Every woman over 25 should start doing it at least once a year.
Oh, I thought you meant mammograms.
Oh, I thought you meant mammograms.
Poll: Your stance on monogamy?
- Thread starter THEMILKMAN
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you're not a insensitive jerk who goes out and has sex all the time, then the *majority* of time you're out there just looking for one spouse/mate. Even if you don't find that person, you're out there for that *one* and try often with *one* boyfriend/girlfriend. Let the individuals who need multiple partners have multiple partners, it's hard enough just to keep *one*, and take note that, under normal circumstances, the more mates you have, the less of a personality you have.
Seriously, take a look at them, don't they just seem that they lack personality?
Seriously, take a look at them, don't they just seem that they lack personality?
how to put this... in terms of disease control and isolating individual cases of disease, monogamy is a excellent.
I don't have a "stance" about it, I just do what feels right for the given situation that I find myself in. Usually that's monogamy, but not always...THEMILKMAN said:
I don't care what is generally accepted in society. See answer to first question.THEMILKMAN said:
puinguins, and i think swans are monogamous.THEMILKMAN said:
also, to me, its just right, because other people tire me sencelessly, and my girlfriend does not. she's rare like that, and i dont expect a 2nd one of her to be around XD.
also, that would just take too much bloody time, so i'd rather focus my attentions on ONE girl, instead of half-ass 2 XD
I see I'm not allowed to have my OWN opinion of monogamy being right. It's either some kind of metaphysical thing, religion, or society. Personally, I think monogamy is right because it it requires mutual respect, commitment, and trust of the people in the relationship.
It feels right
And no I wouldn't practice polygamy or accept a partner that does because I feel that it hurts the one you love if you're not wholly theirs and they yours.
That's just how I feel though, I know the type of person you're talking about, and generally don't even associate with them :/
And no I wouldn't practice polygamy or accept a partner that does because I feel that it hurts the one you love if you're not wholly theirs and they yours.
That's just how I feel though, I know the type of person you're talking about, and generally don't even associate with them :/
I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I simply don't give a flying fuck. If a person wants to be polygamous then by all means, they can. I'm in no position to dictate how a person should live their life and neither are you.
It's just as valid a choice as all other forms of voluntary romantic relationships between persons of legal age and mental maturity.
And it's easier to work with in terms of law-making if there's always only two persons in the legal constructs available to choose from. Divorcing six people would be a legal nightmare. So I can understand monogamy in those constructs, although that of course does not and should not prevent more persons living together without legal recognition.
And it's easier to work with in terms of law-making if there's always only two persons in the legal constructs available to choose from. Divorcing six people would be a legal nightmare. So I can understand monogamy in those constructs, although that of course does not and should not prevent more persons living together without legal recognition.
Anybody who says promiscuity is nature's way is a fool. As an early disclaimer, my analysis of this situation deals with primitive man. Please do not think I'm being sexist with future comments and take into account that modern conveniences allow humans to do a lot that, by our natural abilities alone, we couldn't do. That being said...
One of the main reasons that we see long-term, monogamous-type relationships in certain animals usually stems from the evolutionary need to have a partnership in ensuring the survival of the offspring. In humans, the whole cycle takes around 9 months and is quite debilitating for the female. If the man didn't stick around to help feed and protect his mate, then, chances are, she would die. This doesn't result in the survival of anything, let alone your genes. Age to maturation also plays an effect. It takes human beings about 13 years to mature to the point where they would be viable on their own, and that's even a stretch. A family unit forms a core of protection during pre-maturity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that monogamy is evolution's way, but it definitely causes some long-term relationship biases in certain animals. Elephants are a good example of this as well. Penguins find long-term mates as well because of the intense burden the caring of young would be on an individual. I think that people who claim that sleeping around is our instinct are taking too broad of liberty with what they see on the Nature Channel. What applies for some doesn't apply to all, and, if you haven't realized it, humans are a pretty unique animal.
