matter.

I am not misunderstanding or lacking any understanding.

I find it kind of hilarious that you can't explain these feelings and yet claim I am the one who doesn't understand them.

The same way people think the evolution excuse is bullshit, you think the feelings excuse is bullshit.

I didn't say anything was bullshit. I also didn't say anything was an "excuse" for anything.

If you won't accept it, then you don't have to. But to continue to call for people to explain themselves and then act indignant when you don't get a sufficiently quantitative response is a pedantic waste of time.

Yes, you are wasting both of our time. Because you either can't, or refuse to describe a reasoning for a preference.. you keep re-stating that it is a preference, and acting like that somehow answers the "why" question... and you also are repeatedly putting words in my mouth.. another waste of time, because I'm repeatedly having to tell you that I haven't in fact said the things you claim I'm saying.

 

[Stet]

I am not misunderstanding or lacking any understanding.

I find it kind of hilarious that you can't explain these feelings and yet claim I am the one who doesn't understand them.



I didn't say anything was bullshit. I also didn't say anything was an "excuse" for anything.




Yes, you are wasting both of our time. Because you either can't, or refuse to describe a reasoning for a preference.. you keep re-stating that it is a preference, and acting like that somehow answers the "why" question.

Why do you like chocolate so much?

 

[Opiate]

Ah, ok. There probably is but we don't have words to define it yet. We just differentiate between none, one, and more than one. It doesn't matter how many times/people more than one. It would be interesting if people ever did a study about if there is a genetic link at all.

Right, it would be very interesting. But we don't have those studies, so for right now we have to use other means of logic and evidence. That's why I'm relying on other areas of human sexuality to extrapolate. Based on other areas of human sexuality -- which tend to be hugely varied in their genetic predispositions -- it is reasonable to assume that monogamy/polyamory would be the same.

So we'd find that some people operate best with one partner for decades on end, others operate best with a series of 2-3 year partnerships, others with very short flings, and still others with a large variety of partners all at once. And everything in between.

Which would suggest polyamory is "natural", but also that monogamy is "natural", polygamy is natural, and serial monogamy is "natural". That is what I believe we would find, and I base that belief on the logical analysis of the available empirical evidence.

 

[Stet]

Why do you enjoy the smell of lavender, or cinnamon or gasoline?


Note: if your answer isn't sufficiently scientific or makes reference to anything subjective or ephemeral, it's not a real answer.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Why do you like chocolate so much?

Because I like chocolate so much.

You don't understand.

 

[Stet]

Because I like chocolate so much.

You don't understand.

Well gee, nVidiot, thanks for your insight and your ability to prove me wrong by explaining a preference in a way that's objective and rational.

 

[Stet]

What'd you do today, honey?

Heh, I owned this guy online who just does things because he likes to. He doesn't even know why he likes to do them, he just does them. What a stooge. Like, for example, I asked him why he liked Led Zeppelin and when he told me it was because of their sick bass lines and wild guitar riffs, I just explained that that's not "why," that's "what." Fuck yeah.

 

[Stet]

What do you want for dinner?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective...

Nope, sorry, not sufficiently convincing. Let's eat this tasteless grey slurry of nutrients and protein so we don't accidentally take irrational pleasure in anything.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Well gee, nVidiot, thanks for your insight and your ability to prove me wrong by explaining a preference in a way that's objective and rational.

I could easily describe why I enjoy eating chocolate.

Because it tastes good.

You are trying to equate my question to someone trying to explain why something tastes good. That is not the level of question I'm asking. I'm not asking people why they feel emotions, I'm asking them WHAT EMOTIONS they feel that makes them have a desire.

You then just keep claiming I don't understand these feelings and emotions.. without even describing what they are.

In your lame little analogy I'd be asking people why their taste buds respond with a "tastes good" sensation.. that's not the level of question I'm asking.

In fact.. your lame little analogy just doesn't work at all.. because you are using far too simple of an example trying to correlate why people prefer monogamy to basic reactions like taste. Fucking dumb.

God damn you are annoying as all hell.

 

[Stet]

I could easily describe why I enjoy eating chocolate.

Because it tastes good.

You are trying to equate my question to someone trying to explain why something tastes good. That is not the level of question I'm asking. I'm not asking people why they feel emotions, I'm asking them WHAT EMOTIONS they feel that makes them have a desire.

You then just keep claiming I don't understand these feelings and emotions.. without even describing what they are.

In your lame little analogy I'd be asking people why their taste buds respond with a "tastes good" sensation.. that's not the level of question I'm asking.

