145 replies to this topic

[NapisaurusRex]

Because I'm madly in love.

Is it strange that from what I know of your personality led me to believe you must be a Gemini man?
Of course according to your profile you're a Libra.. so I was genuinely surprised.

Gemini men have issues with commitment, are very promiscuous.. etc.

Edit: I feel like I should reword that "Gemini men are said to have.."
Because of course, it's not always the case.

Still an air sign.

I think the issues of self-worth brought up by Mishatu sum the entire dilemma up. I understand the primitive need and construction of monogamy in traditional patriarchal society as a way for men to guarantee that their children are their own. However, such a function becomes null with the development of parental testing. The problem is that we have based numerous social interactions around this archaic institution so they have stayed with us paradigmatically. Monogamy itself as a cultural institution may be useless, but the fact that sexual exclusivity is a romantic norm will make us tie issues of anxiety and emotional involvement to sex.

So what's the answer you're looking for? That humans haven't mentally adapted enough to fuck around in spite of the knowledge that paternity tests exist? Not everyone can afford paternity tests. Not everyone lives in a world with lawyers and child support and shit. Why are all of your questions about 'humans' in general when you really mean 'humans in developed nations?'

It's like parenthood, a father may feel anxious if he doesn't provide monetarily for his kids, but a mother won't. This isn't due to natural reasons, it's due to different expectations in certain social roles.

....you're wrong.

[8143FF763271]

Because I'm madly in love.


Still an air sign.


So what's the answer you're looking for? That humans haven't mentally adapted enough to fuck around in spite of the knowledge that paternity tests exist? Not everyone can afford paternity tests. Not everyone lives in a world with lawyers and child support and shit. Why are all of your questions about 'humans' in general when you really mean 'humans in developed nations?'


....you're wrong.

I'm talking about humans in developed nations, though. Obviously a cultural convention I deem archaic in developed nations will not be a cultural convention I deem archaic elsewhere. I'm not wrong, either. Fathers and mothers have different societal expectations stop BAW'ing because I suggested that. Not being able to provide financially creates more anxiety for a man than it does for a woman, not being able to stay at home and directly take care of kids creates more anxiety for a woman than it does for a man. It's the anxiety of not fulfilling an expected role, as outdated as it may be.

~*~ GET OVA IT ~*~

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[NapisaurusRex]

I'm talking about humans in developed nations, though. Obviously a cultural convention I deem archaic in developed nations will not be a cultural convention I deem archaic elsewhere. I'm not wrong, either. Fathers and mothers have different societal expectations stop BAW'ing because I suggested that. Not being able to provide financially creates more anxiety for a man than it does for a woman, not being able to stay at home and directly take care of kids creates more anxiety for a woman than it does for a man. It's the anxiety of not fulfilling an expected role, as outdated as it may be.

~*~ GET OVA IT ~*~

What society expects people to feel and what people feel are two different things. What society expects from people and what people expect from themselves are two different things.

[Mishelle]

The way I look at it, people are naturally physically attracted to a lot of people. They can have sex with a lot of people but they choose not to without getting anything in return for their decision, other than knowing there's someone that will only have sex with them. Why do they care about this? Personal preference or not, there has to be a sort of logic to this. If I like to eat different foods (as all humans do), then what are my reasons to eat just one? The only way to get rid of archaic cultural conventions is to question the norms that we conform to when they offer us nothing.



All those questions have answers.

You can acknowledge that someone is attractive without wanting to have sex with them. Unless you're a cave man or something.

[NapisaurusRex]

However, such a function becomes null with the development of parental testing. The problem is that we have based numerous social interactions around this archaic institution so they have stayed with us paradigmatically.

Why is this archaic and null....

It's the anxiety of not fulfilling an expected role, as outdated as it may be.

But this isn't?

[8143FF763271]

What society expects people to feel and what people feel are two different things. What society expects from people and what people expect from themselves are two different things.

Most of the time, people conform to social expectations. Hence, the fact that monogamous relationships exist even though there's no reason for them to exist.

