# Female Promiscuity is Advantageous for the Human Race



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> I'd argue that society created (or enforced) social monogamy to control the distribution of wealth. That's why illegitimate children couldn't inherit, wealthy people could control marriage more efficiently than sex. There's no point being rich if everyone else is. Whenever I consider anything that was decided previous to the last 150 years, I think it's a fair assumption that it was motivated by money or power.


I disagree with this btw. I do believe inheritance of property was a big deal related to marriage and the recognition of the married couple by the society, but I don't think it's the primary reason there are marriages or expectation of fidelity. I believe people have experienced the same emotions as we and they have been driven by similar things as we are, including the positives like love and kindness and empathy and courage and what other humane virtues there are. The people in the past have been more dependent on each other than what we today think we are, and the rich and the poor have been in much closer vicinity to each other than we are today, and the differences in income between the richest and the poorest have been much smaller. I think they must've had to organize themselves in a way that allowed their societies to be stable, which includes some kind of decent life opportunities for the masses and even the poorest, and with the technology they had it wouldn't have been possible for a few to brutally enslave the masses.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Aeon said:


> I don't understand what this means but am curious... Can you give more examples of how one drifts between the two as suits the agenda and what happens to the argument as a result, @baitedcrow?


Tropes' assessment is a bit backward I think. I'm just building from their example here, but the pattern is more like [pleistocene women were evil manipulating liars knowingly deceiving men] _therefore_ [over time their useful strategy resulted in evolutionary adaptation and modern women are evolved to prefer deceiving men] *Optional:* _therefore_ [modern women decide to deceive men knowingly because they evolutionarily prefer it]. 

In practice that basic line of argument can become tediously slippery rather quickly because the structure lends itself to circularity, and because the conflation/confluence of evolutionarily developed preference with consciously developed strategy lends itself to goal-post switching, since it tends to be unclear in any given instance that a claim (ex. "women deceive men") is made whether the person making it is trying to back up their assertion using the logic of evolutionary adaptation or the logic of human responsiveness. Then, if one line of thinking is debunked or criticized, they can claim they were actually using the other... before lapsing back into using both or being ambiguous about which they meant. 

But arguments following that pattern don't necessarily have to be all wrong, either, which brings us here:



> The thing is, I think it is technically plausible that consciously crafted strategies could influence evolution in the long-term – but you’d have to show that the strategies in question were a) consciously employed widely enough and for a long enough period to make a hard, deep impact and b) actually useful at doing what they were intended to do – and that’s the sort of argument I kind of assumed Kyn was pre-empting, though she can correct me if I'm way off base.


I don't think anything anyone has said here so far matches that pattern, to be clear. But I've seen it in other threads and the OP participated in some of those threads and might have picked up on the pattern, too. I was just noting that I contextualized her mentioning the potential relevance of strategy consciousness and effectiveness differently than others might because of that, ie I didn't interpret it as her implying that awareness would _always_ be relevant to a given preference having evolved, I just figured she was mentioning it in case someone tried to make an argument where it would potentially have been.

To make this post more relevant to the actual discussion, has anyone brought up the evidence for and against human sperm competition yet? Sperm competition within a species tends to lead to anatomical "tells" in males, and the existence of those can be a good proxy indicator for how promiscuous the females of the species have historically been (because without female promiscuity, sperm competition cannot and does not occur). Last I checked we're most widely thought to be somewhere between gorillas (low sperm competition) and chimps (high sperm competition) as the apes go. Arguing that we've had some selective pressures acting on us favoring or accounting for female promiscuity isn't the same as arguing that it's "good for humanity", of course, unless you really like the naturalistic fallacy.... but lots of people really do like the naturalistic fallacy.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> I disagree with this btw. I do believe inheritance of property was a big deal related to marriage and the recognition of the married couple by the society, but I don't think it's the primary reason there are marriages or expectation of fidelity. I believe people have experienced the same emotions as we and they have been driven by similar things as we are, including the positives like love and kindness and empathy and courage and what other humane virtues there are. The people in the past have been more dependent on each other than what we today think we are, and the rich and the poor have been in much closer vicinity to each other than we are today, and the differences in income between the richest and the poorest have been much smaller. I think they must've had to organize themselves in a way that allowed their societies to be stable, which includes some kind of decent life opportunities for the masses and even the poorest, and with the technology they had it wouldn't have been possible for a few to brutally enslave the masses.


The expectation of fidelity throughout history has mostly applied to men sleeping with married women, though, not to married men. Often a man could only commit adultery if it was with another man's wife or unmarried daughter. It's only in more recent history that adultery was applied to men too. It wasn't virtuous, more like controlling access to their possessions, imo


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> The expectation of fidelity throughout history has mostly applied to men sleeping with married women, though, not to married men. Often a man could only commit adultery if it was with another man's wife or unmarried daughter. It's only in more recent history that adultery was applied to men too. It wasn't virtuous, more like controlling access to their possessions, imo


Yes, but I don't think it's fair to judge just one detail as imbalanced and not the whole picture. The result of a wife having an affair would've likely been that her husband would've raised the child as his own (which did happen), where as the result of his affair had little impact on the life of his wife. And in exchange of the fidelity, a woman would've depended on her husband to provide for her and her children, and he would've had tough time escaping that responsibility.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

baitedcrow said:


> Tropes' assessment is a bit backward I think. I'm just building from their example here, but the pattern is more like [pleistocene women were evil manipulating liars knowingly deceiving men] _therefore_ [over time their useful strategy resulted in evolutionary adaptation and modern women are evolved to prefer deceiving men] *Optional:* _therefore_ [modern women decide to deceive men knowingly because they evolutionarily prefer it].
> 
> In practice that basic line of argument can become tediously slippery rather quickly because the structure lends itself to circularity, and because the conflation/confluence of evolutionarily developed preference with consciously developed strategy lends itself to goal-post switching, since it tends to be unclear in any given instance that a claim (ex. "women deceive men") is made whether the person making it is trying to back up their assertion using the logic of evolutionary adaptation or the logic of human responsiveness. Then, if one line of thinking is debunked or criticized, they can claim they were actually using the other... before lapsing back into using both or being ambiguous about which they meant.
> 
> ...


Last I checked, sperm competition was still thought to fall in between chimps and gorillas. Although, I think promiscuity would have to be very frequent to have evolved sperm competition. It wouldn't be relevant if multiple males sperm wasn't present in the female during her fertile window. So any evidence of sperm competition in human would indicate more than one male within 5 days. I don't know the length of female chimps fertile window, in order to compare.

I also read recently that monogamy in mammals is thought to be a result of the species females not being tolerant of other females, therefore males aren't in a position to guard multiple females at once. I can't find it again now though.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Kyn said:


> I also read recently that monogamy in mammals is thought to be a result of the species females not being tolerant of other females, therefore males aren't in a position to guard multiple females at once. I can't find it again now though.



Found such a point mentioned in a paper just now: The evolution of social monogamy in mammals


> Despite extensive interest in the evolution of monogamy stimulated by its prevalence in humans (1–3), the distribution of social monogamy in nonhuman mammals continues to puzzle evolutionary biologists (4). In contrast to birds, social monogamy in mammals is usually associated with genetic monogamy, and the incidence of extra-pair mating is generally low in socially monogamous societies (5). There are two main explanations for its existence. One suggests that it is a consequence of selection for some form of paternal care, such as contributions to carrying or provisioning young or their protection from infanticide by competing males (6).* Alternatively, social monogamy may represent a mate guarding strategy and may have evolved where males were unable to defend access to more than one female (7, 8), either because of mutual intolerance between breeding females (9, 10) or because large female home ranges prevent effective defense by males of territories covering the ranges of more than one female (11).
> *...
> Our results suggest that social monogamy evolved in mammals where feeding competition between females was intense, breeding females were intolerant of each other, and population density was low (Fig. 2). Under these conditions, guarding individual females may represent the most efficient breeding strategy for males (7). The evolution of paternal care appears to have succeeded the evolution of social monogamy, suggesting that it is unlikely to be a precondition for its evolution. Transitions to singular cooperative breeding occurred in a small number of socially monogamous species (29), and occasionally plural breeding by several females whose offspring are raised by all group members evolved from such an ancestor [e.g., banded mongooses (25)]. This suggests that there are at least two independent routes to female sociality in mammals.


In regards to female sexuality being of value, I think this paper is informative: Status, Property, and the Value on Virginity

* *






> *Discussion*
> I do not wish to suggest that the form of marriage transaction alone determines the positive or negative value on virginity. Although the correlation between them is statistically significant, there are deviations, some of which were examined earlier in this article. It may be, of course, that more detailed analyses will show these and similar cases not to be deviant. The amount of dowry that Haitian peasants give is so small, their being so poor, that dowry may be irrelevant as a means of status improvement for boys. The cases of the Samoans and the Omaha illustrate the problem faced by the cross-cultural researcher when different segments of a society follow different practices: gift exchange, coded as the preferred form of marriage transaction, is, strictly speaking, a custom of the elite, who value virginity, whereas the coding for sexual permissiveness applies to the majority of the population, who exchange no gifts or only gifts of little value. Case-by-case analysis, thus, might well reduce the number of societies that appear to deviate from the pattern.
> 
> In spite of the lack of perfect concordance, a distribution pattern associating marriage transactions with the value on virginity does exist. When family status considerations are crucial to marriage arrangements, as they are when property accompanying marriage is related to status concerns, families will protect their daughters' virginity as a means of ensuring that undesirable suitors cannot claim them by making them pregnant. Virginity is prescribed, at least among the elite, in those societies in which wealth, rank, or stratification differentiates categories of people, although virginity may or may not be valued by social groups of lower status.3
> ...





And in support of your quoted point...


> Sexual monogamy exists under oppression. When oppression is lower, promiscuity increases.


I think this paper compliments such a point: Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women


> Data from a large survey of 1,561 professionals were used to examine the relationship between power and infidelity and the process underlying this relationship. Results showed that elevated power is positively associated with infidelity because power increases confidence in the ability to attract partners. This association was found for both actual infidelity and intentions to engage in infidelity in the future. Gender did not moderate these results: The relationship between power and infidelity was the same for women as for men, and for the same reason. These findings suggest that the common assumption (and often-found effect) that women are less likely than men to engage in infidelity is, at least partially, a reflection of traditional gender-based differences in power that exist in society.





> *Gender *
> Third, we aimed to determine whether the power-infidelity link was as strong for women as for men. Many researchers have found that, overall, women are less likely than men to be unfaithful. This effect has been explained by the fact that for evolutionary reasons, women should be more oriented than men toward binding to one powerful partner in a stable relationship. Other researchers have proposed that this oftenfound gender difference in infidelity is at least partly due to differences in the socioeconomic position of men and women. According to this proposal, if women were to obtain independent sources of income and power, their dependence on their partners would decrease, and their likelihood of being unfaithful would increase (Buller, 2005; Eagly & Wood, 1999; Smuts, 1992; Wood & Eagly, 2007).
> 
> Our findings clearly support this latter view. Gender did not moderate the effects we found. Among women who had an independent source of income (as all our female respondents did, because they were working professionals), power had a positive relationship with infidelity, and this relationship was comparable to that found among men. These findings were not likely caused by a statistical artifact; our sample was large and included similar numbers of men and women. If social desirability had affected the responses, it most likely would have suppressed responses more strongly for women than for men (Whisman & Snyder, 2007). It also seems unlikely that the observed effects are specific to the Dutch culture. Although The Netherlands is often seen as a liberal country in regard to sexual issues, most Dutch people find adultery unacceptable (Kraaykamp, 2002). According to the World Values Survey Association (2000), the opinion of the Dutch on adultery ranks 30th among the 47 countries investigated. The Dutch score, 2.7 on a 5-point scale ranging from unacceptable to acceptable, is similar to the scores of the Belgians, Germans, Canadians, Japanese, and Russians.
> ...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> Yes, but I don't think it's fair to judge just one detail as imbalanced and not the whole picture. The result of a wife having an affair would've likely been that her husband would've raised the child as his own (which did happen), where as the result of his affair had little impact on the life of his wife. And in exchange of the fidelity, a woman would've depended on her husband to provide for her and her children, and he would've had tough time escaping that responsibility.


Sexual monogamy exists under oppression. When oppression is lower, promiscuity increases. 




> I believe people have experienced the same emotions as we and they have been driven by similar things as we are, including the positives like love and kindness and empathy and courage and what other humane virtues there are.


I think the drive you're looking for which existed then and now to support monogamy is the drive for power. Although it often exists where love exists, it isn't love.

Edit: I'm not opposed to social and sexual monogamy being a natural development at times. I'm not sure how we can be sure how much of it is natural considering the history of interference.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

A bit unrelated, but I think it's advantageous to have more men in a society because it'll stimulate population growth. Women simply just aren't as horny, so they won't be having sex with men as often as men do with women. On the other hand, this would only work if rape were accepted, to which it is not these days, so having more women may be more acceptable, at least socially and to some extent it will help with genetic diversity, because at least men will be more likely to find someone willing to have sex with them.

Because of the roughly equal human population (slightly more females, however), I think OP has a point, especially since sex-selective breeding in favour of girls isn't very commonplace worldwide. Even then, I'm not sure how men are willing to care for more young.


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

But who's gonna take care of all the kids?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Allonsy said:


> But who's gonna take care of all the kids?


We thought that you were.


----------



## Allonsy (Mar 30, 2017)

Kyn said:


> We thought that you were.


Fuck.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Allonsy said:


> Fuck.


Don't worry. We'll untie you when we return from our group orgy.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Kyn said:


> I think the drive you're looking for which existed then and now to support monogamy is the drive for power. Although it often exists where love exists, it isn't love.


Curious: Is your assessment of monogamy and the motives for jealousy maintained when the alternative is not open sexual promiscuity, but romantic polygamy, with multiple women sharing a man not only sexually but also romantically as well as in terms o resources? Push the line from sexual promiscuity to romantic promiscuity, from simply sleeping with others to your SO having other SOs that he openly loves, spends time with them, maybe more then with you, invests in them, maybe trying to bring children with the, etc'. How does that scenario fair? Right now that happens almost exclusively in societies where women would have little to no choice on the matter, but let's say this happens in a situation where you can just leave at any moment. Would you stay? Get over the childish possessive jealousy? Would it be oppressive of you to demand that he wouldn't do this, or to choose only men who you wouldn't think would do this? 

(And yes, this is testing the waters of the old line of men being more sexually jealous and women being more romantically jealous).


----------



## Navvy Jay (Mar 21, 2017)

A poem on western society's shift in sexual behavior.
by Edgargle Asslin Pole:

_Penis in Vagina
no
Vagina in Penis
seems so_


Thanks for coming out.
*snap snap snap*


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tropes said:


> Curious: Is your assessment of monogamy and the motives for jealousy maintained when the alternative is not open sexual promiscuity, but romantic polygamy, with multiple women sharing a man not only sexually but also romantically as well as in terms o resources? Push the line from sexual promiscuity to romantic promiscuity, from simply sleeping with others to your SO having other SOs that he openly loves, spends time with them, maybe more then with you, invests in them, maybe trying to bring children with the, etc'. How does that scenario fair? Right now that happens almost exclusively in societies where women would have little to no choice on the matter, but let's say this happens in a situation where you can just leave at any moment. Would you stay? Get over the childish possessive jealousy? Would it be oppressive of you to demand that he wouldn't do this, or to choose only men who you wouldn't think would do this?
> 
> (And yes, this is testing the waters of the old line of men being more sexually jealous and women being more romantically jealous).


It doesn't matter what behaviour we're trying to control or restrict, even mutual oppression is still oppression. To be clear, I have nothing against mutual oppression, but I disagree with referring to the oppressive behaviour as though it's true love or a standard of love that should be aimed for. Most relationships are a combination of love and oppression, I'd rather people own it, than twist it into something it's not. People don't want to share their SO because they're afraid of missing out or losing out in some way. It's not because they're putting their SO first or because it will be bad for their SO, it's because of insecurity, jealousy and possessiveness. Their feelings behind their desires are entirely self centered. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it love. People just accept it's love because it's been the standard relationship dynamic that has been accepted for years, yet it wasn't even based on love in the first place, it was based on power.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

Teh post-hoc rationale of DP advocates. :laughing:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> Teh post-hoc rationale of DP advocates. :laughing:


Are you trying to get the topic back to dp'ing or just trolling?


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

@Kyn

I was unaware of any DP'ing going on in this thread. 










Not even sure what to make of this degeneracy.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Flying Triangle said:


> @Kyn
> 
> I was unaware of any DP'ing going on in this thread.
> 
> ...


Never mind. It was an 'in' joke that I thought you were in on.


----------



## marybluesky (Apr 23, 2012)

Also I don't regard passing one's genes, and parenthood in general, as success, I get your point.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Kyn said:


> People don't want to share their SO because they're afraid of missing out or losing out in some way. It's not because they're putting their SO first or because it will be bad for their SO, it's because of insecurity, jealousy and possessiveness. Their feelings behind their desires are entirely self centered. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it love.


Yes and no. Jealousy isn't a direct expression of love, but it is part of the reciprocation of love, it is a question to which the answer, loyalty - the exclusivity of a choice someone makes to which the answer is you - is an integral part of how we experience being loved, and the desire for mutuality is part of love.

(The fact that loyalty in itself is not an instinctive expression of love, despite being part of how we experience love, that just goes to show that even mindless evolution can have a great sense of humor).


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

> Our results suggest that social monogamy evolved in mammals where feeding competition between females was intense, breeding females were intolerant of each other, and population density was low (Fig. 2). Under these conditions, guarding individual females may represent the most efficient breeding strategy for males (7).


It would seem like monogamy evolved very differently in humans, since we are more sociable than chimps, we are less equipped to physically fight, we are bigger than chimps and require more energy dense food (because of the wasteful brain). We wouldn't have turned out like this if we were living further apart and were more hostile than chimps.

Maybe there are practical reasons why human balls are smaller?










I guess it could also be that the size of testicles could be explained with a shared ancestor that was more monogamous than any of the modern species (and possibly their females were more aggressive towards each other and living in more lose groups and so on), and all the three modern species (chimpanzee, bonobo, human) got to being more sociable and also more promiscuous (and have larger testicles to varying extents) than the shared ancestor. Maybe it's not so much that we're more monogamous than the chimpanzees, but rather that they've just adapted better to a much more promiscuous life. Also, I believe the shared ancestor could've been bipedal, so maybe the knuckle-walking modern species just had more room to grow bigger balls .


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

I was going to say something about single parents but then... Its best to just leave it.

Well, this definitely will not work for people like me, I'll pass. I don't have sex with randoms. And I've never even had sex anyway.

Buuut besides that... I can see your point. But most people are pretty protective or "possessive" (for a lack of a better word) over their partners so... I don't know if that would be handled very well.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> Sexual monogamy exists under oppression. When oppression is lower, promiscuity increases.
> 
> I think the drive you're looking for which existed then and now to support monogamy is the drive for power. Although it often exists where love exists, it isn't love.
> 
> Edit: I'm not opposed to social and sexual monogamy being a natural development at times. I'm not sure how we can be sure how much of it is natural considering the history of interference.


Can you elaborate, what kind of drive for power? Isn't it quite ineffective, you're only controlling one person and that person also controls you, 1:1, whereas in a polygamous relationship you could possibly control much more people?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tropes said:


> Yes and no. Jealousy isn't a direct expression of love, but it is part of the reciprocation of love, it is a question to which the answer, loyalty - the exclusivity of a choice someone makes to which the answer is you - is an integral part of how we experience being loved, and the desire for mutuality is part of love.
> 
> (The fact that loyalty in itself is not an instinctive expression of love, despite being part of how we experience love, that just goes to show that even mindless evolution can have a great sense of humor).


Jealousy isn't part of love because both can exist without the other. Jealousy is part of fear. It's selfish (justifiably or not) whereas love is selfless. Relationships fall on scale somewhere between love and fear, selfishness and selflessness. The position of each relationship on the scale is a choice. Some people think it's reasonable to draw the line at sexual and romantic relations. Some people think it extends to friendships with the opposite sex. They expect their SO to sacrifice spending time with friends or family or sacrifice hobbies. Some people think it's reasonable to expect their SO to not watch porn or masturbate. Jealousy and fear is behind all these restrictions. 

Where is line drawn between being responsible for our own feelings and expecting our SO to make sacrifices because of them? Why shouldn't people be encouraged to take responsibility for their own feelings, first and foremost?