It "TASTES GOOD"? What kind of rationale is that? What is "good"? Why do you "taste" something a certain way, and why is that "taste" pleasing to you? I'm disappointed in you, nVidiot.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

It "TASTES GOOD"? What kind of rationale is that? What is "good"? Why do you "taste" something a certain way, and why is that "taste" pleasing to you? I'm disappointed in you, nVidiot.

You are fucking obnoxious.

I don't desire to continue to discuss this with you.

Why?

Just because. You don't understand these feelings.

 

[Stet]

You are fucking obnoxious.

I don't desire to continue to discuss this with you.

Why?

Just because. You don't understand these feelings.

You're right, I don't. I love talking to me. I find it stimulating for the following completely objective reasons, which language really isn't neutral enough to describe and so I will express as a series of chemical reactions.

 

[soul creator]

Giving counseling to a divorcee? You keep going to things I'm not even talking about.

I'm honestly not sure what you've been talking about beyond "cheating is bad". Which is something everyone already agrees with you on.

So, *shrug*

Why do you guys keep attacking people instead of answering questions asked to you?

Attacking?

And I'm not sure which question you're referring to at this point. I didn't answer the "why is polygamy always better?" because no one actually ever said that polygamy (probably better worded as polyamory) is always better. It may possibly be better for folks who find themselves always wanting to cheat.

As I said before I'm asking what's so great about going against polygamy?

going against polygamy? Or do you mean going against monogamy?

For one, if someone is the type of person that's known to enjoy the company of multiple sexual partners, and one's feelings of "love" isn't solely dependent on sexual fidelity, it seems like monogamy is clearly not the best choice for them, and something closer to polyamory would likely be a better fit.

None of you have answered this yet. You say in your post that the problem is a lack of choices then the problems ISN'T monogamy, it's that you don't' have more choices accepted by society. So why are you guys singling out people explaining why monogamy is inherently good

Because if you actually want to address the problem of "lack of choices", talking yet again about how monogamy is awesome does not address the issue. Everyone "knows" monogamy is awesome. That's what he hear every damn day. People hear monogamy is awesome all day long, go out and pursue monogamous relationships, and when they start having feelings of attraction, wanting to have sex with others, or whatever else, they end up thinking "what's wrong with me?".

And since they may not know of any alternatives, they end up expressing those feelings in a negative way (lying to their partner) as opposed to a healthier way.

Coming along and saying "well, monogamy is pretty awesome, why don't you just monogamize a little harder next time?" does nothing to actually help this hypothetical person.

when you have yet to state why multiple partners is inherently good after at least myself have asked multiple multiple times?

Well, the obvious answer is because sex is really fucking fun, and being able to enjoy things that are fucking fun with more than one person can be awesome, and not something people should feel "guilty" about (unless, of course, they're lying and mistreating others in the process). Polyamory is 32 player Battlefield, Monogamy is 1-on-1 Quake DM6. They can both be awesome experiences for various people, but simply going on and on about how awesome Quake is, really isn't that meaningful when everyone already plays Quake anyway

There seems to be an edge of people making monogamists explain why we should be like them instead people being more accepting in general.

Because monogamy is the dominant and privileged social norm when it comes to sexual relationships. Of course you're gonna get "challenged" more in a discussion like this. That's what happens when a certain position gains dominance, but others start asserting themselves.

You don't come off as being impartial and looking for more acceptance and makes your post seem contradictory.

ok.

And I meant people don't care as in they're not really affecting you. Plenty of people have extra marital affairs and many assume it will happen at one point. People would be punished a lot harder than now if they really did care that much about getting involved in other people's lives.

ok.

Secondly: if we can agree that homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality, and transexuality are all things with at least some degree of genetic predisposition, why would our sexual variation be limited in regards to monogamy/polyamory? Why would it not follow the already observed pattern, which is: "human sexuality runs a wide spectrum of genetic values, and it's unlikely that all people are genetically predisposed to one extreme or the other?"

