Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope." To enhance that answer... those who are, choose to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope. To enhance that answer... those who are, choose to be." I'll enhance again. Some say it's normal for a man to seek elsewhere, ya know, sow the oats and all that. Right of passage almost. Justification isn't it. They tell themselves so they don't feel guilty if they convince themselves they're just doing "nature" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" No, no one is “bred to be unfaithful” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different..." Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different " That's a proven myth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth " I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ffs of course we’re fricking not. None of your male friends faithful OP?? " Over the years...few and far between... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it human Instinct to further the population.. Males have a role to play on this I am sure.." Not always. Some don't want children in an overpopulated underfunded entitled parasitic world. Plus, if that's the case why do people have protected sex when cheating? Coz that ain't gonna produce offspring! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The king of the jungle is the male lion.. he takes his pick.. " Lions don’t live in jungles, tigers do. I saw it in a documentary on BBC 2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope. To enhance that answer... those who are, choose to be. I'll enhance again. Some say it's normal for a man to seek elsewhere, ya know, sow the oats and all that. Right of passage almost. Justification isn't it. They tell themselves so they don't feel guilty if they convince themselves they're just doing "nature"" With all due respect you are over thinking this. A standing prick has no conscience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others." Sperm Whales, Emperor Penguins... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen more men unfaithful than not... It's just the opportunity they need " I've seen plenty, hence my being so forthright with never allowing my heart to be given to another ever again. So, it is really monogamy that's the problem, or do you think it's cowardice? I personally think it's not having the balls to admit to themselves and their partners what they want, or give up the life that they have with their partners coz they're fucking selfish. In my mind their unfaithfulness is quite simply their cowardice for the majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen more men unfaithful than not... It's just the opportunity they need I've seen plenty, hence my being so forthright with never allowing my heart to be given to another ever again. So, it is really monogamy that's the problem, or do you think it's cowardice? I personally think it's not having the balls to admit to themselves and their partners what they want, or give up the life that they have with their partners coz they're fucking selfish. In my mind their unfaithfulness is quite simply their cowardice for the majority." Totally agree having led that type of lifestyle. Something I've become more and more ashamed of as I've got older and of course having two daughters  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ?" Tom, I could bosh you over the noggin with a chair. Forget the labels and excuses. Men, just like women are humans and each individual has a moral code or compass. Some more than others. Fuck, some cheat because they're on self destruct mode not coz they wanna reproduce. Again, that's an outdated excuse for shitty behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ?" Like horses put out to stud? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ? Like horses put out to stud?" No. Like horses escaping the shackles, bridles, bits and saddles.. the symbols of convention to do what they are designed for.. it's just one way of looking at it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different..." We are not cattle perhaps?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. Sperm Whales, Emperor Penguins..." You have to compare us with our closest relatives in nature, the apes. The dominant male gets the females. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ? Like horses put out to stud? No. Like horses escaping the shackles, bridles, bits and saddles.. the symbols of convention to do what they are designed for.. it's just one way of looking at it..." Here's my way of looking at it. If you willingly place yourself in the shackles and expect your partner to become shackled to you then you should at least be truthful about any desire you have to cast those shackles off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ? Like horses put out to stud? No. Like horses escaping the shackles, bridles, bits and saddles.. the symbols of convention to do what they are designed for.. it's just one way of looking at it..." Nope, coz there are places where those things are perfectly acceptable and actively encouraged. Hedonism for example. So, I come back to cowardice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. Sperm Whales, Emperor Penguins... You have to compare us with our closest relatives in nature, the apes. The dominant male gets the females." And do the females willingly flock to the alpha ape ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So are men breeders ? Like horses put out to stud? No. Like horses escaping the shackles, bridles, bits and saddles.. the symbols of convention to do what they are designed for.. it's just one way of looking at it... Here's my way of looking at it. If you willingly place yourself in the shackles and expect your partner to become shackled to you then you should at least be truthful about any desire you have to cast those shackles off. " Jackpot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others." I think some rodents are. (Probably not rats) but your right, some animals in nature partner up, and actually only have one mate even after one dies.  very sad really to think that an animal may actually mourne.