Pffft, WHERE are these women??

[Wong & Owens]

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.

 

What's wrong with it is that you can't use it to back your point UNLESS you agree that all of the bible is literally true. You can't pick and choose which parts are indisputably true and which parts aren't. This debate has nothing to do with whether or not the bible contains any good ideas regarding morality and social interaction.

 

 

Both know vastly more than you or I.

 

Well, since you didnt answer my question about Dr. Ruth's position, you're talking about one person here. And I'm really not convinced that Dr. Phil 'knows' more about this subject than a lay person interested in the subject. What is his doctorate in anyways?

 

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.

 

No, but in order to study this type of arrangement you have to have subjects on which to study. I don't know the answer, but I question the existence of substantial data that supports the claim that polygamous relationships do not work based on studies of people actually in them. I'm not saying they work, I'm just again stating that I'm skeptical much research has been done thus far. If you have data to prove me wrong, I'm very interested in reading it.

 

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

 

Sure, but homosexuality is much more socially acceptable now than it was 40 years ago. And it's definitely more acceptable today than polygamous relationships. Therefore, you hear more gay people comfortable discussing their sexuality than someone with 8 lovers for example. Who knows, maybe in 40 years polygamous marriages will be as common as "out" homosexuals.

 

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

 

Well, since you refused to answer my question(again I might add) if I am mistaken then please explain what this statement meant:

 

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

 

 

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.

 

You may be right, but I refer to one of my earlier posts in which I questioned if a child wasn't raised to feel like a monogamous relationship was expected, would he pursue one or not? I think the answer to this question holds a lot of keys.

 

Why do you think that the "free love" movement in the '60s died out so quickly?

 

I think that was a very small movement to begin with, and it didn't change the fact that even those that participated in it were raised in a culture that instilled monogamy as an ideal.

 

Sure you did:  I don't personally know any couples engaged in an open marriage because they're so few in number.

 

As of now, yes, but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong or can't work. And I reiterate that even if you did know a couple in an open marriage, based on what I'm seeing here you'd be the last to know about it-- you know?

[Balta1701]

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.

You know, I'm gonna have to disagree with a significant portion of this, at least when it applies to humans. I think that in many cases, our evolution has driven us along a different path. For a lion or something like that, yeah there's a strong selective pressure for males to spread themselves as wide as possible, something interesting has happened in humanity.

 

In most species...while the young are unable to fully fend for themselves, many of them are born much better prepared to live than humans. Think about your average cow or deer or something like that. They're able to walk within a few minutes of birth. Humans can't walk for literally years after they are born.

 

Now, why is this? Well, the answer is in your head. Specifically, it's your brain. In most species, there's a selective pressure to remain inside the mother as long as possible, because the more developed the youth is, the better it will be able to survive on its own. But in humanity, there was a selective pressure of another sort...the drive towards larger brains due (IMO) to the development of communication.

 

The fact is, developing a large brain is not an easy thing to do evolutionarily. It causes all sorts of problems, from the brain displacing the back molars on each side of your mouth (wisdom teeth) to the brain consuming a ton of energy. Another of these effects...the larger your brain is, the harder it is for you to get out of the birth canal.

 

So, what's the solution to this problem? Simple. You come out earlier, and let most of your development happen outside of the mother. That's about the only way you could do it in fact, you can't just have the mother die. But that creates a problem...you have for literally years this big-brained, awkward infant which is totally unable to fend for itself. It can't walk for months, find food on its own for years, defend itself for decades. This is a problem, even for a male.

 

If my goal is to make sure my offspring survive, I have 2 choices. I can either spread myself as widely as possible, which only works if some of my offspring are able to survive. But if I do so, and leave after the mother is pregnant/gives birth to find someone else, that's going to leave the mother, and more importantly the child, extremely exposed. The mother will have difficulty finding food because she needs to care for the infant, and she'll have even more difficulty both finding food and protecting the infant at the same time. In fact, it's quite likely that 1 of the 2 will wind up dying.

 

Now, if I'm a male, this is a bad thing. If I knock up 10 women and then split, each of those 10 would be at a major risk of having their kid die. And the more our brains develop...the more helpless the children are that the time of birth, and the more likely they are to wind up dying.

 

But, on the other hand, let's say the male sticks around. The male will wind up producing less total offspring, yes. Maybe I only wind up with 5. But while I only start off with 5, each of those 5 winds up well fed because I can find food while the mother cares for the infant, and they survive longer because I'm able to protect the mother and infant from predation while the mother is taking care of the child. Result? In 1 case, maybe all 5 survive, while in the other case, maybe I get lucky and 1-2 survive.

 

Thanks to the fact that humanity's brains are so big, there is in fact a strong selective pressure towards the development of a society and compact family units. Why? Protection for these little infants who can't do anything. In fact, the wider I spread my network of males, the safer things will get for the infants. If I have 10 males and 10 females living in a community, and all of them can communicate, then the males can protect the females whether or not they're currently carrying children. So in this case, there's actually a strong selective pressure for the males to stick around.

 

We do see some things like this in other species. There are animals who are actually good parents, which develop nests and have parents that stick around for a significant portion of the development of the children. In these cases, there's usually a strong selection like I described above...keeping the male around allows for a much higher survival rate of the infants. While it doesn't seem obvious when compared with the ways things like lions work, in our case, it actually is almost certainly the better way.

[WCSox]

What's wrong with it is that you can't use it to back your point UNLESS you agree that all of the bible is literally true.  You can't pick and choose which parts are indisputably true and which parts aren't.