Exclusivity is only one experience of being loved. What about being loved by someone who's free to do as they please, yet they always come back to you anyway? They have other options, yet keep on loving you? Every time they're with you, it's purely because they want to be? They're happy to see you happy, even when they aren't benefitting from your happiness themselves? 

There's a lot more to love than exclusivity. While it's safer to restrict it, you're also restricting your experience of love too. I don't mean experiences outside the relationship. I mean love without insecurities, within a relationship.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Jealousy isn't part of love because both can exist without the other. Jealousy is part of fear. It's selfish (justifiably or not) whereas love is selfless. Relationships fall on scale somewhere between love and fear, selfishness and selflessness. The position of each relationship on the scale is a choice. Some people think it's reasonable to draw the line at sexual and romantic relations. Some people think it extends to friendships with the opposite sex. They expect their SO to sacrifice spending time with friends or family or sacrifice hobbies. Some people think it's reasonable to expect their SO to not watch porn or masturbate. Jealousy and fear is behind all these restrictions.
> 
> Where is line drawn between being responsible for our own feelings and expecting our SO to make sacrifices because of them? Why shouldn't people be encouraged to take responsibility for their own feelings, first and foremost?
> 
> ...


I've played that song, heard it a few dozen times more. In practice I've only seen it work within a very specific set of circumstances: Where both partners are masters of choosing what not to think about, and even the majority of those relationships end up ending. Don't get me wrong - that still counts as working - but it isn't quite the enlightened poly idealism, they aren't experiencing love without insecurities, they are just repressing the triggers of their insecurities until the dam breaks. And there's a reason for that - the entire premise of the idealism is a catch 22. If you'd love someone selflessly, genuinely want them to be happy, that in itself is a motive to not trample on their insecurities, you don't go "Oh hurting them this way doesn't count because that's just their pride or ego", you aren't in the business of rationalizing how to hurt them - so even if it was true that there is nothing but pride and pettiness behind wanting exclusivity - if you love someone selflessly you wouldn't be in a position to ask that they'd sacrifice their pride or esteem for your selfish desires, and if you do then you're proving you don't love them selflessly, and so if you still know you love them then you know they don't have to love you selflessly to love you back. In a very similar fashion to the insanity clause from the book Catch 22, demanding it disproves the position to demand it.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

This idea seems very half formed and presuppositional, but I can't immediately pinpoint where the flaw is yet. I'll be pondering it for until I can form a response on the matter.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Exclusivity is only one experience of being loved. What about being loved by someone who's free to do as they please, yet they always come back to you anyway? They have other options, yet keep on loving you? Every time they're with you, it's purely because they want to be? They're happy to see you happy, even when they aren't benefitting from your happiness themselves?
> 
> .


What does any of that matter if you were truly in control of your own feelings?

If your feelings were constant, there wouldnt be any change in how you felt with or without that person so you wouldnt even notice it.

And personally no I wouldnt want that. I wouldnt want to be "old reliable" or the fall back or the substitute.

EDIT: All that said, each to their own. If that's what you want then find others with a similar view on life. There are organised events and swinging parties that cater to that sort of life style. There are even cults where people worship a goddess before getting naked and fucking each other (hint: if you attend one of these events, don't stand their eating popcorn, unless you want to get chucked out).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tropes said:


> I've played that song, heard it a few dozen times more. In practice I've only seen it work within a very specific set of circumstances: Where both partners are masters of choosing what not to think about, and even the majority of those relationships end up ending. Don't get me wrong - that still counts as working - but it isn't quite the enlightened poly idealism, they aren't experiencing love without insecurities, they are just repressing the triggers of their insecurities until the dam breaks. And there's a reason for that - the entire premise of the idealism is a catch 22. If you'd love someone selflessly, genuinely want them to be happy, that in itself is a motive to not trample on their insecurities, you don't go "Oh hurting them this way doesn't count because that's just their pride or ego", you aren't in the business of rationalizing how to hurt them - so even if it was true that there is nothing but pride and pettiness behind wanting exclusivity - if you love someone selflessly you wouldn't be in a position to ask that they'd sacrifice their pride or esteem for your selfish desires, and if you do then you're proving you don't love them selflessly, and so if you still know you love them then you know they don't have to love you selflessly to love you back. In a very similar fashion to the insanity clause from the book Catch 22, demanding it disproves the position to demand it.


It's not trampling on their insecurities. Obviously, if your SO isn't on board with anything, then you don't do it. You're automatically seeing it from a defensive viewpoint. It's not making someone understand that they don't own you, it's accepting that you don't own someone else, through your own choice. The thing is with monogamy, it's usually an expectation. It's portrayed as 'how love should be'. There's an attitude of 'if she wants someone else too, then you're not enough for her and you should be'. The amount of cheating and divorcing that happens when people have those opportunities should make it clear that love isn't naturally exclusive. The attitude doesn't ring true.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> What does any of that matter if you were truly in control of your own feelings?
> 
> If your feelings were constant, there wouldnt be any change in how you felt with or without that person so you wouldnt even notice it.
> 
> ...


Why do you automatically see yourself as a fallback or substitute if you're not the only one? Do you have more than one friend? Is there only one real friend and a bunch of substitutes or do you value each friend for what they individually bring into your life?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Black Tortoise said:


> This idea seems very half formed and presuppositional, but I can't immediately pinpoint where the flaw is yet. I'll be pondering it for until I can form a response on the matter.


Yeah, yeah, bring it on :tongue:


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

[I still think the _flaw_ is in "Monogamy offers more reproductive benefits for men than it does for women" this sentence, because... a benefit in this case means profit (or idunno maybe they're synonyms, bene and pro...), profit is what you have after you deduct your costs from your revenue. If there's very little cost, then any little revenue can mean good profit. If there's high cost, then the revenue too has to be substantial to even cover the investment, let alone make profit. For the woman the reproductive venture is pretty high cost, high risk in any case, but for the man it can be close to zero cost for the exact same revenue as for her (~ one child), which for him would mean insane profit. Like lottery.]


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> [I still think the _flaw_ is in "Monogamy offers more reproductive benefits for men than it does for women" this sentence, because... a benefit in this case means profit (or idunno maybe they're synonyms, bene and pro...), profit is what you have after you deduct your costs from your revenue. If there's very little cost, then any little revenue can mean good profit. If there's high cost, then the revenue too has to be substantial to even cover the investment, let alone make profit. For the woman the reproductive venture is pretty high cost, high risk in any case, but for the man it can be close to zero cost for the exact same revenue as for her (~ one child), which for him would mean insane profit. Like lottery.]


If he's having sex elsewhere, that means at least one mate is left unguarded. He has no idea when each woman is fertile. What if he's not there during her fertile window and another guy is? If we have ten promiscuous males and ten promiscuous females, and every female becomes pregnant within 6 months, ten females pass on their genes, but it could be only one male passing on his. If we have ten monogamous males and females, then every male passes on their genes.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

I suspect like eye color and inherited level of intelligence, there is a lot of diversity in mens and womens propensity for monogamy or polyamory. I'm skeptical of any positions that assume one gender would gain more out of promiscuity than the other. As though one gender should be expected to be one way and the other is deviant. I'm also skeptical of the idea that everyone should be okay with polyamory. It works for some people and doesn't work for others. As long as things are mutual, honestly and openly communicated and safe sex is practiced, things are fine. 

Personally, I don't see jealousy as the main issue for promiscuity or polyamory. Relationships, even short term it apears, require a lot of time and mental and emotional investment to a degree that friendships do not. Most people seem to barely be able to make one relationship manifest in healthy ways, let alone juggle multiple. I don't think most people can pull this off.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Aeon said:


> [I still think the _flaw_ is in "Monogamy offers more reproductive benefits for men than it does for women" this sentence, because... a benefit in this case means profit (or idunno maybe they're synonyms, bene and pro...), profit is what you have after you deduct your costs from your revenue. If there's very little cost, then any little revenue can mean good profit. If there's high cost, then the revenue too has to be substantial to even cover the investment, let alone make profit. For the woman the reproductive venture is pretty high cost, high risk in any case, but for the man it can be close to zero cost for the exact same revenue as for her (~ one child), which for him would mean insane profit. Like lottery.]


Lets take a hypothetical situation.

An island with one woman and 10 men. What is the reproduction rate of that island.

Then the same island, with one man and 10 women. What is the reproductive rate.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> If he's having sex elsewhere, that means at least one mate is left unguarded. He has no idea when each woman is fertile. What if he's not there during her fertile window and another guy is? If we have ten promiscuous males and ten promiscuous females, and every female becomes pregnant within 6 months, ten females pass on their genes, but it could be only one male passing on his. If we have ten monogamous males and females, then every male passes on their genes.





Reality Check said:


> Lets take a hypothetical situation.
> 
> An island with one woman and 10 men. What is the reproduction rate of that island.
> 
> Then the same island, with one man and 10 women. What is the reproductive rate.


Reproductive rate obviously depends on the number and condition of the women as long as at least one man is fertile. @Kyn your example only roughly illustrates what might happen paternity-wise, it doesn't show why monogamy would be more beneficial to men than polygamy and it doesn't show how monogamy would be more beneficial to men than it is to women. 

In the monogamous option, the man's reproductive success depends on the reproductive success of one woman. Even if there was no question about anyone's fidelity, if she for whatever reason fails to get pregnant or deliver the child or take care of the baby or gets eaten by a lion or falls off a cliff, then he has zero offspring and that's the end of his line. So if he buys into the monogamous system, he can get anywhere from 0 to 1 kids and the odds are whatever. In the polygamous system one man can get 0 to 10 kids, odds are whatever. How do you compare these? It would depend on the odds and the cost, which is more profitable. 

And then if we acknowledge that the 10 women and 10 men are not all equal in terms of how attractive they are as mates, it gets more complicated. Is the polygamous system peaceful, free for all sex-buffet, or is it highly competitive hierarchical system? Is it only the men that compete against each other or women too? And take all that and compare to a monogamous system where the less attractive partner can have ways to compensate for his or hers lack of sex appeal or where the man is expected to provide for the woman and the child, and if we then introduce the risk or chance of infidelity to that picture, it gets more complex still. 

Aaand... there are social consequences, what happens in a society where competition for partners is fierce and where some don't get any? What happens in a society where a man doesn't know if his the father of none or 10 children?

Aaaaaand... genetic consequences that affect the reproduction success of all the people if looked a few generations into the future, if everyone gets to mate and reproduce in a monogamous society, what happens genetically? Or in a polygamous society, if only the most dominant man gets to father all the children, what happens in genetically in the consequent generations? 

Aaaaaaaaaand... Something else still but I forgot.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Staying with one woman for her entire cycle is the only guarantee that he will be there during her fertile window. Otherwise it would be something of a lottery, since her ovulation is concealed. Monogamy offers more reproductive benefits for men than it does for women.


This argument is based on the assumption that it is somehow beneficial for a man to impregnate one specific woman, as opposed any random woman. If a man has sex with 28 different women everyday his chances of impregnating one are the same as him having sex with one woman for 28 days.



> I believe it's her availability for sex and the strengthening social bonds which encourages men to invest in her offspring. I believe modern day men and women provide lots of examples of this dynamic. .


I don't know what you based those beliefs on. You never seen men get into fights over a woman? Under your belief if she has sex with both of them, it will "strengthen their social bond" while in reality if the woman is not some disposable ho, chances are they will be tension between men over her, even if those men are friends.

Men's competitiveness over women serves a biological purpose of the strongest one getting to breed. Rearing up a child takes up a lot of resources, so it makes evolutionary sense that those resources are spent on the healthiest, strongest offspring (which, chances are, would come from a man who can beat the shit out of other men)

I'm not condoning anyone getting into fistfights over some dank pussy, but since you brought up the topic of biology, there's your biology response.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Aeon said:


> Reproductive rate obviously depends on the number and condition of the women as long as at least one man is fertile. @Kyn your example only roughly illustrates what might happen paternity-wise, it doesn't show why monogamy would be more beneficial to men than polygamy and it doesn't show how monogamy would be more beneficial to men than it is to women.
> 
> In the monogamous option, the man's reproductive success depends on the reproductive success of one woman. Even if there was no question about anyone's fidelity, if she for whatever reason fails to get pregnant or deliver the child or take care of the baby or gets eaten by a lion or falls off a cliff, then he has zero offspring and that's the end of his line. So if he buys into the monogamous system, he can get anywhere from 0 to 1 kids and the odds are whatever. In the polygamous system one man can get 0 to 10 kids, odds are whatever. How do you compare these? It would depend on the odds and the cost, which is more profitable.
> 
> ...


Hypothetically if it were 10 men and 10 women. I would say that the top 5% of those men (in this case 2) would be the ones that the women would sleep with with for reproduction. Not all men are equal or attractive, its life. That said, if a woman does have offspring and the top 5% (Breeders) are creating other offspring, that means they may not be able to fend for the young or the woman, hence whe will look for a provider. This has nothing to do with emotions or feelings or attractiveness, its merely survival. Unless she is a strong single mother of course, then she can look after her off spring and fend off the Lions whilst hunting the mammoth for food all at the same time (women are better at multi tasking after all). But yeah the guy is just a provider, he provides what she requires. But again this basically goes back to Alpha F**ks and Beta Bucks.

Its basic Evolutionary Biology.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Reality Check said:


> Hypothetically if it were 10 men and 10 women. I would say that the top 5% of those men (in this case 2) would be the ones that the women would sleep with with for reproduction. Not all men are equal or attractive, its life. That said, if a woman does have offspring and the top 5% (Breeders) are creating other offspring, that means they may not be able to fend for the young or the woman, hence whe will look for a provider. This has nothing to do with emotions or feelings or attractiveness, its merely survival. Unless she is a strong single mother of course, then she can look after her off spring and fend off the Lions whilst hunting the mammoth for food all at the same time (women are better at multi tasking after all). But yeah the guy is just a provider, he provides what she requires. But again this basically goes back to Alpha F**ks and Beta Bucks.
> 
> Its basic Evolutionary Biology.


Your arithmetic is off .

I think it has everything to do with emotions and feelings and attractiveness though, those I believe are at the core of evolutionary biology and sexual selection, and cynically deducing it all to survival, similarly as @Kyn deduced monogamy to hunger for power, perhaps reveals the evolutionary logic behind the emotions but it strips off an important layer that is the human experience. 

Let's say there's one of these single mothers all alone with her baby and she's hungry and desperate, and one of those 80% of men comes along and helps her out, if she feels some warm feelings towards him they're as real as any feelings of desire she felt for the man she had sex with a year ago. If you strip away the emotions and feelings and attractions and call it all survival, then it doesn't matter what anyone experiences or does. Then there's also nothing wrong in her actions, if she later leaves the man who brought her food or build her a shelter and goes back to the alpha man, because it's all just survival.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Aeon said:


> Your arithmetic is off .
> 
> I think it has everything to do with emotions and feelings and attractiveness though, those I believe are at the core of evolutionary biology and sexual selection, and cynically deducing it all to survival, similarly as @Kyn deduced monogamy to hunger for power, perhaps reveals the evolutionary logic behind the emotions but it strips off an important layer that is the human experience.
> 
> Let's say there's one of these single mothers all alone with her baby and she's hungry and desperate, and one of those 80% of single men comes along and helps her out, if she feels some warm feelings towards him they're as real as any feelings of desire she felt for the man she had sex with a year ago. If you strip away the emotions and feelings and attractions and call it all survival, then it doesn't matter what anyone experiences or does. Then there's also nothing wrong in her actions, if she later leaves the man who brought her food or build her a shelter and goes back to the alpha man, because it's all just survival.


A) So before she fucked the Alpha Male, how come she never felt any feelings towards the other guys. Did the Alpha Male somehow unlock her? Nope, she just suddenly needed a provider.

B) There is no right or wrong at all in any situation. By observation we can get an idea of how things work. Then use that system to achieve what it is we want... or not.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Is that what cave-women used their clubs for?


Yeah, knock their men out so they could get it on without male interference :tongue:


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> They force all their women into monogamy and choose their spouses for them. Then men take the reproductive advantage by having sex with whores and slaves outside their 'monogamous' marriage.


How do they force it on women and how do they collectively deside this is the way to go, every guy respect another man's right to having untouched wife and daughters from now, so we will have MONOGAMY!


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Aeon said:


> How do they force it on women and how do they collectively deside this is the way to go, every guy respect another man's right to having untouched wife and daughters from now, so we will have MONOGAMY!


We use our Male Privilege Point cards to access the HQ of The Great Patriarchy and sit around a table and plot these oppressive idea's whilst twirling our moustaches of course.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Yeah, knock their men out so they could get it on without male interference :tongue:


Nah no need to do that, we would be busy hunting mammoth's in order to boost our fragile ego's, which had the side effect of providing food. It was never about food, just the ego.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> How do they force it on women and how do they collectively deside this is the way to go, every guy respect another man's right to having untouched wife and daughters from now, so we will have MONOGAMY!


They force it on women by making laws against female infidelity, making laws against women having equal rights and making life difficult for any woman who isn't willing to marry and pop out babies for society to increase the population. 

Then after hundreds of years, women begin to gain equality and are given the same rights as men. One of those rights is to divorce your spouse for adultery. Another right is for women to support themselves without a husband or male relative. Then monogamy is applied to both sexes, legally and realistically for the first time. They never planned on mutual monogamy when they made laws against female infidelity because they never planned on women ever becoming equal to men.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Nah no need to do that, we would be busy hunting mammoth's in order to boost our fragile ego's, which had the side effect of providing food. It was never about food, just the ego.


Did you know that an African tribe called !Kung have a ritualistic practice of 'mock' shaming a man who makes a large kill, to prevent his ego becoming over inflated?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Did you know that an African tribe called !Kung have a ritualistic practice of 'mock' shaming a man who makes a large kill, to prevent his ego becoming over inflated?


I didn't know that but it makes sense. 

When ever I have done Martial Arts or any other competitive activities, even if someone wins a world tournament (WAKO, and no not me I was never that good), it was never mentioned in the future. If people made a thing of it they were put into place.

Same as with groups of other men, I know some guys seem to want to big themselves up over any little thing. But there are other groups, where a quick "Well done" is all that's given out. Funnily this type of group does not attract the type of guy who needs a constant Ego rubbing.

I fully support Validation Diets.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> They force it on women by making laws against female infidelity, making laws against women having equal rights and making life difficult for any woman who isn't willing to marry and pop out babies for society to increase the population.
> 
> Then after hundreds of years, women begin to gain equality and are given the same rights as men. One of those rights is to divorce your spouse for adultery. Another right is for women to support themselves without a husband or male relative. Then monogamy is applied to both sexes, legally and realistically for the first time. They never planned on mutual monogamy when they made laws against female infidelity because they never planned on women ever becoming equal to men.


This didn't answer the questions... I don't think any of that happens without there being very strong collective reasons to do that. Like monogamy doesn't just get applied to anyone, people adopt it because it's the best option.

Anyways, I have faith in small testicles, I think they shine the light on the history of our species. I don't know how fast balls shrink or grow (I'd think they grow faster than they shrink), but I think monogamy is an old thing that precedes any legislation.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> This didn't answer the questions... I don't think any of that happens without there being very strong collective reasons to do that. Like monogamy doesn't just get applied to anyone, people adopt it because it's the best option.
> 
> Anyways, I have faith in small testicles, I think they shine the light on the history of our species. I don't know how fast balls shrink or grow (I'd think they grow faster than they shrink), but I think monogamy is an old thing that precedes any legislation.


So how would we explain female mate preferences changing during ovulation?


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Kyn said:


> They *force* it on women by making laws against female infidelity, making laws against women having equal rights and making life difficult for any woman who isn't willing to marry and pop out babies for society to increase the population.
> 
> Then after hundreds of years, women begin to gain equality and are given the same rights as men. One of those rights is to divorce your spouse for adultery. Another right is for women to support themselves without a husband or male relative. Then monogamy is applied to both sexes, legally and realistically for the first time. They never planned on mutual monogamy when they made laws against female infidelity because they never planned on women ever becoming equal to men.



I doubt anybody is *forcing* women, not everything has to do with traditional oppression, feminism and _rights_.

In many species females have an overwhelming preference for top alpha males, that may be why they prefer to be part of the alpha's harem. Alpha doesn't _service_ all his females equally, so beta males get some occasionally.

Form my experience, 90% of women are only interested in 10% of males (the Brad Pitts), but since polygamy is illegal most females settle for the best they can get, as do 90% of males.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> So how would we explain female mate preferences changing during ovulation?


She prefers to be knocked up by a stud but live with a nice guy?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

You just reminded me of a paper that I never got to really read through but seemed pretty interesting and covers such dynamics of the !Kung. 
Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Aeon said:


> She prefers to be knocked up by a stud but live with a nice guy?