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. I think some rodents are. (Probably not rats) but your right, some animals in nature partner up, and actually only have one mate even after one dies. very sad really to think that an animal may actually mourne. "Albatross, for example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we are excusing bad behaviour by comparing ourselves to animals. Interesting." Bad behaviour or instinct ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we are excusing bad behaviour by comparing ourselves to animals. Interesting. Bad behaviour or instinct ?" We have an admittedly thin, veneer of civilisation that allows us to distinguish bad behaviour from good. It has been said that it's what makes us human | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we are excusing bad behaviour by comparing ourselves to animals. Interesting. Bad behaviour or instinct ? We have an admittedly thin, veneer of civilisation that allows us to distinguish bad behaviour from good. It has been said that it's what makes us human " The human race distinguishing bad behaviour from good ? WOW... Just WOW. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here we are excusing bad behaviour by comparing ourselves to animals. Interesting. Bad behaviour or instinct ? We have an admittedly thin, veneer of civilisation that allows us to distinguish bad behaviour from good. It has been said that it's what makes us human The human race distinguishing bad behaviour from good ? WOW... Just WOW. " It's possible for individuals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" Your question is a bit ignorant honestly...yes there is a biological aspect, as males in most mammal species have a natural instinct of "spreading the seed", however cheating is a different concept. As human beings we have intellect, reason, morals, values, principles, discipline and self control which helps us make rational decisions and choose not to cheat. We can also choose to not be in a relationship or marriage and have ONS or FWB...in which case the concept of cheating fades away. Just because you hang out or are friends with guys that cheat, means fuck all but that you base your opinion on your own anecdotal experience...nothing more nothing less | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ? Your question is a bit ignorant honestly...yes there is a biological aspect, as males in most mammal species have a natural instinct of "spreading the seed", however cheating is a different concept. As human beings we have intellect, reason, morals, values, principles, discipline and self control which helps us make rational decisions and choose not to cheat. We can also choose to not be in a relationship or marriage and have ONS or FWB...in which case the concept of cheating fades away. Just because you hang out or are friends with guys that cheat, means fuck all but that you base your opinion on your own anecdotal experience...nothing more nothing less" And that is your opinion as others have there's | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. Sperm Whales, Emperor Penguins..." Fulmars also mate for life  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The king of the jungle is the male lion.. he takes his pick.. " Lions don't live on jungles my friend  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. I think some rodents are. (Probably not rats) but your right, some animals in nature partner up, and actually only have one mate even after one dies. very sad really to think that an animal may actually mourne.
Albatross, for example."And wolves it appears. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" Depends on how deep you want my answer? Men and women are actually born to populate, that’s our only goal in life (naturally speaking). That’s what life is about. Monogamy is just a social construct designed by the religious folk that society has developed into being the norm. If we get to the bare crux of things, we (as men) are meant to club our women, drag her into the care and inseminate her. How do you think I found Andrea?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being missed here is that we are the only species on earth that has sex for pleasure & not just to have offspring. " That’s not true. Dolphins have sex for pleasure as do other species but I’ve had 2 hours sleep and can’t remember which others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being missed here is that we are the only species on earth that has sex for pleasure & not just to have offspring. That’s not true. Dolphins have sex for pleasure as do other species but I’ve had 2 hours sleep and can’t remember which others. " It'll be primates.... Looked up fruit bats who like a bit of oral... apparently! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" I don’t think you can breed someone to be unfaithful ? It comes down purely to personal choice | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being missed here is that we are the only species on earth that has sex for pleasure & not just to have offspring. That’s not true. Dolphins have sex for pleasure as do other species but I’ve had 2 hours sleep and can’t remember which others. " How do we know? Did we ask them? Do they have sex and then finish on someone’s face? 
I know monkeys (apes) masterbate, would that be the same thing, for pleasure? It’s all odd when we try to shrink an animal, o always assume we are guessing at times. Although a lot does make sense.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others." I thought most penguins are monogamous too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. I thought most penguins are monogamous too" I just checked a list. Termites or on there,… I don’t really give a shit if termites mate for life if I am honest.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. I thought most penguins are monogamous too I just checked a list. Termites or on there,… I don’t really give a shit if termites mate for life if I am honest.
