Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by beac83, Dec 23, 2018.
Blink, you might miss somethin'.
From skimming through the majority of the posts, there is no lack of interesting points.
My humble opinion:
Comparing ourselves to animals.....yup that's smart #sarcasm. Probably one of the stupidest arguments on the planet and even if you did just that, there was the example of the owls which puts those miscreants who don't mind 'fucking around' to shame.
"I'm bored of my wife/husband".......fucking divorce them and then go fuck the neighbor for all I care, but you're not getting the kids or the money. A lot of outstanding parents have made sacrifices for their children, that is what a parent is being about. Barring abusive relationships, that's another beast. There is no excuse for infidelity.
Who said 'emotion' is only for women? Some members stated that sex is the highest degree of intimacy, true, and you can't have that intimacy without emotion.
Disease.....is that not sufficient?
I'm sorry but any man who is fine with his wife taking it from another is no man.
Yeah they have a word for that.
Just curious -
How do you see the situation where this is flipped - i.e. :
I'm sorry but any woman who is fine with her husband getting with another (woman or man) is no woman.
You are both right...... Whore..... And Man Whore....
Who made you the marriage police? If two (or three of four +) consenting adults are happy with whatever arrangement they have and are still providing a safe, loving home to raise their children in, why does it matter?
Exactly the same, she's no woman, she's a *****
I'm no marriage police, because I'm not policing anything; my statement was prefaced with "in my humble opinion".
It doesn't work like that, and if you think that from a psychological standpoint, a normal family (faithful couple raising their kids ) are in the same boat as those in a poly arrangement then you are delusional. Likewise, if you think adopted children have the same (positive) psychological experience as those raised by their biological parents then you're wrong.
I hope those advocating for poly relationships are fine with their daughters fucking around.....because if they aren't then they're hypocrites.
Looking back to cave people days ...
We developed long term heterosexual relationships because it improved our reproductive success.
Human children take lots of time and resources to raise and teach. And we don’t get to have that many so it’s not a good idea to waste any of them.
Two parents both committed to each other and to their shared children improve the chance that these children survive and are successful in raising their own children. (Still applies to a significant extent today).
That explains our deep need for partner bonds - and also a profound connection with our children...
Sex became a powerful pair bonding activity in these long term relationships. Humans are pretty much the only species in which females willingly have sex when there is little to no chance they will become pregnant.
Of course individuals vary - but anyone who proposes non monogamous sexual arrangements in long term relationships is going up against a whole lot of evolutionary history.
IDK Steve. Men's overall repro strategy seems centered on mass dispersion of seed. Women, on provisioning and gene pool maximization. While I believe there are great benefits to what you post, I don't think that we are necessarily built that way. Some of the customs that men developed were designed broaden the potential for success for men of the second or third string.
You are correct that we aren't built that way, it's a product of civilized society.
I'm pretty sure that whomever one's legal aged daughter is sleeping with or not sleeping with is absolutely nobody's business but hers.
Whether her parents approve of it is not relevant. Have your parents approved of everyone you've done The Dirty with?
When it comes to physical intimacy, it's just not at all that simple. While good old Puritanically accepted Missionary sex may be a complete turn on for some...or
just having sex to procreate may suffice for you or some....that may not for others. And what those others do behind closed doors isn't yours or mine to judge. One of my undergrad courses was in Human Sexuality, and it was pretty darned interesting what has been deemed acceptable versus unacceptable throughout Human history with regard to geography and religions. Nobody has the right to criticize or judge anyone. Consent is key. If you don't want to participate, No means No.
Other combinations....as long as everyone's on the same page, ground rules are established and all abide by them. Again...not yours or mine to judge.
I have and have had friends pretty much all across the spectrum of sexual preferences and orientations. I'm a straight white male...just don't give a damn what
trips their trigger when they're nekked in their bedrooms.
I will admit to agreeing with The Bad Orange Man at 1600 about transexual ban in the military. But, my stance has absolutely NOTHING to do with them being trans. I could care less.
It's about the complications that come with them being able to equally serve with everyone else in their duties in all locations so their inclusion is fair to all that serve and the additional costs involved in their hormone therapy and other medical needs on the taxpayers tab as well. It's NOT fair that Sam, now Samantha, is always "in the rear with the gear" because he/she/it cannot get required hormone shots while forward deployed....but the rest of the Unit has to spend more time forward deployed in a higher ops-tempo so he/she/it cannot miss an injection.
You make some good points JR and yes I over simplified.
Getting females pregnant - then having no part in rearing your offspring - would not have been a good reproductive strategy for humans.
The chance those children would have survived to reproduce is just not sufficient.
But if you have no better option, it is still much better than nothing at all as a way to get some of your DNA out there.
And if you can get away with doing so while also having a principal partner /children there is clearly evolutionary benefit there...
Females of course would have had very different objectives.
It would be to their benefit to continue flirting with and attracting other high status males - though not necessarily having sex with them.
That way if things ever went very bad for their partner in tomorrow’s Mammoth hunt, already they would have a replacement or three lined up ready .
I've read some doozies on this board in the past, but good lord you've not a fucking clue what you're talking about.
While I can't personally speak to the poly statement (even though I think you're still wrong), my family (most notably, my mother) has fostered infants and small children (most with health problems) for over the last 30 years. Over that span, we have cared for 50 children, some for just a few months, others up to two years.
For those who were not able to go back their biological parents/families, we've seen many of them adopted into loving homes where they have flourished just the same as any other child. We've kept in touch with many of them and their families, and the notion that there is any real difference between the perceived love and psychological impact by children with biological parents vs. not is laughable.
But feel free to base your comments on something that you clearly have absolutely no personal experience with or education on.......
Anecdote: every adopted child I know (and I interact with children constantly) is happy, healthy and productive. I cant say the same about the biologicals.
Separate names with a comma.