I 100% agree with you. I think the issue some of us (well, myself I guess) is that polyamorous people are faaaar more likely to understand this (since they likely had to challenge the norm in the first place) than monogamous people. Sure, can monogamous folks understand it as well? Of course! That doesn't change the fact that if one is already a member of a social norm, there's less incentive to ever question that norm. And this seems to hold true whether it's race, sexual orientation, relationship preference, gender, religion, etc. So yeah, non-monogamists may poke at it a bit in discussions like these, but I think that's a perfectly valid approach to have. Those who feel naturally monogamist shouldn't feel like somehow they're gonna "lose" their monogamous relationships as a result of that discussion. Though obviously, a bit of defensiveness tends to be the initial reaction (and the reaction of whites, males, Christians, straight people, and any other typically dominant groups)

And again, it may be better to phrase "monogamy is not natural" as "Until death do us part monogamous marriage and sexual fidelity based on love is a relatively recent quirk in the timespan of human history, and not some built-in standard way of doing things", as opposed to seeing it as "monogamy is not natural = everyone should be polyamorous!"

It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to automatically jump to the "natural" way of doing things because it's inherently better. But I would think that we want it to at least let it inform our views, rather than just pretending like it isn't there.

 

[Devolution]

We seem to be asking the question: "does monogamy occur naturally?"

I'm making this logical argument: in almost all other aspects of human sexuality which have been explored (I gave a host of examples: homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transexuality), we have discovered that humans show a very wide variety of genetically predisposed preferences. Some people are predisposed to be heterosexual, while others are predisposed to homosexuality, and still others to transexuality, and so forth.

In other words, there is no "master plan" by which human sexuality has been made, and a strict set of preferences to which we all conform, genetically. Different people are born with different genetic makeups, and the differences in sexual proclivities can be very large.

So, given what we know so far about human sexuality, what are the odds that all humans are "naturally" polyamorous? (or, for that matter, all "naturally" monogamous?) The observed pattern would suggest that the odds are low; it is more likely that some of us are genetically predisposed to polyamory, while others are predisposed to monogamy, while still others are predisposed to some form of "serial monogamy" which falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Just as there is a wide spectrum of genetic predispositions in other areas of human sexuality, I assume there is a similarly wide spectrum of preferences in these regards.

Honestly I can't prove it and I'm no anthropologist but I think polyamory and monogamy are both built into us and depending on the situation would lead to various ways of propagating our species and building bonds. But depending on the society in which we live and our own individual sense of self we tend to choose one or the other. There is an inherent advantage in "marital" units in terms of societal efficiency but there have been homosexual relationships to strengthen bonds amongst men. I don't think we do human sexuality too many favors in trying to pin down one as more natural than the other since they both occur through out different societies and cultures. If we want to talk about early humans I think the waters get even more muddy since some really close knit tribes actually have more complex sex rituals.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I'm honestly not sure what you've been talking about beyond "cheating is bad". Which is something everyone already agrees with you on.

So, *shrug*



Attacking?

And I'm not sure which question you're referring to at this point. I didn't answer the "why is polygamy always better?" because no one actually ever said that polygamy (probably better worded as polyamory) is always better. It may possibly be better for folks who find themselves always wanting to cheat.



going against polygamy? Or do you mean going against monogamy?

For one, if someone is the type of person that's known to enjoy the company of multiple sexual partners, and one's feelings of "love" isn't solely dependent on sexual fidelity, it seems like monogamy is clearly not the best choice for them, and something closer to polyamory would likely be a better fit.



Because if you actually want to address the problem of "lack of choices", talking yet again about how monogamy is awesome does not address the issue. Everyone "knows" monogamy is awesome. That's what he hear every damn day. People hear monogamy is awesome all day long, go out and pursue monogamous relationships, and when they start having feelings of attraction, wanting to have sex with others, or whatever else, they end up thinking "what's wrong with me?".

And since they may not know of any alternatives, they end up expressing those feelings in a negative way (lying to their partner) as opposed to a healthier way.

Coming along and saying "well, monogamy is pretty awesome, why don't you just monogamize a little harder next time?" does nothing to actually help this hypothetical person.



Well, the obvious answer is because sex is really fucking fun, and being able to enjoy things that are fucking fun with more than one person can be awesome, and not something people should feel "guilty" about (unless, of course, they're lying and mistreating others in the process). Polyamory is 32 player Battlefield, Monogamy is 1-on-1 Quake DM6. They can both be awesome experiences for various people, but simply going on and on about how awesome Quake is, really isn't that meaningful when everyone already plays Quake anyway



Because monogamy is the dominant and privileged social norm when it comes to sexual relationships. Of course you're gonna get "challenged" more in a discussion like this. That's what happens when a certain position gains dominance, but others start asserting themselves.



ok.



ok.



