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.
nald, your arguments apply only to the cultural environment of the last 10,000 years or so. The issues that exist in "modern" times have little or nothing to do with human evolution or social arrangements in the prior millions of years where our true nature formed. Culture is an overlay on human nature. Your arguments fail to account for prehistory - you're erroneously Flinstonizing the past.
Please don't believe in those stupid things. There is always about the same number of men and women who cheat.
Whom are those men/women cheating with and how many of those 3rd persons are truly "unaware" that they are cheating someone else together?
Do you really think that there's so much significant difference in number of women cheating their partner with multiple men than number of men cheating with multiple women?
There are many other factors but the bottom line is that number of cheating men and women was about the same. And now the percentages should be about the same because modern societies now have quite close number of men and women in total.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetLee380
Pardon me but I do think incest isn't something that comes naturally!! There are lots of markers and even scent to make it unnatural for us to do this. If raised together siblings will not go for each other. Lots of studies on that one.
That because it's how they are raised inherently. Take them away from each other and see that they'll in fact be highly attracted to each other as soon as they see each other. It is very common that even non-biological children who are raised since being little as if they're brother and sister, will actually act in such way. So much about "biology" being involved in avoiding sex with your siblings - they are HIGHLY attracted to each other... biology tells you that similarities attract. It's been well-known and that is why any reasonable judge is NOT to separate biological children. In fact, it also disrupts their bond with biological parents very often. There's been incredibly huge correlation with incest although possibilities were minor, it's disturbing for any guy who remarries and has children with another woman separately from his other family, they should know that they expose their children with potentially terrible consequences, especially if children are unaware of each other's presence!
What you describe is the human society's structure. Check out how creatures that don't have such developed social network will reason. Try with mices... they have sex with their daughters and young mices copulate with their own mothers!
nald, your arguments apply only to the cultural environment of the last 10,000 years or so. The issues that exist in "modern" times have little or nothing to do with human evolution or social arrangements in the prior millions of years where our true nature formed. Culture is an overlay on human nature. Your arguments fail to account for prehistory - you're erroneously Flinstonizing the past.
I didn't understand your post because you didn't quote what you meant with this. If you meant on incest, you are DEADLY wrong.
Culture is nothing else than certain acceptable and expected norms of behavior in a structured society. Without certain regulations the society would deteriorate but any future generations would accept it as a fact and any new social norms would become new modus operandi. I.e. check out how quickly does the social structure evolves in recent decades. It's really ridiculous to claim that people stopped having children before marrying without something that caused it. It's really stupid to claim that society that valued father's role even above mother's role just 100-200 years ago and actually had a father as your mentor and main role - came to a situation where over 50% of children will have their living, biological father somewhere else before they hit legal maturity (18 years). Those are all consequences of different social conditioning and new generations accept it as a new reality without questioning it.
Further, what I wanted to signify is that opinions stated like "regulations cannot and aren't imposed" is also false. Those regulations regarding monogamy regulations were lifted somewhere after WW2 and were declared completely irrelevant by legislation a few decades later. Human dignity and social order are commonly cited for various reasons why the ban on nudity or public sex exists. Same is used for prostitution. Same is currently used as a reason to ban surrogacy in a number of countries. Same is used for ban on tortures. Human dignity and social order was used as an argument for abortion ban and it was also used to sanction adultery among married people.
Check out one thing. You may now argue certain things should not be imposed as they don't violate human dignity (be it nudity, prostitution, etc). But it's really ridiculous to have two sane people sign papers and willingly accept certain regulations, only to completely disregard it without having any legal consequences. Governments across the world are imposing common-law marriages silently as more and more people start living unmarried and same was attempted to get a pass on federal level in the United States, but with little support. Don't worry, they'll try again, they did so in Australia and Canada. They did it in a number of European countries. They are trying to impose it in UK and US as well. How come they want to impose common law marriage, something you never signed for, yet they don't want to enforce something that everyone and everyone's common sense says should be imposed? Because they want social disruption and they de-regulated it on purpose, while promoting and pushing people towards "accepting it as reality" - thus more and more people cheat simply to emotionally distance themselves from the other party. More and more people simply have sex around not to miss on something - cheating a partner is included as well.
I've already argued that any other legal contract would be enforced whether you like it or not. Bank wouldn't allow you to walk away with the loan they gave you, they'd have their way to make you pay. Anyone who argued against it should rather ask themselves - why would they sign a contract anyways. In fact, if they think it shouldn't be enforced, then their opinion should focus on making marriage banned altogether because it is illegal or anti-constitutional.
I have read a couple of stories about that weird powerful attraction of strangers to find out they were fostered siblings and such. Ok I give you that. It's crazy though right?
