Open relationships
- Thread starter Sergeant Hustle
- Start date
what about a person like me who either would rather be alone, or be with one person and one person only?
im not the type of guy to be a playa and never have been, and all the chicks i fucked you could say was just me experimenting while growing up.
and as crazy as you might think i am when i say this, but i honestly dont have a problem being celibate.
my main priorities in life are to grow the best i can into the highest expression of my being, change the world for the better in any way, and learn to love and have only good intentions behind my actions. So really, i , the "animal" , dont see myself goin out and having a 3 some tonight.
so even if i am an exception, this exception that is me isnt normal?
im not the type of guy to be a playa and never have been, and all the chicks i fucked you could say was just me experimenting while growing up.
and as crazy as you might think i am when i say this, but i honestly dont have a problem being celibate.
my main priorities in life are to grow the best i can into the highest expression of my being, change the world for the better in any way, and learn to love and have only good intentions behind my actions. So really, i , the "animal" , dont see myself goin out and having a 3 some tonight.
so even if i am an exception, this exception that is me isnt normal?
even when its not society telling us what is what, i feel like people automatically have the need to identify, assuming that everybody else must know the truth.
now i dont know if the need to identify is actually embedded in mans ego, or if it is society that stresses the need for one to identify rather than to just be.
Appearntly, you didnt see where i said "there are wlasy rule to the exception".
What seperates us from, lets say, penguins, is we have a higher intelligence and can make decisions while bypassing "DNA encoded" instincts.
I am the same way...sorta. I was against relationships for a very long time for a number of reasons. I am in one now becuase i chose to be. Am i happy? More than i have been in a long time. However, i still feel that it is a personal choise to be monogymous at this time. For all i know, i may wake up tomorrow and decide to fuck my naighbor and end my relationship. Thats just the human in me.
I did the same thing for a year...it was great. I wanted to see if i could do it, i did...but i dont know if i would do it again. Even a fat chick is > than your hand after a year.
These do not conicide with being " an animal". A person can only judge what is right and what is wrong, confined within the boundaries of the legal system of course. If YOU think being a player is right, but you best bud sees being in a relationship is right...guess what...you are both RIGHT.
Whats normal? No one has established any status quo of "normal", only PERSONAL PREFERENCES have been thrown around in this thread. Some of us have only stated that by animal laws and animal laws only, humans by NATURE are not monogymous. It is a CHOICE. It is also a chouse that seems to be puched on us in everyday life by commercials, politicians, and even religion.
What seperates us from, lets say, penguins, is we have a higher intelligence and can make decisions while bypassing "DNA encoded" instincts.
I am the same way...sorta. I was against relationships for a very long time for a number of reasons. I am in one now becuase i chose to be. Am i happy? More than i have been in a long time. However, i still feel that it is a personal choise to be monogymous at this time. For all i know, i may wake up tomorrow and decide to fuck my naighbor and end my relationship. Thats just the human in me.
I did the same thing for a year...it was great. I wanted to see if i could do it, i did...but i dont know if i would do it again. Even a fat chick is > than your hand after a year.
These do not conicide with being " an animal". A person can only judge what is right and what is wrong, confined within the boundaries of the legal system of course. If YOU think being a player is right, but you best bud sees being in a relationship is right...guess what...you are both RIGHT.
Whats normal? No one has established any status quo of "normal", only PERSONAL PREFERENCES have been thrown around in this thread. Some of us have only stated that by animal laws and animal laws only, humans by NATURE are not monogymous. It is a CHOICE. It is also a chouse that seems to be puched on us in everyday life by commercials, politicians, and even religion.
you see, i'm the opposite, i used to be some what of a player, and dibble dabble in whatever, but it was only to amuse myself, and i always knew that.
now, the thought of doing it again seems so boring that i'd rather sit and meditate for a bajillion hours than rather waste my time being a mindless 'animal' lol
now, the thought of doing it again seems so boring that i'd rather sit and meditate for a bajillion hours than rather waste my time being a mindless 'animal' lol
Thats the truth. But dont tell the truth around here, some love to be blind.
Good luck to some of you idiots who end up getting 4 girls pregnant and 3 stds. People do not understand you can not just fuck around. Sooner or later you got to make a choice. Players end up broke with kids or stds. I would rather have one in a closed relationship then many in an open. When you get to be a certain age you quit acting childish.
Good luck to some of you idiots who end up getting 4 girls pregnant and 3 stds. People do not understand you can not just fuck around. Sooner or later you got to make a choice. Players end up broke with kids or stds. I would rather have one in a closed relationship then many in an open. When you get to be a certain age you quit acting childish.
Who said the married couple had to continue with an open relationship after kids come into the world? Have you ever heard of condoms? Birth control? Or testing every party before getting sexually involved?
This has NOTHING to do with "players", this is about a COUPLE who have an OPEN relationship. This means that BOTH parties know that the other is having sexual relations with an outside party. Can you read or comprehend English at all?
Dont be such a close minded dolt.