I 100% agree with you. I think the issue some of us (well, myself I guess) is that polyamorous people are faaaar more likely to understand this (since they likely had to challenge the norm in the first place) than monogamous people. Sure, can monogamous folks understand it as well? Of course! That doesn't change the fact that if one is already a member of a social norm, there's less incentive to ever question that norm. And this seems to hold true whether it's race, sexual orientation, relationship preference, gender, religion, etc. So yeah, non-monogamists may poke at it a bit in discussions like these, but I think that's a perfectly valid approach to have. Those who feel naturally monogamist shouldn't feel like somehow they're gonna "lose" their monogamous relationships as a result of that discussion. Though obviously, a bit of defensiveness tends to be the initial reaction (and the reaction of whites, males, Christians, straight people, and any other typically dominant groups)

And again, it may be better to phrase "monogamy is not natural" as "Until death do us part monogamous marriage and sexual fidelity based on love is a relatively recent quirk in the timespan of human history, and not some built-in standard way of doing things", as opposed to seeing it as "monogamy is not natural = everyone should be polyamorous!"

It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to automatically jump to the "natural" way of doing things because it's inherently better. But I would think that we want it to at least let it inform our views, rather than just pretending like it isn't there.

You seem to keep replying to things I'm not even saying so I give up. Yes, every single post I made was just saying monogamy is awesome. Thanks.

 

[AlexMogil]

My wife and I went to counseling today, fuck all y'all.

It is making us stronger. When you get smart enough to step out of your own theoretic and logical overthinking you tend to see you are dealing with human beings.

 

[soul creator]

You seem to keep replying to things I'm not even saying so I give up. Yes, every single post I made was just saying monogamy is awesome. Thanks.

Can you actually state the points you're trying to communicate beyond "cheating is bad". All I seemed to observe was you jumping into a discussion of non-monogamy and monogamy and you effectively responding: "this discussion doesn't matter! cheating is bad! Don't try to rationalize it!"

So if you do have a clear, straightforward idea to communicate, I'm more than willing to hear it. Remember, "cheating is bad!" is one I already agreed with you on, so you don't have to say that again. If that's all you were saying then...ok?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

You're right, I don't. I love talking to me.

No, that simply means you don't share the same feelings as me.

There is a pretty large difference between not sharing feelings, not understanding them, and being so out of touch or defensive of your own feelings you either can't or refuse to describe them.

I most certainly understand the feeling of desiring monogamy. As I said, and you ignored, I also share many of these same feelings. And I've most certainly shared them all in the past when I was involved in more classic monogamous relationships.

I also explained why I believe I had or have these feelings.. without describing the chemical processes involved.. because I didn't ask anyone to describe their feelings at the chemical level. Your lame analogy that you are repeating across multiple pointless posts w/ the same satirical tone (aka spamming, aka trolling) doesn't do anything to discount my questions.. or the fact that you truly just aren't answering them, and instead trying to dodge them and insult the person asking the question with lame condescending posts.

 

[koryuken]

I haven't had sex with my gf in 16 months, and we are supposedly in an open relationship. I once asked her if we were ever gonna have sex again and she didn't give me an answer... I would love to go out and exercise my freedom but never get the chance because she doesn't have any friends, all my friends don't like her, and any time I go out, she doesn't trust me. God, I'm such a tool.

Seems like she is using you for a place to stay or for something else man...sorry to say. Gather up your courage and roll out. You only have one life, don't waste it.

 

[Neki]

Seems like she is using you for a place to stay or for something else man...sorry to say. Gather up your courage and roll out. You only have one life, don't waste it.

I'm not sure why they're even still together, lol.

 

[Stet]

There is a pretty large difference between not sharing feelings, not understanding them, and being so out of touch or defensive of your own feelings you either can't or refuse to describe them.

Of course the difference here is that a number of people have freely accepted that certain people are more predisposed to enjoying the freedom of a polyamorous relationship even though the reasons given thus far have been entirely bogus and utterly meaningless to anyone except the person who's giving those reasons. You don't seem to share that ease of acceptance and I'm curious why that is.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Of course the difference here is that a number of people have freely accepted that certain people are more predisposed to enjoying the freedom of a polyamorous relationship even though the reasons given thus far have been entirely bogus and utterly meaningless to anyone except the person who's giving those reasons. You don't seem to share that ease of acceptance and I'm curious why that is.

What again am I not "accepting"?

Not even sure what words you are trying to put into my mouth here. Help me out a little. You haven't provided a reasoning.. so what is there for me to accept or not accept? What haven't I accepted Stet? Quote my post where I didn't accept a stated reasoning.

