Darius11 12 #1 August 18, 2004 I was talking to a friend awhile back. He does research for UCLA and we tend to talk about things like is marriage natural. After a lot of discussion he pointed out many facts that marriage does not exist in the natural world. Also that the few species that we thought mate for life don’t. We used to think that because of observations now with DNA testing it has been proven that there is a lot of cheating going on. The reason for this post. I would like to know what you think? And what is your reasoning behind it? Do you think marriage is a social pursuer or part of the human evolution? Thank you. DariusI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #2 August 19, 2004 QuoteI was talking to a friend awhile back. He does research for UCLA and we tend to talk about things like is marriage natural. After a lot of discussion he pointed out many facts that marriage does not exist in the natural world. Also that the few species that we thought mate for life don’t. We used to think that because of observations now with DNA testing it has been proven that there is a lot of cheating going on. The reason for this post. I would like to know what you think? And what is your reasoning behind it? Do you think marriage is a social pursuer or part of the human evolution? Thank you. Darius Species in which males are larger than females and in which the penis and mating physiology is designed to pump out the previous guys' semen before putting in one's own are not monogamous in nature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #3 August 19, 2004 The post makes me realise how lucky I am. Yes. Marriage can be natural, even among the unmarried, co-habiting, dating, etc... I feel that "Marriage" is not a matter of a piece of paper. It's a matter of friendship, trust, shared values, faith, mutual support, committment and faithfulness. It's a matter of finding Mr/Ms RIGHT, not Mr/Ms "Right Now"!! (although Mr/Ms Right Now is very tempting at the time, and in the past I have succumbed to temptation at the time! - as has Iona). Personally, we both "have a past", and that's where it belonged. Where we are now, and have been for the last 10+ years is in a lifetime committment for and to each other - the whole "for better or for worse, richer of poorer, in sickness and health thing, even if we haven't said it formally. So, Yes. I believe that "marriage" (mating for life) IS (or can be) natural for humans, but unfortunately the social pressure to marry - to make a committment with someone too early in life, or who isn't completely suitable for you, gets in the way of marriage. Ahh... If only I'd met Iona when I was 18... I'd be locked up 'cos she was only 10 at the time! Mike. . Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
genoyamamoto 0 #4 August 19, 2004 Quoteis designed to pump out the previous guys' semen before putting in one's own are not monogamous in nature. Really? pump out the previous guys' semen? Got a link? Thanks. Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hungarianchick 0 #5 August 19, 2004 Genetically, marriage is not natural. The majority of the species have numerous mates throughout their lives to ensure the survival of the species and to weed out the sick and old. The human sexes however no longer just "hook up" to procreate. There is more than just the instinct to survive, there are emotions involved which, for most cultures anyway, makes it very difficult to share a sexual partner with another person. "I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #6 August 19, 2004 And with that post, the debate on how humans are/aren't different from animals begins.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #7 August 19, 2004 QuoteAnd with that post, the debate on how humans are/aren't different from animals begins. Of course humans are different from OTHER animals. When was the last time you saw a sea urchin postwhore? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #8 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteis designed to pump out the previous guys' semen before putting in one's own are not monogamous in nature. Really? pump out the previous guys' semen? Got a link? Thanks. Why do you need a link - just look at the shape and compare it to the piston in a tire pump. Why do you think we take a long time to come (unless we're 16)? More pumping time to eliminate the competition before making our own deposit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 August 19, 2004 ok....this thread has become really gross. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #10 August 19, 2004 Quoteok....this thread has become really gross. i agreeI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoadRash 0 #11 August 19, 2004 I hate to say this...but there are a few species of primates that are monogamous...if for no other reason than they have to be in order to procreate... If you are saying, "Is Marriage Natural for human beings?" then that is a different question and it depends on whether you are speaking culturally or not...Forms of marriage tend to be universal...I recommend you checking out some books on anthropology and specifically marriage rituals and culture and marriage...I have some books sitting right here that you would probably love! ~R+R...Marriage in some cultures has nothing to do with being monogamous...in others...it has everything to do with being monogamous...depends on the environment and how you view sex...~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #12 August 19, 2004 Quoteok....this thread has become really gross. Evolutionary physiology is gross? It's just fact. Think about it: What purpose does the shape serve? Why do we have to go at it for a while? Unless you believe in Creationism, you have to acknowledge that we're like this for a reason that can be explained in evolutionary terms.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #13 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteok....this thread has become really gross. i agree Here's a link. I wasn't making this up: human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep021223.