Yeah she prefers the stud but settles for the _nice_ reliable guy.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> So how would we explain female mate preferences changing during ovulation?


You know what, at least your honest about these things. Instead of covering it up and denying it.

Kudos to you.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

yentipeee said:


> Yeah she prefers the stud but settles for the _nice_ reliable guy.


The thing is, the nice reliable guy is happy with this. However the nice reliable guy might also flip out if he hears the truth about her sexually promiscuous past. Hence she has to lie and create a narrative so he dosn't flip out.

I actually don't blame women when it comes to certain things, instead I point the finger at other men.

EDIT: This is not aimed directly at the OP.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

yentipeee said:


> I doubt anybody is *forcing* women, not everything has to do with traditional oppression, feminism and _rights_.
> 
> In many species females have an overwhelming preference for top alpha males, that may be why they prefer to be part of the alpha's harem. Alpha doesn't _service_ all his females equally, so beta males get some occasionally.
> 
> Form my experience, 90% of women are only interested in 10% of males (the Brad Pitts), but since polygamy is illegal most females settle for the best they can get, as do 90% of males.


Of course they were forced. It was made against the law for them to do anything else. What else were they going to do? Choices were marriage, slavery or prostitution. They couldn't even get an education beyond housewife duties, at one time. Slaves had minimal rights, prostitutes had minimal rights, wives had a few more rights that the other two options.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Kyn said:


> Of course they were forced. It was made against the law for them to do anything else. What else were they going to do? Choices were marriage, slavery or prostitution. They couldn't even get an education beyond housewife duties, at one time. Slaves had minimal rights, prostitutes had minimal rights, wives had a few more rights that the other two options.


 Even if that were so, how do you explain that female preferences I noted above still persist today?

Historically, not all women were oppressed slaves, the Greeks adored their women, made beautiful statues of them and worshiped female goddesses.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> You know what, at least your honest about these things. Instead of covering it up and denying it.
> 
> Kudos to you.


Why cover it up?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Why cover it up?


Your asking the wrong person.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

yentipeee said:


> Even if that were so, how do you explain that female preferences I noted above still persist today?
> 
> Historically, not all women were oppressed slaves, the Greeks adored their women, made beautiful statues of them and worshiped female goddesses.


"Young women were expected to marry as a virgin, and marriage was usually organised by their father, who chose the husband and accepted from him a dowry. If a woman had no father, then her interests (marriage prospects and property management) were looked after by a guardian (kyrios or kurios), perhaps an uncle or another male relative."

"All women were expected to marry, there was no provision and no role in Greek society for single mature females."

"Married women were, at least in the eyes of the law, under the complete authority of their husbands."

"Women were expected to be faithful to their husbands, but the reverse was not the case as husbands could freely engage the services of prostitutes, live-in lovers, and courtesans."


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Kyn said:


> "Young women were expected to marry as a virgin, and marriage was usually organised by their father, who chose the husband and accepted from him a dowry. If a woman had no father, then her interests (marriage prospects and property management) were looked after by a guardian (kyrios or kurios), perhaps an uncle or another male relative."
> 
> "All women were expected to marry, there was no provision and no role in Greek society for single mature females."
> 
> ...


:hugs:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Annnd Roman women:

"Roman women could be separated (not always absolutely clearly) between those who were considered respectable and those who were not. Many Roman males had the somewhat hypocritical stance that their female relations should be honourable and chaste guardians of morality while at the same time they were more than willing to avail themselves of the services of lovers and prostitutes."

"In many cases Roman women were closely identified with their perceived role in society - the duty of looking after the home and to nurture a family (pietas familiae), in particular, to bear legitimate children, a consequence of which was an early marriage, (sometimes even before puberty but typically around 20 years old), in order to ensure the woman had no sexual history which might embarrass the future husband."

"This close dependence of women on their male relatives was also reflected in such matters as law and finance where women were legally obliged to have a nominated male family member act in their interests (Tutela mulierum perpetua). The only exceptions to this arrangement were women with three children (from c. 17 BCE), freedwomen with four children, and Vestal Virgins. This rule was designed to keep property, especially inherited property, in the male-controlled family, even if male and female offspring had equal inheritance rights under Roman law. "

"The distinction between these two groups was not just a moral one for prostitutes and other lower class women had even fewer rights than women of a higher social status. Prostitutes and waitresses, for example, could not prosecute for rape and the rape of slaves was considered merely as property damage sustained by the owner."


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Is this one of those "I have nothing to contribute but I'll post anyway" posts again?


Is this one of those "better avoid answering the question and divert attention" answers again?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Is this one of those "better avoid answering the question and divert attention" answers again?


Is this one of those attention seeking "please talk to me because I'm bored and have no friends" posts again?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Your asking the wrong person.


I don't see any reason to cover it up. A biological instinct isn't something which can't be controlled through human conscious reason. We have lots of instincts which we choose not to act on.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> I don't see any reason to cover it up. A biological instinct isn't something which can't be controlled through human conscious reason. We have lots of instincts which we choose not to act on.


Ignore the first minute or so, it gets serious a short while in. Again though, narrative. Some guys feel insecure that a girl has had more sexual partners than them. Or they imagine the girl is comparing dick sizes. This video goes into detail.






of course this is going to cause knee jerk reactions from women who are "Not Like That".


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Ignore the first minute or so, it gets serious a short while in. Again though, narrative. Some guys feel insecure that a girl has had more sexual partners than them. Or they imagine the girl is comparing dick sizes. This video goes into detail.
> 
> of course this is going to cause knee jerk reactions from women who are "Not Like That".


This bothers women, too though. I know it's bothered me in the past and I had to get over it. Again, it seems to be a case of whether a person's feelings are justified by societal attitudes or not. Women aren't encouraged to make it into an issue because 'boys will be boys'.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

yentipeee said:


> Even if that were so, how do you explain that female preferences I noted above still persist today?
> 
> Historically, not all women were oppressed slaves, the Greeks adored their women, made beautiful statues of them and worshiped female goddesses.


Could you elaborate a bit more on the social status of women in Ancient Greece? I don't think it has much to do with statues of goddesses.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Kyn said:


> No, it isn't the same. He's basically having sex with each woman once a month. That's not favourable odds for pregnancy.


Yes, and chances are, one out of those 28 women will be ovulating on the day of sex. It's just simple odds. 

And for all we know your one woman is barren, so she will never get pregnant.



> Have you ever seen bonobo's rubbing genitals together to diffuse conflict? Ever wondered why women have a clitoris nearer to the front of their genitalia? Our anatomy and sexual behaviour (face to face mating) most closely resembles the primate which regularly engages in sex for bonding purposes. It's not unreasonable to theorise that humans also bonded through sexual activity at times in our evolutionary history.


We are more biologically related to chimps than bonobos. Chimps are our closest relatives, sharing 99% of our DNA, and those hairy buggers resolve problems by smashing skulls all the damn time.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Is this one of those attention seeking "please talk to me because I'm bored and have no friends" posts again?


Is this one of those "I will try to hurt you because you humiliated me and it's so unfair" post again?


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Pretender said:


> Yes, and chances are, one out of those 28 women will be ovulating on the day of sex. *It's just simple odds*.
> 
> And for all we know your one woman is barren, so she will never get pregnant.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forum 

It may not be simple mathematical odds. Have you seen nature shows where the territorial male lion sniffs the air to sense if one of his females is in heat? More interesting would be to know if females synchronize their fertility cycle (or not) as a strategy for competing for reproductive pecking order. From my experience, if I'm living with a woman I can sense her fertility cycle, and I can _smell_ an aroused woman in the room even if she just showered.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Pretender said:


> Yes, and chances are, one out of those 28 women will be ovulating on the day of sex. It's just simple odds.
> 
> And for all we know your one woman is barren, so she will never get pregnant.


He has a 17.9 percent chance (maximum) of hitting a female's fertile window. If he manages to hit her fertile window, there's still only a 30 percent chance (maximum) of pregnancy. Odds are not favourable for him at all. 

For all we know, your guy's shooting blanks. How is it even relevant? If we're looking at evolutionary reproductive benefits, there's no point assuming that anyone is infertile because that didn't contribute to evolution, anyway. Any male or female who have contributed to evolution have obviously been fertile. 



> We are more biologically related to chimps than bonobos. Chimps are our closest relatives, sharing 99% of our DNA, and those hairy buggers resolve problems by smashing skulls all the damn time.


That must prove my theory then, female chimps are promiscuous. Female promiscuity is advantageous to chimpanzees, therefore as our closest relatives, we are likely to be promiscuous too. Or does it not work like that?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Is this one of those "I will try to hurt you because you humiliated me and it's so unfair" post again?


Is this one of those "I think I'm relevant to you and my actions have affected how you feel" posts again?


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Kyn said:


> He has a 17.9 percent chance (maximum) of hitting a female's fertile window. If he manages to hit her fertile window, there's still only a 30 percent chance (maximum) of pregnancy. Odds are not favourable for him at all.


Dumb question time (sorry, it's late night for me): could you explain me how you got that 17.9%?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Cast said:


> Dumb question time (sorry, it's late night for me): could you explain me how you got that 17.9%?


5 days out of 28. 5×100÷28. If anyone mathematically inclined would like to correct it, I won't disagree and insist my math is correct.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Is this one of those "I think I'm relevant to you and my actions have affected how you feel" posts again?


Is this one of those "You were right about me but I can pretend otherwise on the internet" posts again?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Is this one of those "You were right about me but I can pretend otherwise on the internet" posts again?


You're really bored, aren't you?


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Kyn said:


> 5 days out of 28. 5×100÷28. If anyone mathematically inclined would like to correct it, I won't disagree and insist my math is correct.


Oh lol, ok, that was easy 
My math sucks, but I'll throw in some random midwifery knowledge:
sperm can survive up to 5 days in the female reproductive system, but five-days old sperm isn't really viable. The majority of conceptions occur with sperm that's two days "old" at most, so the fertile window can be reasonably restricted to the two-three days prior to ovulation.
An interesting paper on sexual intercourse, ovulation and conception states that:


> Thus, daily intercourse would produce the highest probability of conception (0.37). The estimated rate of conception falls to 0.33 with intercourse that averages every other day (assuming no special timing with regard to ovulation). At lower frequencies of intercourse, the rate of conception drops more rapidly; untimed intercourse averaging once per week would produce a 0.15 chance of conception per cycle. Considering live births only (which accounted for two thirds of the conceptions), the approximate probability would be 0.25 with daily intercourse, 0.22 with intercourse every other day, and 0.10 with weekly intercourse.


(I love this paper. It's always fun to bring it up at boring family dinners <3)

Also, the average woman in the past would hardly have a regular 28 days period. Most women don't have it nowadays, so imagine how it would be in a condition of malnourishment, hard physical labour, frequent pregnancy and full-term breastfeeding (which usually lasts for 3-5 years or more, making the woman's cycle unpredictable due to high prolactin levels). These long, irregular menstrual cycles would make it even more difficult for unfrequent intercourse to catch the fertile window.
I have 40-50 days cycles and catching that window requires some dedication, trust me 8)


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Kyn said:


> He has a 17.9 percent chance (maximum) of hitting a female's fertile window. If he manages to hit her fertile window, there's still only a 30 percent chance (maximum) of pregnancy. Odds are not favourable for him at all.


Yes, and he'll play that 17.9% chance 28 times. Those odds aren't any worse than being with the same woman for a month, where most of the days there is 0% chances of her getting pregnant. 

Anyway what all of this means is that with one woman he is guaranteed to hit one fertile period but nothing more than one, but with 28 women he can hit anywhere from 0 to 28.

You just seem to be fixated on the pregnancy of one woman in particular, while when we're talking about statistics, what happens to one specific woman isn't the point.



> That must prove my theory then, female chimps are promiscuous. Female promiscuity is advantageous to chimpanzees, therefore as our closest relatives, we are likely to be promiscuous too. Or does it not work like that?


Your original theory was that a woman's promiscuity increases social cohesion, and that's the point I was disputing. Perhaps a woman's promiscuity increases her personal chances of getting pregnant but there are obviously more to it than that, such as offspring being healthy and chances of the mother and offspring surviving during the rearing ordeal.

I do not have the answer to what kind of a sexual attitude is the most beneficial for humanity, I'm just taking an issue with your theory, which to me seem to be based on some shaky assumptions.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

yentipeee said:


> Welcome to the forum
> 
> It may not be simple mathematical odds. Have you seen nature shows where the territorial male lion sniffs the air to sense if one of his females is in heat? More interesting would be to know if females synchronize their fertility cycle (or not) as a strategy for competing for reproductive pecking order. From my experience, if I'm living with a woman I can sense her fertility cycle, and I can _smell_ an aroused woman in the room even if she just showered.


Humans don't go into "heat" like cats, so I don't know what you're smelling.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I dunno if people are on a conversion mission, but I care if others are not interested because I can't find people who want to participate in my life in that way. And it's not because of practical matters and critical thinking, but because "society says so".
> Majority of relationships fail, no matter their nature. If you've had a relationship with 5 people in your life and broke up, then you had 5 relationships fail. Only few survive really. Because it takes work that people don't want to do or because simply it doesn't work.
> Love is not a societal construct, of course not.


People are giving this critical thought. Then you continue to argue with them, often times without the same critical thinking. Or the premise of your arguments are also constructs that don't have to exist (like the concept of a significant other at all). Or they're history lessons as to why our programming came into existence. Okay. Maybe these are factors - but I think natural human emotion is more primordial than any of this, so I kinda only partially see the relevance. 

I don't see a relationship ending as meaning it was a failure. We all eventually die, nothing lasts forever. I see it more as - what was the quality of it while it existed?

I'd rather have a series of intense relationships than long term shallow ones. Especially of a sexual nature.

I've said this before too in regards to polyamory - at it's core, sex is about RELEASE. If you're constantly eating your emotions or clinging to not just one, but several relationships you're ready on some level to move on from... dude, that's emotional constipation and blue balls imo. No thanks.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> People are giving this critical thought. Then you continue to argue with them, often times without the same critical thinking. Or the premise of your arguments are also constructs that don't have to exist (like the concept of a significant other at all). Or they're history lessons as to why our programming came into existence. Okay. Maybe these are factors - but I think natural human emotion is more primordial than any of this, so I kinda only partially see the relevance.


Huh?? You can't possibly know the people I've talked to or liked and how they react to that... I think you've misunderstood me...
"Constructs that don't have to exist" the concept of a significant other is something you've put forth since you want monogamy, so why say that? Human emotion being primordial and history lessons of how it came to be are related don't you think?



> I don't see a relationship ending as meaning it was a failure. We all eventually die, nothing lasts forever. I see it more as - what was the quality of it while it existed?


I don't think failure means that either, but you were the one who mentioned monogamous relationships succeeding, so what was the basis of that success if not that they last? Unless I misunderstood what you meant by that.



> I'd rather have a series of intense relationships than long term shallow ones. Especially of a sexual nature.


Well I agree with that. I don't care for shallow sexual encounters.



> I've said this before too in regards to polyamory - at it's core, sex is about RELEASE. If you're constantly eating your emotions or clinging to not just one, but several relationships you're ready on some level to move on from... dude, that's emotional constipation and blue balls imo. No thanks.


Why does it have to be about clinging on several relationships you are about to move on from? For me, it's about experiencing deep connection with people, akin to friendship but with the added intimacy of sex.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I dunno if people are on a conversion mission, but I care if others are not interested because I can't find people who want to participate in my life in that way. And it's not because of practical matters and critical thinking, but because "society says so".


I can also say, if you mean you have a hard time recruiting people... getting involved with a couple (or more) decreases the chances that you'll be attracted to or even like everyone involved, or like them equally, and so this creates it's own hesitancy too.



Veggie said:


> Or the premise of your arguments are also constructs that don't have to exist (like the concept of a significant other at all).


...and I realize I said that I don't think this is just a societal construct, but perhaps more primordial... and I'm not sure if you can just claim that certain things don't have to exist within that. So I'll say instead.

Hmm. Okay.

I'll kinda just go on a tangent, actually. If there's no critical thought or anything objective (like I said before on another thread - a shared home between two people, a ring, a contract, etc) in place in regards to what makes two people more significant to each other than anyone else... and a relationship ending or not determines it's success. What if your significant other honestly shifts with the day? Maybe you come back to them, but you broke up with them as significant before, and you do it repeatedly. You're doing it with many people who rotate as significant. Is that not a failure(s) by that logic?


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> What do you mean by work on it?
> 
> Do you mean the difference between a man who is in a sexualised state which a woman absorbs as opposed to a man who uses say words and imagery to get a woman into a sexual state (Get talking about relationships, then about sex, then get her describing her best orgasm and how it feels and how it would feel if it was twice as powerful, etc, basic seduction stuff really)?


Here's a simple scenario, that actually happened in real life.

A woman had a "beta orbiter" who wanted her for a better part of a decade. She stayed friends with him but wouldn't hook up with him. One day the woman had a fling with another guy, got pregnant and then they broke up. The woman didn't want to to get an abortion but was genuinely upset about her situation. The "beta orbiter" was there to support her emotionally during the ordeal, and then confessed his love for her. She relented and finally accepted his marriage proposal. A few years after the marriage, her second child was her husband's.



Cast said:


> [MENTION=372017]
> Yup, because a pregnant woman with a bunch of kids is totally capable of supporting herself and her offspring in a hostile environment without her mate's help.
> And the "beta" chump is totally going to spend decades of resources to support another man's children, _hoping one day he might get to reproduce too_, instead of simply choosing a woman who didn't bear children to another man.


Sarcasm is not an argument. 
Also, see my reply above to Reality Check.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> I can also say, if you mean you have a hard time recruiting people... getting involved with a couple (or more) decreases the chances that you'll be attracted to or even like everyone involved, or like them equally, and so this creates it's own hesitancy too.


I don't think I'd want to get involved with a couple or any other type of triangle as it complicates things. Maybe for sexual reasons only, but not for intimacy. 




> ...and I realize I said that I don't think this is just a societal construct, but perhaps more primordial... and I'm not sure if you can just claim that certain things don't have to exist within that. So I'll say instead.
> 
> Hmm. Okay.
> 
> I'll kinda just go on a tangent, actually. If there's no critical thought or anything objective (like I said before on another thread - a shared home between two people, a ring, a contract, etc) in place in regards to what makes two people more significant to each other than anyone else... and a relationship ending or not determines it's success. What if your significant other honestly shifts with the day? Maybe you come back to them, but you broke up with them as significant before, and you do it repeatedly. You're doing it with many people who rotate as significant. Is that not a failure(s) by that logic?


I think polyamory is not one thing, every person who is polyamorous does so for their own reasons, but it is usually distinct from "open relationships" and "casual sex" because it usually includes the goals of high intimacy and love, same as monogamy just non-monogamous. So, whether or not one SO exists, or multiple, or all of the people involved are of the same significance is dependent on each person.
I can't personally relate to that breaking up SO-status myself, because I'm not very flakey in my feelings towards others this way and this hasn't happened to me. I'd say it's a matter of maturity and honesty within oneself in how to handle such feelings and understand what they mean.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I don't think there necessarily is a difference. You have nothing better to do, so you go home.
> 
> I think they can work without exclusivity, I just also think there's much more risk that they end or don't go as deep or aren't really practically present without it too. That they aren't something you can really depend on, unless one person's more or less the cuck (or there's something binding in place, like marriage, which is still a form of exclusivity in it's own right). That's considering that there's an "SO" at all, too, and that the arrangement isn't purely communal.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on the conversion mission thing, but as I have already stated, so I am posting some pointers if the OP is genuinely interested In the Lifestyle (limited, but this is just general knowledge not something I have looked into):

The world Polyamory association World Polyamory Association - About

Books

The Ethical Slut https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethical-Slut-Second-Relationships-Adventures-ebook/dp/B004JHYRAE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492193172&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Ethical+Slut

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Opening-Up-Creating-Sustaining-Relationships-ebook/dp/B01HU6W324/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1492193212&sr=1-1&keywords=Opening+Up

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships-ebook/dp/B007679QTG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1492193237&sr=1-1&keywords=Sex+At+Dawn

Also look up Shama Helena: She has a self published book on Polyamory and also coaches new comers to the world of Polyamory (however she wont sleep with anyone who isn't into Trantric Sex).