This is really simple: I asked people to explain why they desire monogamous relationships.. why the idea makes them happy, why it would make their SO happy, etc.

You have zero desire to explain why other then to repeat re-worded versions of "cuz I do", your only desire is to claim me asking the question is stupid.. run me in circles, put words in my mouth, and claim I don't "understand" something.

Honestly, I am NOT curious why you keep doing this. I suspect why, but really couldn't give a fuck less.

I'm interested in discussing something you aren't interested in discussing. At this point, fuck off.

 

[Subprime]

Here, I'll start with one: do you feel that homosexuality has a strong genetic component? If you think there is (I do), what is the genetic advantage to being homosexual? For the purposes we're discussing here, it's even worse than being a monogamist -- homosexual couples are entirely incapable of breeding altogether.

Best theory I've heard concerning this basically says that it is in a communities interest to have mated pairs that don't have children because it allows them to act as babysitters / foster parents for children who are orphaned or need temporary care. Bisexuality is fairly easily explained looking at bonobos, given how promiscuous they are, it has the social bonding benefits of sex without the repurcussion of pregnancy, which can obviously lead to problems if a female is producing children every year of her fertile life.

oh also, already said this in a roundabout way, but promiscuity is beneficial females because it makes it impossible to know the father of the child. this is especially valuable in dominance hierarchies where a male might kill the child if he thinks another male fathered it.

 

[Septimius]

oh also, already said this in a roundabout way, but promiscuity is beneficial females because it makes it impossible to know the father of the child. this is especially valuable in dominance hierarchies where a male might kill the child if he thinks another male fathered it.

I can't get this to make sense. It's beneficial to be promiscuous so the father might kill the child?

 

[Devolution]

I can't get this to make sense. It's beneficial to be promiscuous so the father might kill the child?

In some tribes all the brothers get at the "wife" so that individual paternity cannot be established, thus all of them are more likely to fight to defend the kin. I don't know about killing kids though.

 

[Stet]

What again am I not "accepting"?

Not even sure what words you are trying to put into my mouth here. Help me out a little. You haven't provided a reasoning.. so what is there for me to accept or not accept? What haven't I accepted Stet? Quote my post where I didn't accept a stated reasoning.

This is really simple: I asked people to explain why they desire monogamous relationships.. why the idea makes them happy, why it would make their SO happy, etc.

You have zero desire to explain why other then to repeat re-worded versions of "cuz I do", your only desire is to claim me asking the question is stupid.. run me in circles, put words in my mouth, and claim I don't "understand" something.

Honestly, I am NOT curious why you keep doing this. I suspect why, but really couldn't give a fuck less.

I'm interested in discussing something you aren't interested in discussing. At this point, fuck off.

You're pretty hostile for someone who gets laid so much.

 

[Subprime]

I can't get this to make sense. It's beneficial to be promiscuous so the father might kill the child?

Referring more to non human apes. Infanticide is fairly common in chimps. If you can't be sure it isn't your child then you are less likely to kill it.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Referring more to non human apes. Infanticide is fairly common in chimps. If you can't be sure it isn't your child then you are less likely to kill it.

How is it beneficial to the woman though? Wouldn't it be most beneficial if they never had multiple partners so there's no doubt?

 

[diddles]

i don't cheat. i just don't commit.

i do have two married chicks in my rotation right now though (and have had girls with serious boyfriends in the lineup previously). something so exciting about going to town on a married chick. i know it's not right, but just thinking about how their hubbies/bf's don't know where they're at and what they're doing while their boobs bounce in my face just really puts me over the edge, you know what i mean? sorry hubbies and bf's

 

[Devolution]

How is it beneficial to the woman though? Wouldn't it be most beneficial if they never had multiple partners so there's no doubt?

What? It's beneficial in that she and her kin are protected by multiple males.

 

[Enco]

i don't cheat. i just don't commit.

i do have two married chicks in my rotation right now though (and have had girls with serious boyfriends in the lineup previously). something so exciting about going to town on a married chick. i know it's not right, but just thinking about how their hubbies/bf's don't know where they're at and what they're doing while their boobs bounce in my face just really puts me over the edge, you know what i mean? sorry hubbies and bf's

Asshole.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

What? It's beneficial in that she and her kin are protected by multiple males.

I guess.

 

[Subprime]

How is it beneficial to the woman though? Wouldn't it be most beneficial if they never had multiple partners so there's no doubt?

You missed the point. If she was monogamous, the other males would know that its not their kid so they wouldn't worry about either helping it or killing it.