cjack

Well, I would counter with a reminder that our closest relatives in the animal kingdom also hurl their own feces around, pick bugs out of each other's hair and swing from trees!

I admit that some of the sexual practices in our society may be counter-productive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are all "fucked" (nice choice of words, btw) because they don't conform to the social/sexual practices of other primates.

Compared to primates, our rate of monogamy and/or infidelity is quite high, so I would argue that there IS a considerable difference between humans and our simian cousins.


But this is just contributing to thread drift.

Perhaps a new thread is needed on the viability of monogamy as a moral principle?


Anyone?

dangin

ehh, we've already had that thread, ten times I think.

But if you read my above post more closely, you'll see I was using our closest relatives as an example, and then pointed to our own behavior to show we are not so different.

And I don't know what parties you've been going to, but if there isn't any feces throwing, then I am not there.

Odemus

That's because maintaning a lasting romantic relationship requires more effort than most are willing to exert. The high divorce and separation rate is indicative of that.


Even if those who persevere for a lifetime and maintain happy life long commitments aren't enough to persuade you that indeed this is an achievable ideal, one can always revert back to your system of thinking. I fail to see where the danger is. Could you please expound?


That is a horrible argument. You could apply that to any relationship to justify any behaviour you want. Yes there is a chance that people will betray you, but the whole basis of a fulfilling relationship is TRUST. There is risk involved with any reward in life, marriage is no different.


Acceptable to who? If someone desires a lifelong commitment, that is their prerogative. Who are you to say what is acceptable for someone else?


So in other words, "before you make a commitment, sleep around with lots of people, then get back to eachother and see how you still feel"?


I think what you mean to say is that infatuation fades. Love is definately more than a feeling. Love is what holds people together beyond infatuation. Love is sacrifice. Love is learning to live with both the strengths and weaknesses of your partner. Love is putting your spouse's needs before yours. These are the values that our society has thrown away, and this is the reason America has the highest divorce rate in the world. Our children grow up in broken families and no longer have an example to look up to.

So when the good times and hot steamy sex end, it's time to bail and move on right?

Oolon Colluphid

You seem to be missing Dangin’s point. Do you think it’s okay if someone spends their life waiting for Mr or Miss Completely-Perfect, while repeatedly rejecting Mr or Miss Quite-Good-But...? Idealism is all very well for fantasies, but realism is what one needs in the mundane world of actually getting on with your life. If I had insisted on only being with atheist, biology-obsessed, folk-music and horror film fan women who look like Kirsten Dunst, I would still be a virgin. Instead, for 11 years I have been married to a lovely (empirical grading C+ or maybe B- ) wife who likes the music and films, is vaguely deist insofar as she cares, and is bored witless by science.

And you are ignoring the fact that people change, and ten years down the road they may feel differently to how they did after two years.
No, not in those other words. Not ‘meet --> sleep around --> get back together’. But instead, have tried out enough options first before settling to know whether it is right. The alternative can lead to, eg, marrying one’s first proper boyfriend, then house, baby etc... then on hitting 30 (or whatever) realising that your youth is waning and you’ve no idea if it was the right choice -- because you never found out what any other options were like.
And the example of staying together, no matter what the unhappiness, is a better one? You don’t seem to realise that people change, and people make mistakes.
For some people. In the same way as waiting for Mr Perfect may work for others. Each to their own .

TTFN, DT

dangin

First off, well said DT.

No, I meant love. Love fades. Your own anecdote reveals it. You "made it through some rough times" but now all is rosy. You love has had ups and downs. You're going to say that yeah, I made it through and we're better for it. It'll be interesting to see you if you have those rough times again. Not that I'm hoping for your unhappiness, but statistically speaking, they'll be here again.

If you rely on love, the evolved chemical reaction of the brain that serves the purpose of keeping mates together, and endearing family groups to each other, you are relying on something that will fail.

Friendship, actually laughing together, and enjoying each other is much more important. And that is the tie that can keep you together after the passion is gone, if you so desire.

