Pffft, WHERE are these women??

[LosMediasBlancas]

http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/Cou...299661&GT1=7909

[WilliamTell]

Someday we'll all be thanking Masha Kirilenko for being a pioneer in this world, haha.

[Wong & Owens]

http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/Cou...99661>1=7909

 

This is an interesting topic that I get into a lot of debates about. One question I always bring up is if a child is NOT raised to think a monogamous relationship is what they should aspire to, would they naturally move towards it, or would they hump everything that moves. I don't think it's biologically natural for humans to be monogamous, but I'd also be lying if I said it wouldn't bother me if I had a significant other decide she wants to screw other guys. Fascinating subject matter, IMHO.

[southsideirish]

The most interesting question that comes to my mind is why the hell are you reading msnlifestyle?

[LosMediasBlancas]

MSN is my homepage.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 08:15 PM)

MSN is my homepage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

and you visit the lifestyle page? Hmmm, ok.....

[WCSox]

Cathi: We already know that monogamous marriage is far from a raging success in this country. In my opinion, if some couples want to try veering slightly from the contract by creating their own rules, more power to them. I commend their courage in thinking deeply about marriage and its shortcomings, and for having the creativity and guts to adjust it to fit their mutual needs.

 

Right, because running away from our marital problems is a better course of action than trying to deal with them!

 

This quote provides examples of some of the worst trends of our society today: moral relativism, selfishness, irresponsibility, and the never-ending desire for instant gratification. :headshake

Edited March 15, 2006 by WCSox

[LosMediasBlancas]

and you visit the lifestyle page? Hmmm, ok.....

 

Stories scroll across the home page all the time, some are from sports, some are entertainment, some are science related, etc. I click on whatever looks interesting. Got any other questions?

[Wong & Owens]

Right, because running away from our marital problems is a better course of action than trying to deal with them!

 

This quote provides examples of some of the worst trends of our society today: moral relativism, selfishness, irresponsibility, and the never-ending desire for instant gratification.  :headshake

 

 

Well, where is it written that people are "supposed" to be in marriages in the first place?

 

Social traditions constantly evolve, some evolve into extinction. Sex with siblings is illegal or at least frowned upon, whereas once it was commonplace. Women used to stay home and not work.

[Kyyle23]

Stories scroll across the home page all the time, some are from sports, some are entertainment, some are science related, etc.  I click on whatever looks interesting.  Got any other questions?

 

One more. Whats does your horoscope say today?

[WCSox]

Well, where is it written that people are "supposed" to be in marriages in the first place?

 

Um, in the texts of most major religions.

 

Social traditions constantly evolve, some evolve into extinction.  Sex with siblings is illegal or at least frowned upon, whereas once it was commonplace.  Women used to stay home and not work.

 

Marriage has been around forever and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. While cheating has also been around forever, polygamist and official "open" marriages have been relatively few in number and have failed miserably in the long run. There's probably a good reason for that. I agree that some aspects of marriage can and probably will change (such as gay marriage), but I don't see the institution itself "evolving into extinction."

[Wong & Owens]

Um, in the texts of most major religions.

 

Um, that's really not anything you want to use as proof of your position, because religious texts contain a whole truckload of "rules" that are deemed a bit off by modern standards.

 

Marriage has been around forever and doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon.

 

Wrong. Marriage as we know it has been around for only a few hundred years. Certainly you're not equating what marriage means today with the "our families arranged our marriage to build alliances and the woman had no say in the matter" days of say the 1500's?

 

 

While cheating has also been around forever, polygamist and official "open" marriages have been relatively few in number and have failed miserably in the long run.

 

They have? Where do you get your information? Where does such information even exist? Is there a national database of open marriages on file somewhere?

[WCSox]

Um, that's really not anything you want to use as proof of your position, because religious texts contain a whole truckload of "rules" that are deemed a bit off by modern standards.

 

Oh, you mean like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"? Yeah, nobody cares what those stupid books say anymore. :rolly

 

Wrong.  Marriage as we know it has been around for only a few hundred years.  Certainly you're not equating what marriage means today with the "our families arranged our marriage to build alliances and the woman had no say in the matter" days of say the 1500's?

 

Good point, but I also said that "aspects of marriage can and probably will change (such as gay marriage)" in my last post. But I seriously doubt that monogamous marriages will eventually give way to polygamy or "open" marriages. So far, history has proven me correct on that one.

 

They have?  Where do you get your information?  Where does such information even exist?  Is there a national database of open marriages on file somewhere?

 

Try opening your eyes and looking around.

Edited March 16, 2006 by WCSox

[Wong & Owens]

Oh, you mean like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"?  Yeah, nobody cares what those stupid books say anymore.

 

That response is completely irrelevant. I never said everything in religious texts is hogwash. However, if you want to take it as all or nothing, then I expect you'll be chopping off the family jewels right soon, no?:

 

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

 

 

Good point, but I also said that "aspects of marriage can and probably will change (such as gay marriage)" in my last post.  But I seriously doubt that monogamous marriages will eventually give way to polygamy or "open" marriages.  So far, history has proven me correct on that one.