Of course I'm sure as the OP is such an expert she already knows all the info the above provides and is part of the polyamorus community. Seriously I don't get why there is this conversion mission needed, there is a whole living breathing community of Polyamory. Instead of convincing others, surely it would be better to get involved. I'm not into it myself, but I'm all for others achieving what it is they want and I have no problems helping where and when I can. Who knows maybe one day I WILL be interested. 


Again, I'm no expert, I just picked up Neil Strauss's "The Truth" and turned to page 156 which starts the section of the book on Polyamory and posted the supplied links.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Pretender said:


> Here's a simple scenario, that actually happened in real life.
> 
> A woman had a "beta orbiter" who wanted her for a better part of a decade. She stayed friends with him but wouldn't hook up with him. One day the woman had a fling with another guy, got pregnant and then they broke up. The woman didn't want to to get an abortion but was genuinely upset about her situation. The "beta orbiter" was there to support her emotionally during the ordeal, and then confessed his love for her. She relented and finally accepted his marriage proposal. A few years after the marriage, her second child was her husband's.
> 
> ...


Anectodes are not an argument.
Scientific evidence is. What about the scientific evidence I summed up in my post? There are 40 pages of argument ready for you in the papers I linked, if you'd like to discuss it.

P.S. sarcasm is _100%_ an argument, especially when you can't prove that a single pregnant woman with kids doesn't need her mate's help to survive in an hostile environment. And when you can't prove that the ""beta chump""'s strategy is widespread and was selected for evolutionary advantages.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Pretender said:


> Here's a simple scenario, that actually happened in real life.
> 
> A woman had a "beta orbiter" who wanted her for a better part of a decade. She stayed friends with him but wouldn't hook up with him. One day the woman had a fling with another guy, got pregnant and then they broke up. The woman didn't want to to get an abortion but was genuinely upset about her situation. The "beta orbiter" was there to support her emotionally during the ordeal, and then confessed his love for her. She relented and finally accepted his marriage proposal. A few years after the marriage, her second child was her husband's.


Ive seen it happen myself. Also guys rejected by girls, then she gets pregnant by some dude who never intended on sticking around, and she goes to the guy she rejected now she is pregnant. But carries on sleeping with guys behind his back but constantly asks him to prove how much he loves her.

Also guys I have known who have gone for instant families, well tbh they did not have any options before and seem interested mainly because it means they can settle.

I'm not speaking for every guy out there, but just saying what I have seen happen with my own eyes.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> I dunno if people are on a conversion mission, but I care if others are not interested because I can't find people who want to participate in my life in that way. And it's not because of practical matters and critical thinking, but because "society says so".
> Majority of relationships fail, no matter their nature. If you've had a relationship with 5 people in your life and broke up, then you had 5 relationships fail. Only few survive really. Because it takes work that people don't want to do or because simply it doesn't work.
> Love is not a societal construct, of course not.


Hi I have unblocked you, please see links I have posted above Polyamory is accepted so not sure why you keep using society as an excuse not to get involved. Follow the links, read the books, hook up with someone experienced and have fun. F**k the nay sayers (not literally), seriously, if its what you truly want go for it, f**k everyone else. But don't expect everyone to be praising you for it either.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> Hi I have unblocked you, please see links I have posted above Polyamory is accepted so not sure why you keep using society as an excuse not to get involved. Follow the links, read the books, hook up with someone experienced and have fun. F**k the nay sayers (not literally), seriously, if its what you truly want go for it, f**k everyone else. But don't expect everyone to be praising you for it either.


Wow thanks:tongue:
polyamory is not accepted in my country and it's next to impossible to meet like-minded people
I am not using society as an excuse to something, I just mentioned experiences I had with people.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Wow thanks:tongue:
> polyamory is not accepted in my country and it's next to impossible to meet like-minded people
> I am not using society as an excuse to something, I just mentioned experiences I had with people.


Ok no problems. I just hear people saying stuff about Societies views a lot, and I'm always like "Who Cares". That's why I jumped to that conclusion.

Anyway hope the links help if you are further interested or go visit a country with different views.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> How the hell do we cure insecurity and jealousy?
> 
> Serious question. its part of human nature, especially in this day and age of having everything handed to us on a plate, and instant gratification.


We don't cure jealousy. We deal with it, or not. Haven't you ever felt jealous and realised that your jealousy was irrational and unjust?


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Cast said:


> Anectodes are not an argument.
> Scientific evidence is. What about the scientific evidence I summed up in my post? There are 40 pages of argument ready for you in the papers I linked, if you'd like to discuss it.
> 
> P.S. sarcasm is _100%_ an argument, especially when you can't prove that a single pregnant woman with kids doesn't need her mate's help to survive in an hostile environment. And when you can't prove that the ""beta chump""'s strategy is widespread and was selected for evolutionary advantages.


Nobody is going to read that wall of text. I doubt you read those 40 pages yourself. If you can't​ summarize it in your post, then there is no point for you to even bring it up, because then it just becomes a battle of links that nobody clicks.

If you don't see the evolutionary advantage of breeding with the best available stock (even if it takes years of effort) then I don't know what tell you.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> We don't cure jealousy. We deal with it, or not. Haven't you ever felt jealous and realised that your jealousy was irrational and unjust?


Yeah, I started meditating, then I spoke to some Tony Robbins wannabe, then I started practicing gratitude on a regular basis. 

The jelousy stopped or at least I havnt felt any for quite a long time. 

Its not a good thing so I dealt with it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> Ok no problems. I just hear people saying stuff about Societies views a lot, and I'm always like "Who Cares". That's why I jumped to that conclusion.
> 
> Anyway hope the links help if you are further interested or go visit a country with different views.


Society matters when discussing it on the level of ideas, which in practice does affect individuals and our experiences in life can be related to that. But it was more a discussion on ideas.

That's an option, I guess.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Pretender said:


> Nobody is going to read that wall of text. I doubt you read those 40 pages yourself. If you can't​ summarize it in your post, then there is no point for you to even bring it up, because then it just becomes a battle of links that nobody clicks.
> 
> If you don't see the evolutionary advantage of breeding with the best available stock (even if it takes years of effort) then I don't know what tell you.


Er, yes I did read those two papers, because when I talk about something I like to get _actual information_ instead of groundless speculations. That's how I could summarize them for anyone not willing to read the entire papers. You see, I wrote all the essential information in my post, and that's why I brought it up.
I already addressed the matter of monogamous sex and promiscuity as evolutionary strategies. Do you have any relevant argument against the information I provided from scientific papers? If your only criticism is that my argument was *too long*, well, sorry but I debate _science_ with reasoning and facts, instead of writing two-sentences posts full of nonsense. My fault.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Women in most of Ancient Greece were considered worse than slaves, so I don't think they could be less oppressed than men. It just so happened that there was an oppressive side for men too. Spartan women were slightly better off, since they were at least deemed worthy as mothers to men and were at least allowed some wealth. Monogamy since it was popularized was about practical matters more than emotional and romantic, so it makes sense that both genders were somehow oppressed in it. This still continues somewhat today, just under a different mantle since it's been given a romantic dimension as well.


How were they worse than slaves? I just find it really hard to believe that society really was able to keep women tucked away like that. I can understand the law ruling one thing or women not getting the education and not participating in politics, but it's hard to imagine how it could've worked across the society and within families in reality. Even like the dowry system, my understanding is it was a lot of money to be given away with someone who is worse than a slave, so why would the poorer Greek in particular have raised any females at all to be married off in their teens, if girls and women had no human value? (The richer I understand, they probably had political and business deals that needed family ties etc.)


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Cast said:


> I think you might have to re-think your theory. Behaviours are selected based on their fitness, and sexual behaviours are subjected to an especially heavy selective pressure. If a sexual behaviour was selected and preserved for thousands of generations, it *must* give a reproductive advantage.


The reason I believe men invest in offspring that aren't their own is because I've observed it frequently. It isn't even 'beta chumps' either. They do it easily, short term, long term, all kinds of scenarios. Again, social influences. There's no stigma in the community I live in about raising other mens kids, so doing so isn't a big deal. I've even known guys invest in step children, yet have no relationship with their own. I can't explain why, they just do. 
From an evolutionary standpoint, I expect caring for other mens offspring gave men reproductive opportunities, too. Maybe a female who could obtain resources from several men put her offspring at an advantage, which would also include the offspring of each man who provided resources in exchange for sex.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Kyn said:


> My position wasn't arguing that women should be promiscuous. It was to argue that monogamous women and promiscuous men isn't a result of biological evolution, only a result of bias social and cultural interferences. I think both monogamy and polyamory are options which have their own advantages and disadvantages. The dynamics of each relationship should be decided by the individuals involved, who are fully informed of what each system involves, not dictated by society. Especially when the majority of society has little understanding of how and why monogamy came to be the norm. Monogamy should be chosen because it's the best decision for the couple, not because of insecurity and jealousy. Unfortunately, that's the idealist in me talking, in reality there will always be people who can't deal with their emotions and also people willing to screw their partners over by saying one thing and doing another.


Well the title of the thread gave off that impression.

Why do you completely throw out the biology argument? Can we not accept that there are evolutionary factors driving human behavior while at the same time recognizing the societal/cultural effects history has had?

I disagree. Monogamy should be the primary choice for humans. Imagine if half of the world chose polygamy. How would the nuclear family work? How would society work if everyone is being shared? Are humans not selfish and have selfish desires? Wouldn't mass scale polygamy deconstruct the nuclear family and hence create an unstable future generation.



Reality Check said:


> That's where I disagree with you, it should be down to personal choice. If people want Monogamy find like minded people and polygamy like wise. Or at least just make it clear what you are after. Want a relationship, say so, want a ONS, say so, and then stick with that instead of changing mind. All in all it would be easier if people were honest up front. Both men and women. men who say they want relationships who just want sex (say so up front), women who want relationships who say they just want fun or something casual (say so up front).


I agree that everyone should be honest and straightforward about these matters but on a large scale, I just can't imagine polygamy working out in terms of raising families. Evolution has shaped us to care for children and we aren't going to take care of other people's kids as well as our own.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I don't think I'd want to get involved with a couple or any other type of triangle as it complicates things. Maybe for sexual reasons only, but not for intimacy.


That's how I feel about polyamorous arrangements period. How do I know the other two aren't the couple? Where do I stand in the triangle? If there's nothing specifically and objectively binding me to anyone other than subjective (one sided?) feelings?



Red Panda said:


> I think polyamory is not one thing, every person who is polyamorous does so for their own reasons, but it is usually distinct from "open relationships" and "casual sex" because it usually includes the goals of high intimacy and love, same as monogamy just non-monogamous. So, whether or not one SO exists, or multiple, or all of the people involved are of the same significance is dependent on each person.
> I can't personally relate to that breaking up SO-status myself, because I'm not very flakey in my feelings towards others this way and this hasn't happened to me. I'd say it's a matter of maturity and honesty within oneself in how to handle such feelings and understand what they mean.


What does changing feelings have to do with flakiness? If you're creating multiple bonds, you'll fall in and out of feelings as you make your rounds among them - unless you aren't actually intimate and truly giving them your attention at all. And that's considering, like I said before, that bonds exist frozen in time with the same chemistry. If I haven't been making memories or actively bonding with someone over someone else, when I revist them, our feelings may just very naturally be different towards one another without a certain consistency in energetic building-upkeep. 

The changing feelings part, if there is a "high" level of intimacy, especially - I see as inevitable.

Whether you choose to prioritize one person over another as home is more an honor thing then. And why? Are they doing the same for you? Does your "significant" other see someone else as significant? Are you sure? What if no one in the arrangement sees you as significant? What if your everyone's number two? Is that worth committing yourself to? Rather than just leaving and being your own number one?

What if your significant other and you are never home at the same time? Are you practically significant?

I'd much, much prefer casual sex or an open relationship.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Poizon said:


> I agree that everyone should be honest and straightforward about these matters but on a large scale, I just can't imagine polygamy working out in terms of raising families. Evolution has shaped us to care for children and we aren't going to take care of other people's kids as well as our own.


I don't think monogamy is going away any time soon. Like I have even posted links to, there is a community for polygamous people, it has had no impact on the world as such. Those who may sit on the fence and go more towards polygamy, are probably not going to be monogamous regardless, so probably better they have a community to support them whom they can goto where they support each other.

Its only when people need to start playing frame battles to win the other person over its an issue. 

Also people need to start (again in my eyes, this is not a fact or statement of how people should live) seeing what value the people they surround themselves with offer. And instead of latching onto people due to insecurities, actually seek out those with similar views on life. If people are constantly arguing with people they class as "friends" due to difference of lifestyle choices, then what value are they giving each other, other than a world of negativity and frustration?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Aeon said:


> How were they worse than slaves? I just find it really hard to believe that society really was able to keep women tucked away like that. I can understand the law ruling one thing or women not getting the education and not participating in politics, but it's hard to imagine how it could've worked across the society and within families in reality. Even like the dowry system, my understanding is it was a lot of money to be given away with someone who is worse than a slave, so why would the poorer Greek in particular have raised any females at all to be married off in their teens, if girls and women had no human value? (The richer I understand, they probably had political and business deals that needed family ties etc.)


It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that they were worse than slaves, but that's how it's described, mainly because slaves could gain citizenship while women could not. As for their general status in society you can read stuff online, I won't tell you something that doesn't exist there. They were only a little better off than slaves, really and their only worth was raising children. If you happen to find sources that describe more worth to women please share tho.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Cast said:


> Er, yes I did read those two papers, because when I talk about something I like to get _actual information_ instead of groundless speculations. That's how I could summarize them for anyone not willing to read the entire papers. You see, I wrote all the essential information in my post, and that's why I brought it up.
> I already addressed the matter of monogamous sex and promiscuity as evolutionary strategies. Do you have any relevant argument against the information I provided from scientific papers? If your only criticism is that my argument was *too long*, well, sorry but I debate _science_ with reasoning and facts, instead of writing two-sentences posts full of nonsense. My fault.


You seem to be much more versed in sarcasm than in science, so why don't you get your PhD in that?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> ]There's no stigma in the community I live in about raising other mens kids, so doing so isn't a big deal. I've even known guys invest in step children, yet have no relationship with their own.


You can have reasons for not wanting to do it that have nothing to do with stigmatization. 

Are you a social instinct type by any chance? Your posts kind of read that way. Just curious I guess.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> We don't cure jealousy. We deal with it, or not. Haven't you ever felt jealous and realised that your jealousy was irrational and unjust?


I've realized that it was rational more often than not.

I wrote a bit about how the action oriented emotions that alert us to pain can be beneficial.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Pretender said:


> You seem to be much more versed in sarcasm than in science, so why don't you get your PhD in that?


Hey look, an argument against the evidence I summed up in my post!
...oh, no.

Please inform me when you have an answer to my post. Take all the time you need to read it, I'll wait.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> That's how I feel about polyamorous arrangements period. How do I know the other two aren't the couple? Where do I stand in the triangle? If there's nothing specifically and objectively binding me to anyone other than subjective (one sided?) feelings?


You are looking at it the wrong way, you shouldn't be worrying about the others. If everyone is accepting and there by choice, none of that will matter. They should just be happy seeing their primary partner happy.

Also just because you are not a primary partner with someone does not mean they will not have any feelings at all for a tertiary partner.

Also I think you are thinking more of the swinger lifestyle which is a "Lets Fuck" as opposed to Poly which is "I want to get to know you".

I think the Primary, secondary and tertiary partners stay together and create love triads/triangles. So as opposed to sleeping with just one person at a time (swinging) its possibly more like orgies.

Of course there are some Poly groups that just meet up and get naked after worshipping the Goddess (Female Group Leader) then just f**k each other.

I don't think its as black and white as Poly and Monogamy which this thread seems to suggest, but poly has a lot of sub groups and communities under the poly umbrella. Again, its a lifestyle I presume, not just sex.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Cast said:


> Hey look, an argument against the evidence I summed up in my post!
> ...oh, no.


There you go again with that sarcasm dissertation! Keep up the good work, the tenure is just a few dozen snarks away.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I've realized that it was rational more often than not.
> 
> I wrote a bit about how the action oriented emotions that alert us to pain can be beneficial.


A lot of emotions can come from bad subconscious beliefs. However beliefs can be changed. But there generally has to be some sort of goal, otherwise what do you want your emotional system to help you achieve?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I don't think there necessarily is a difference. You have nothing better to do, so you go home.
> 
> I think they can work without exclusivity, I just also think there's much more risk that they end or don't go as deep or aren't really practically present without it too. That they aren't something you can really depend on, unless one person's more or less the cuck (or there's something binding in place, like marriage, which is still a form of exclusivity in it's own right). That's considering that there's an "SO" at all, too, and that the arrangement isn't purely communal.
> 
> I also don't understand why the polyamorous almost seem to have this conversion mission. If there's a confidence in the lifestyle, who cares if others aren't interested?


I definitely wasn't trying to convert anyone into anything. I asked Reality Check why he automatically assumed that not being exclusive = 'substitute', because it doesn't apply to other relationships. I expect for the same reason that you would explain if someone said women have casual sex because of low self esteem. You would likely see that as incorrect and state your opinion on it. Doesn't mean that you're trying convert women into practicing casual sex. You're just trying to explain it as you see it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> A lot of emotions can come from bad subconscious beliefs. However beliefs can be changed. But there generally has to be some sort of goal, otherwise what do you want your emotional system to help you achieve?


Sometimes. Sometimes not. And in those instances - is it better to program your subconscious with delusion?

Like, okay. That video you posted that I commented on. Where the guy can make his jealousy all better by believing that women are these sweet, loving creatures who don't compare you to others. Lol. Ehhhhhh.

I honestly wouldn't even respond to him if he were to hit me up on a dating site or something - and I'm getting white hairs, wrinkles, etc. He's not ugly, but not in the league of guys I've hooked up. I'm pretty stubborn and strong willed though, apparently... and I'd never let a dude be a cuck. I wouldn't do it to them or myself. But his choosing to believe that women wouldn't make him that, or that he has complete power over that with his mindset is. Again. Ehhhh. (What are those memes? The "don't worry about him" or something memes, when the dude obviously should be if he wants to protect himself against potentially being blindsided? Or delusional? lol. Do you know what I'm talking about?)

I want my emotional system to alert me to truth as often as it can. I realize that this will always likely be marred by projections and personal subjectivity-circumstance to some extent, but I'd like to limit that as much as possible.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> You don't think means that men were more oppressed than women by their culture? And if the culture is about war, and if the threat of invasion is real and more or less constant, then having the men form a strong army to defend the city is incredibly important for women too.
> 
> Another side of war is that often it gives women the opportunity to be productive citizens too. Productive women get freedoms and respect, because else they couldn't be trusted with the responsibility of taking care of business while men are gone. Spartan women and Viking women for example.


I didn't say monogamy had no benefits. I said the reason behind enforced monogamy was money and power, not love and empathy. It wasn't because monogamy = true love.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> That's how I feel about polyamorous arrangements period. How do I know the other two aren't the couple? Where do I stand in the triangle? If there's nothing specifically and objectively binding me to anyone other than subjective (one sided?) feelings?


But polyamory in general isn't about triangles. You can have more than one relationship and your partners don't have a relationship with each other except maybe having dinner now and then or something. It depends on each person and their arrangements.



> What does changing feelings have to do with flakiness? If you're creating multiple bonds, you'll fall in and out of feelings as you make your rounds among them - unless you aren't actually intimate and truly giving them your attention at all. And that's considering, like I said before, that bonds exist frozen in time with the same chemistry. If I haven't been making memories or actively bonding with someone over someone else, when I revist them, our feelings may just very naturally be different towards one another without a certain consistency in energetic building-upkeep.
> 
> The changing feelings part, if there is a "high" level of intimacy, especially - I see as inevitable.


The way you described, it falling in and out constantly I see it as flakiness in a way. Bonds are created over time and sure relationships can change but it just hasn't happened to me in that way. If you start two relationships at the same time I can see that happening, but for me feelings of that nature are usually stable, or perhaps not as volatile. 



> Whether you choose to prioritize one person over another as home is more an honor thing then. And why? Are they doing the same for you? Does your "significant" other see someone else as significant? Are you sure? What if no one in the arrangement sees you as significant? What if your everyone's number two? Is that worth committing yourself to? Rather than just leaving and being your own number one?
> 
> What if your significant other and you are never home at the same time? Are you practically significant?


Such things are built and discussed within the relationship(s). Communication is super important and knowing where you stand with the other people. That's true for monogamous relationships as well anyway, at least if they are to work. 

