The Myth of Monogamy...cont'd from other topic

the chipster

Subject: The Myth of Monogamy...cont'd from other topic

Women, as the ones who KNOW who the parent is; and therefore MUST provide for her child, for we have alot more invested in each sexual act. Forgetting today's "Feminems"..women's biological, economic, and physical assets are used each time she has a child; and traditionally, we have not known when/if each procrative act would restult in one. Men, who procduce millions of sperm a day, can come and go without knowing for sure if they are the father...or even, how many they have fathered. So while women can be promiscuous in contemportary society (thank god!!) men are biologically determined to spread their seed.
Science is NOT politically correct.
The typical Park Slope father ain't so hot, either is the mom...i have my own opinions on this.....
"Unfaithful" behavior displayed by so many in our culture is natural and in truth, the unnatural behavior is the attempted practice of monogamy. THere is NO evidence, either from biology, primatology, or anthropology, that monogamy is somehow "natural" or "normal" for human beings.
Think GLobal. Act Local. That's America. Provincial. Small minded. Politically Correct.
There is by contrast, abundant evidence that people have long been prone to have multiple sexual partners. What I personally look like is not important. The point is we must move on from these antiquated, but politically correct "values", and recognize the truth in ourselves, and our species.
Am I "hott?" ugh. As a feminist i refuse to answer that.

sweet tea

this is taken from your original post in the other thread, but...

why is monogamy "emasculating"? and how is it something women are doing to men?

last time i checked, most of the rules in our society, moralistic or not, were written by men.

(edited to not accidentally suggest that i am a man.)

linusvanpelt

Subject: Re: The Myth of Monogamy...cont'd from other topic

The Chipster wrote: What I personally look like is not important.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/cp/entertainment/20061026/e102690a.jpg?size=l

whyfi

Uh, hello - it has been shown that females are as prone to straying as males are, and for the very reason that you mention - scarcity of her resources.

Mating preferences dictate several things, and they don't always lead to the same mate. In order to be successful in the eyes of mother nature, a child must not only be born, but raised to the age that it can fend for itself and reproduce, as well; potential mothers are not only looking for good genes in a mate, they're also looking for one that can provide and nurture after a successful get-together. Because it's not always found in the same mate, it's quite common in nature for the female to settle down with the provider/nurturer and sneak out to gather the finest genes she can get her, uh... hands on.

rose

Monogamy is difficult and probably not "natural" at least in the long term -- never before in human history could you reasonably expect to be married for decades to the same person, since one or both of you were likely to die before the age of 30.

However. Those of us who grew up in the '70s and watched our parents spew pretty much the same stuff you wrote above while conducting fun experiments with open marriage know what a toxic mess that turned out to be. Infidelity may be a natural impulse, but so is jealousy.

I am all for people making whatever arrangements in their relationships are agreeable to both, but I don't think an "open" relationship is workable for most couples.

Also -- your original post was confusing. You seemed to be saying that your body has gone to hell after having kids, so it's only fair to let your husband bang some hot young thing. If that works for you, cool. In your position, I would tell my husband to spend some quality time with the kids so I could get to the gym on a regular basis. Not that I agree with your premise anyway (that you "letting yourself go" gives him license to screw someone else).

escap

Rose wrote: never before in human history could you reasonably expect to be married for decades to the same person, since one or both of you were likely to die before the age of 30.

Err, I'm no anthropologist, but this strikes me as one of the most dubious claims ever posted on this board.

On another note, I'm psyched to suddenly discover that me sleeping around is an advancement of feminist causes. I'm gonna run this one by my wife and try to make her see the light. Unfortunately she's in good shape now, but after reading this I can't wait till she has kids and gets fat! Cheating, but with the moral high ground; this is truly a fantastic concept. /

pitu

mod note:

the split topic monogamy discussion

Chipster, thanks for taking this over to the Lounge...a split topic of the original discussion also carried on, linked above. we don't have the technology to, erm, marry them

rose

I would love to take credit for making one of the most dubious claims on this board, but my point was just that life expectancy has dramatically increased over what it was, say 200 years ago. People no longer die of things that used to kill them off routinely, like childbirth. So if you get married in your 20s, you might be looking at that person's face for a good long time.

doctorj

I know cereal monogamy works for some people, but I need to have something different for breakfast every day.

doctorj

Rose wrote: I would love to take credit for making one of the most dubious claims on this board, but my point was just that life expectancy has dramatically increased over what it was, say 200 years ago. People no longer die of things that used to kill them off routinely, like childbirth. So if you get married in your 20s, you might be looking at that person's face for a good long time.

Try to look on the bright side: with the rate that obesity is increasing in this country, the coming decrease in life spans will correlate with the decrease in sex appeal.

the chipster

I myself, have not gone to hell.

the chipster

Of course there is an exception to every rule, WHy Fi, and American women can demonstrate all of them..sometimes at a very high emotional cost.
HOwever, here's one study to bore/educate you.
"To be sure, males can be expected to be at least minimally discriminating, because there may be costs associated with too much sexual gallivanting: A careless Lothario might be attacked, for example, by an outraged "husband." Or, while seeking his own (Extra Procreative Coupling) E.P.C.'s, a philanderer might be cuckolded by other males having similar designs on his mate, unavoidably left unguarded.

But on balance, it seems likely that the payoff to males engaging in successful E.P.C.'s would be great. That is especially true in species in which the males do some child care, because the successful philanderer thus uses other males' energy to raise his offspring. (Amazing study on the percentage of children who are NOT their "dad's" kids)

When it comes to females, on the other hand, the evolutionary advantage of E.P.C.'s is much less clear. After all, although eggs are fewer and more costly to produce than sperm, most eggs are fertilized while most sperm is wasted. Evolution has produced males who make lots of sperm for just that reason.

If a female already has a mate to fertilize her eggs, what does she gain from an E.P.C.? In species where the male helps care for the young, the unfaithful female might risk the loss of her mate's help. Yet the DNA data are unequivocal: Female animals, in species after species, are sexual adventurers in their own right. Why?"

End of quote.
Genetic diversity is my guess, as emotional impulses are just symptoms of "the hungry gene."
What do you think?

rose

The Chipster wrote: I myself, have not gone to hell, and am pleased to go out and flirt with guys whenever I want to. (not in Park Slope )My husband also goes out with his friends. This keeps a certain vitality in our marriage; because we're getting feedback from someone who isn't forced to say,"No, those pants don't make you look fat."

Flirting is different from fucking. Just sayin'.

8thandprez

In my experience, gay men seem to be a bit more comfortable acknowledging the difficulties of monogamy and in establishing boundaries for what is and is not acceptable to alleviate any tensions (sexual or otherwise). Now, of my friends, a good 75% of them swear they have a 100% closed relationship. But getting 25% to own up to varying degrees of openness seems pretty significant. I've always assumed it's because in gay relationships the two partners are always starting from a more similar position than mixed-gender couples.