 

What history(taking into accounts current events as well) is telling us is that while marriage doesn't seem to really be evolving into a polygamous institution, it seems to rather be evolving into possible non-existence. The average age that people first get married goes higher and higher every year, and the divorce rate is now at 50%. If those trends continue, how long will it be until nobody is married in the Victorian sense? Years, for sure, but if the trends continue, it's pretty hard to deny that the end of marriage will be the end result.

 

Try opening your eyes and looking around.

 

Hmmm, well, I'm POSITIVE I'm more exposed to those in alternative lifestyles than you are, and I only know 2 couples that are openly in "open marriages." One couple seems happy, one I don't think will make it. That's only 2 examples I have to go on, probably in large part because many who practice this sort of thing keep it very private. How many people in open relationships do you know? So I ask again, where do you get your information?

[WCSox]

That response is completely irrelevant.  I never said everything in religious texts is hogwash.

 

No, you just implied that much of it is irrelevant in today's society. Certain core values obviously are not and I believe that monogamous marriage is one of them.

 

What history(taking into accounts current events as well) is telling us is that while marriage doesn't seem to really be evolving into a polygamous institution, it seems to rather be evolving into possible non-existence.  The average age that people first get married goes higher and higher every year, and the divorce rate is now at 50%.  If those trends continue, how long will it be until nobody is married in the Victorian sense?  Years, for sure, but if the trends continue, it's pretty hard to deny that the end of marriage will be the end result.

 

That's possible, but it's quite a Malthusian prediction. And we all know how correct Malthus was about everybody starving to death because of the rate of population growth.

 

Like church attendance, the number of people willing to step up to the altar (or willing to put in the effort to make their marriages work) is on the decline. But I don't believe that the core values of either will change. I don't believe that you can have have successful marriage without monogamy and many of the "experts" (Dr. Phil, Dr. Ruth) seem to agree with me. I imagine that people could live together and sleep around openly with some degree of success, but that's not the same thing as marriage. When money and child cutody come into the picture, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

Hmmm, well, I'm POSITIVE I'm more exposed to those in alternative lifestyles than you are,

 

Oh, really? Where do you get YOUR information? :rolly

 

and I only know 2 couples that are openly in "open marriages."  One couple seems happy, one I don't think will make it.  That's only 2 examples I have to go on, probably in large part because many who practice this sort of thing keep it very private.

 

Right, just like homosexuals keep their "practice" private, yet everybody seems to know at least one or two.

 

How many people in open relationships do you know?

 

Zero. Thanks for proving my point.

[southsider2k5]

Moving to the Buster...

[SpringfieldFan]

I think it is sad; as humans, we are so much better than this and we don't even realize it. We have been given a gift that turns love into life, and we treat it like a sport - simply because the One who gave us that gift also gave us freedom.

 

SFF

[Wong & Owens]

No, you just implied that much of it is irrelevant in today's society.

 

Again, I did no such thing. You were attempting to use religious texts as evidence that monogamous relationships is what people are "supposed" to be in. I argued that you can't do that unless you were willing to accept everything found in the bible. You(nor I) would have any right or basis for determining what content found in the bible should be taken at face value, at what should not. Therefore, if you're using it as proof, you have to accept all of it as literal truth. If you do, I think you're nuts, but to each his/her own. And if you are saying that, then this part of our debate has to end, because it's at that point where either you believe or you don't.

 

Certain core values obviously are not and I believe that monogamous marriage is one of them.

 

Fair enough, and to be honest I'm not sure whether or not it's necessary. I guess that's one purpose for debating the subject.

 

That's possible, but it's quite a Malthusian prediction.  And we all know how correct Malthus was about everybody starving to death because of the rate of population growth.

 

But did he say WHEN the starvation would begin?

 

I don't believe that you can have have successful marriage without monogamy and many of the "experts" (Dr. Phil, Dr. Ruth) seem to agree with me.

 

I don't put much stock in Dr. Phil as any kind of "expert," and are you sure about Dr. Ruth's position? In any case, I don't think anyone has done enough research on this specific topic to really be called an expert yet.

 

When money and child cutody come into the picture, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

Agreed, and that's a large part of the cause for my indecision on this subject.

 

Oh, really?  Where do you get YOUR information?

 

True, I can't prove it, but I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

 

Right, just like homosexuals keep their "practice" private, yet everybody seems to know at least one or two.

 

The only time homosexuals discuss their sexual orientation is when they're questioned on it. Not one gay person I've ever met(and I know a bunch) have ever brought up their orientation unless it was absolutely necessary. In any case, what was this statement of yours supposed to mean, anyways?

 

Zero.  Thanks for proving my point.

 

I didn't prove your point, but I did gain more proof to support my stance that I surely know more people engaged in alternative lifestyles than you do, and based on your statement implying that homosexuality, for example, is wrong, I doubt you'd know it if your best friend was in an "open" marriage. It seems obvious you are completely against even accepting that others could find happiness in such an arrangement, so why would they discuss it with you?