The truth is, most men are only monogamous because they have no other choice. Look at those men who actually have women throwing themselves at them: usually they take on the player lifestyle and change women more often than their underwear. If ALL men had those options, you can the majority wouldnt settle down with a woman
The truth is, most men are only monogamous because they have no other choice. Look at those men who actually have women throwing themselves at them: usually they take on the player lifestyle and change women more often than their underwear. If ALL men had those options, you can the majority wouldnt settle down with a woman
Truth.
I would venture many men are as faithful as opportunity dictates.
I'd say when losing arguments and feeling cornered, you're resorting to use an excuse to avoid facing yourself with accepting what other side is telling you. [/youtube]
No, I just don't like when people holler.
And ye shall know them by their fonts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
It may look lame to repeat myself, but I'm going to do it just for you:
Monogamy isn't inherent, it is something we are taught. And so is not to murder, rape, pillage, having incest with siblings/parents, etc. I doubt that neanderthal would have any inherent ability not to steal food from local store. I don't even doubt that people would do it as well if they weren't taught otherwise.
In fact, they can learn how to steal and not get caught, that's another ability that one can learn.
Argument against man's biology is argument against common sense and any guy's sanity. Please stop spewing that BS, it's been decades already and it's been backed up by massive media, legislative and other measures. Look up how they decided to ban any DNA testings and how they limit it to corner folks NOT to do it. Look it up how they are hunting down anonymous DNA testing sites and how paternity kits are treated like terrorist equipments in many importing legislations. Many countries started hunting down and putting down those sites. An excuse is apparently that your insurance company can abuse it to screen you for potential future diseases and increase insurance costs, even though many countries have other legislations banning it. In fact, not even once did the legislation process an insurance company for such wrongdoing, it's entirely focused on stopping DNA screening done by suspecting fathers or even by fathers listed on birth certificate automatically. All the while someone acts smart and tells that fathers shouldn't even know. This is the biggest BS I've ever heard, it's imposed in a number of countries and they try to impose it in America as well because hundreds of thousands of those tests are done anonymously (discussed in previous topics).
If you agree with this policy, I've used quite simple argument to prove you wrong and to prove you that no man will care if he OR she doubts that a child isn't his own. An argument with a prostitute and her child is a very obvious one. Guys will be interested in having sex with her - NOT to be with her or to raise a child that "might" be their own. If you think men are jerks for doing that, I've given you an example of a hospital that tells you they don't know which one out of i.e. 1000 babies if your own, but they want to hand you over the first child they find. That child might be yours, you will refuse to take it. You'll call police. You'll do everything to punish them. If you had no legal way to deal with it, you wouldn't accept the first child they give you either. Keep on trying to avoid the answer, everyone reading this article knows I'm telling the truth.
None of this is even relevant to a single thing I said. My point was that there were indeed communal societies where men did not know or care if kids were theirs. The whole notion of monogamy came about with the concept of property and lineage through men.
You're using this thread to spout the same stuff you spout on every other thread: Your ongoing suspicion that every woman out there is somehow out to cuckold a man and pawn another man's kid off on him. Really, your misogyny is grotesque in its twisted thought processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaoistDude
nald, your arguments apply only to the cultural environment of the last 10,000 years or so. The issues that exist in "modern" times have little or nothing to do with human evolution or social arrangements in the prior millions of years where our true nature formed. Culture is an overlay on human nature. Your arguments fail to account for prehistory - you're erroneously Flinstonizing the past.
If you agreed to stay married for life, would that mean it would be unethical to get divorced (meaning unilaterally) later on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub dub II
Not unethical...it just means you don't mean what you say. Or she doesn't...(not always your fault..)
For life is for life. Till death. It's why you don't throw words around because that's what you're 'supposed to say'. Either mean it, or don't say it.
And if you don't feel comfortable saying it, don't say it. It's how people get hurt and turn cynical.
My ex and I didn't. We said we'd love each other and support each other. There was no "till death do us part" nonsense. Furthermore, when we realized that we were getting in each other's way of happiness, we divorced as an act of love and friendship. I realize that might be hard for many people to understand in this day and age of selfishness and spite, but there it is.
My ex and I didn't. We said we'd love each other and support each other. There was no "till death do us part" nonsense. Furthermore, when we realized that we were getting in each other's way of happiness, we divorced as an act of love and friendship. I realize that might be hard for many people to understand in this day and age of selfishness and spite, but there it is.
Huh, I think I agree with you on something, I think the one that has the harder time finding someone new the other ex spouse should help find them someone, what do you think?
I don't have much to say about the OP's story and opinion, but rather the idea of "enforcing marriage."
No one has brought up a rare piece of civil law: Alienation of Affections. I don't know if we have in the USA anything else that comes this close to enforcing marriage. This concept has been abolished in most states but remains in a few, like my home state Illinois. Of course it looks extremely difficult to prove, which is why it is not well-known. Alienation of affections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