"Damn termites.. lol and here's me still single 5 years later haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different... Well one's bovine and one ain't. If you wanna go down that route, swans are monogamous. See, even animals are different That's a proven myth I didn't realise. I'm certain there are others. Sperm Whales, Emperor Penguins... You have to compare us with our closest relatives in nature, the apes. The dominant male gets the females." Our closest relatives are bonobo chimps. Everybody gets laid. Homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual. Couples and groups. Adults and children. So it's probably not best to base personal behaviour on animals, however close. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point being missed here is that we are the only species on earth that has sex for pleasure & not just to have offspring. Because we have devised ways to prevent pregnancy that other mammals can't & haven't. Tom must sit at home laughing to himself each day watching chaos ensue due to reactions to his wind up posts. He's not daft is Tom, he knows the right buttons to push." The pigmy chimp is the only other animal that has sex for pleasure. They have also theory they are the missing link. Watched National Geographic once 
Bit of useless information  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. " That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only a person who wants to justify in their own heads why they are cheating would say it is out of their control. Everyone is responsible for their own actions - everyone has a choice which path to take. K" Your starting point seems to be complete acceptance of societal / moral norms, referring to anything other than monogamy as “cheating”. The question is broader than that, asking about base human instinct rather than the religion/moral-based constrict that you seem to accept. The other major influence in society demanding monogamy is property / inheritance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. " So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for." Takes 2 to tango, plus with the invention of contraception this isn’t really a problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. Takes 2 to tango, plus with the invention of contraception this isn’t really a problem " That's my whole point. If the reasoning is for procreation and there's active steps being taken to avoid procreation (contraception) then procreation can't be used as the driving force, surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. Takes 2 to tango, plus with the invention of contraception this isn’t really a problem That's my whole point. If the reasoning is for procreation and there's active steps being taken to avoid procreation (contraception) then procreation can't be used as the driving force, surely?" Your dna doesn’t know you have contraception on Instincts over rice technology | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for." I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of promiscuity and looking at it with the starting point being societal norms which have evolved. The question is about the underlying nature of humans rather than what “should” happen to ensure that problem are all treated fairly etc. If monogamy was completely in our nature then we wouldn’t need things like marriage or penalties for non-monogamy, as non-monogamy would not exist. Religion has created constraints that demand monogamy, with penalties including people being stoned to death in some societies / cultures across history. Again, those penalties would not have come into being if non-monogamy wasn’t already happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“ The Coolidge effect is the progressive decline in a male's propensity to mate with the same female combined with a heightened sexual interest in new females. ... Males showed greater sexual interest in novel females (virgin or mated) than in females they had inseminated before.” Nature is cruel and unaware of your feelings " Named after Jennifer Coolidge (stiffler’s mom) by any chance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of promiscuity and looking at it with the starting point being societal norms which have evolved. The question is about the underlying nature of humans rather than what “should” happen to ensure that problem are all treated fairly etc. If monogamy was completely in our nature then we wouldn’t need things like marriage or penalties for non-monogamy, as non-monogamy would not exist. Religion has created constraints that demand monogamy, with penalties including people being stoned to death in some societies / cultures across history. Again, those penalties would not have come into being if non-monogamy wasn’t already happening. " Agreed to a point. However the same people who chose to commit to someone are those who are choosing to cheat. A conscious decision on both counts. Not everyone marries or commits. Not everyone cheats. They could, if they choose to, take responsibility for themselves and their genitals. Riddle me this, why oh why do so many dads go batshit crazy when their daughters get cheated on, if the same dads know it was instinct and he couldn't really help it coz it's in the cheater DNA? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“ The Coolidge effect is the progressive decline in a male's propensity to mate with the same female combined with a heightened sexual interest in new females. ... Males showed greater sexual interest in novel females (virgin or mated) than in females they had inseminated before.” Nature is cruel and unaware of your feelings " I'd say this applies to women also. We are all stimulated by the novel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I admire my gran and mum married till they past away no cheating I get married twice both cheated on me " Good. My children admire me for the same reason. I have cheated. What your kids don't know doesn't kill them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monogamy arose from attempting control over blood lines. It is nothing more than a cog in a power game. It was for Royals and other landed gentry - not for common folk. Like everything else in society monogamy became the social norm as a means of making sure that people ( men ) were financially responsible for their own offspring and as a means of trapping people into the church and conformity. It is not natural for ANY gender to have just one partner for all of eternity. Not just for sex but for a myriad of reasons. " I’d argue it was extended to common folk. Because women were the ultimate currency. And if a leader or ruler got too powerful and took too many women for himself it created problems for common folk that would eventually lead to unrest. Monogamy was a way of keeping harmony by saying “every men gets 1 woman, you don’t need to start a war because the king took 50 for himself” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monogamy arose from attempting control over blood lines. It is nothing more than a cog in a power game. It was for Royals and other landed gentry - not for common folk. Like everything else in society monogamy became the social norm as a means of making sure that people ( men ) were financially responsible for their own offspring and as a means of trapping people into the church and conformity. It is not natural for ANY gender to have just one partner for all of eternity. Not just for sex but for a myriad of reasons. " Bloody Victorians again! I blame a lot on them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monogamy arose from attempting control over blood lines. It is nothing more than a cog in a power game. It was for Royals and other landed gentry - not for common folk. Like everything else in society monogamy became the social norm as a means of making sure that people ( men ) were financially responsible for their own offspring and as a means of trapping people into the church and conformity. It is not natural for ANY gender to have just one partner for all of eternity. Not just for sex but for a myriad of reasons. " Well put. And similarly, celibacy of clergy has its roots in property ownership, retaining assets within the church rather than losing them to descendants of clergy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to put my helmet on and prepare to dive for cover but I believe that we originally evolved in line with other pack animals to ensure the survival of the species. To that extent the male had the instinct to reproduce with any available female (in order to combat high infant mortality rates etc, etc) That instinct is still stronger in some than others. And this is probably where I get really contentious but in the history of humanity the concept of monogomy is quite a recent one. Coinciding with the advent of certain organised faith systems." There is nothing remotely contentious in any of what you say. I'd agree with it all and add that the 'purity' of women is a myth... Women also fucked around to lessen the odds of being impregnated by a weaker specimen of a male.... Tough jizz kills weak jizz .... it seems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monogamy arose from attempting control over blood lines. It is nothing more than a cog in a power game. It was for Royals and other landed gentry - not for common folk. Like everything else in society monogamy became the social norm as a means of making sure that people ( men ) were financially responsible for their own offspring and as a means of trapping people into the church and conformity. It is not natural for ANY gender to have just one partner for all of eternity. Not just for sex but for a myriad of reasons. Bloody Victorians again! I blame a lot on them "No .... some 800 years previous or more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of promiscuity and looking at it with the starting point being societal norms which have evolved. The question is about the underlying nature of humans rather than what “should” happen to ensure that problem are all treated fairly etc. If monogamy was completely in our nature then we wouldn’t need things like marriage or penalties for non-monogamy, as non-monogamy would not exist. Religion has created constraints that demand monogamy, with penalties including people being stoned to death in some societies / cultures across history. Again, those penalties would not have come into being if non-monogamy wasn’t already happening. Agreed to a point. However the same people who chose to commit to someone are those who are choosing to cheat. A conscious decision on both counts. Not everyone marries or commits. Not everyone cheats. They could, if they choose to, take responsibility for themselves and their genitals. Riddle me this, why oh why do so many dads go batshit crazy when their daughters get cheated on, if the same dads know it was instinct and he couldn't really help it coz it's in the cheater DNA?" I know and understand that society expects monogamy/ “being faithful”. And I completely understand that things can go to shit when people fuck around. But that is not the question being asked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“ The Coolidge effect is the progressive decline in a male's propensity to mate with the same female combined with a heightened sexual interest in new females. ... Males showed greater sexual interest in novel females (virgin or mated) than in females they had inseminated before.” Nature is cruel and unaware of your feelings " Hence 'cooling off' I imagine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monogamy arose from attempting control over blood lines. It is nothing more than a cog in a power game. It was for Royals and other landed gentry - not for common folk. Like everything else in society monogamy became the social norm as a means of making sure that people ( men ) were financially responsible for their own offspring and as a means of trapping people into the church and conformity. It is not natural for ANY gender to have just one partner for all of eternity. Not just for sex but for a myriad of reasons. Bloody Victorians again! I blame a lot on them