This has NOTHING to do with "players", this is about a COUPLE who have an OPEN relationship. This means that BOTH parties know that the other is having sexual relations with an outside party. Can you read or comprehend English at all?
Dont be such a close minded dolt.
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (2002), by David Barash and Judith Lipton.
"Written by a psychologist and a zoologist, this is one of the most revolutionary science books to deal with mating behaviors. The authors lay out a careful, evidence-packed argument that monogamy is incredibly rare in the animal kingdom and that the human desire to cling to it as a norm may not have any basis in biological realities. Plus there are a ton of great stories about birds cheating on each other."
:dead:
"Written by a psychologist and a zoologist, this is one of the most revolutionary science books to deal with mating behaviors. The authors lay out a careful, evidence-packed argument that monogamy is incredibly rare in the animal kingdom and that the human desire to cling to it as a norm may not have any basis in biological realities. Plus there are a ton of great stories about birds cheating on each other."
:dead:
DEFLATING THE MYTH OF MONOGAMY
David P. Barash
The Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz used to recommend that every scientist discard at least one cherished notion every day, before breakfast. It is excellent advice (although Lorenz wasn't known for tossing away many of his own prized ideas). In any event, good science doesn't really require that its practitioners intentionally turn their backs on what they believe to be true, or what they devoutly wish were so. Tincture of time and the accumulation of new findings generally accomplish that: If we wait long enough, the world has a habit of making mincemeat of even our most strongly held ideas. The only thing necessary is to remain open to the evidence.
Case in point: the widely held view that certain animals -- notably the great majority of bird species -- are monogamous. Second case in point: the belief that females of most species, including our own, strongly tend toward sexual fidelity -- in contrast to males, who are known to have a penchant for sexual variety, if not promiscuity.
Biologists have long understood that monogamy is rare in mammals. Of about 4,000 mammalian species, only a handful have ever been called monogamous.
Continue reading here
David P. Barash
The Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz used to recommend that every scientist discard at least one cherished notion every day, before breakfast. It is excellent advice (although Lorenz wasn't known for tossing away many of his own prized ideas). In any event, good science doesn't really require that its practitioners intentionally turn their backs on what they believe to be true, or what they devoutly wish were so. Tincture of time and the accumulation of new findings generally accomplish that: If we wait long enough, the world has a habit of making mincemeat of even our most strongly held ideas. The only thing necessary is to remain open to the evidence.
Case in point: the widely held view that certain animals -- notably the great majority of bird species -- are monogamous. Second case in point: the belief that females of most species, including our own, strongly tend toward sexual fidelity -- in contrast to males, who are known to have a penchant for sexual variety, if not promiscuity.
Biologists have long understood that monogamy is rare in mammals. Of about 4,000 mammalian species, only a handful have ever been called monogamous.
Continue reading here
"There is no question about monogamy's being natural. It isn't. But at the same time, there is no reason to conclude that adultery is unavoidable, or that it is good. "Smallpox is natural," wrote Ogden Nash. "Vaccine ain't." Animals, most likely, can't help "doing what comes naturally." But humans can. A strong case can even be made that we are never so human as when we behave contrary to our natural inclinations, those most in tune with our biological impulses."
^^^^^Pretty much sums up what I was TRYING to say.
Good read Cold...err...Mr. Rictus.
^^^^^Pretty much sums up what I was TRYING to say.
Good read Cold...err...Mr. Rictus.
LOL! It is very difficult to have a debate on this subject when people are clearly not very educated on it.
Every species would NOT be polygamous. We are not even debating theory now; you are just stating how you feel about the subject without any research or facts to back it up. A tendency for infidelity in humans is recognized as a fact by most evolutionary psychologists. This is simple stuff they will teach you at any Community College Anthropology class. Different species fall all over the monogamous-polygamous spectrum. The species who found it to be a reproductive success WOULD be polygamous, while the species who found it an evolutionary advantage to be monogamous, would be monogamous. Not all species would be polygamous, because for some it is a reproductive disadvantage to have more than one mate or practice any form of infidelity.
This is a matter of is it more effective for the female in a species to get the best DNA or is more effective for her to get the most investing mate. In a species that requires a lot of parental investment, you find that the pair bonds are very monogamous because the female’s offspring have a higher chance of survival and reproduction when they have an investing father. In species where parental investment is lower, females tradeoff between having a low status mate with limited resources and one female, and a high status mate with lots of resources and many females.
Humans, fall in the middle of this conundrum, and we often see females who settle for a lower status male with limited chance for infidelity, and then the females attempt to acquire DNA from a higher status males, while fooling their mate into thinking the child was his.
This is why human females hide their menstrual cycles; it allows them to disguise who the father of their children is. In some studies, researchers have found more than 15% of people have a father different from who they think it is.
http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw892
From Barbara Katz Rothman (1989) Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society: "A fair percentage of us, it turns out, are not genetically related to the men we grew up with as fathers anyway. Some physicians doing tissue typing for organ donations estimate that maybe 20 percent of people are not genetically related to the men who claim fatherhood; others say it is less, perhaps as low as 5 percent".