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I don't think it's biologically natural for humans to be monogamous.

 

Then why the raging urge to murder the cheater?

[Wong & Owens]

Then why the raging urge to murder the cheater?   

 

LOL, you have a point there!

[Rex Kickass]

Oh, really?  Where do you get YOUR information?  :rolly

Right, just like homosexuals keep their "practice" private, yet everybody seems to know at least one or two.

Zero.  Thanks for proving my point.

 

Most keep the practice quiet. Last time I checked, I didn't see teams of homosexuals practicing on the playing fields of this great country. We usually practice under the cover of darkness, still waiting for that friendly with Real Madrid next spring.

 

But as to admitting what they are and talking about their relationships like any other normal human being? I fail to see the problem.

[Iwritecode]

I don't remember where I heard it, but it seems to fit here...

 

 

 

Women want one man to fill their every need.

 

Men want every women to fill their one need.

 

[WCSox]

Again, I did no such thing.  You were attempting to use religious texts as evidence that monogamous relationships is what people are "supposed" to be in. 

 

What's wrong with that? Religious texts clearly tell us that we shouldn't steal or kill and our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian values.

 

You(nor I) would have any right or basis for determining what content found in the bible should be taken at face value, at what should not.

 

Right, that's for our society to decide. And our society has prohibited murder, theft, and polygamy by law. Marital infidelity is not a crime in most places, but often results in the guilty party paying a lifetime's worth of alimony and child support.

 

I don't put much stock in Dr. Phil as any kind of "expert," and are you sure about Dr. Ruth's position?

 

Both know vastly more than you or I.

 

In any case, I don't think anyone has done enough research on this specific topic to really be called an expert yet.

 

I'd "be willing to bet my bottom dollar" that many psychologists and sociologists already have. The concept of "open marriage" isn't exactly a novel one.

 

The only time homosexuals discuss their sexual orientation is when they're questioned on it.  Not one gay person I've ever met(and I know a bunch) have ever brought up their orientation unless it was absolutely necessary.

 

You're painting with too broad a brush. I know quite a few who are very open about their sexuality.

 

but I did gain more proof to support my stance that I surely know more people engaged in alternative lifestyles than you do

 

You may know more people involved in open marriages than I do, but "alternative lifestyles" covers a VERY broad range of behavior.

 

and based on your statement implying that homosexuality, for example, is wrong

 

I never implied that homosexuality is "wrong". So typical of a liberal to throw out the "prejudice" card. :rolly

 

  It seems obvious you are completely against even accepting that others could find happiness in such an arrangement

 

This has nothing to do with what I think, it has to do with human nature. Sure, I think that sleeping around (even consentually) outside of one's marriage is immoral behavior, but my feelings aren't important. I simply don't believe that the vast majority of human beings could stay committed to a long, loving marriage if both are openly sleeping around. Humans are jealous creatures and don't like "sharing" love with others. Why do you think that the "free love" movement in the '60s died out so quickly?

 

I didn't prove your point,

 

Sure you did: I don't personally know any couples engaged in an open marriage because they're so few in number. And the reason that they're so scarce is that it almost never works in the long run.

Edited March 16, 2006 by WCSox

[WCSox]

Most keep the practice quiet.

 

Sure, but friends and family eventually find out. I know that one of my cousins is gay, despite the fact that I've never asked him about his relationships.

 

But as to admitting what they are and talking about their relationships like any other normal human being? I fail to see the problem.

 

No problem on my end.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't remember where I heard it, but it seems to fit here...

Women want one man to fill their every need.

 

Men want every women to fill their one need.

 

 

Ain't that the truth. Although, yes, man can and sometimes does rise above his base nature.

 

There are some absolutely concrete biological bases for these intuitive differences between men and women.

 

For both sexes, bear in mind that the genes are "selfish", and the goal of the genes (to anthropomorphize) is to get as many copies of themselves as possible into the vessels (individuals) of successive generations.

 

For males (males of most mammals really), sperm is energetically cheap and plentiful, there no intrinsic energy investment in brooding and often little in parental care, and there is little ecological negative consequence for making incorrect mating decisions (human STDs notwithsttanding). Therefore, a biological impetus to mate as much as possible and as diversely as possible is a natuarl result.

 

For females, on the other hand, eggs are energetically expensive (women only produce a dozen or so a year, as opposed to maybe 500,000,000 sperm in a single male ejaculate), and the commitment to gestation and post-birth parental cere is enormous (in many mammals estrus is suppressed as long as the female is already nursing an offspring). Since a female is only going to pass genes into a handful of offspring in her reprodctivve lifetime (as opposed to the biological capacity for males to sire hundreds of offspring at very little energetic cost), she will make her mate pairing decisions much more carefully.

 

That sets the stage for mate selection by females based on elaborate courtship rituals or ritualized fighting between males. Ideally the winning suitor is demonstrating some manifestation of the "fitness" of his genes, ane female choice in pairing with that individual will, again ideally, result in the passing of those fit genes to the offspring and an increased likelyhood that the females own selfish genes will benefit by being passed by these fit offspring to the next generation.