No .... some 800 years previous or more"Much earlier! Made it into the 10 commandments, where you’re not supposed to covet your neighbour’s wife, and there are references to stonings in the bible, so that’s at least 2000 years. Still relatively recent as far as the species is concerned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of promiscuity and looking at it with the starting point being societal norms which have evolved. The question is about the underlying nature of humans rather than what “should” happen to ensure that problem are all treated fairly etc. If monogamy was completely in our nature then we wouldn’t need things like marriage or penalties for non-monogamy, as non-monogamy would not exist. Religion has created constraints that demand monogamy, with penalties including people being stoned to death in some societies / cultures across history. Again, those penalties would not have come into being if non-monogamy wasn’t already happening. Agreed to a point. However the same people who chose to commit to someone are those who are choosing to cheat. A conscious decision on both counts. Not everyone marries or commits. Not everyone cheats. They could, if they choose to, take responsibility for themselves and their genitals. Riddle me this, why oh why do so many dads go batshit crazy when their daughters get cheated on, if the same dads know it was instinct and he couldn't really help it coz it's in the cheater DNA? I know and understand that society expects monogamy/ “being faithful”. And I completely understand that things can go to shit when people fuck around. But that is not the question being asked. " Does society expect it though? Does it really? Or is it personal choice? I agree it expects it in marriage or committed relationships, however, if you know you're not of a monogamous nature, you don't have to "commit" to someone that is. That's just unfair and really bloody cruel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly." Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity " Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. That’s a good distinction. It is societal and religious norms that have created the expectation / demand of monogamy. So where does personal responsibility fit in? Let's say men ARE biologically programmed to sow the seed left and right for procreation. Does he not have any responsibility for those children? Coz ya know, there's every chance he wouldn't even know he had them if it was off a one night stand with someone who's name he didn't remember.... or ask for. I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the point of view of the consequences of promiscuity and looking at it with the starting point being societal norms which have evolved. The question is about the underlying nature of humans rather than what “should” happen to ensure that problem are all treated fairly etc. If monogamy was completely in our nature then we wouldn’t need things like marriage or penalties for non-monogamy, as non-monogamy would not exist. Religion has created constraints that demand monogamy, with penalties including people being stoned to death in some societies / cultures across history. Again, those penalties would not have come into being if non-monogamy wasn’t already happening. Agreed to a point. However the same people who chose to commit to someone are those who are choosing to cheat. A conscious decision on both counts. Not everyone marries or commits. Not everyone cheats. They could, if they choose to, take responsibility for themselves and their genitals. Riddle me this, why oh why do so many dads go batshit crazy when their daughters get cheated on, if the same dads know it was instinct and he couldn't really help it coz it's in the cheater DNA? I know and understand that society expects monogamy/ “being faithful”. And I completely understand that things can go to shit when people fuck around. But that is not the question being asked. Does society expect it though? Does it really? Or is it personal choice? I agree it expects it in marriage or committed relationships, however, if you know you're not of a monogamous nature, you don't have to "commit" to someone that is. That's just unfair and really bloody cruel." But the question being asked isn’t about the outcomes of promiscuity. It is about the underlying nature of humans and whether they are fundamentally monogamous or not. To me, the answer to that simple question is that promiscuity is a natural instinct, and religious / society rules are there to limit the damage that that behaviour can cause. Other posters have also referenced religion, property, bloodlines etc, all accurate. This isn’t a question about how people SHOULD behave, or the consequences if they don’t, it’s about underlying human nature. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the animal kingdom...one bull services many cattle... Why are we different..." Some people are capable of operating at a higher levels of self awareness and interdependence and find happiness & meaning in relationships where they don’t need to cheat or lie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going to put my helmet on and prepare to dive for cover but I believe that we originally evolved in line with other pack animals to ensure the survival of the species. To that extent the male had the instinct to reproduce with any available female (in order to combat high infant mortality rates etc, etc) That instinct is still stronger in some than others. And this is probably where I get really contentious but in the history of humanity the concept of monogomy is quite a recent one. Coinciding with the advent of certain organised faith systems." Was going to say similar and add into the mix the socio construct of attachment  biologically driven which would serves double purpose for our ancestors because not only does it harbour the need to protect your pack it ensures survival of the species because factors in the need to pro create....There can be different attachment styled depending on how secured your early attachments are (parents) avoidance, unsecured attachments can impact on future relationships
