Live Chat

Go Back   Pixies Place Forums > Sex Talk > General Sex Talk
User Name
Password


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-05-2003, 12:47 AM
White Noise's Avatar
White Noise White Noise is offline
Rogue Trader ÿƒ
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 942
Man asks serious question, hard to believe? Read on

When you read this thread I want you to have a good think about it. Don't dismiss it out of hand or think it is trival. Think about things you yourself have thought and felt and think outside the square a little.

Do you think that humans, as a species, are supposed to be monogamous? Have we been directed away from what is innate within us by teachings from the church?

Unless you're a virgin or have only had sex with one other person then logically you would have to think that humans aren't supposed to be monogamous - wouldn't you? Remove emotions like lonliness, happiness, belonging, trust et. al. and focus solely on the sexual side of things - do you want to do someone other than your current partner? Do you feel an urge deep down that you feel like you are fighting against? How many other animals 'mate for life', is it natural?

I'm not trying to cause bust ups or anything, I have my own views but I'm interested to hear what others (male and female) think about this.

So, slip the ol' grey matter into gear and tell me what you think.
__________________
It is so hard to look cool walking down a hill!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-05-2003, 01:29 AM
gekkogecko's Avatar
gekkogecko gekkogecko is offline
Pixie's Resident Reptile
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Central MD, USA
Posts: 21,106
Well, if you look at the evolutionary history of humans, you find indications that the various species have sometimes been monogamous and sometimes not been monogamous. Same as the distributions among the extant primates...some are, some aren't.

Basically, the idea of monogamy is a cultural thing, has nothing to do with biology.
__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-05-2003, 01:34 AM
White Noise's Avatar
White Noise White Noise is offline
Rogue Trader ÿƒ
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 942
Correct - the question now is, are we supposed to 'mate for life' or not? And if we are supposed to to 'spread the seed' why aren't we?

Culture suddenly is back on the playing field.
__________________
It is so hard to look cool walking down a hill!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-05-2003, 05:50 AM
fzzy fzzy is offline
Learning to talk sexy
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,264
I think it is a strange thing that you ask us to think hard about something, but take the fact that we are a thinking species out of the equation!!! I don't think it is possible to think about this just as if we are animals and come up with a complete answer. Personally, I believe in monogamy and that for most relationships the breaking away from that only causes problems, but then I freely admit that my views tend toward the VERY conservative.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-05-2003, 07:12 AM
lexi's Avatar
lexi lexi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 187
I don't want to be a hypocrite here, I have had sex with more than one person. That does not mean I don't beleive in monogamy.

I believe love, trust, loyalty, friendship, happiness and all those other emotions can be found in just one partner.

I also believe that if you have sex randomly without those feelings/emotions, then you have to consider loneliness for yourself. That kind of behavior can only be fun for a while and suddenly you're gonna look around and be a very lonely person. Not to mention the fact that in today's society, it is scary to me to think about having sex with other people. What about disease...whoops, I guess "being scared" is an emotion of sorts and we're not suppose to think about emotions in this.

I, like fzzy, lean toward the conservative on this issue.
I hope you find the answers you seek here, but more likely you have them inside yourself. Good Luck!
__________________
Don't be afraid that your life will end. Be afraid that it will never begin. ~ Grace Hansen
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-05-2003, 07:12 AM
BigBear57's Avatar
BigBear57 BigBear57 is offline
Wishful Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Posts: 3,234
Send a message via ICQ to BigBear57 Send a message via MSN to BigBear57 Send a message via Yahoo to BigBear57
I have to agree with Fzzy. We as a society have over time seen that monogamy works best. Yes too, religion has played a part in this I guess but look at the situations where some have "strewn seed". Bastards who don't have a clue who their Dad is so of course no male role model in the home. Different men coming and going in their lives. I can hardly see this as a conducive atmosphere for any person. It also lends itself to the thought that the religious ideas were originally formed with some old fashioned common sense.
__________________
As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will. He will be sure to repent - Socrates

Love is not looking in each other's eyes, but looking together in the same direction - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-05-2003, 08:52 AM
Lilith's Avatar
Lilith Lilith is offline
♦*♥Moderatrix♥*♦
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on top of it all
Posts: 50,565
Send a message via Yahoo to Lilith
White Noise I always love the questions you pose. You always give us something to think about which usually brings out some view in ourselves we don't often see.