In addition, humans have identified that, as a group, we are far more capable than as individuals. This bias towards grouping up affects a lot of our psychological drives, seeking a monogamous relationship as a long-term connection (typically resulting in a family group) is just one. Trying to get a potential lover into your "in-group" has a strange effect. The time spent courting often results in a sense of familiarity, eventually leading to security, and finally to dependence. This security reaches the tribal part of our brain's urge to collectivize. Unrelated, this is also the reason why anarchy is a joke of a mythos. If no government existed, people would form along family, tribal, or community lines in order for survival.
I could go on for pages about social and evolutionary reasons why long-term relationships work well for humans, but I'm done here....for now....
One of the main reasons that we see long-term, monogamous-type relationships in certain animals usually stems from the evolutionary need to have a partnership in ensuring the survival of the offspring. In humans, the whole cycle takes around 9 months and is quite debilitating for the female. If the man didn't stick around to help feed and protect his mate, then, chances are, she would die. This doesn't result in the survival of anything, let alone your genes. Age to maturation also plays an effect. It takes human beings about 13 years to mature to the point where they would be viable on their own, and that's even a stretch. A family unit forms a core of protection during pre-maturity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that monogamy is evolution's way, but it definitely causes some long-term relationship biases in certain animals. Elephants are a good example of this as well. Penguins find long-term mates as well because of the intense burden the caring of young would be on an individual. I think that people who claim that sleeping around is our instinct are taking too broad of liberty with what they see on the Nature Channel. What applies for some doesn't apply to all, and, if you haven't realized it, humans are a pretty unique animal.
In addition, humans have identified that, as a group, we are far more capable than as individuals. This bias towards grouping up affects a lot of our psychological drives, seeking a monogamous relationship as a long-term connection (typically resulting in a family group) is just one. Trying to get a potential lover into your "in-group" has a strange effect. The time spent courting often results in a sense of familiarity, eventually leading to security, and finally to dependence. This security reaches the tribal part of our brain's urge to collectivize. Unrelated, this is also the reason why anarchy is a joke of a mythos. If no government existed, people would form along family, tribal, or community lines in order for survival.
I could go on for pages about social and evolutionary reasons why long-term relationships work well for humans, but I'm done here....for now....
Considering that I am currently in a polygamous relationship, I marked the joke answer at the end. There is nothing "wrong" with monogamy. Most relationships I know are monogamous, we have simply chosen the way that is right for us.
If you'd phrased it as a "I don't feel that monogamy is the way all relationships should be" then I would have marked that one, but I refuse to be forced into denouncing the practice of only having one partner when I feel that it is simply another option.
If you'd phrased it as a "I don't feel that monogamy is the way all relationships should be" then I would have marked that one, but I refuse to be forced into denouncing the practice of only having one partner when I feel that it is simply another option.
Different for everyone yadda yadda. My personal feelings about monogamy are: Yes, it is the "right" thing... for my partner. Perhaps it's selfish, but I want to be the one and only for the object of my affections, regardless of how long the partnership lasts. However, I am also of the belief that any human is capable of feeling strong, romantic love, to more than one person at any one time.
I'm still not old enough to know what I want, so for now, for me, monogamy is the easiest, best option.
I'm still not old enough to know what I want, so for now, for me, monogamy is the easiest, best option.
It is definatly against every instinct, at least as a male. But i neither care about religion or societies standarts, it is a commitment you take, to show your passion to one special person. And that is the only thing that counts here. You want to show that this one person is superior to all the others, its like binding to a lord, to a faith,a government, to a greater ideology, or all the other dumb things people do, just because they feel its right.
If you had one child, would you decline having a second because you would be incapable of loving more than one?Death God said:
I don't think there's a right or wrong here, I just don't think anyone should use love as a reason. Love is an irrational emotion.
I guess you really don't know of the origin of communication, do you? Everything practically is stringing words together. Words that are inherently meaningless, and given meaning only through the associated ideas and impressions of the word--which vary invariably.Scars Unseen said:
Why does it bother you that science can't prove anything? And these "theories" you call them, all inevitably fall to other theories which will eventually be replaced by others. Such is your folly, and yet you continue to repeat it. Talk about bashing your head against a wall.....