So basically the need to procreate is biologically driven....But external factors can hinder the process
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. So monogamy. Literally means one person for life right. I'll change the wording to make it clearer. Are people naturally monogamous? No. Do people naturally have multiple partners throughout their lifetime? Yes. Do people naturally cheat? No, that's choice. They choose to be dishonest and unfaithful. " What I'm saying is, you can have multiple partners throughout your lifetime yet remain faithful to all of them for the duration of the relationship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. So monogamy. Literally means one person for life right. I'll change the wording to make it clearer. Are people naturally monogamous? No. Do people naturally have multiple partners throughout their lifetime? Yes. Do people naturally cheat? No, that's choice. They choose to be dishonest and unfaithful. " All true. No argument here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference)." No, I am not being provocative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why only men? Very odd question." Agreed but then the stereotypical image of men is that they are biologically driven to cheat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. So monogamy. Literally means one person for life right. I'll change the wording to make it clearer. Are people naturally monogamous? No. Do people naturally have multiple partners throughout their lifetime? Yes. Do people naturally cheat? No, that's choice. They choose to be dishonest and unfaithful. " In that case we agree. Humans are not naturally exclusively monogamous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. " Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope, but some are just like some woman are. " this.
Some men choose to be, and so do plenty of women too xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly." Personally I think cheating is the most cowardly option. Bravery is dealing with the situation. Ask anyone being or been cheated on what they think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. So monogamy. Literally means one person for life right. I'll change the wording to make it clearer. Are people naturally monogamous? No. Do people naturally have multiple partners throughout their lifetime? Yes. Do people naturally cheat? No, that's choice. They choose to be dishonest and unfaithful. In that case we agree. Humans are not naturally exclusively monogamous. " Yes, but the issue that arises is just like this thread, people using that as justification to cheat rather than allowing both parties to move on. The original question was "are men bred to be unfaithful" and the answer is no. Being unfaithful is a conscious decision. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous." Why don't you try illuminating rather than refocusing ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous." The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. So monogamy. Literally means one person for life right. I'll change the wording to make it clearer. Are people naturally monogamous? No. Do people naturally have multiple partners throughout their lifetime? Yes. Do people naturally cheat? No, that's choice. They choose to be dishonest and unfaithful. In that case we agree. Humans are not naturally exclusively monogamous. Yes, but the issue that arises is just like this thread, people using that as justification to cheat rather than allowing both parties to move on. The original question was "are men bred to be unfaithful" and the answer is no. Being unfaithful is a conscious decision." Being non-monogamous is part of human nature. How we should behave is a different question. The concept of being “unfaithful” only makes sense viewed through the lens of society’s rules/expectations. But I completely agree that the decision on whether to be monogamous or not is entirely down to each individual, and they own that responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. " Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.Peach Batshit Crazy Dad's ........ You assume they go batshitcrazy despite the knowledge that men will cheat. The B.S.C. Dad may think monogamy a norm and is acting against a transgression of rules... My thoughts are this .... Dad's go BSC as they have loved and protected that little girl since birth. Societally men are psychologically transformed to protect in order to be 'men' ....... When something happens outside of their control they 'spin' ..... I also hold with the theory that women remain ' feeble possessions' in men's eyes... regardless of what they say as society changes. How many Dad's go and paste a woman for cheating on their sons ? Your point is extremely valid. " I've known many a mum go paste a woman for cheating, frowned upon when the dad hits a woman. I've also known mum's paste their own kids for cheating on their partners, and dad's not speak to their children for years because of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime." Agreed. But you understood what I meant, right? Bottom line though, humans are not fundamentally monogamous, but religious and societal rules have taught them that they should be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime. Agreed. But you understood what I meant, right? Bottom line though, humans are not fundamentally monogamous, but religious and societal rules have taught them that they should be. " Well you could say the same about r*pe murder abs stealing. Sounds like as excuse to me , you can’t control