Biologically I do not think humans were developed to necessarily be monogamous. I know I would not be if it weren't for cultural and emotional reasons. I do find the idea of " spreading the seed" to be an interesting idea. How would societies through out the world be if more people were not monogamous???

As for the "mate for life" idea. I have but that does not erase my biologic and emotional need to explore. I am not sure "mating for life" is a biological occurrance, many female animals care for their offspring entirely alone, I think it is an adaptation.
__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§

~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-05-2003, 09:51 AM
lakritze's Avatar
lakritze lakritze is offline
Ethical Epicurean
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Santa Monica California
Posts: 1,570
Send a message via AIM to lakritze Send a message via Yahoo to lakritze
A very good question.Are we supposed to be monogamous or not? Further questons arise. Are you asking in a procreation way? Should we mate with several others so the species can flourish?To this,I would say no.The better idea would be to have one mate for life.Ah,but what influences the question is SEX as pleasure.Being a permissive kind of guy,I would say,why not enjoy this pleasure with as many or as few as you choose.It seems to me that socieity's concern is with the recreational or pleasurable side of how we choose to live our sex lives.Of course it is nobody's business with whom we choose to fuck.
__________________
Sex is one of nine reasons for reincarnation.The other eight are unimportant...Henry Miller
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-05-2003, 10:33 AM
Steph's Avatar
Steph Steph is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: T.O.
Posts: 20,828
All the studies about women choosing men by smell, by the symmetry of the face, how similar they are to themselves . . . those things might lead one to believe that we're meant to be monogamous but it could also mean that women, through instinct, are looking for the "best" men to procreate with . . .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-05-2003, 10:41 AM
PantyFanatic's Avatar
PantyFanatic PantyFanatic is offline
1 of 8,111,103,258
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 41.36N-81.32W
Posts: 21,482
PONDERING
__________________
PANTIES
the best thing next to cuchie


"If God didn't want you to play with it, He would have put it between your shoulder blades,..... not at the end of your arm"

Except for speculation, we ONLY have NOW and EACHOTHER!

real world of cyber people ~ Pixies ~ real people of the cyber world
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-05-2003, 11:50 AM
BIBI's Avatar
BIBI BIBI is offline
Made in England
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,180
I would just like to find a nice guy to practise procreation with
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-05-2003, 01:27 PM
dicksbro's Avatar
dicksbro dicksbro is offline
Just me.
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West central Illinois
Posts: 590,002
Another vote on the conservative side and I admit that view is certainly influenced by years of religious and social training. But I do think that where both genders are equals, it really seems to be the logical arrangement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-05-2003, 03:00 PM
Scarecrow's Avatar
Scarecrow Scarecrow is offline
Pixie since 9/3/2001
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 16,995
to answer plain and simple NO
__________________
Growing older is manditory, growing up is optional
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-05-2003, 04:10 PM
jseal jseal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 541,353
Biologically: No. It is advantageous to both genders to breed with multiple mates. With each of ones offspring being the combination of yours and a different mate’s genes, a disease that infects any one of your children will have a different probability of infecting the others.

Assuming a non zero chance of mortality for any infection, then by combining your genes with those of a different mate for each of your children maximizes the probability of your genes being passed on to subsequent generations.

Culturally Yes. Societies in which inheritance rights are assigned a high social value have historically needed monogamous, non-incestuous, bloodlines to identify who is entitled to the property.

I think that you will find that the teachings of "the church" tend to follow local customs. For example "the church" to which I suspect you refer, arises from pre-modern Europe, from whence the laws of primogeniture also arise. In Africa and Asia, where the local customs were rather different, the indigenous churches accommodated the particulars of those societies.
__________________
Eudaimonia
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-25-2003, 06:20 AM
White Noise's Avatar
White Noise White Noise is offline
Rogue Trader ÿƒ
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 942
Ah, I see we do have some deep thinkers here. I, for one, think that, biologically speaking, we are 'hot-wired' to breed with as many partners as possible. At the end of the day, survival - not pleasure - is the reason for sex.

However, others do raise emotions. This is another factor that should be included, and rightly so. I was wrong to discount it so lightly. Still, my driving question was - are we supposed to only have sex with one person NOT be with one person? I have no qualms about soulmates and finding true love. But loving someone and wanting to have sex with them, always and forever, may be separate things. Emotion drives one, DNA drives the other, I think.

Thanks all for taking the time to think. 8-)
__________________
It is so hard to look cool walking down a hill!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.