SO is not just some label you slap on someone arbitrarily, and heck they may even be multiple SOs depending on the people involved or none at all. Any kind of relationship where the people don't interact much anymore should be reevaluated and people should communicate with each other about what's happening.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> I definitely wasn't trying to convert anyone into anything. I asked Reality Check why he automatically assumed that not being exclusive = 'substitute', because it doesn't apply to other relationships. I expect for the same reason that you would explain if someone said women have casual sex because of low self esteem. You would likely see that as incorrect and state your opinion on it. Doesn't mean that you're trying convert women into practicing casual sex. You're just trying to explain it as you see it.


I mean, it could be correct. All I can do in that instance though is share my specific personal experience for others to consider or not. And try to explain it in further detail.

This is all a bit more complicated, because it's encompasses more than just one person and a fixed emotional state (low self esteem).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Sometimes. Sometimes not. And in those instances - is it better to program your subconscious with delusion?
> 
> Like, okay. That video you posted that I commented on. Where the guy can make his jealousy all better by believing that women are these sweet, loving creatures who don't compare you to others. Lol. Ehhhhhh.
> 
> ...


OK I'm talking more about beliefs we have no reference to. Ive done a lot of belief work on myself and with the assistance of Tony Robbins fanatics. But its more to do with beliefs I used to have about receding hair, the fact I'm not rich, and various other things. I used to believe women would dismiss me, just because there were guys with more money than me out there. I then made a list of these ridiculous beliefs and hammered them one by one doing a simple belief change exercise.

As for the guy in the video, I'm not actually a particular fan of RSD, but some of the video's do motivate me. But they stuff they teach is way tooo introverted for my liking. All that said, Owen Cook (aka RSD Tyler), well he has Aspergers. Whilst having Aspergers he has become a millionare, started a highly successful multi million dollar company (OK it may actually be a cult), he has a couple of kids, has a nice mansion, is surrounded by close friends and dates what I would class as attractive women. He also spends his life travelling the world shooting video's.

In my eyes that's a successful guy, and the Aspergers just makes it more incredible (to me).

As for delusions, well what is truth? 

Sorry for the guru worship there.

As far as truth goes:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> I agree with you on the conversion mission thing, but as I have already stated, so I am posting some pointers if the OP is genuinely interested In the Lifestyle (limited, but this is just general knowledge not something I have looked into):
> 
> The world Polyamory association World Polyamory Association - About
> 
> ...


I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I'm not interested in converting people, just expressing my opinion, as everyone else is.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> I don't think monogamy is going away any time soon. Like I have even posted links to, there is a community for polygamous people, it has had no impact on the world as such. Those who may sit on the fence and go more towards polygamy, are probably not going to be monogamous regardless, so probably better they have a community to support them whom they can goto where they support each other.
> 
> Its only when people need to start playing frame battles to win the other person over its an issue.
> 
> Also people need to start (again in my eyes, this is not a fact or statement of how people should live) seeing what value the people they surround themselves with offer. And instead of latching onto people due to insecurities, actually seek out those with similar views on life. If people are constantly arguing with people they class as "friends" due to difference of lifestyle choices, then what value are they giving each other, other than a world of negativity and frustration?


Agreed, however this isn't addressing my point. Lets take this one step at a time...

Polyamory is not good for raising families yes?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> I didn't say monogamy had no benefits. I said the reason behind enforced monogamy was money and power, not love and empathy. It wasn't because monogamy = true love.


I find the whole love thing a bit :dread::suspicion::disturbed::numbness:









(Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, oh-whoa, whoa, ohh, ooh)
(Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, oh-whoa, whoa, ohh, ooh)


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Let's start a thread with the name "Female Promiscuity is Advantageous for the Human Race" yet provide no evidence to how it's actually advantageous. Great idea.

We shouldn't promote polyamory like it's just another choice to be made. It's bad for the human race as a whole. The nuclear family has worked for generations and has produced all of the greatness that the human race has to offer. Why squander it by allowing such an ill-cultured idea such as polyamory to possibly take over as the main mating choice?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> OK I'm talking more about beliefs we have no reference to. Ive done a lot of belief work on myself and with the assistance of Tony Robbins fanatics.


I have too. I don't know who Tony Robbins is, but I went to like a three day belief work retreat once. lol.



Reality Check said:


> In my eyes that's a successful guy, and the Aspergers just makes it more incredible (to me).


Depends on what you define as success. What if he didn't have any genuine connections in that? Just people using or sucking up to him for his resources? 



Reality Check said:


> As for delusions, well what is truth?


I liked this part in... Shallow Hal. Lol. Jack Black. Where I think it was Jason Alexander who responded to that with - other people agreeing with you?

I think you have some influence over that, but you usually first have to really understand those other people and their perspective I think too in order to shift it. Or you have to have a very specific and fine tuned understanding of your own viewpoint. (Which other perspectives help with).

The people who just write others off or something almost always have the least understanding I think.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Some of your responses, regarding others as superior in regards to whatever they choose.


I don't like people acting like they're winning when they're not 

Devalues it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> This is what I get from @Veggie 's posts as well. Like she is taking it as a personal attack as if she feels inferior/perceived as inferior by others.


Nope. Just addressed it.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> No it wasn't. You said that history helps to shape the primordial. But if the primordial exists outside of history, it doesn't. Or it's at least highly debatable and philosophical and getting into notions about time that we don't have figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cant resist. 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Sorry but these are just symbols. Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
Well because school and society taught us that 4 follows 3 follows 2 follows 1.

What if schools and society had the sequence as 1,4,2,5,3,9,7,6,8 and we were taught that from school years and all the historical texts had that as the sequence.

What actually is 2, other than a symobol? Why does it have to follow 1.

Because that is what we are taught from Day 1 (OK maybe not the day we are born).

But I'm sure you get my gyst. What if "Stick" is 1 and "Stick, Stick" is called 3 instead of 2. Its just a symbol applied to X number of objects.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I don't like people acting like they're winning when they're not
> 
> Devalues it.


What does it matter? Seriously?

If I class myself as winning on this forum (I'm not) what effect will that have on your life, unless you make it matter?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> No it wasn't. You said that history helps to shape the primordial. But if the primordial exists outside of history, it doesn't. Or it's at least highly debatable and philosophical and getting into notions about time that we don't have figured out.


Um... I never said such a thing... I meant that history helps us understand the primordial, not shape it. Actually I didn't even say anything specific regarding that, you mentioned it on your own.



> To be completely honest, I have no emotional associations to it at all. I only think it's (and excuse me, I'm sorry, an opinion) idiotic to act like intimacy, let alone a higher one, lol, has anything to do with it (once that's dropped, it starts making more sense from a certain perspective). I get exasperated in the same way I would if someone were to insist that 2+2 = 5, without even being able to give a logical premise.
> 
> It's like - does 2+2 HAVE to equal 4? Or is this programming.
> 
> ...


I feel like you have completely misunderstood me so far. I don't know for example why you laugh at the concept of a higher intimacy, one that is formed by pair-bonding and exists in monogamous relationships as well... It's what differentiates casual sex and bonded sex, so I'm unsure why you find it ridiculous. The only difference in polyamorous relationships is that you are allowed to expand and allow yourself to feel such love for more than one person. Whether it works or not from a practical standpoint varies case by case. Clinging to relationships that don't work seems unhealthy regardless of whether monogamous or polyamorous and you specifically brought that example which I found weird.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> Well I do understand your view as your quite strong on it. But each to their own, its your reality you live in and not mine.


No, there is only one reality. Facts don't lie Reality Check. Smoking is harmful. We can only disagree on what someone should do about it.




Reality Check said:


> I would make sure they know the harmful effects. But if they are adults then I don't have command of how they live their life. I wouldn't cheer them on or anything though. People need to come to conclusions on their own. Id rather have a friend who smokes than lose a friend and they carry on smoking anyway.


This whole "Live and let live" belief is idiotic. You know what second hand smoke is right? How is it fair to others who don't smoke?

People need to be educated on the *truth*, not accepted for their stupidity because of their opinions.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Sorry but these are just symbols. Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
> Well because school and society taught us that 4 follows 3 follows 2 follows 1.


There's a diving board in the deep section and not the shallow section. "Society" put it in one place and not the other, because you will more likely break your neck in one area and not the other. Whether you exist within or separate from society or are versed in it's symbols or not.

...but this is kinda becoming a strawman. lol.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Nope. Just addressed it.


That's hard to believe since you were the one who first mentioned enlightment and superiority/inferiority and kept replying in a manner relating to this. Maybe you don't realise how it affects you, dunno _shrug_


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Poizon said:


> Agreed but the same should apply to future implementations. Some ideas should be heard but not without considering the effects the idea would have.
> 
> I already provided my evidence for the harmful effects of polygamy. What do you got other than an opinion?


Boobs


* *




oh and 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.livescience.com/27129-polyamory-good-relationships.html?espv=1

Flexible relationships, more communication, more introspection, more openness and honesty, no deceit, no cheating, more concern about sexual health, less domestic violence, less abusive behaviour, more experiences, more support, compersion.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Poizon said:


> No, there is only one reality. Facts don't lie Reality Check. Smoking is harmful. We can only disagree on what someone should do about it.
> .


I don't view the mono vs poly arguments as set facts, its not the same as smoking. A cigarette is an object that has effects on health. Poly vs Mono, well it comes down to the strengths and weaknesses of individual ppl. I do see your point. But in all honesty I could probably find a lot of "evidence" that makes mono relationships look bad. I could even point out that statistically men are more likely to cheat by nature, where as women only cheat if something is lacking. I could find "evidence" to prove the opposite. This is all dependent on relationships between humans. 

A person smoking a cigarette is nowhere near the same thing. It is a person performing an unhealthy action. Not a relationship between multiple human beings. I can point out successful monogamous relationships, I can point out and name people who have successful poly relationships that if they were in a mono relationship would probably cause more harm than good due to their nature.




> This whole "Live and let live" belief is idiotic. You know what second hand smoke is right? How is it fair to others who don't smoke?
> 
> People need to be educated on the *truth*, not accepted for their stupidity because of their opinions.


Your using a really bad metaphor here. Also I didn't say don't "educate" them, however we have to accept that people are responsible for their choices and actions. We are not supermen whose job it is to fix everyone. 

I do agree on second hand smoke being unhealthy though. But I'm not going to walk around "educating" every smoker I see.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> Um... I never said such a thing... I meant that history helps us understand the primordial, not shape it.


But that's not what's happening on this thread. It's being declared that the primordial is purely a social construct (and here's why cus history) when it's not.



Red Panda said:


> The only difference in polyamorous relationships is that you are allowed to expand and allow yourself to feel such love for more than one person. Whether it works or not from a practical standpoint varies case by case.


I have tried to practically spell out why and how I don't understand how this works, and what "bonds" and "love" even mean.

I have received no clarification except from my own, which only further makes me disagree that there is a "higher" intimacy in polyamory (practically, I don't think I can be convinced of this period), or maybe even an intimacy at all. The only way I can make sense of that intimacy, is if there is no "significant" other within that and it's highly transient, unless there is a sort of exclusivity that's objective to both parties and others when it comes to it's existence. Though without something like that, it's also possible that a transient intimacy is one sided and delusional.

I have love for many people, so I might be coming at this from another viewpoint than you (I get the feeling that many polyamorous individuals have not had as many intimate connections as I've had). Since I have so much love, what do I prioritize? I don't want to lose what I love if I'm not strategic about it.

And if monogamy sucks because it's ridden with expectations and obligation, I certainly don't want to riddle myself with even more of that without breaking it down.

...I gotta shower.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> There's a diving board in the deep section and not the shallow section. "Society" put it in one place and not the other, because you will more likely break your neck in one area and not the other. Whether you exist within or separate from society or are versed in it's symbols or not.
> 
> ...but this is kinda becoming a strawman. lol.


Again why does have to mean - lots of water
and shallow mean not a lot of water.

There has to be a label regardless (health and safety and all that), but whatever society teaches us to be the symbols we just accept. 

Anyway enough of this like you said. Its way off topic.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Boobs


Pics or your lying.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Pics or your lying.


I'm sitting and yep, definitely got boobs. Does that mean my argument is valid? :happy:


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Boobs
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


An_estimated_ *5%* of the *American* population practice polyamory. Are we really going to base what we should accept based on such a small minority? My studies focus on Islamic and Mormon communities and as we know there's a lot more Muslims and Mormons than 15 million Americans (5% of 300 million).

5% vs. 95% (Assuming the rest of America is monogamous). Hmmmm. You do realize that will a larger sample size, there's more likely to be variety within a population as opposed to a small one right?


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> I don't view the mono vs poly arguments as set facts, its not the same as smoking. A cigarette is an object that has effects on health. Poly vs Mono, well it comes down to the strengths and weaknesses of individual ppl. I do see your point. But in all honesty I could probably find a lot of "evidence" that makes mono relationships look bad. I could even point out that statistically men are more likely to cheat by nature, where as women only cheat if something is lacking. I could find "evidence" to prove the opposite. This is all dependent on relationships between humans.
> 
> A person smoking a cigarette is nowhere near the same thing. It is a person performing an unhealthy action. Not a relationship between multiple human beings. I can point out successful monogamous relationships, I can point out and name people who have successful poly relationships that if they were in a mono relationship would probably cause more harm than good due to their nature.
> 
> ...


True, it's dependent on the relationships of humans but I don't believe that polyamory is good for creating a stable family environment which is supported by evidence and facts. You can't deny that.

I equate polyamory to smoking because polyamory harms other people, just like my evidence states.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Poizon said:


> True, it's dependent on the relationships of humans but I don't believe that polyamory is good for creating a stable family environment which is supported by evidence and facts. You can't deny that.
> 
> I equate polyamory to smoking because polyamory harms other people, just like my evidence states.


OK the reason I'm actually not agreeing with you here, is the fact that a lot of mono relationships fail, thus resulting in unstable family environments. 

I still believe its down to the people not the mono vs poly. If you get a set of very emotionally strong people with no real vices, I reckon they could create a good environment in whatever scenario. 

The human element plays too bigger a role in my eye to make a judgement,

That said, that goes for both poly and mono.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Poizon said:


> An_estimated_ *5%* of the *American* population practice polyamory. Are we really going to base what we should accept based on such a small minority? My studies focus on Islamic and Mormon communities and as we know there's a lot more Muslims and Mormons than 15 million Americans (5% of 300 million).
> 
> 5% vs. 95% (Assuming the rest of America is monogamous). Hmmmm. You do realize that will a larger sample size, there's more likely to be variety within a population as opposed to a small one right?


Ok, give it 10 more years and then start looking into it. 

Intelligent, emotionally balanced people who value honesty, openness and communication in relationships. I think it's worth approaching with an open mind.

Oh, but that's just me.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Reality Check said:


> OK the reason I'm actually not agreeing with you here, is the fact that a lot of mono relationships fail, thus resulting in unstable family environments.
> 
> I still believe its down to the people not the mono vs poly. If you get a set of very emotionally strong people with no real vices, I reckon they could create a good environment in whatever scenario.
> 
> ...


At least if a mono relationship has problems it only has two people involved. Imagine the **** that would go down if someone violated terms under polyamory?



Kyn said:


> Ok, give it 10 more years and then start looking into it.
> 
> Intelligent, emotionally balanced people who value honesty, openness and communication in relationships. I think it's worth approaching with an open mind.
> 
> Oh, but that's just me.


We don't have to give it 10 more years. Look at the evidence I provided. There's been analysis on Islamic and Mormon communities and the negative impacts they have.

Are you really going to assume that all poly people are _"Intelligent, emotionally balanced people who value honesty, openness and communication in relationships"_? Proof?

Unlike you, I'm not willing to give it more time to screw things up here in a mass scale.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Poizon said:


> At least if a mono relationship has problems it only has two people involved. Imagine the **** that would go down if someone violated terms under polyamory?
> .


Wrong....

Your not including children or the 3rd parties if cheating is involved.




> We don't have to give it 10 more years. Look at the evidence I provided. There's been analysis on Islamic and Mormon communities and the negative impacts they have.
> 
> Are you really going to assume that all poly people are *"Intelligent, emotionally balanced people who value honesty, openness and communication in relationships"?* Proof?
> 
> Unlike you, I'm not willing to give it more time to screw things up here in a mass scale.


 @Kyn makes a good point regarding intelligent, emotionally balanced people etc....

Technically they probably will be the only people in Poly relationships, without having those attributes nailed, people are not gonna cut it.

Lets look at mono relationships, the guys who get jeclous if SO talks to another bloke, the woman who gets mad if guy glances at someone else (personally I cant help but notice everyone around me, I'm very extroverted or am unusually visual).

Those types of people are not going to last long in a poly relationship. That's gonna be messy when these people try it, then experience jelousy and/or anger. Not to mention results of seeing partner possibly getting more pleasure from someone else.

They wont stay poly for long.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I think we're agreeing here then. If my emotions towards someone are kept at a simmer, I won't be capable of producing the deeper ones (beyond the basic kind of affection I can feel for anyone, especially over time - but specific to a romantic partner), and they won't be worth committing to in some way above anyone else.


I think this does have a horrible side effect though. If I had never experienced what I experienced in that relationship, I would of been happy for less. But now I have experienced what I have experienced, there is no going back.

I guess this is what people mean when they say love is a drug. Or that seduction itself is highly seductive.

In some ways I would rather be a stereotypical guy and just want beauty alone and be happy with that. But then on the other hand, that isn't fulfilling, there s more than just that. Its like I have had some weird awakening. 

I really do envy the "shallow" guys at times. Things seem so simpler. I was once like that as well, what is wrong with me?


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Cast said:


> Uhm... I was born and raised in Italy, but if you take some random Italian who never studied Ancient Rome culture in depth, sadly he won't know anything about it. Glad to hear Greeks get a better education on their ancient past. I didn't intend to give a history lesson, sorry if it sounded like that. You said women had power and status, and I explained why I don't think they had any. It took some extended reasoning, since we're talking about a complex culture. I probably explained more than it was necessary, but I was trying to make it understandable for everyone, not only those with a classical background - sorry if I sounded condescending, I'm just really passionate about it.
> But ultimately no, I don't think women were quite happy to be a man's _property_ for their whole life. They weren't treated like _full human beings_ like men - the fact that their men developed beautiful arts, culture and knowledge won't make up for that. You say that nowadays there are still few women leaders and intellectuals - yes, but the difference is that now it is not _illegal_ for a woman to be a leader or an intellectual.




No offense taken. I've lived in Italy for 4 1/2 years, even went to school there... my first girlfriend was Italian. :tongue:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> Jealousy and anger can be the worst emotions to have in a romantic relationship, it usually leads to destructive roller-coaster type romance that ends badly for both.


A complete lack can do the same, if it renders all that's private-intimate-special between a couple obsolete. Those break-ups don't typically make the news though, lol. It will likely become two partners shrugging at each other and going their separate ways.

The opposite of love is indifference. So in my opinion, a relationship ending (beginning?) in indifference is even worse than one ending in pain.



Red Panda said:


> because they fuel all the insecurities


It can be quite possible that insecurities are coming from the fact that a relationship is insecure - that it isn't built on anything particularly stable. In which case, the person is attuned to truth, which is a good thing.



Red Panda said:


> You seem to be very linear in your thinking and unaccepting that different people view things differently, and feel differently about these matters.


No, it's more like I'm trying to be open-minded, but some things simply are what they are. To claim that these relationships are intimate (especially more so) isn't really true as a technicality. 



Red Panda said:


> because he is happy and because it's also hot to picture it and be told about it later (hopefully watch some day too).


How do you define hot in an emotional sense and what about that makes you feel hot emotion?


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> im a 5'2" warrior born and raised in Athens too!



You certainly are. :tongue:

Ελληνων προμαχουντες Αθηναιοι, Μαραθωνι χρυσοφορων Μηδων εστορεσαν δυναμιν.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Here's my conclusion: if you want to live your life doing whatever you want, screwing whomever you want on your terms, just be a feminist, because you can sleep with anyone, in any way, at any age, and you can silence anyone who criticizes you for it. You can assume 0 responsibility if you end up with poor consequences like an unwanted pregnancy or getting less respect from other people, because, when you're a feminist, nothing is EVER your fault. You're just a poor oppress woman victimized by the big bad patriarchy. 

And I hope no one is trying to pull this "dictionary definition" of feminism being about "equality" BS, because it's NOT true, anymore. It's really about women being allowed to do whatever they want and never be asked to be held accountable or assume responsibility or God forbid! be judged for their lifestyle choices. If anything, women have MORE sexual freedom than men, in the west, not less. At least men are required to assume some responsibility for their actions, or even for a woman's actions that they had little control over, like skipping out on the birth control without telling him, and now they have a baby, and he's labeled a deadbeat if he wants nothing to do with it. 