Why is this archaic and null....


But this isn't?

Didn't I say it's outdated? I mean it's in the fucking quote.

You can acknowledge that someone is attractive without wanting to have sex with them. Unless you're a cave man or something.

Finding someone attractive is finding them sexually alluring. It should mean that you want to have sex with them. That's your body's first impulse. However, we reason that. Just like we reason a meal. We see something that looks good and we want to eat it, but we think it might make us fat or something so we choose not to do it. What is preventing people from having sex with anyone and everyone they find attractive? Mostly, archaic social conventions.

[NapisaurusRex]

Didn't I say it's outdated? I mean it's in the fucking quote.

You're right, I mis-spoke. I meant to ask why the first is an outdated thought and considered a valid reason to disregard that action/feeling, but the second is an outdated thought, but doesn't disregard that action/feeling.

[ElBastardoVerde]

Kami I respect your opinions and everything, and I even respect the fact that you like to argue, but you're going about doing it in a terrible way. You're not show casing your intelligence, you're making yourself look like a pompous asshole.

[8143FF763271]

You're right, I mis-spoke. I meant to ask why the first is an outdated thought and considered a valid reason to disregard that action/feeling, but the second is an outdated thought, but doesn't disregard that action/feeling.

I do disregard it. Otherwise, I wouldn't call it outdated. I never claimed that it was "right", I only claimed it was expected. The example I gave of reversed roles should have clarified it for EVERYONE. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the mother being the breadwinner and the father staying at home taking care of the kids, but both sides would probably feel inadequate in that situation since they're not living up to the expectations society has of them. It's not what they've been taught they should do.

Awww someone's butthurt.

The use of the word fucking doesn't imply butthurt. Sometimes it is used as a magnifier when stating something that shouldn't be just obvious, but fucking obvious.

[NapisaurusRex]

I do disregard it. Otherwise, I wouldn't call it outdated. I never claimed that it was "right", I only claimed it was expected. The example I gave of reversed roles should have clarified it for EVERYONE. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the mother being the breadwinner and the father staying at home taking care of the kids, but both sides would probably feel inadequate in that situation since they're not living up to the expectations society has of them. It's not what they've been taught they should do.

I'm not wrong, either.

So you aren't right, but you aren't wrong either. Got it.

[8143FF763271]

So you aren't right, but you aren't wrong either. Got it.

I'm not wrong in any sense. I merely said these expectations exist as an example of how people feel anxiety when they don't live up to what is expected of them, regardless of how silly expectations may be. In this case, people try to live up to the expectations of being capable of fully sexually satisfying another human being so when said human being draws sexual satisfaction from other sources, we feel like we aren't doing our job right. I was explaining how monogamous romantic norms make people attribute issues of self-worth to sex instead of seeing it as something we can freely enjoy from various people, like laughing at a joke or playing a board game.

[Mishelle]

Finding someone attractive is finding them sexually alluring. It should mean that you want to have sex with them. That's your body's first impulse. However, we reason that. Just like we reason a meal. We see something that looks good and we want to eat it, but we think it might make us fat or something so we choose not to do it. What is preventing people from having sex with anyone and everyone they find attractive? Mostly, archaic social conventions.

You can acknowledge that someone is attractive in the conventional sense of attractiveness, or acknowlesge that a person has attractive qualities without them necessarily being your taste in sex partners. Like I can acknowledge that Michael Phelps has an attractive body, but I still wouldn't want to have sex with him because he's not my type.

[redlion]

The answer to the original question: why not?

There are about as many reasons not to be monogamous as there are to be, and it really couldn't make a lesser impact on a life as a whole. It's like asking 'why do people have favorite colors?' or 'Why do some people like feet?'

It's a dumb question. That's why we (or at least I) can't understand why OP is taking himself so seriously.

[8143FF763271]

The answer to the original question: why not?

There are about as many reasons not to be monogamous as there are to be, and it really couldn't make a lesser impact on a life as a whole. It's like asking 'why do people have favorite colors?' or 'Why do some people like feet?'

