Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
That's where communication comes in, Rog. You're starting to sound like Pi64, whose justification for cheating is that self-gratification outweighs one's responsibility to be honest with one's partner. Open and polygamous relationships have the same obligations of honesty.
I have seen nothing in his posts indicating dishonesty or infidelity is anyway is alright. There isn't any rationalization or intellectualization (sp?) to attempt to justify being a jerk that I see. I think that claim pops up far too much when people do try to discuss nature and tendencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
That's an intriguing question. But what about the diametric opposite... a set of mores and laws where infidelity carries the death penalty; divorce is outright illegal or essentially impossible to obtain; husbands and wives lead separate lives in separate spheres, except when meeting for conjugal relations; and personal happiness in marriage is secondary to family honor and tribal allegiance?
If I read him correctly (and if I'm off base, sorry RPG), he is speaking about biological norms, as opposed to cultural norms. They often are, unfortunately, not aligned.
I wonder why that is. I have my guesses (much of it has to do with control of people, often through religion), but they are kind of different things.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't know. I think it does matter what we're wired for. If we are looking at reasons why people vary from the standard, we have to determine what the standard is to calculate deviations from it.
Perhaps what the problem is that we "want" as you say something that isn't what we're "wired" for. Addressing how to get us to happily and healthily act upon the lifestyle we "want" (monogamy in many cases) would likely differ if that lifestyle was the standard or norm, or if it was actually a deviation from the norm.
I'm not convinced that people are all wired for the same thing. I know that monogamy is right for me. I would not be able to be in an open relationship with my husband. This is how I'm wired. It's what I want and it's makes me happy. My husband feels the same way.
I have seen nothing in his posts indicating dishonesty or infidelity is anyway is alright. There isn't any rationalization or intellectualization (sp?) to attempt to justify being a jerk that I see. I think that claim pops up far too much when people do try to discuss nature and tendencies.
I do not understand what a tendency toward non-monogamy has to do anything. Why bring up that some people are not wired that way? It's irrelevant to the act of cheating.
This study, like most studies on this topic, seems to presuppose that strict monogamy is "normal," and that therefore, any deviation from strict monogamy requires an explanation. But what if strict monogamy is not "normal?" What if a desire for sexual variety is normal, in both men and women? That puts the whole question in a different frame...
Normal this blah blah blah.....None of the biology matters.
It's a CHOICE you make to be committed. Natural state or not, EVERYONE is capable of understanding the implications of their actions.
If you don't want to be in a monogamous relationship don't put yourself in one or involve others who do not desire the same.
That's all it comes down to.
You can't "cheat" if have not put yourself in the position to do so, as such the questions surrounding the topic "naturally" pertain to monogamous situations and circumstance.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
I'm not convinced that people are all wired for the same thing. I know that monogamy is right for me. I would not be able to be in an open relationship with my husband. This is how I'm wired. It's what I want and it's makes me happy. My husband feels the same way.
Oh, I don't think we are. We do though have a norm for our species (all species do) and then there are deviations from it. So what my norm is very well may be 2 deviations or whatever from the human norm.
I love talking about those things, so people don't care, they just care what works for them... each to their own.
I actually think the human species is fairly uniniteresting, except on this point. That our biological norms and cultural norms often don't align, and also we have, as a species, shown a wide variety or breeding systems, from harems, to monogamy, to polyandry to polygamy... It is quite broad.
Actually, I am wired for monogamy. See what happens when you make assumptions?
But for the most part, I agree with you. Some percentage of the population is well-suited to monogamy, just as some part of the population isn't. However, the baseline cultural assumption tends to be that monogamy is the ideal for everyone. That clearly isn't the case.
I'm not making assumptions. All of your posts lately seem to involve saying that monogamy isn't natural. You even made this post in a different thread - http://www.city-data.com/forum/35215127-post4.html
If you are wired for monogamy - your posts certainly do not reflect that.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
I do not understand what a tendency toward non-monogamy has to do anything. Why bring up that some people are not wired that way? It's irrelevant to the act of cheating.
It isn't really irrelevant, if some of the issues are caused by a non alignment of cultural and biological norms. But in general it is an interesting conversation. To me, that is enough. Animal behavior / biology is fascinating to me.
The brown headed cowbird that is an obligate nest parasite. They don't raise their own young and have other species do it. The "sneaker" male salmon that never develop male characteristics to be able to move in and breed with high quality females under the noses of dominant males. The Wilson's Phalarope, a polyandish bird that lays and eggs and ditches the male to care for it when she goes looking for other males to breed with. Humans and their variety of mating patterns.
It's just all so fascinating. Nothing nicer to chat about over a pint!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
I'm not making assumptions. All of your posts lately seem to involve saying that monogamy isn't natural. You even made this post in a different thread - http://www.city-data.com/forum/35215127-post4.html
If you are wired for monogamy - your posts certainly do not reflect that.
I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing contradictory about saying our species norm isn't monogamy and that he is himself wired for monogamy. Two separate statements.
If you're wired for monogamy, why do you say the opposite then? Who are you talking about?
But I didn't say the opposite.
What I said was that strict monogamy may not be normal for everyone, but that articles like the one in the OP generally presume that it is.
I think you assumed that because I questioned monogamy, I was trying to make excuses for wanting to be non monogamous. But that wasn't the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