This is exactly why I'm against feminism. This kind of thinking, right here. Women want everything. They want to make the money men make, want to go around and have sex like men have been doing, want to be respected for merely existing, but they don't want to do the work men do, and refuse to take the accountability that comes with their actions.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> I think this does have a horrible side effect though. If I had never experienced what I experienced in that relationship, I would of been happy for less. But now I have experienced what I have experienced, there is no going back.
> 
> I guess this is what people mean when they say love is a drug. Or that seduction itself is highly seductive.
> 
> ...


I've had deeper experiences I kinda wish I hadn't had at times too. lol.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> A complete lack can do the same, if it renders all that's private-intimate-special between a couple obsolete. Those break-ups don't typically make the news though, lol. It will likely become two partners shrugging at each other and going their separate ways.


DO you really enjoy the roller coaster ride. Fractionating in and out of the hot/cold emotions as they grow deeper and stronger. Actually becoming the emotions as opposed to just feeling them. Then sooner or later its so overwhelming that you have to stop the ride and get the f**k off. Only to return back to a life where nothing seems great anymore, in comparison its plain and dull. And then the mind filters out the bad leaving only the good, so off we pop on the ride again.

If we had not gotten on this ride in the first place and just learnt to be happy, would life have not been better, although not as intense?


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

Cast said:


> Anyway. There's one big, big problem with those tables.
> They all state "The effect of sexual promiscuity on...", as if there was a cause-effect link, but we all know that *correlation doesn't mean causation*.


Obviously you're right and thank you for clarifying. I took it for granted that nobody reading the charts would assume promiscuity was the sole variable or singular causal factor involved in the negative outcomes mentioned in the chart. I can see that how the charts are presented would create that impression though so thank you. Some of the categories are overly broad and it's probably not useful to take such data at face value or draw any direct conclusions from it without deeper investigation.



Cast said:


> I'm personally against promiscuity





Cast said:


> Uhm, having _one sexual partner per year_ isn't exactly "promiscuity".


I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. More than one partner per year is definitely a warning sign to me.

If I'm looking for a woman to be the mother of my children then I'm going to have major reservations about her if the majority of her relationships aren't lasting longer than a year.

If I wanted to hire a delivery driver for my business and someone applied for the position who had never gone longer than a year without getting into an accident then I probably wouldn't hire that person.

Infatuation and mutual projection can create relationships lasting longer than a year so if her relationships aren't even making it _that _long then it usually indicates deal-breaker level problems to me. Lack of discernment, lack of maturity, lack of self-knowledge, values not aligned with mine, etc...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

dulcinea said:


> Here's my conclusion: if you want to live your life doing whatever you want, screwing whomever you want on your terms, just be a feminist, because you can sleep with anyone, in any way, at any age, and you can silence anyone who criticizes you for it.


How does screwing whoever you _want_ and _on your terms_ become sleeping with _anyone_?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

dulcinea said:


> Here's my conclusion: if you want to live your life doing whatever you want, screwing whomever you want on your terms, just be a feminist, because you can sleep with anyone, in any way, at any age, and you can silence anyone who criticizes you for it. You can assume 0 responsibility if you end up with poor consequences like an unwanted pregnancy or getting less respect from other people, because, when you're a feminist, nothing is EVER your fault. You're just a poor oppress woman victimized by the big bad patriarchy.
> 
> And I hope no one is trying to pull this "dictionary definition" of feminism being about "equality" BS, because it's NOT true, anymore. It's really about women being allowed to do whatever they want and never be asked to be held accountable or assume responsibility or God forbid! be judged for their lifestyle choices. If anything, women have MORE sexual freedom than men, in the west, not less. At least men are required to assume some responsibility for their actions, or even for a woman's actions that they had little control over, like skipping out on the birth control without telling him, and now they have a baby, and he's labeled a deadbeat if he wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> This is exactly why I'm against feminism. This kind of thinking, right here. Women want everything. They want to make the money men make, want to go around and have sex like men have been doing, want to be respected for merely existing, but they don't want to do the work men do, and refuse to take the accountability that comes with their actions.


I love you.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

dulcinea said:


> Here's my conclusion: if you want to live your life doing whatever you want, screwing whomever you want on your terms, just be a feminist, because you can sleep with anyone, in any way, at any age, and you can silence anyone who criticizes you for it. You can assume 0 responsibility if you end up with poor consequences like an unwanted pregnancy or getting less respect from other people, because, when you're a feminist, nothing is EVER your fault. You're just a poor oppress woman victimized by the big bad patriarchy.
> 
> And I hope no one is trying to pull this "dictionary definition" of feminism being about "equality" BS, because it's NOT true, anymore. It's really about women being allowed to do whatever they want and never be asked to be held accountable or assume responsibility or God forbid! be judged for their lifestyle choices. If anything, women have MORE sexual freedom than men, in the west, not less. At least men are required to assume some responsibility for their actions, or even for a woman's actions that they had little control over, like skipping out on the birth control without telling him, and now they have a baby, and he's labeled a deadbeat if he wants nothing to do with it.
> 
> This is exactly why I'm against feminism. This kind of thinking, right here. Women want everything. They want to make the money men make, want to go around and have sex like men have been doing, want to be respected for merely existing, but they don't want to do the work men do, and refuse to take the accountability that comes with their actions.


:laughing: 

I've heard some shite in my time but, omg! 

Men are not forced into unprotected sex. It's their responsibility to ensure that they don't become a father if they don't want to be a father. They can wear a condom or have a wank or risk the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour. How are men the victim's of unplanned pregnancy? You're talking out of your ass.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> :laughing:
> 
> I've heard some shite in my time but, omg!
> 
> Men are not forced into unprotected sex. It's their responsibility to ensure that they don't become a father if they don't want to be a father. They can wear a condom or have a wank or risk the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour. How are men the victim's of unplanned pregnancy? You're talking out of your ass.


Where as I do agree on the mans responsibility of wearing a rubber.

Some women do lie and say they are on birth control then conveniently forget to take it. Been there had that happen first hand. Granted luckily she left her birth control pills out and I noticed that she hadn't taken any. I mentioned this, then the whole "But I wanted to start a family" slipped out. Funnily if she had been willing to wait a while whilst I sorted my job out and got steady. Then I may have been willing. But instead she chose lies and deceit. That was the end of that. Luckily she did take a birth control pill after that chat. Like we hadn't even discussed the possibility of children either Was just gonna be a "You know how I said I'm on the pill so theres no need to use rubbers, well I'm pregnant" surprise.

However not saying all women are like this but some are. Say one thing, then do another. I do agree though, listening to women and believing them is irresponsible behaviour and us guys should bear the consequences.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> DO you really enjoy the roller coaster ride. Fractionating in and out of the hot/cold emotions as they grow deeper and stronger. Actually becoming the emotions as opposed to just feeling them. Then sooner or later its so overwhelming that you have to stop the ride and get the f**k off. Only to return back to a life where nothing seems great anymore, in comparison its plain and dull. And then the mind filters out the bad leaving only the good, so off we pop on the ride again.
> 
> If we had not gotten on this ride in the first place and just learnt to be happy, would life have not been better, although not as intense?


Yea. I don't want to get back on though. I've done these relationships and they were all consuming... I didn't have appropriate time or energy for other aspects of life - which can be very rewarding in their own ways. I didn't feel balanced.

Splitting from all that though... it like rewired something in my mind. I don't form attachments in the same way. Or maybe I do, but I'm much more conscious of the why's behind them, making them much easier to willfully detach from.

So that's why there is a genuine sort of interest in other romantic arrangements that aren't... that. Trying to figure out what's worth keeping, what's worth incorporating, specifically why, etc.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Where as I do agree on the mans responsibility of wearing a rubber.
> 
> Some women do lie and say they are on birth control then conveniently forget to take it. Been there had that happen first hand. Granted luckily she left her birth control pills out and I noticed that she hadn't taken any. I mentioned this, then the whole "But I wanted to start a family" slipped out. Funnily if she had been willing to wait a while whilst I sorted my job out and got steady. Then I may have been willing. But instead she chose lies and deceit. That was the end of that. Luckily she did take a birth control pill after that chat. Like we hadn't even discussed the possibility of children either Was just gonna be a "You know how I said I'm on the pill so theres no need to use rubbers, well I'm pregnant" surprise.
> 
> However not saying all women are like this but some are. Say one thing, then do another. I do agree though, listening to women and believing them is irresponsible behaviour and us guys should bear the consequences.


Well then she was a selfish cunt and there's no excuse for it. Luckily for you, she was fucking thick, too. Personally I've always been responsible for my own contraception or I've been willing to accept the consequences of being irresponsible. I don't condone the way some women behave but to say that men have little control over unplanned pregnancy is an outright lie.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> A complete lack can do the same, if it renders all that's private-intimate-special between a couple obsolete. Those break-ups don't typically make the news though, lol. It will likely become two partners shrugging at each other and going their separate ways.
> 
> 
> The opposite of love is indifference. So in my opinion, a relationship ending (beginning?) in indifference is even worse than one ending in pain.


No relationship can have a complete lack of even hints of jealousy otherwise there is lack of interest and therefore pointless. People who engage in poly relationships successfuly are not free of feeling jealousy ever, they just cope with it more easily and don't generally engage in jealous behaviors like those you described (the first link I provided goes more in depth). 



> It can be quite possible that insecurities are coming from the fact that a relationship is insecure - that it isn't built on anything particularly stable. In which case, the person is attuned to truth, which is a good thing.


What sets a relationship to be insecure is often connected to how people themselves are feeling and the expectations and communication (or lack thereof). So if a person is feeling particularly insecure in a specific relationship and it's uncharacteristic of them then they should address it and deal with it. 




> No, it's more like I'm trying to be open-minded, but some things simply are what they are. To claim that these relationships are intimate (especially more so) isn't really true as a technicality.


So it seems the one who needs to feel superior after all is you, since you keep insisting on this narrative even after I corrected your misunderstanding about me saying that it is "more intimate".




> How do you define hot in an emotional sense and what about that makes you feel hot emotion?


It makes me horny that my partner is having sex, being pleasured and pleasuring another. There are hints of challenge and hints of jealousy, but are well managed and only serve to create thrill.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> Obviously you're right and thank you for clarifying. I took it for granted that nobody reading the charts would assume promiscuity was the sole variable or singular causal factor involved in the negative outcomes mentioned in the chart. I can see that how the charts are presented would create that impression though so thank you. Some of the categories are overly broad and it's probably not useful to take such data at face value or draw any direct conclusions from it without deeper investigation.


What was your intent in posting those charts? They were a bit out-of-context, I didn't understand what you wanted to tell us with them.



> I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. More than one partner per year is definitely a warning sign to me.
> 
> If I'm looking for a woman to be the mother of my children then I'm going to have major reservations about her if the majority of her relationships aren't lasting longer than a year.
> 
> ...


I think we have different definitions of promiscuity. I mostly stick with the dictionary definition (_Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners._), so I don't consider having one or one-point-two (lol) sexual partners per year as promiscuity. If you're staying with the same person for months, not cheating, not sleeping with people you barely know, to me you're not promiscuous.
For example, a man might not be interested in a serious relationship, so he just gets into a "casual" relationship lasting less than a year, but during this time he has sex only with a woman. I would consider him a person with a different attitude toward sex, probably not compatible with mine, but not a promiscuous person.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> You are looking at it the wrong way, you shouldn't be worrying about the others. If everyone is accepting and there by choice, none of that will matter. They should just be happy seeing their primary partner happy.


I shouldn't be worrying about the others, whom I have somehow committed myself to? I should just be happy seeing someone else happy and not care about my own happiness when they're someone I'm giving up my happy single-hood for?

What kind of masochist talk is that. lol.



Reality Check said:


> Also just because you are not a primary partner with someone does not mean they will not have any feelings at all for a tertiary partner.


I would feel pretty cheap if I were just a tertiary to people with nothing special of my own.

I want my associations with sex to remain as rich as possible.



Reality Check said:


> Also I think you are thinking more of the swinger lifestyle which is a "Lets Fuck" as opposed to Poly which is "I want to get to know you".


No, I'm not. I'd actually maybe be down for a swinger sorta thing so long as I didn't see my partner as serious. It's the blurring of literally all intimate lines that I don't want a part of.



Reality Check said:


> Of course there are some Poly groups that just meet up and get naked after worshipping the Goddess (Female Group Leader) then just f**k each other.


Would you fuck and bow to a dude who declared himself your God? Or would you challenge him for the title?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Alright, more catch up.



Red Panda said:


> But polyamory in general isn't about triangles. You can have more than one relationship and your partners don't have a relationship with each other except maybe having dinner now and then or something. It depends on each person and their arrangements.


These responses would be less frustrating if you would look at what I'm responding to and follow the conversation. I've carefully laid out responses beneath post quotes for you, if you haven't noticed.

_Red Panda: I don't think I'd want to get involved with a couple or any other type of triangle as it complicates things. Maybe for sexual reasons only, but not for intimacy._​
Which was in response to my saying _if_ what you're complaining about is recruitment as a couple.



Red Panda said:


> The way you described, it falling in and out constantly I see it as flakiness in a way. Bonds are created over time and sure relationships can change but it just hasn't happened to me in that way. If you start two relationships at the same time I can see that happening, but for me feelings of that nature are usually stable, or perhaps not as volatile.


I'm describing the bond of "significant other" specifically. So are you saying that you think the indicator of significant is based on duration of time spent together? Many people would challenge you on that.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Basically, if a person truly believes something then others will buy into it. But if they have just 1%doubt how can they expect others to buy into it if they don't truly believe it themselves.


Not necessarily. Like, that dude in the video again, for example.

He could try to convince himself and me that I'm not comparing him to the more attractive guys I've been with until he was blue in the face and it wouldn't be the truth.

So I wouldn't put either one of us in that situation.

But that also means he could never convince me to sleep with him. Which isn't a "challenge on" either.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> That's hard to believe since you were the one who first mentioned enlightment and superiority/inferiority and kept replying in a manner relating to this. Maybe you don't realise how it affects you, dunno _shrug_


You first mentioned that people are only monogamous because of insecurity. It was condescending and you haven't been able to intelligently defend your position. Two things which tend to annoy people separately and especially so when paired together.

Basic concepts go over your head, you can't answer basic questions, you reference society while also speaking out against society - arbitrarily dependent on the current point you're making, you don't follow the conversation or what points made are in reference to, and then when all else fails you go back to being condescending and projecting weak emotional motivations onto people's arguments who are making more sense than you.

I wasn't the one to bring up winning or losing at all, actually, I believe that was Reality Check, but I'm definitely not going to be told that I'm identifying with the losing position if it comes up, because I can assure you that I'm not.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Kyn said:


> My initial point was that women haven't evolved biologically to be monogamous. Investing in one man didn't offer her a reproductive advantage.


And I agree.

I don't exactly think we all evolved to be monogamous, we did to spread our DNA, the rest are practical anthropological and every day consequences IMHO. Monogamy in the first place didn't quite lasted, oh my wife for eternit... ok you just got eaten by a wolf. Ok this man will last me a lifet... ok, dead for severe fungus infection. The problem is (as in the other threads) where people start messing up with their religious beliefs, in my mind I can see both worlds, not just one, and I can see those worlds separated in time (and some cases where they coexist)


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

g_w said:


> Utter and complete non-sequitur. Therefore you concede the point that promiscuity is not about reproductive advantage.
> Incidentally, should you champion said promiscuity as normative,
> a) beware the wall
> b) beware the MGTOW
> ...


What has MGTOW got to do with evolutionary biology?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Id still tell society to go f**K itself and go do things because I want to not because society says so.
> 
> On another aspect, I'm not a child anymore, so as a grownup I would say there is less pressure. The only pressure I get nowadays, is pressure to goto work social events. I agree as children there are more rules involved, but it is our parents or schools who are responsible for us, not us. But being grown up, where does the pressure come from? The work place? Friends (choose new friends)? Family (we are not children anymore)? The TV (do people base their lives on what is shown on TV, actually don't answer that)? Magazines?
> 
> ...


You're underestimating the extent of societal influence. It's been affecting you since before you could walk and much of what you think is your choice or a part of your personality probably isn't. Social species don't survive unless they're affected by their social groups.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

In the past we were more like animals (and that's not exactly a negative thing unless someone feels offended or gets religious beliefs in right away). The thing is there is a huge difference.

A man could go having sex with diff people and then if someone gets pregnant "oh fuck! uga uga!", he would even say "me caveman good, many mini-me" and stay, or run away, but if the woman has sex with diff people and gets pregnant, it's like "I'm fucked! boohhh!!!" because a man can go away but the child remains. The differences in tribes/families could make this more difficult or just easier to overcome (with or without the parent). In some tribes having children is a true blessing with practical real life consequences (or benefits), in others despite of what they believe is like "ok what are we going to eat???"

Give enough time for early humans to see this sex-children-pain-hardwork and there will be natural consequences in behavior or social relationships. Is not like women will get it right away and say "ok, 30% changes between this and the next moon", hell, to this day many women still don't get it and get unwanted pregnancy even with the modern medicine. Is the same as if men got pregnant, many wouldn't behave the same way.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Aeon said:


> Ha! Nice one.
> 
> In an evolutionary timescale the survival and motivations of the individual don't matter and are subject to propagation of genes, yes. But evolution has not created genes that try to propagate, evolution has created genes that create individuals that - as individuals - function in a way that best allows genes to propagate in the given environment. The individual does not need to care about the genes to propagate genes, it only has to care about itself. Us higher creatures have evolved to be motivated to, roughly put, seek pleasure and avoid discomfort, emotions and sensations that is, (what motivates something like algae I don't know,) and a latter addition is some reasoning skills that allow us to better adjust our behavior to deal with our environment. The individual has never before needed conscious will to reproduce, as long as it has been motivated to behave in a way that puts sperm in contact with eggs, after that biology has taken care of the rest since forever and the conscious wants of the individuals have been irrelevant. The only thing evolution has affected in terms of reproduction and the consciously experienced motivations is the pregnant woman's motivation to not self-harm and after the birth the motivation/ability of the mother but also others to bond with the baby and not kill or abandon it.
> 
> ...


Word salad will not save you. The promiscuous do not currently reproduce at the rate that those in committed relationships do, because they take great care to prevent conception, or to secure an abortion. Therefore, in the near term, those who engage in the hedonism will not pass on any genes. It is therefore a self-limiting phenomenon, regardless of its current status as the reigning fad.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Kyn said:


> What has MGTOW got to do with evolutionary biology?


It is a social reaction to the confluence of female sexual privilege without consequences, and the society which blames men for everything, while demanding that they still contribute as they did in the past.
Men work hard, either for sheer intellectual pride or competition with other men, *or* to get laid.
IF a man finds that
a) women will sleep around before them, and compare them unfavorably to past lovers, reserving sexual enthusiasm for past lovers and not him
b) the man is subject to civil and criminal penalties under law without even the opportunity to defend himself before a neutral third party, and these penalties exact severe consequences economically, regardless of the man's innocence...merely at the *accusation* of a woman
c) if a woman *will* consent to marriage, but has, and disproportionately exercises, the right to pull the plug at any time -- taking the man's money until the children turn 18, but otherwise free from any obligation or bond under the marriage contract -- the men will
justly conclude "this is a sucker's bet".
What other contract is there which is set up by law that one party may unilaterally revoke the contract at any time, absolving that party of any and all obligations, but requiring the counterparty to live to the original terms? None.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

g_w said:


> Word salad will not save you. The promiscuous do not currently reproduce at the rate that those in committed relationships do, because they take great care to prevent conception, or to secure an abortion. Therefore, in the near term, those who engage in the hedonism will not pass on any genes. It is therefore a self-limiting phenomenon, regardless of its current status as the reigning fad.


That was not questioned ever 

You drew in contraception as if it counteracted anything and said that because of that promiscuity can't be about reproductive success. No one claimed that women being promiscuous right now is because it will maximize their future reproductive success and therefore their kin will triumph. Future has nothing to do with it 

Word salad...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> I don't see virtue in it per se, but seeing some virtue in it is the only reason I can think of for using monogamy to describe what could just as well or even more be on the polygamy side, or deserve an entirely new word without mono- anything.


New word would maybe work best I think. Given how our brain works, what's happening at a given time is a big differentiator in this all and our experience of it imo.