It's a dumb question. That's why we (or at least I) can't understand why OP is taking himself so seriously.

Here's a person that didn't get it. Dude, why care? Why does it bother you? Does your girlfriend talking to someone else bother you? It does? Then don't I have the right to ask why something that has no effect on you bothers you? How the fuck is that stupid?

You can acknowledge that someone is attractive in the conventional sense of attractiveness, or acknowlesge that a person has attractive qualities without them necessarily being your taste in sex partners. Like I can acknowledge that Michael Phelps has an attractive body, but I still wouldn't want to have sex with him because he's not my type.

You finding someone attractive and you finding someone attractive to other people are different things. You're either attracted or you're not. I was talking about being physically attracted to people, not discerning that they have traits that are attractive to others.

[redlion]

Here's a person that didn't get it. Dude, why care? Why does it bother you? Does your girlfriend talking to someone else bother you? It does? Then don't I have the right to ask why something that has no effect on you bothers you? How the fuck is that stupid?

I'm glad you could answer all of your own questions about me. That's reassuring, considering that you know nothing about me.

Besides, you seem to have me twisted. I never advocated one position or the other. You're laboring under a misapprehension entirely of your own devising.

Also you have no rights. Learn your place, pleb.

[Mishelle]

Here's a person that didn't get it. Dude, why care? Why does it bother you? Does your girlfriend talking to someone else bother you? It does? Then don't I have the right to ask why something that has no effect on you bothers you? How the fuck is that stupid?



You finding someone attractive and you finding someone attractive to other people are different things. You're either attracted or you're not. I was talking about being physically attracted to people, not discerning that they have traits that are attractive to others.

There's more to attraction than someone being physically appealing. Unless you're a caveman. There's more to relationships than sex

[NapisaurusRex]

Here's a person that didn't get it. Dude, why care? Why does it bother you? Does your girlfriend talking to someone else bother you? It does? Then don't I have the right to ask why something that has no effect on you bothers you? How the fuck is that stupid?

Obviously if it bothers them then it has an effect on them.

[8143FF763271]

I'm glad you could answer all of your own questions about me. That's reassuring, considering that you know nothing about me.

Besides, you seem to have me twisted. I never advocated one position or the other. You're laboring under a misapprehension entirely of your own devising.

Also you have no rights. Learn your place, pleb.

They were rhetorical questions. /facepalm.

If you need it defined: People can be curious about other people having counter-intuitive reactions at things. Like, for example, being bothered at something that doesn't directly affect them. There's nothing "stupid" about that.

Good thing idiots don't get to determine what rights I'm granted.

Obviously if it bothers them then it has an effect on them.

Exactly. But why does it have an effect on them? That's the question being asked here and I fail to see why that question is "stupid".

There's more to attraction than someone being physically appealing. Unless you're a caveman. There's more to relationships than sex

Not really. You can be purely physically attracted to someone. It doesn't require an emotional investment.

[Mishelle]

Yes you can be purely physically attracted to someone but that doesn't mean you're going to want to be around them if they have a shitty personality or that they're even good in bed to begin with.

[redlion]

If you need it defined: People can be curious about other people having counter-intuitive reactions at things. Like, for example, being bothered at something that doesn't directly affect them. There's nothing "stupid" about that.

1) That's not a definition.
2. Your statement that people "can be" curious is just as vapid as the rest of the arguments that you've been throwing up all over the board. For it to be a logical argument you had better argue something that can be falsified. Further, almost all arguments are about controversial issues (as you yourself have stated), BUT there is nothing at all controversial about saying that people react differently to extra-marital or non-monogamous relationships. You haven't made a point yet.
3. There's nothing stupid about curiosity. But if you merely intended to ask a question, why pursue a debate so aggressively? If you don't know why people feel differently from you, isn't the best way to learn to listen to their views? You put it on the horns of a dilemma instead of merely saying "Discuss the feelings that accompany a LTR" or whatever.
4. Your condescending rhetorical questions would have been correctly named if they were at all rhetorical. They were mostly condescending. Dude, aren't I right? Aren't I soooo right? So doesn't that give me the right to be right? Hahaha *smiley face* to get a passive aggressive vibe going.