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #14 August 19, 2004 ***Evolutionary physiology is gross? It's just fact. Think about it: What purpose does the shape serve? Why do we have to go at it for a while? Unless you believe in Creationism, you have to acknowledge that we're like this for a reason that can be explained in evolutionary terms. *** What purpose does the shape serve? Well it feels pretty damn good to the female of the species. If we like it, we'll do it again, which means more sperm deposits and more chance of producing new members of the species. If it was not nearly so much fun, there'd be a whole lot more headaches among females. Jen Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #15 August 19, 2004 >What purpose does the shape serve? Well it feels pretty damn >good to the female of the species. If there was an evolutionary advantage to a male sex organ being shaped like a weathervane, women would evolve to like _that._ (The ones that didn't would get evolved out of the picture pretty quickly.) Our instinctive likes and dislikes are shaped by evolution, not the other way around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #16 August 19, 2004 QuoteI hate to say this...but there are a few species of primates that are monogamous...if for no other reason than they have to be in order to procreate... If you are saying, "Is Marriage Natural for human beings?" then that is a different question and it depends on whether you are speaking culturally or not...Forms of marriage tend to be universal...I recommend you checking out some books on anthropology and specifically marriage rituals and culture and marriage...I have some books sitting right here that you would probably love! ~R+R...Marriage in some cultures has nothing to do with being monogamous...in others...it has everything to do with being monogamous...depends on the environment and how you view sex... Marriage, as a social institution, exists primarily as a mechanism for the orderly transfer of property to descendants. Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #17 August 19, 2004 QuoteHere's a link. I wasn't making this up: human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep021223.html That is interesting. I had never thought about that, but it makes sense... Just from my own experience and observations in life, I have come to the conclusion that humans were not designed to be monogamous. I think "monogamy" and "marriage" are cultural things and they are a choice that many people make. But, judging by the struggle that so many people have with monogamy, it would appear that it is in no way "natural". (Perhaps it is not a struggle for everyone, but I think that is because of social conditioning rather than natural instinct. Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex drive???) Just my opinion... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #18 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuote Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex drive???) I'd be prepared to disabuse you of that totally misguided notion, using empirical evidence... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteok....this thread has become really gross. Evolutionary physiology is gross? Coming from you, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #20 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex drive???) I'd be prepared to disabuse you of that totally misguided notion, using empirical evidence Oops, now I've insulted all of the old farts. Ok, maybe I was wrong in that theory... but, again, I was just basing it on my personal experience. The younger guys that I've been around in my life mostly seem to be way hornier (to use scientific terms ;-) than the older guys. (Not that being "way hornier" is necessarily a good thing.) This is just generalization, of course; I'm sure it varies with different people. Women, on the other hand, I'm not too sure about... I know some women whose sex drives have increased with age, and some whose drives have decreased... I don't really see a distinct pattern... (Ok, so maybe I'm wrong about the whole "monogamy/lower sex drive with age" thing! I don't know... I'll just stick to the "people are not monogamous by nature" theory - no matter what their age is. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #21 August 19, 2004 >humans were not designed to be monogamous. I would go a step further and say that there are evolutionary drives to NOT be monogamous, especially for men. You are successful (in an evolutionary sense) if your genome is propagated to many offspring. A woman can only have X children in her lifetime, and often, not all of them survive due to starvation, disease, violence etc. Thus a woman who is attracted to (and mates with) one good provider does well evolutionarily; her offspring are protected by the good provider, and he provides all the gametes she needs to propagate _her_ genome. Guys, on the other hand, are not limited to the number of children they sire. A good evolutionary strategy would be to play the field - if you have 100 kids, even if only 10% survive, you're going to do pretty well overall. If you stick with one woman, you may only have 10 kids (and have 8 of them survive) even if you make a serious effort to have a lot. Of course, nowadays most children do survive and prosper so this force is lessened - but I think we carry some of that evolutionary drive with us still. >Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most > people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex >drive???) Not sure about that, but there _is_ a drive to protect your own children after you've had some (for obvious reasons) which is why many people find a family more important as they get older. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #22 August 19, 2004 This is a very interesting subject, one that I have given a lot of thought to throughout my life... When I was around 13 or 14 (about 20 years ago), I came to the conclusion that people were not meant to be in monogamous relationships. I had never heard of an "open relationship" at that time... I just came up with the idea on my own because it was what made sense to me. (I was never one to blindly accept "tradition" as necessarily being "the correct thing to do"... not that I would go against tradition just for the sake of doing so either.) Now my boyfriend at that time was not the least bit amused, and quickly broke up with me after I insisted that we should be able to be boyfriend/girlfriend yet still free to go on dates with other people. Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. I say "surprisingly" because one would think with the typical man's "straying eye" (sorry for the stereotype) that they would be all over having a girlfriend that allowed them to also date other girls, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What is especially interesting to me is that many of my friends who think I am crazy for wanting to have an "open relationship", are people who have cheated in relationships before and seem to think that is somehow more normal. Sadly, I guess it IS more "normal" to cheat while in a so-called "monogamous" relationship than to just have an open relationship. What society finds as "acceptable" just boggles my mind sometimes... (It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be.) And on this subject, have you ever read "Time Enough For Love" by Robert Heinlein? It was recommended to me a few years ago by a special friend (are you reading this? ;-), and is now one of my favorite books... Probably the closest thing I've ever read on how I think relationships should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #23 August 19, 2004 Quote>What purpose does the shape serve? Well it feels pretty damn >good to the female of the species. If there was an evolutionary advantage to a male sex organ being shaped like a weathervane, women would evolve to like _that._ (The ones that didn't would get evolved out of the picture pretty quickly.) Our instinctive likes and dislikes are shaped by evolution, not the other way around. In the link that Kallend provided, female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely to reproduce. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #24 August 19, 2004 >female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of >male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely >to reproduce. Sadly, it has only been recently that women have been able to refuse sex by the time genitals make their appearance. So I would tend to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #25 August 19, 2004 >It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an >acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be. Yet oddly, cheating and (now) penitent husbands/wives are more accepted than people with open relationships. It's almost as if people prefer the deception. >Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. Not so suprising. That's quite a threat to most people - to have an SO that isn't "yours" and may decide they like someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #19 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteok....this thread has become really gross. Evolutionary physiology is gross? Coming from you, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 August 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex drive???) I'd be prepared to disabuse you of that totally misguided notion, using empirical evidence Oops, now I've insulted all of the old farts. Ok, maybe I was wrong in that theory... but, again, I was just basing it on my personal experience. The younger guys that I've been around in my life mostly seem to be way hornier (to use scientific terms ;-) than the older guys. (Not that being "way hornier" is necessarily a good thing.) This is just generalization, of course; I'm sure it varies with different people. Women, on the other hand, I'm not too sure about... I know some women whose sex drives have increased with age, and some whose drives have decreased... I don't really see a distinct pattern... (Ok, so maybe I'm wrong about the whole "monogamy/lower sex drive with age" thing! I don't know... I'll just stick to the "people are not monogamous by nature" theory - no matter what their age is. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #21 August 19, 2004 >humans were not designed to be monogamous. I would go a step further and say that there are evolutionary drives to NOT be monogamous, especially for men. You are successful (in an evolutionary sense) if your genome is propagated to many offspring. A woman can only have X children in her lifetime, and often, not all of them survive due to starvation, disease, violence etc. Thus a woman who is attracted to (and mates with) one good provider does well evolutionarily; her offspring are protected by the good provider, and he provides all the gametes she needs to propagate _her_ genome. Guys, on the other hand, are not limited to the number of children they sire. A good evolutionary strategy would be to play the field - if you have 100 kids, even if only 10% survive, you're going to do pretty well overall. If you stick with one woman, you may only have 10 kids (and have 8 of them survive) even if you make a serious effort to have a lot. Of course, nowadays most children do survive and prosper so this force is lessened - but I think we carry some of that evolutionary drive with us still. >Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most > people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex >drive???) Not sure about that, but there _is_ a drive to protect your own children after you've had some (for obvious reasons) which is why many people find a family more important as they get older. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #22 August 19, 2004 This is a very interesting subject, one that I have given a lot of thought to throughout my life... When I was around 13 or 14 (about 20 years ago), I came to the conclusion that people were not meant to be in monogamous relationships. I had never heard of an "open relationship" at that time... I just came up with the idea on my own because it was what made sense to me. (I was never one to blindly accept "tradition" as necessarily being "the correct thing to do"... not that I would go against tradition just for the sake of doing so either.) Now my boyfriend at that time was not the least bit amused, and quickly broke up with me after I insisted that we should be able to be boyfriend/girlfriend yet still free to go on dates with other people. Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. I say "surprisingly" because one would think with the typical man's "straying eye" (sorry for the stereotype) that they would be all over having a girlfriend that allowed them to also date other girls, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What is especially interesting to me is that many of my friends who think I am crazy for wanting to have an "open relationship", are people who have cheated in relationships before and seem to think that is somehow more normal. Sadly, I guess it IS more "normal" to cheat while in a so-called "monogamous" relationship than to just have an open relationship. What society finds as "acceptable" just boggles my mind sometimes... (It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be.) And on this subject, have you ever read "Time Enough For Love" by Robert Heinlein? It was recommended to me a few years ago by a special friend (are you reading this? ;-), and is now one of my favorite books... Probably the closest thing I've ever read on how I think relationships should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #23 August 19, 2004 Quote>What purpose does the shape serve? Well it feels pretty damn >good to the female of the species. If there was an evolutionary advantage to a male sex organ being shaped like a weathervane, women would evolve to like _that._ (The ones that didn't would get evolved out of the picture pretty quickly.) Our instinctive likes and dislikes are shaped by evolution, not the other way around. In the link that Kallend provided, female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely to reproduce. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #24 August 19, 2004 >female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of >male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely >to reproduce. Sadly, it has only been recently that women have been able to refuse sex by the time genitals make their appearance. So I would tend to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #25 August 19, 2004 >It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an >acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be. Yet oddly, cheating and (now) penitent husbands/wives are more accepted than people with open relationships. It's almost as if people prefer the deception. >Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. Not so suprising. That's quite a threat to most people - to have an SO that isn't "yours" and may decide they like someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,991 #21 August 19, 2004 >humans were not designed to be monogamous. I would go a step further and say that there are evolutionary drives to NOT be monogamous, especially for men. You are successful (in an evolutionary sense) if your genome is propagated to many offspring. A woman can only have X children in her lifetime, and often, not all of them survive due to starvation, disease, violence etc. Thus a woman who is attracted to (and mates with) one good provider does well evolutionarily; her offspring are protected by the good provider, and he provides all the gametes she needs to propagate _her_ genome. Guys, on the other hand, are not limited to the number of children they sire. A good evolutionary strategy would be to play the field - if you have 100 kids, even if only 10% survive, you're going to do pretty well overall. If you stick with one woman, you may only have 10 kids (and have 8 of them survive) even if you make a serious effort to have a lot. Of course, nowadays most children do survive and prosper so this force is lessened - but I think we carry some of that evolutionary drive with us still. >Also, it appears that monogamy becomes easier with age for most > people, which I'm guessing has something to do with a lower sex >drive???) Not sure about that, but there _is_ a drive to protect your own children after you've had some (for obvious reasons) which is why many people find a family more important as they get older. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #22 August 19, 2004 This is a very interesting subject, one that I have given a lot of thought to throughout my life... When I was around 13 or 14 (about 20 years ago), I came to the conclusion that people were not meant to be in monogamous relationships. I had never heard of an "open relationship" at that time... I just came up with the idea on my own because it was what made sense to me. (I was never one to blindly accept "tradition" as necessarily being "the correct thing to do"... not that I would go against tradition just for the sake of doing so either.) Now my boyfriend at that time was not the least bit amused, and quickly broke up with me after I insisted that we should be able to be boyfriend/girlfriend yet still free to go on dates with other people. Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. I say "surprisingly" because one would think with the typical man's "straying eye" (sorry for the stereotype) that they would be all over having a girlfriend that allowed them to also date other girls, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What is especially interesting to me is that many of my friends who think I am crazy for wanting to have an "open relationship", are people who have cheated in relationships before and seem to think that is somehow more normal. Sadly, I guess it IS more "normal" to cheat while in a so-called "monogamous" relationship than to just have an open relationship. What society finds as "acceptable" just boggles my mind sometimes... (It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be.) And on this subject, have you ever read "Time Enough For Love" by Robert Heinlein? It was recommended to me a few years ago by a special friend (are you reading this? ;-), and is now one of my favorite books... Probably the closest thing I've ever read on how I think relationships should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #23 August 19, 2004 Quote>What purpose does the shape serve? Well it feels pretty damn >good to the female of the species. If there was an evolutionary advantage to a male sex organ being shaped like a weathervane, women would evolve to like _that._ (The ones that didn't would get evolved out of the picture pretty quickly.) Our instinctive likes and dislikes are shaped by evolution, not the other way around. In the link that Kallend provided, female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely to reproduce. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #24 August 19, 2004 >female choice was listed as having had an impact on the evolution of >male genitalia, i.e. those with genitalia that women prefer are more likely >to reproduce. Sadly, it has only been recently that women have been able to refuse sex by the time genitals make their appearance. So I would tend to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #25 August 19, 2004 >It does seem to me that cheating has, in some way, become an >acceptable part of our society - judging by how common it seems to be. Yet oddly, cheating and (now) penitent husbands/wives are more accepted than people with open relationships. It's almost as if people prefer the deception. >Surprisingly, this has been the attitude of most men who I have met throughout my life. Not so suprising. That's quite a threat to most people - to have an SO that isn't "yours" and may decide they like someone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