Aeon said:


> To me the difference between having three or six or ten partners in life, or having some years or some months or some weeks between the partners (which are apparently the defining factors between "monogamy" and "serial monogamy", serial monogamist having many relationship and no time being single) is not as big of a difference as is going from having one relationship in life to having two or more. I think monogamy as a word should be for one partner, everything else can be something else, I don't care if it is anal-retentive. I posted the definitions before and the etymology of the words monogamy and polygamy, so I think saying that monogamy just means one partner in life is more reasonable than saying it means one partner _at a time_.


I can get that, but "lifetime" isn't necessarily an easily definable unit of time. Like I said, I feel like I've experienced deaths and rebirths in this one (that's lasted 32 years now - to be specific as to what I think that is ), and some people believe in an afterlife, etc. (There is a (highly monogamous, I guess) spiritual belief that we have a twin flame - basically, that we are always committed to the same soul in various incarnations). 

So that's why I see relevance in breaking measurements down further (since you can also expand them outwards).

There are also definitely differences between serial monogamists as they were defined and monogamists otherwise, yea. I'm not a serial monogamist. I don't even like seeing the "taken" status over "single" (the author's assertion in that article, though she also doesn't think she's a serial monogamist). I see single and I see freedom.

But yea, I've had some sexual partners, but only two LTR's. (Only one where we lived together and what not and making real compromises on lifestyle was necessary). I've been single for five years since that (and I've had my opportunities to start something new).



Aeon said:


> Instead of dating around and learning things with different partners and getting better at the relationship game, you'd pick one and just stick with that person forever and you deal with all the problems that come from being two flawed people forever stuck together until he/she dies and then you live the rest of your life alone because you can't imagine starting a new relationship with someone else.


The reasons as to why differentiate this all too though. Maybe you believe you'll see them again after you also experience a physical death and you don't want to complicate it, for example. So you're still committed.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> You're underestimating the extent of societal influence. It's been affecting you since before you could walk and much of what you think is your choice or a part of your personality probably isn't. Social species don't survive unless they're affected by their social groups.


If he's going against the grain, specifically, then he can probably be more so sure that he's making an individual choice.

I know that my saying that I'm not really interested in single dads isn't popular. Yet it's still the case. I've broken down my reasoning for it all too. (Which I think is important in making sure that you're not just counter society).


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Veggie said:


> *The reasons as to why differentiate this all too though. *Maybe you believe you'll see them again after you also experience a physical death and you don't want to complicate it, for example. So you're still committed.


What do you mean?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> What do you mean?


For why you can't imagine starting a new relationship with someone else. Or choose not to.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> You're underestimating the extent of societal influence. It's been affecting you since before you could walk and much of what you think is your choice or a part of your personality probably isn't. Social species don't survive unless they're affected by their social groups.


Ture, I started to walk as that was a social thing. But on the whole I limit external influence as much as I can except for things that I deem helpful in my life.

I do get what your saying.

But I don't think societies influence is as bad as people make out especially in this day and age.

Take for example the current societal view of being unhealthy is too b epromoted and if you are unhealthy(ie Obese) you are fine. If society applied that much pressure on people, then there would be no gyms. Instead humans have the ability to stop and think, and then process information.

Sure some people just follow the crowd, but that's not due to societies pressure its due to these people being brainless sheep who lack the capability of thinking for themselves.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> I thought you two were talking about harems and women having to be finding another man to support the harem baby she's having, and you saying women don't need to do that anymore, I think women still do need to do that. Only way for women not to need to do that would be, as far as I can see, if men were working less and making less money than women in general and women generally being the ones to support men.


My point was kind of in this day and age of birth control (and arguably ugly words that rhyme with sasmortion) I don't understand why the child argument is even all that relevant necessarily. 

And also that this isn't the only reason a man would allocate resources to a woman.

If I were to have and keep a child it would be in faith that the father would stay. There is no fallback guy. If he betrayed that, I wouldn't be keen on the idea of another man stepping in. As a woman with my own resources I wouldn't _need _them to, no. Resources might be tight, but I would prefer that the quality of love in our home be held to a certain standard - as I think there are separate benefits to that. That might be difficult to achieve with some strange fallback guy cruising around.

That's not to say that another guy might not enter the picture, but it would be for reasons other than filling a provider role. It would be because I'd fallen in love again.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

g_w said:


> It is a social reaction to the confluence of female sexual privilege without consequences, and the society which blames men for everything, while demanding that they still contribute as they did in the past.
> Men work hard, either for sheer intellectual pride or competition with other men, *or* to get laid.
> IF a man finds that
> a) women will sleep around before them, and compare them unfavorably to past lovers, reserving sexual enthusiasm for past lovers and not him
> ...


Oh, you didn't read the op, did you?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Veggie said:


> If he's going against the grain, specifically, then he can probably be more so sure that he's making an individual choice.
> 
> I know that my saying that I'm not really interested in single dads isn't popular. Yet it's still the case. I've broken down my reasoning for it all too. (Which I think is important in making sure that you're not just counter society).


I wasn't referring specifically to his example regards dating single parents. I was referring to his whole post.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Aeon - I'll also add that if you insisted that the man marry you first before having children, you may also have some added legal and monetary protection there (edit - so alimony lol) (compared to however child support works otherwise, which admittedly I don't have a ton of knowledge about).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> I wasn't referring specifically to his example regards dating single parents. I was referring to his whole post.


I know, I was just using that as an example.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Ture, I started to walk as that was a social thing. But on the whole I limit external influence as much as I can except for things that I deem helpful in my life.
> 
> I do get what your saying.
> 
> ...


Societal influence isn't bad, not by a long shot. We couldn't live together peacefully without it. Its influence over us is layered though, it's not as simple as 'following the crowd' or not.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> I wasn't referring specifically to his example regards dating single parents. I was referring to his whole post.


Again though is it really pressure. Or is it just something that is adventagous for survival.

I could flip the whole education system around and say "society pressures me to go to school, I am an individual and I should have agency" or some similar crap.

But the reality is in this day and age, no education, yeah good luck with life. Even being able to say "Do you want fries with that", may not be enough.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Societal influence isn't bad, not by a long shot. We couldn't live together peacefully without it. Its influence over us is layered though, it's not as simple as 'following the crowd' or not.


Please give a non extreme example. For instance, where am I socially influenced?


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

I am not yet done catching up to the thread, but I am seen a lot of analogies using harems on an Island, and I can't help but wonder why all this island hypothetical activity seems to be happening in the Caribbean? Move that Island some place colder, and the baby with 3 men who think they might be the father has a much higher chance to survive the cold winter than any of the babies produce by the 3 women harem.

I wonder if the reason we are confused in how we negotiate our love life is because our own evolutionary process was just as confusing to our own DNA strands, whenever we started evolving for one reproductive strategy we ended up spreading into regions that demanded new reproductive strategies, ending in conflicting needs and result that is adaptable but ultimately quite clumsy. We are like the flightless birds of mating strategies.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Reality Check said:


> Please give a non extreme example. For instance, where am I socially influenced?


You were the one asking why society conditions men to care and provide. I think society just expects you to do a minimum but you volunteer to do the rest.

And you probably don't experience much pressure because you're well adjusted nowadays and abide to expectations. If you weren't, if you decided to rebel, the punishment would be more severe than it would've been when you were a child. Like if you decided to not pay taxes or fight someone or, uhm, not shower, hah.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Please give a non extreme example. For instance, where am I socially influenced?


Non-extreme example? 
What's an extreme example?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> I am not yet done catching up to the thread, but I am seen a lot of analogies using harems on an Island, and I can't help but wonder why all this island hypothetical activity seems to be happening in the Caribbean? Move that Island some place colder, and the baby with 3 men who think they might be the father has a much higher chance to survive the cold winter than any of the babies produce by the 3 women harem.
> 
> I wonder if the reason we are confused in how we negotiate our love life is because our own evolutionary process was just as confusing to our own DNA strands, whenever we started evolving for one reproductive strategy we ended up spreading into regions that demanded new reproductive strategies, ending in conflicting needs and result that is adaptable but ultimately quite clumsy. We are like the flightless birds of mating strategies.


I agree for the most part*. Therefore I think it's wrong to say that promiscuity benefits women in particular. In some situations it does, in some it's a risk, in some it's a disaster. For men it's less of a risk in most situations. And, yeah it probably follows that individuals experience huge internal and external conflicts because of all the different situations humans are adapted to function in. Maybe we have large brains because they're supposed to help us figure it all out? (Hah!)

Maybe monogamy was enforced as a solution to the confusion and conflicts: "Listen, I don't care what your opinion is, or who you think you fancy today, we are doing the 1 thing from now on because it is a simple rule, it's fair and easy to remember. One, that's right, you get to pick one and that's it. No changing or sharing or anything. You only get to change if your old one dies or gets lost or stolen, the rule still holds, only one per person and you have to be sure the old one isn't coming back too before you get a new one."

* About the baby born on a cold island i disagree. Such a baby would benefit also from having one man have no doubt about being the father of said baby. The baby would want that man to have strong emotional and perhaps financial, social, maybe even politically motivated bond with the baby's mother, and the baby would also want this man to have formed strong bonds with a few other men or even to have a leader position among a few men, so that the baby's father could successfully cooperate with them and better support the baby. And due to the bonds between the men the baby might be respected by them as a heir of its father even if something happens to him. If it was just three men with uncertain paternity, they might not cooperate, they might even have a reason to be hostile towards each other over the baby's mother, their bond with the mother might be lesser due to limited resources, and each of them individually might not have much motivation to do much for the baby and its mother in the end.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Tropes said:


> I am not yet done catching up to the thread, but I am seen a lot of analogies using harems on an Island, and I can't help but wonder why all this island hypothetical activity seems to be happening in the Caribbean


What I see as a strong pattern is people not being able to discuss a topic, but taking it as a holy war (like in religion) posting again and again they disagree (something we can clearly see) but then not going into diff angles or reasons, I mean one characteristic is building extreme examples to disqualify something.

Anthropologists can find (let's say) a places where people used to eat other humans, or have orgies, ceremonies with animals etc, and they are able to discuss the matter (study it sure) and explain, etc, but also to have their own opinion separated from "oh the horror", but some people can't approach topics, they go to war on people. The same with psychology, many take things on personal basis as in "way personal" _as if the *thread *was a *threat* _to them.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Non-extreme example?
> What's an extreme example?


Just an example, like for instance in the next 7 days, in between going to work (I view as a requirement for the life style I enjoy not a pressure), going to the gym and going out socialising. What pressures will I face, that I am too weak to overcome, without needing to change the whole of society.

I may do things that society as a whole does not praise me for or validate me for. But that is not a pressure it is just no validation, praise or worship. For instance when I walked around Derby City Centre wearing a dildo on my head as I had social anxiety, sure its not promoted by society but there was no pressure not to do it.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

changos said:


> What I see as a strong pattern is people not being able to discuss a topic, but taking it as a holy war (like in religion) posting again and again they disagree (something we can clearly see) but then not going into diff angles or reasons, I mean one characteristic is building extreme examples to disqualify something.
> 
> Anthropologists can find (let's say) a places where people used to eat other humans, or have orgies, ceremonies with animals etc, and they are able to discuss the matter (study it sure) and explain, etc, but also to have their own opinion separated from "oh the horror", but some people can't approach topics, they go to war on people. The same with psychology, many take things on personal basis as in "way personal" _as if the *thread *was a *threat* _to them.


Yes, totally agree with that. It didn't take long before people were taking it personally.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> One, that's right, you get to pick one and that's it. No changing or sharing or anything. You only get to change if your old one dies or gets lost or stolen, the rule still holds, only one per person and you have to be sure the old one isn't coming back too before you get a new one."


Or you could just break-up/divorce, which society is fairly accepting of these days.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> What I see as a strong pattern is people not being able to discuss a topic, but taking it as a holy war (like in religion) posting again and again they disagree (something we can clearly see) but then not going into diff angles or reasons, I mean one characteristic is building extreme examples to disqualify something.
> 
> Anthropologists can find (let's say) a places where people used to eat other humans, or have orgies, ceremonies with animals etc, and they are able to discuss the matter (study it sure) and explain, etc, but also to have their own opinion separated from "oh the horror", but some people can't approach topics, they go to war on people. The same with psychology, many take things on personal basis as in "way personal" _as if the *thread *was a *threat* _to them.


You're so wise changos. As always. 

We are discussing a topic. You're discussing the people discussing the topic, without really otherwise contributing much. Business as usual for you. What do you get out of it? I'm curious.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Or you could just break-up/divorce, which society is fairly accepting of these days.


No it was Moses speaking, no divorces because they're messy. Moses or who ever came up with monogamy. Some Old Wise Gibbon Ancestor maybe.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> No it was Moses speaking, no divorces. Moses or who ever came up with monogamy. Some Old Wise Gibbon Ancestor maybe.


If we're going by biblical logic by referencing Moses than God came up with monogamy. He could have created a harem for Adam - and told him to spread his seed far and wide - but instead he gave him only Eve.


----------



## WhoIsJake (Jun 2, 2015)

This thread is wonderful. So many emotions are evoked from reading everything. I've felt insecure, powerful, useless, important, and puzzled. Keep up the good work familia. :cheers2:


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Aeon said:


> I agree for the most part*. Therefore I think it's wrong to say that promiscuity benefits women in particular. In some situations it does, in some it's a risk, in some it's a disaster. For men it's less of a risk in most situations. And, yeah it probably follows that individuals experience huge internal and external conflicts because of all the different situations humans are adapted to function in. Maybe we have large brains because they're supposed to help us figure it all out? (Hah!)
> 
> Maybe monogamy was enforced as a solution to the confusion and conflicts: "Listen, I don't care what your opinion is, or who you think you fancy today, we are doing the 1 thing from now on because it is a simple rule, it's fair and easy to remember. One, that's right, you get to pick one and that's it. No changing or sharing or anything. You only get to change if your old one dies or gets lost or stolen, the rule still holds, only one per person and you have to be sure the old one isn't coming back too before you get a new one."
> 
> * *About the baby born on a cold island i disagree. Such a baby would benefit also from having one man have no doubt about being the father of said baby. The baby would want that man to have strong emotional and perhaps financial, social, maybe even politically motivated bond with the baby's mother, and the baby would also want this man to have formed strong bonds with a few other men or even to have a leader position among a few men, so that the baby's father could successfully cooperate with them and better support the baby. And due to the bonds between the men the baby might be respected by them as a heir of its father even if something happens to him. If it was just three men with uncertain paternity, they might not cooperate, they might even have a reason to be hostile towards each other over the baby's mother, their bond with the mother might be lesser due to limited resources, and each of them individually might not have much motivation to do much for the baby and its mother in the end.*



True, that's probably why children also get the father's surname, whereas children of promiscuous moms with uncertain paternity are called _bastards_.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

yentipeee said:


> True, that's probably why children also get the father's surname, whereas children of promiscuous moms with uncertain paternity are called _bastards_.


There are a lot more Bastards now a days than there ever has been from what I can tell.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Veggie said:


> If we're going by biblical logic by referencing Moses than God came up with monogamy. He could have created a harem for Adam - and told him to spread his seed far and wide - but instead he gave him only Eve.


I hear there's some rumors about Adam and Lilith:










***

But yeah biblical logic is probably relevant in the question of what is the direction you're supposed to grow as a human, and at least by the time of New Testament they're more clear that it's a union of a man and a woman. What is the biblical logic behind that I don't know.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Just an example, like for instance in the next 7 days, in between going to work (I view as a requirement for the life style I enjoy not a pressure), going to the gym and going out socialising. What pressures will I face, that I am too weak to overcome, without needing to change the whole of society.
> 
> I may do things that society as a whole does not praise me for or validate me for. But that is not a pressure it is just no validation, praise or worship. For instance when I walked around Derby City Centre wearing a dildo on my head as I had social anxiety, sure its not promoted by society but there was no pressure not to do it.


Lol. You walked through Derby wearing a dildo? 

You will probably use socially influenced body language, facial expressions and voice intonations, concepts of personal space. You will adjust into your work persona, then another persona for your social activities, you will probably do someone a favour, express sympathy, be polite, you will adjust your mood according to the group, appear interested when you're bored. Follow their lead if a situation arises that you're unsure of. Be offended by certain things. Keep opinions to yourself. You will wash, put on deodorant, iron your clothes, clean your shoes, shave/trim your beard, look in the mirror before you leave the house and so on. 
Chances are that you will hold many beliefs which you think are your own, but you've never actually consciously analysed them. Socially influenced beliefs can be 'hidden in plain sight', taking a lot of introspection and inner work to dig them out.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> I hear there's some rumors about Adam and Lilith:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It could be an allegory for inner male and female, Adam representing the conscious mind or ego, Eve representing the personal unconscious and Lilith representing the collective unconscious. Lilith was made from the same dirt as Adam "l will not lie beneath you", so Eve was created from Adam's rib and I suppose she was willing to lie beneath him.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> It could be an allegory for inner male and female, Adam representing the conscious mind or ego, Eve representing the personal unconscious and Lilith representing the collective unconscious. Lilith was made from the same dirt as Adam "l will not lie beneath you", so Eve was created from Adam's rib and I suppose she was willing to lie beneath him.


That'd be brilliant if it was such an allegory :O


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> That'd be brilliant if it was such an allegory :O


The more I think on it the more I believe it to be the case. The creation story makes more sense when interpreted as the creation of human consciousness rather than the creation of humans. Eating the fruit from the tree led to the realisation that they were naked, they had gained a sense of separate self, no longer one with God. Just like a child at some point realises when he is naked and begins to feel embarrassed about nakedness. So the creation story could not only be telling the story of the evolution of the human mind, but also the story of each individuals development.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I absolutely believe it's creation of consciousness, but I hadn't thought of Adam and Eve as other than representing men and women in general.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> The more I think on it the more I believe it to be the case. The creation story makes more sense when interpreted as the creation of human consciousness rather than the creation of humans. Eating the fruit from the tree led to the realisation that they were naked, they had gained a sense of separate self, no longer one with God. Just like a child at some point realises when he is naked and begins to feel embarrassed about nakedness. So the creation story could not only be telling the story of the evolution of the human mind, but also the story of each individuals development.


The next story is the children of Adam and Eve, where brilliant Abel is doing great but jealous Kain kills him and puts the world to a spiral of violence. Maybe it is saying that as a result of consciousness, this duality is born in us, and when we allow jealousy to get so bad as to kill something good and productive, things that we thought were bad already will get infinitely worse...?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> The next story is the children of Adam and Eve, where brilliant Abel is doing great but jealous Kain kills him and puts the world to a spiral of violence. Maybe it is saying that as a result of consciousness, this duality is born in us, and when we allow jealousy to get so bad as to kill something good and productive, things that we thought were bad already will get infinitely worse...?


Yes I think so. If we think of the human mind having the potential to become anything human, one aspect gets cultivated and integrated into the conscious sense of self and it's opposite is suppressed into the unconscious. So Cain and Abel represent two potential developments of the same mind. The person could become a shepherd or a farmer. By becoming a farmer, the potential shepherd never manifests into conscious existence. So in a metaphorical sense, by selecting one option we suppress or 'kill' the part of us which would select the other option. Cains jealousy was further evidence of separation from God, because if we're aware that we are all one, there's no need for jealousy. Jealousy manifests with 'I' and 'you'.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> Yes I think so. If we think of the human mind having the potential to become anything human, one aspect gets cultivated and integrated into the conscious sense of self and it's opposite is suppressed into the unconscious. So Cain and Abel represent two potential developments of the same mind. The person could become a shepherd or a farmer. By becoming a farmer, the potential shepherd never manifests into conscious existence. So in a metaphorical sense, by selecting one option we suppress or 'kill' the part of us which would select the other option. Cains jealousy was further evidence of separation from God, because if we're aware that we are all one, there's no need for jealousy. Jealousy manifests with 'I' and 'you'.


And/or, going with the individual's development interpretation, there's a beloved and good side of us, that we in some way destroy... Because we can't stand the reminder of how we've underachieved when we identify as a victim of an unfair world. We're supposed to do the right thing... accept our Cain-hardships and maybe enjoy our Abel-moments (or something like that, have the two coexist at least or do more of the Abel-stuff), but we kill the good because we can't stand how bad we feel in comparison to what we know we could be... And then, to avoid the constant memory of the dead innocence (?) or the memory of deciding to abandon things that were good just to feel better with our sinful underachievement, we have to turn away from all the things that could've given us a chance to good life had we just kept at it, and we feel like we're so worthless everyone should hate us and kill us, but then we don't even get that, so while we marinate in our misery only noticing difficulties and failures after having killed the part that enjoyed good things in life, we become this ultimate victim that can't feel compassion and revenges any perceived hurt 7, 70, 700 fold...? And that's the mentality that makes up human communities?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> I hear there's some rumors about Adam and Lilith


I don't think Lilith is technically in the bible. Or if she is I'm pretty sure she's not in Genesis. 