Exactly. But why does it have an effect on them? That's the question being asked here and I fail to see why that question is "stupid".

That wasn't the original question that you asked. Be more clear and people won't have as hard a time understanding what you're trying to say.

[8143FF763271]

1) That's not a definition.

de·fine
verb /diˈfīn/ 
defined, past participle; defined, past tense; defines, 3rd person singular present; defining, present participle
State or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of

• - the contract will seek to define the client's obligations

I defined the underlying meaning of my rhetorical questions since you were too obtuse to discern it yourself.

2. Your statement that people "can be" curious is just as vapid as the rest of the arguments that you've been throwing up all over the board. For it to be a logical argument you had better argue something that can be falsified. Further, almost all arguments are about controversial issues (as you yourself have stated), BUT there is nothing at all controversial about saying that people react differently to extra-marital or non-monogamous relationships. You haven't made a point yet.

Dude, who the fuck said I was even making a point? I started the thread with a question as to WHY people react differently to phenomena that seemingly should have no effect on them. A QuEsTiOn, bro. QuEsTioN. No need to note that people react differently to extra-marital relationships, this is a thread to discuss why.

Like I said, you obviously have trouble understanding. I recommend retaking 6th grade to improve your reading comprehension.


P.S. Don't throw random epistemological concepts at me when they're not applicable. Everything I've said here is empirically testable.

3. There's nothing stupid about curiosity. But if you merely intended to ask a question, why pursue a debate so aggressively? If you don't know why people feel differently from you, isn't the best way to learn to listen to their views? You put it on the horns of a dilemma instead of merely saying "Discuss the feelings that accompany a LTR" or whatever.

I'm asking pertinent questions. I want an answer for a very specific phenomena so I have to deconstruct people's statements and draw it out from them. What, do you think that someone telling me they "love" someone else really answers anything about why people are inclined to sexually exclusive relationships? It doesn't. I'm obviously looking for operational definitions on the possible benefits of monogamous relationship.

4. Your condescending rhetorical questions would have been correctly named if they were at all rhetorical. They were mostly condescending. Dude, aren't I right? Aren't I soooo right? So doesn't that give me the right to be right? Hahaha *smiley face* to get a passive aggressive vibe going.

They were all rhetorical. Point of them all implicitly being that there's nothing inherently stupid in wondering why people worry about things that don't affect them directly.

That wasn't the original question that you asked. Be more clear and people won't have as hard a time understanding what you're trying to say.

It's obviously what I've been asking from the start. Hence, the fact that people have been replying accordingly.

With your exception so
u kno
u better check urself b4 u wreck urself

Yes you can be purely physically attracted to someone but that doesn't mean you're going to want to be around them if they have a shitty personality or that they're even good in bed to begin with.

Means you can give it a go to having sex with them, though.

[WharfRat]

Why should we set ourselves up in an arrangement that doesn't permit us to have fun with other people? What is wrong with me fucking other women, or my girl fucking other guys? What qualms should I have with it if it is something they enjoy and that I enjoy? Why do sexually exclusive relationships even exist?

It's mostly through tradition. Sexual promiscuity not only has been shunned for religious and cultural reasons for centuries, but think about it back then from a practical standpoint. What do you do when the girl your fucking has a kid and you're married? What does it do to the child/girls husband? Who raises the child? Yes, in our current society this is becoming more of the norm and somewhat of a "non-issue" but it still has presented a serious problem for polyamory in the past. Back in the day there were only two main methods of "birth control"; Abstinence and coitus interruptus (our in the parlance of our times "Pulling out.") As I'm sure you know this second option isn't very effective. It only made sense for people to shun away from polyamorous relationships from a logistical standpoint... (This doesn't even account for the religious and cultural reasons before it...)

Just thought I'd add a different perspective. (No interest in discussing the matter further.)
Cody