your urges and don't value respect trust loyalty and honesty , or not as much as getting a quick fuck. Sad | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime. Agreed. But you understood what I meant, right? Bottom line though, humans are not fundamentally monogamous, but religious and societal rules have taught them that they should be. " Ish. Religion is something that many don't entertain so I kinda discount it. Plus, at the age we are in now most have seen generations before us divorce, and know it's perfectly normal and reasonable. I'm sure many of us have seen divorcees that remain friends and in fact get on better following the breakdown of the commitment. It's not like there aren't options available | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime. Agreed. But you understood what I meant, right? Bottom line though, humans are not fundamentally monogamous, but religious and societal rules have taught them that they should be. Well you could say the same about r*pe murder abs stealing. Sounds like as excuse to me , you can’t control your urges and don't value respect trust loyalty and honesty , or not as much as getting a quick fuck. Sad" I haven’t said that people SHOULD be non-monogamous. And I’m not making excuses for anyone or anything. I am simply giving my views in the original question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am often amused and frequently dismayed by these discussions, mostly due to people’s dogged adherence to an overly simplistic or deliberately provocative stance. What society has come to call “cheating” exists on so many levels it cannot be simply categorised. If all you are after is the conquest or to scratch an itch and in doing so you really don’t care who you hurt, then I would tend to agree that what you are doing is morally questionable. There are some of us for whom it is far more complicated and staying isn't cowardice, rather it is actually the harder, braver option and the kinder one. We sacrifice every day so that our loved ones aren’t damaged by yet one more thing ...! And so what if occasionally we discretely seek a little comfort and a temporary patch for our own gaping wounds!! And there’s a whole load in between. Many levels. Don’t judge until you’ve been there and be mindful of the fact that sometimes your strongly held ‘position’ might just label someone unfairly. Getting back to the original question, you seem to be agreeing that the species is not fundamentally monogamous, you are just exploring the range of behaviours / outcomes that go with promiscuity Here we go again, someone else simplifying it down to a binary question. Monogamy is a societal norm, not a biological one. Promiscuity is something else entirely from cheating - don’t conflate the two unless you are deliberately being provocative (I shall you weren’t just being ignorant of the difference). No, I am not being provocative. Then that leaves ignorance of or indifference to the difference between the two. Promiscuous people are not necessarily cheaters and not all cheaters are promiscuous. The underlying instincts / behaviours are linked though. Promiscuity: multiple partners “Cheating”: multiple partners when you aren’t supposed to. The overlap in underlying behaviour is the instinct to have multiple partners, which is central to the question. The concept of “cheating” is a relatively recent one, arising largely from organised religion. Multiple partners can be years and years apart, long after the last one has died or the relationship ended naturally. They don't have to be at the same time. You can be faithful and have multiple partners throughout your lifetime. Agreed. But you understood what I meant, right? Bottom line though, humans are not fundamentally monogamous, but religious and societal rules have taught them that they should be. Ish. Religion is something that many don't entertain so I kinda discount it. Plus, at the age we are in now most have seen generations before us divorce, and know it's perfectly normal and reasonable. I'm sure many of us have seen divorcees that remain friends and in fact get on better following the breakdown of the commitment. It's not like there aren't options available " The point re organised religion is that religions have shaped our legal systems and societal / moral expectations. In some countries, religion and state still go hand in hand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" I have found women to be just as prone to being unfaithful. relationships are not easy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Just our experience of some single men we’ve met. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. " Thats the answer i was looking for. I dont believe humans are meant to be mono, we're kind of programmed to be if that makes sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. Thats the answer i was looking for. I dont believe humans are meant to be mono, we're kind of programmed to be if that makes sense" Agreed. I am not justifying or advocating non-monogamy, or making excuses as some posters have suggested, but I free with your summary ... we’re not wired to be monogamous, monogamy is a learned social construct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ? Depends on how deep you want my answer? Men and women are actually born to populate, that’s our only goal in life (naturally speaking). That’s what life is about. Monogamy is just a social construct designed by the religious folk that society has developed into being the norm. If we get to the bare crux of things, we (as men) are meant to club our women, drag her into the care and inseminate her. How do you think I found Andrea? "Lolol jokes but i definitely agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. Thats the answer i was looking for. I dont believe humans are meant to be mono, we're kind of programmed to be if that makes sense Agreed. I am not justifying or advocating non-monogamy, or making excuses as some posters