 

The fact that not all of the Bible is literally true doesn't change the fact that our Founding Fouthers based many of this country's laws on the Ten Commandments. Like it or not, it's true. Our society was built on Judeo-Christian principles.

 

No, but in order to study this type of arrangement you have to have subjects on which to study.  I don't know the answer, but I question the existence of substantial data that supports the claim that polygamous relationships do not work based on studies of people actually in them.  I'm not saying they work, I'm just again stating that I'm skeptical much research has been done thus far.  If you have data to prove me wrong, I'm very interested in reading it.

 

I don't know it for sure, but I'll bet my left testicle that a significant amount of research on manogamous vs. polygamous marriage has already been carried out.

 

Google it. Google Scholar or Web of Knowledge might point you to more technical information. I have real work to do right now.

 

Sure, but homosexuality is much more socially acceptable now than it was 40 years ago.  And it's definitely more acceptable today than polygamous relationships.  Therefore, you hear more gay people comfortable discussing their sexuality than someone with 8 lovers for example.  Who knows, maybe in 40 years polygamous marriages will be as common as "out" homosexuals.

 

The use of narcotics isn't "socially acceptable" either, yet millions of people do it openly evey day.

 

Monogamous homosexuality is completely different than polygamy or open marriage. There's no comparison between two people in a committed relationship and two people who are married, but openly intimate with others. There's no inherent jealousy in monogamous gay marriages/civil unions. On the other hand, regardless of what society deems acceptable, polygamous and "open" marriages are inherently flawed because of the jealousy factor. It's something that I believe the vast majority of human beings just can't get around.

 

Well, since you refused to answer my question(again I might add) if I am mistaken then please explain what this statement meant:

 

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

 

I was paraphrasing something that you said earlier and my comment in no way infers that I'm anti-homosexual. To insinuate that I am is childish and irresponsible.

 

You may be right, but I refer to one of my earlier posts in which I questioned if a child wasn't raised to feel like a monogamous relationship was expected, would he pursue one or not?  I think the answer to this question holds a lot of keys.

 

Good point. But I still don't think that open marriage can survive the test of time. Again, human jealousy will eventually tear such unions apart.

 

I think that was a very small movement to begin with, and it didn't change the fact that even those that participated in it were raised in a culture that instilled monogamy as an ideal.

 

Or perhaps human beings who make the committment to live together, share expenses, and have a family aren't equipped to deal with the jealousy that arises from overt infidelity?

 

By the way, this same small counter-culture movement from the '60s legitimized a drug culture that is alive and well today (and that their parents didn't approve of). On the other hand, "free love" didn't make it very far.

 

As of now, yes, but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong or can't work. 

 

On religious grounds, I believe that it's inherently immoral. But those are just my personal beliefs. Putting morals aside, I believe that it's inherently flawed and will not work in the long run. A marriage won't last for long when the husband and wife are openly sleeping with other people because, well, jealousy is a motherf***er.

[mmmmmbeeer]

Some really impressive quote work in this thread.

[G&T]

I don't know if any of you watch Naked Science on the National Geographic Channel (I'm a loser), but they did a show on the science of love and seduction. The newest research indicates that men and women are attracted to each other based on health characteristics. Guys might think a girl is "hot" but what we actually find attractive is her ability to bear children, meanwhile she finds us attractive based on the ability to help her raise her children.

Men are biologically programmed to be monogamous until their children grow up. While it is important for men to try to propogate the species, it is more important for them to ensure that the children grow up properly. Men stay with one women after this because of easy access to sex (for some), or security (money for example), or simply love (which does biologically exist according to these researchers).

I think the data indicated that men do not need to be polygamists. Furthermore, men deffinately should not be attracted to women who sleep around because they may be empregnated by someone else. But obviously there are ways around that these days.

 

I guess everyone is kinda right. Evolution wants us to do one thing, but societal changes alter that. Anyway, I wouldn't want to be in an open relationship, but that's me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

G&T andf Balta, you are right about humans having the intellectual capacity to not be slaves to the every whim of their selfish genes.

 

As Kate Hepburn says in one of my favorite films, "Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above." (Cool points will be awarded if you know the film).

 

My quick rundown of the comparison of the relative energetic cost of gametes and degree of parental care in males versus females across a range of species was intended to show some of the bases of behind differential approaches to monogamy between the sexes. As long as sperm is cheap and the male is not locked into a lot of parental care, the selfish genes will push for promiscuity and will not be particularly choosy.

 

As for the degree of mammalian parental care males contribute after birth, you don't have to go very far to see humans are the exception and not the rule. Even within the great apes, infanticide is common if a dominant male believes the offspring his mate is caring for is not his. This is one of those cases where estrus is actually suppressed in nursing females, but if the dominant male bashes the bastard baby against a rock and kills it, the female stops nursing, soon comes into estrus and becomes receptive to that male (even though he killed her baby).

[SleepyWhiteSox]

but if the dominant male bashes the bastard baby against a rock and kills it, the female stops nursing, soon comes into estrus and becomes receptive to that male (even though he killed her baby).

 

Girls always go for the assholes.

[kapkomet]

African Queen. That movie rocks.

[YASNY]

African Queen.  That movie rocks.

 

I don't remember much about that movie, other than this quote sure fits with the character she played. AQ was going to be my guess as well.

[kapkomet]

I don't remember much about that movie, other than this quote sure fits with the character she played.  AQ was going to be my guess as well.

 

Bogart and Hepburn. And so many memorable scenes from that movie. It was on not too long ago... and I watched it, which is the only reason I remembered that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

African Queen.  That movie rocks.

The cool points have been awarded accordingly.

 

Honorable mention to YAS.