From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: "More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled".
From the Durban Sunday Times 1998-10-11: "The Sunday Telegraph recently reported that Professor John Burns, a geneticist at Newcastle University, argued that the figure was closer to 10 percent".
From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: "David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man".
From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: "For the population as a whole, "The generic number used by us is 10 percent," said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]"
From The Age 2000-03-26: "About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community".
No one said ALL, but MANY.
In a sense, yes. Ever heard of "animal instintcs"? Animals dont build computers to make their lives easier, fly airplanes to migrate faster, or invent ovens to cook their food. They are born, haver a fucntion, create MORE of the species so that it SURVIVES, ans eats. They dont go to Starbucks to have coffee, or go to a movie to be entertained, or go to the bar and get drunk. However, animals do display in one way or another, fucntions where they do have fun....epsecially primates. What is the closest relative of humans?
Proof otherwise?
We are instilled with values of how to live from DAY ONE. Parents, teachers, politicians, preachers...all have values that THEY feel are RIGHT for us.
Who SAYS we HAVE to be with one person? it is ALL over the place. Billboards, commercials, church...take a look around. In many ways, it is FROWNED upon to have more than one "mate".
And thats exactly it...YOUR opinion. That means that YOU feel YOU are right...not that it is FACT.
In a sense, yes. Ever heard of "animal instintcs"? Animals dont build computers to make their lives easier, fly airplanes to migrate faster, or invent ovens to cook their food. They are born, haver a fucntion, create MORE of the species so that it SURVIVES, ans eats. They dont go to Starbucks to have coffee, or go to a movie to be entertained, or go to the bar and get drunk. However, animals do display in one way or another, fucntions where they do have fun....epsecially primates. What is the closest relative of humans?
Proof otherwise?
We are instilled with values of how to live from DAY ONE. Parents, teachers, politicians, preachers...all have values that THEY feel are RIGHT for us.
Who SAYS we HAVE to be with one person? it is ALL over the place. Billboards, commercials, church...take a look around. In many ways, it is FROWNED upon to have more than one "mate".
And thats exactly it...YOUR opinion. That means that YOU feel YOU are right...not that it is FACT.
Do you even read what you are typing? You are epitomising a closed minded misinformed dolt right now lol. Relatationships are not black and white
You are clearly the one lacking any understanding of this issue.
Go to Utah and tell me all relationships are the same lol.
Fuck go to your local swingers club (where couples go to swap partners since you obviously have no information on the issue), you will be suprised who shows up.
Ignorance IS bliss.
Just becuase YOUR values differ from others, does NOT mean you are right. However, SCIENTIFIC evidence DOES say that I am right.
Funny how that works, isnt it?
Look, if you are mongamous, then good for you! Have a cookie! No one is MAD at you. However, to say someone is WRONG becuase they CHOOSE to lead a different lifestyle, is judgemental and close minded PERIOD.
And how does it affect YOU? If someone has a relationship where both parties are involved with others, how on EARTH does that involve YOU? Just be YOU and everything will be fine.
You havent chenged a BIT, Rob....youre still a close-minded peice of shit that passes judegement on ANYONE that doesnt agree with you.
Go dress your kitty-cats up.
Just becuase YOUR values differ from others, does NOT mean you are right. However, SCIENTIFIC evidence DOES say that I am right.
Funny how that works, isnt it?
Look, if you are mongamous, then good for you! Have a cookie! No one is MAD at you. However, to say someone is WRONG becuase they CHOOSE to lead a different lifestyle, is judgemental and close minded PERIOD.
And how does it affect YOU? If someone has a relationship where both parties are involved with others, how on EARTH does that involve YOU? Just be YOU and everything will be fine.
You havent chenged a BIT, Rob....youre still a close-minded peice of shit that passes judegement on ANYONE that doesnt agree with you.
Go dress your kitty-cats up.
This is where I am at. I want an alpha male to father my child. But most alpha males already have mad kids and/or girlfriends/wives/don't want to settle down because they are sought after by other women like myself who want their genes. It seems very primal, but it's just how I've been feeling lately. My clock is ticking and I'm attracted to the big dogs.
damn looks like this thread turned bad haha
Good info from some of yall. mr niceguy, ifuckedyourmom and the others.
I agree with alot of the evolutionary views but also add that human pscyo/social pressures add onto the dynamics of a relationship in varying degrees dependent on the people involved.
Alot of people are fooled and lead to belive that monogomy IS THE WAY.
I challenge anyone to try and see what works for them and not be hold fast to any pre-concieved notion about anything, personal relationships included.
Good info from some of yall. mr niceguy, ifuckedyourmom and the others.
I agree with alot of the evolutionary views but also add that human pscyo/social pressures add onto the dynamics of a relationship in varying degrees dependent on the people involved.
Alot of people are fooled and lead to belive that monogomy IS THE WAY.
I challenge anyone to try and see what works for them and not be hold fast to any pre-concieved notion about anything, personal relationships included.