have suggested, but I free with your summary ... we’re not wired to be monogamous, monogamy is a learned social construct " Exactly, yous can word it better than i did lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is simply a personal choice question. Yes men and woman are probably designed by nature to reach our to others. However humans are educated and make conscience decisions and decide for themselves. Well I say decide for themselves. Actually that is not quite true. We are taught from and early age that monogamy and 2 point 4, house, car, work leads to happiness. Girls play with doll. Boys play with cars. It is a control mechanism from the governments and religious orders passed down from generation to generation for centuries. "Brilliantly put | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Biologically yes we all are, socially and morally no we are not. Thats the answer i was looking for. I dont believe humans are meant to be mono, we're kind of programmed to be if that makes sense Agreed. I am not justifying or advocating non-monogamy, or making excuses as some posters have suggested, but I free with your summary ... we’re not wired to be monogamous, monogamy is a learned social construct " Real monogamy would be no "shopping around" for a mate. Would literally be the person you both lost your v plates to forever and always. Even if one of them died young, they'd never seek sex with anyone else. That's monogamy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope, but some are just like some woman are. " Agree with this, it's in some people and will never be in others to cheat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is simply a personal choice question. Yes men and woman are probably designed by nature to reach our to others. However humans are educated and make conscience decisions and decide for themselves. Well I say decide for themselves. Actually that is not quite true. We are taught from and early age that monogamy and 2 point 4, house, car, work leads to happiness. Girls play with doll. Boys play with cars. It is a control mechanism from the governments and religious orders passed down from generation to generation for centuries.
Brilliantly put "Child watches happy home. Mum and dad together. Child believes this is right. Child wants to be like mum and dad. Child grows up gets partner has childern and cycle continues. Those who think they choose to be monogamous do not realise the influence of previous generations upon them. Why does a happy unmarried person get asked all the time,"When are you getting married?" Why does a happy childless woman get asked all the time,"when are you having childern?" You can't love another person of the same gender that is not right!!! Sex is bad!! It is for making babies. Not for pleasure!!! .... society is blinkered to the control mechanisms which have been introduced to them through centuries of conditioning. Only in the last 50 years have we begun to break free of the controls. Began to understand that we are free to be who we want to be. Love who we want to love. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I used to wake up with a hard wood thinking of a girl I never actually had sex with. Is that Mahogany ?" Only if you polished it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is simply a personal choice question. Yes men and woman are probably designed by nature to reach our to others. However humans are educated and make conscience decisions and decide for themselves. Well I say decide for themselves. Actually that is not quite true. We are taught from and early age that monogamy and 2 point 4, house, car, work leads to happiness. Girls play with doll. Boys play with cars. It is a control mechanism from the governments and religious orders passed down from generation to generation for centuries.
Brilliantly put
Child watches happy home. Mum and dad together. Child believes this is right. Child wants to be like mum and dad. Child grows up gets partner has childern and cycle continues.
Those who think they choose to be monogamous do not realise the influence of previous generations upon them.
Why does a happy unmarried person get asked all the time,"When are you getting married?"
Why does a happy childless woman get asked all the time,"when are you having childern?"
You can't love another person of the same gender that is not right!!!
Sex is bad!! It is for making babies. Not for pleasure!!!
.... society is blinkered to the control mechanisms which have been introduced to them through centuries of conditioning.
Only in the last 50 years have we begun to break free of the controls. Began to understand that we are free to be who we want to be. Love who we want to love.
"Couldn't agree more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally don't think that 'men' (and women) are meant to be sexually monogamous. Of course, social monogamy is ingrained in us, because this is the 'respectable' way to live...but often associated as an inherent inclination to practice sexual monogamy. Why? And why is it up to anyone to cast such harsh judgement onto those who choose to keep non-monogamy as a secret for themselves? Right and wrong lies in the eyes of no one but yourself for you and you only. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" If the pantry at home is empty, a hungry man (or woman) will go out to forage for food… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where as women will look at 10 men and pick the one that turns the volume up the highest " Is this where "volume" really means "has biggest bank balance"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are men bred to be unfaithful ?" Apparently neither men and women are supposed to be monogamous. I read that when we were in smaller tribes it made more sense to sleep with all the women so you would consider everyone to be family and more likely to protect... But who knows? Not me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