Actually, I think we are kind of talking about the same thing. You are just talking about it in a rose tinted , hallmark card poetry, christian soaked worldview way.

I'm talking about the reality of making a relationship work over time, and the reality that sometimes splitting up is the right thing to do for everyone involved.

Jamie_L

It seems to me you guys are arguing about "love" but using two different meanings of the word. Like so many of the arguments about "truth" around here.

Some people would say this paragraph describes love. I would. Love has many different connotations and meanings. Lust. Desire. Friendship. Companionship. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I think you guys are arguing different things entirely, which is kind of pointless.

One can have a romantic/poetic outlook without being "christian-soaked."

I don't think anyone would argue with that. However, an equally valid arguement is that sometimes when a breakup can solve things, not breaking up can also be successful, and sometimes lead to better results.

Jamie

Odemus

I do expect to see tough times in the future. At the same time I have a proven history of mutual commitment which demonstrates a strengthening of my marriage bond and suggests that my wife and I will be able to weather any storm. When two people go through the roughest of times and yet honor their vows to one another instead of taking the easy way out, they do nothing short of solidifying their union.This is a universal truth of any relationship.


I don't rely on love. I have learned that love happens to be the reward, while trust happens to be the risk associated with it.

The last thing in the world you can rely on through tough times is this frivilous laundry list. Financial disaster, car accidents, the loss of a child, and a myriad of other disasters that bring massive strain on a marriage require a hell of a lot more than these things. In fact I would say your little list right there is the first thing to go out the window, and what remains is the determining factor of whether or not a marriage will succeed or fail. All I am saying is that the stronger the commitment people have to keeping their vows towards eachother, the more likely they are to make it through those tough times. Consequently the union becomes stronger and stronger with every storm weathered.

I'm sorry you are so cynical that you feel the need to suggest I am dressing up the reality of my own personal experience. I honestly believe that there is a hell of a lot more to the human experience than animal instincts.

I'm talking about the same reality. I just think people as individuals and society as a whole would benefit a hell of a lot more if spouse's honored their commitments to eachother (I'm not saying you don't believe that, but we almost definately disagree on the specifics of that point).

dangin

I don't think I have ever been so honored as to have one of my posts cut and pasted and responded to twice in a row like that.

Let me tell you one problem I have with your whole thing.

Love evolved because of sex, not the other way around. In our nature, sex comes first. I think that is where we differ.

Jamie_L

Won't deny that. But we are evolved now, and it's different strokes (so to speak) for different folks.

There's nothing even near impossible or unusual or repressive about life-long monogamy as a path to happiness. For some it is desirable, and it works. For others, a different path works better. It's a mistake for either side to claim the other is full of s*&t. People just gotta find what rings their bell and live that life.

That's all.

Jamie

dangin

I have to disagree. What evolved as the best method remains the best method. And we are not evolved now, we are constantly evolving. And we understand that when facing an evolutionary hurdle, genes spread among multiple partners is the best method some of your offspring has to clear that hurdle.

As has always been the case. Monogamy is not natural, it is programmed. The two parent family group is a strategy that benefits the offspring more than a single parent, there is no denying this. But since there is no denying that. There is also no denying that a multi parent family group is even better than a two parent family group.

Three, five, seven adults. Intermingling resources, genes, and nurturing upon a brood of children. This group would be more successful than any two parent group. Multiple incomes, in home child care (no day care expense faced by the average two parent family) each member able (if it is desired) to mix their genes with at least two other parents, thus diversifying their own stock.

As we developed as preliterate primates, this is probably how we lived. We lived like this for a lot longer (far more generations) than we have as modern humans. The drives within us evolved within family groupings like this. We haven't lived long enough outside of grouping like this to evolve different strategies. Hence serial monogamy, infidelity, and all our other "nonmonogamous" traits.

You can tell me that some have been programmed to believe monogamy is the be all end all. And they might even believe it. But that doesn't make it so.