I've also read stories that she was the snake, since she was seen as a monster who ate children when she left Eden.

I've always liked that one because there's a sort of Evil Queen-Snow White-Apple component to the story of original sin (though I don't think the forbidden fruit was ever specified as being an apple).

So yea, I'm not arguing that you can't play with this stuff. Just saying. lol.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Cains jealousy was further evidence of separation from God, because if we're aware that we are all one, there's no need for jealousy. Jealousy manifests with 'I' and 'you'.


Maintaining a separation of self within that is important too though, so I vs. You are important concepts.

While we all may be ultimately one, failing to keep certain things separated can result in contamination, and a lack of ego boundaries can cause mental illness and pathological conditions.

Like when you were mentioning the love you have for your children - how you don't see it as being different from romantic love since you see that as more conditional and less relevant to the grander experience of love anyway (right? I think that's what you were more or less saying)... still. 

The devil's in the details, because the merging of sexual love with familial love with children is considered incest and pedophilia and can do permanent psychological damage (not that I'm, like, informing you obviously, lol, just making the point that differentiating and separating can be important - as an experience and practice of love, actually).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Lol. You walked through Derby wearing a dildo?
> .


Yeah I had social anxiety so I did things to purposefully put myself out of my comfort zone in social situations. 




> You will probably use socially influenced body language, facial expressions and voice intonations, concepts of personal space.


Nope, Alexander Method plus studying of body language. Then practice and integration. I wouldn't call that pressure, just I learned bad habits and had no one tell me otherwise.




> You will adjust into your work persona, then another persona for your social activities,


Cant deny that one, at work I'm quiet, get on with my job and am not social. I'm there to work not make friends. Outside work I am a different person. But again I wouldn't say that's a "pressure", just most effective way for living my life the way I want.



> you will probably do someone a favour, express sympathy, be polite, you will adjust your mood according to the group, appear interested when you're bored.


Nope, if I find someone boring, I generally have nothing much to do with them. Except at work, where we are forced to work with people we wouldn't otherwise have anything to do with.



> Follow their lead if a situation arises that you're unsure of. Be offended by certain things. Keep opinions to yourself. You will wash, put on deodorant, iron your clothes, clean your shoes, shave/trim your beard, look in the mirror before you leave the house and so on.


I wouldn't call most of that pressure, just habits learned from the army. Also I wish there was more "pressure" for people to be well groomed. Sometimes I think I'm one of the few men who knows how to use an iron.



> Chances are that you will hold many beliefs which you think are your own, but you've never actually consciously analysed them. Socially influenced beliefs can be 'hidden in plain sight', taking a lot of introspection and inner work to dig them out.


That is where you are totally wrong. I had a list of about 20 negative beliefs that served no purpose other than to hold me back. I blasted through them using Tony Robbins Magic. If a new "negative belief" arises, I change it to a positive one.

That was quite good fun actually going through your response.

The main thing I pick up from what you wrote is some of the things you class as "pressures", I don't view them that way. To me, there are good habits and bad habits. Some are effective and some hold people back. So I wont register things as "societal pressures" if they are actually effective towards achieving my goal. And personally I'm not going to start adapting ineffective habits just to rebel against the "system", that said, a lot of mainstream advice towards life is utter garbage. And people definitely need independent thought and judgement before just listening to others. If someone isn't leading or influencing, they are the ones being played.

Say I was designing a new car, I wouldn't class having "circular" wheels as some sort of pressure, its just more effective than a square wheel.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> It could be an allegory for inner male and female, Adam representing the conscious mind or ego, Eve representing the personal unconscious and Lilith representing the collective unconscious. Lilith was made from the same dirt as Adam "l will not lie beneath you", so Eve was created from Adam's rib and I suppose she was willing to lie beneath him.


Lilith was the first feminist and God got rid of that shit.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> And/or, going with the individual's development interpretation, there's a beloved and good side of us, that we in some way destroy... Because we can't stand the reminder of how we've underachieved when we identify as a victim of an unfair world. We're supposed to do the right thing... accept our Cain-hardships and maybe enjoy our Abel-moments (or something like that, have the two coexist at least or do more of the Abel-stuff), but we kill the good because we can't stand how bad we feel in comparison to what we know we could be... And then, to avoid the constant memory of the dead innocence (?) or the memory of deciding to abandon things that were good just to feel better with our sinful underachievement, we have to turn away from all the things that could've given us a chance to good life had we just kept at it, and we feel like we're so worthless everyone should hate us and kill us, but then we don't even get that, so while we marinate in our misery only noticing difficulties and failures after having killed the part that enjoyed good things in life, we become this ultimate victim that can't feel compassion and revenges any perceived hurt 7, 70, 700 fold...? And that's the mentality that makes up human communities?


You lost me. Can you clarify this a bit more?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Maintaining a separation of self within that is important too though, so I vs. You are important concepts.
> 
> While we all may be ultimately one, failing to keep certain things separated can result in contamination, and a lack of ego boundaries can cause mental illness and pathological conditions.
> 
> ...



I expect maintaining some sort of a separate self is essential to our physical existence. If we're experiencing 'oneness' with God or well developed spiritual self, sex wouldn't be a relevant part of love anyway. Since it's more of a physical pursuit and abstinence is more of a spiritual one.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Lilith was the first feminist and God got rid of that shit.


Yeah, he banished her along with female sexuality. God must hate men.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Yeah, he banished her along with female sexuality. God must hate men.


How does god banishing women even equate to god hating men?

If I were to make Ice Cream disappear over night, it dosnt mean I hate kids.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> How does god banishing women even equate to god hating men?
> 
> If I were to make Ice Cream disappear over night, it dosnt mean I hate kids.


He banished female sexuality therefore women don't want sex. Then he made heterosexual men wake up every day with a boner. He has a twisted soh.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kyn said:


> Yeah, he banished her along with female sexuality. God must hate men.


From the stories I've read she banished herself. She refused to bow to Adam and left. Something about saying something unspeakable, clapping her hands, and bouncing I feel like? Gonna look this up... lol.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> From the stories I've read she banished herself. She refused to bow to Adam and left. Something about saying something unspeakable, clapping her hands, and bouncing I feel like? Gonna look this up... lol.


Of Adam's first wife, Lilith, it is told
(The witch he loved before the gift of Eve,)
That, ere the snake's, her sweet tongue could deceive,
And her enchanted hair was the first gold.
And still she sits, young while the earth is old,
And, subtly of herself contemplative,
Draws men to watch the bright web she can weave,
Till heart and body and life are in its hold.
The rose and poppy are her flower; for where
Is he not found, O Lilith, whom shed scent
And soft-shed kisses and soft sleep shall snare?
Lo! As that youth's eyes burned at thine, so went
Thy spell through him, and left his straight neck bent
And round his heart one strangling golden hair.

She is described as having a sweet voice, looking beautiful and being seductive. I withdraw my comment about her being a feminist.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> She is described as having a sweet voice, looking beautiful and being seductive. I withdraw my comment about her being a feminist.


If feminists are so obviously beneath you I don't understand why you're so hung up on hating them.

I don't see MGTOW, for instance, as something I need to worry myself about, and I've even agreed with some of what they stand for to an extent.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Reality Check - I will add that it's sort of amusing though, since you're always preaching against negativity.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> @Reality Check - I will add that it's sort of amusing though, since you're always preaching against negativity.


I think "preaching" is a bit dramatic there. I would like to think more along the lines of "encouraging".


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> I think "preaching" is a bit dramatic there. I would like to think more along the lines of "encouraging".


I in turn encourage you to be more positive about feminists then.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Depends on which members, which society... Overall, I personally see no issue with it, but different societies have different rules and statuses. Detaching from society, I don't think humans were meant to be strictly monogamous.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> He banished female sexuality therefore women don't want sex. Then he made heterosexual men wake up every day with a boner. He has a twisted soh.


I thought the "your desire will be for your husband" meant the opposite of women not wanting sex, but the current ESV translation is "your desire *shall be contrary* to your husband" and a footnote "or *shall be toward*"... "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.” https://www.esv.org/Genesis+4/

In the story of Cain and Abel too, in the ESV translation, God says to Cain about sin: "Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it." with the same "or toward you" option.

I don't know what it means, I thought both of these meant that one desires another thing (Eve desires Adam and sin desires Cain) but desire contrary to you seems to mean that there's a conflict, that one wants something that is against what the other wants or benefits from. 



Kyn said:


> You lost me. Can you clarify this a bit more?


Probably can't...  If the story's been told thousands of years, it's probably not an allegory on just the level of characters but what happens in the story really symbolizes some developments or relationships between real-life things. There's a reason why things happen the way they happen and it's not to just to have a story to not be too boring. If it's a good allegory it's not just the beginning and end that make a statement about real life, it's the events and choices of words in between too that speak of dynamics. If there's several levels of interpretation then not all details match exactly on each level... So some details will not make sense in every interpretation, but if the entirety seems to make sense then maybe the interpretation is somewhat correct.

But like a story of jealousy could've been told with many different details, why this way and why half of the story is spent on describing what happens to Cain afterwards if it's not extremely important in interpreting the meaning of the story? It's not just a story about there being these two sides that have to do with emotions and outlooks on life in relation to success and one side can destroy the other, it's also about what happens after that. Is it a story that explains how humans got to being the way we are ("Abel" is dead and we're the children of "Cain", so that's why we are like this), or is it a story warning about something that is re-enacted over and over again in individual human lives, maybe implied by no one killing Cain, the sons and grandsons saying they follow the same path of revenge, and also by Seth being born and these two being the founding fathers of human societies...? If Adam and Eve symbolize layers of psyche or something like that, and if Abel, Cain and Seth are their sons, and the sons allow humans to build cities, then what do the sons symbolize exactly?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Is there a Bible study group in PerC...? 

So if Adam and Eve are some layers of psyche rather than the first humans, which makes sense because in Genesis people, men and women, were created first just like all the animals, and also Cain later worries about other people killing him even though there's only him and his parents there, it would mean the characters we know by name and who communicate with God are not quite the same as humans, and also that in between creating humans and Adam, God rests which probably is a significant detail in some way, maybe representing a transition of sorts, a switch in the primary interpretation maybe. 

In the beginning of a new chapter it's said that in the land there are none of the plants that humans cultivate, because there are no men to work on the land, and then God creates Adam out of that land. @Kyn said Adam could be the conscious mind or ego and Eve the personal unconscious, may be, or at least Adam has something to do with organization and work, and Eve is the mother, creative force. 

So Adam exists alone first and apparently does alright, he names all the animals which is probably a clue to what part of psyche he represents, and he gets his Eden and he does his work there farming or something, he does not eat from the tree of knowledge either while he is alone. He is lonely though, so Eve is created out of him, as his helpmate, and Adam names her too because that's what Adam does.

Okay, so there's two now, they're comfortable with each other and I suppose work together nicely, until Eve finds out from the snake that something they've been afraid of might not be that dangerous after all, and she sees that the forbidden fruit is actually pretty and tasty and desirable. So is Eve something that is there to make life more interesting for Adam ? She's creative and curious and attracted to beautiful things? As a result of both of them eating the fruit, gaining knowledge of good and bad and their eyes opening up, the relationship between Adam and Eve change, and their relationship with life changes, but Adam is still the worker that will farm, collect and eat things out of the land that he is from too, just with great pain after the fall, and Eve is his help and mother of all living things, but just that it will be with great pain that she will birth her children. What is the land or the dust? What is the food that Adam now has trouble getting and eating, and what are the children of Eve and what is the pain?

If Adam and Eve represent some layers of the psyche and if Eve was formed out of Adam as a helpmate to the lonesome Adam, and if the gaining of knowledge set them on a conflicted path that causes certain problems, there's an ideal relationship between the layers that maybe can be achieved, and that probably results in personal heaven or life in Eden for which the religion aims at. Because of the fall, Adam rules over Eve, but that's not ideal? And Eden would've been a place where there's no pain and trouble associated with Adam's work, and no pain associated with birthing of Eve's children? If they're something about psyche, what kind of mental state would that be?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Aeon 

I think of it like this: God represents the entire psyche in it's non-dual state, everything we are unconscious of. Adam represents the beginning of the conscious mind, the first step in the separation of man from God, the separation of the ego from the unconscious, the beginning of duality. The conscious mind can only contain so much information, but the entire psyche contains it all. Adam needs a companion, just like our conscious mind needs a storehouse for information that we may need to recall. Eve holds the storehouse, she also holds his suppressed wants and desires. Which explains why Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. Her desires will be contrary to his, but he will rule over her. 
She's also the link to the entire unconscious, everything born into the conscious mind is born through her, because the potential is already present in our psyche. So when the human needs to grow food, Adam and Eve together create a son, a new potential/ability/skill/aspect of the personality. The baby is potential, it needs nurturing to grow and mature, just like a new aspect of our personality needs nurturing to mature. It has a mother and father, conscious mind and the innate potential to create or learn it. Both together, create something new.
The land would be the unconscious psyche, where everything manifesting in the conscious personality is born from. So if we look at the bible as births representing new aspects or potentials and death representing endings. Every new life stage is a psychological birth and/or death. When the maiden dies, the mother is born. There's always sacrifices in order to become something new.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Of Adam's first wife, Lilith, it is told
> (The witch he loved before the gift of Eve,)
> That, ere the snake's, her sweet tongue could deceive,
> And her enchanted hair was the first gold.
> ...


 @Veggie is right. You hate on feminists way too much. 

Your inner female must be a feminist and you're neglecting her. If you want good relations with women, start with her. She can create good relationships for you or she can ruin every opportunity you get. Stop pissing her off :wink:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Aeon said:


> also Cain later worries about other people killing him even though there's only him and his parents there


Apparently it's mentioned that Adam and Eve had other children too. Then it's assumed that they all went on to have incest babies together. Creationists have rationalized that this wasn't unholy because Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, and so they had some time before inbreeding would start corrupting their genes.

I think it's interesting to apply this all to consciousness too, but I kind of think it's more interesting to view it more literally and in a physical sense lately. In Jung's stages of the anima, he has Eve associated with primality-physicality-the biological-instinctual.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Reality Check - Do you know what your anima looks like? 

https://thirdeve.com/2007/11/01/the-anima/


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> @Reality Check - Do you know what your anima looks like?
> 
> https://thirdeve.com/2007/11/01/the-anima/


Thanks for that, that was quite interesting. I would say I am at the second stage.

I will look into that more deeply. I can see the first stage being similar to something that is talked about in the book "Iron John" (never finished it, its on the list of to do when it comes to reading).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Thanks for that, that was quite interesting. I would say I am at the second stage.
> 
> I will look into that more deeply. I can see the first stage being similar to something that is talked about in the book "Iron John" (never finished it, its on the list of to do when it comes to reading).


I've wondered if you can sort of... do it in reverse too, if it's all ultimately about bringing the unconscious to light. Maybe that's why I've been interested in exploring the taboo in a literal, concrete sense with the story of Adam and Eve. 

He didn't write much about animus development in women, so I've kind of taken the concepts and stripped them to their more bare components.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Reality Check. I'd be interested to hear what you dream about, do you remember your dreams very often?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> @Reality Check. I'd be interested to hear what you dream about, do you remember your dreams very often?


Whilst I'm working night shifts and sleep during the day, I tend to not remember.
That aside, my dreams are a mixture of army related and sex/relationship related.
Interestingly when I was doing my "Law Of Attraction Book" and following the exercises (starting again soon as I felt amazing) I was dreaming about that.
I do cheat though, I have certain hypnosis MP3's that listening to before sleep can influence my dreams (I know it sounds new agey as hell, but for me this stuff works).

In my studies of Huna, it was advised to get a book on dream interretation so that the unconscious knows what symbols to use, so that the conscious mind can understand them better. This is one of the many things I have still not gotten round to doing.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Whilst I'm working night shifts and sleep during the day, I tend to not remember.
> That aside, my dreams are a mixture of army related and sex/relationship related.
> Interestingly when I was doing my "Law Of Attraction Book" and following the exercises (starting again soon as I felt amazing) I was dreaming about that.
> I do cheat though, I have certain hypnosis MP3's that listening to before sleep can influence my dreams (I know it sounds new agey as hell, but for me this stuff works).
> ...


What about female figures in your dreams? What type of women do they represent? Like are they virginal, seductive, independent, weak, mothers, grandmothers, prostitutes, masculine, feminine, etc.?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> What about female figures in your dreams? What type of women do they represent? Like are they virginal, seductive, independent, weak, mothers, grandmothers, prostitutes, masculine, feminine, etc.?


Seductive (as in the Madonna type of seductive) and feminine. 
Actually there is a definite Madonna theme, if you watch the Madonna video "Don't Tell Me" but imagine her being mid 20's then you would be spot on.
The dreams are positive, not negative. If anything I would say the dreams make me feel more confident around women that I used to find intimidating.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Seductive (as in the Madonna type of seductive) and feminine.
> Actually there is a definite Madonna theme, if you watch the Madonna video "Don't Tell Me" but imagine her being mid 20's then you would be spot on.
> The dreams are positive, not negative. If anything I would say the dreams make me feel more confident around women that I used to find intimidating.


Wow. 
Do you not find it strange that the theme is represented by one of the most powerful, rich, independent, nonconforming women ever? If I was to think of one person who was a representation of feminism, she would be it. Then when we consider the madonna/whore complex......... 
Ooooh, that's interesting....


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Oh my, being sick is no fun, the thread progressed so much xD shieet


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Wow.
> Do you not find it strange that the theme is represented by one of the most powerful, rich, independent, nonconforming women ever? If I was to think of one person who was a representation of feminism, she would be it. Then when we consider the madonna/whore complex.........
> Ooooh, that's interesting....


I think I know the reason for the Madonna thing. It involves an ex and somebody else.
But going into that, well its kind of messy and will really bring the whole Madonna/Whore complex into light.
Its interesting though.

As for representation of feminism, I would of actually said Miley Cyrus for what I view as a modern day representation. But people view stuff differently.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyn said:


> @Aeon
> 
> I think of it like this: God represents the entire psyche in it's non-dual state, everything we are unconscious of. Adam represents the beginning of the conscious mind, the first step in the separation of man from God, the separation of the ego from the unconscious, the beginning of duality. The conscious mind can only contain so much information, but the entire psyche contains it all. Adam needs a companion, just like our conscious mind needs a storehouse for information that we may need to recall. Eve holds the storehouse, she also holds his suppressed wants and desires. Which explains why Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. Her desires will be contrary to his, but he will rule over her.
> She's also the link to the entire unconscious, everything born into the conscious mind is born through her, because the potential is already present in our psyche. So when the human needs to grow food, Adam and Eve together create a son, a new potential/ability/skill/aspect of the personality. The baby is potential, it needs nurturing to grow and mature, just like a new aspect of our personality needs nurturing to mature. It has a mother and father, conscious mind and the innate potential to create or learn it. Both together, create something new.
> The land would be the unconscious psyche, where everything manifesting in the conscious personality is born from. So if we look at the bible as births representing new aspects or potentials and death representing endings. Every new life stage is a psychological birth and/or death. When the maiden dies, the mother is born. There's always sacrifices in order to become something new.


Do you see God and the land representing the same thing?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> As for representation of feminism, I would of actually said Miley Cyrus for what I view as a modern day representation. But people view stuff differently.


Miley's third wave feminism at it's best imo, so I actually agree. I think she's hilarious, she's a good sport, she's creatively free, successful, and she nabbed a Hemsworth. I don't understand why people hate on her. 

This is pretty funny. "She's missing something" ...and she just automatically trolls back with - "In her heart, probably."















^This is still one of my favorite things too.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> I think I know the reason for the Madonna thing. It involves an ex and somebody else.
> But going into that, well its kind of messy and will really bring the whole Madonna/Whore complex into light.
> Its interesting though.
> 
> As for representation of feminism, I would of actually said Miley Cyrus for what I view as a modern day representation. But people view stuff differently.


I was a 90's teenager. I probably wouldn't know miley cyrus if she walked passed me in the street.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aeon said:


> Do you see God and the land representing the same thing?


I'd say God is everything, so in a sense, yes. I haven't figured out exactly what I would define as what, within the unconscious yet.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Oh my, being sick is no fun, the thread progressed so much xD shieet


Have you been sick? 
Glad you're feeling better.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kyn said:


> Have you been sick?
> Glad you're feeling better.


yea :mellow: just the flu but annoying
thanks!


----------

