[Filo V.]

That's my opinion. It honestly repulses me, the idea of being in a relationship. Literally............it makes me want to throw up. I hate it, I think it's archaic, I think they are inherently moralistic, I think they are inherently sexist, for women and men, in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, I think it's desperate and needy, and I don't understand why people would restrict themselves to only one person and put parameters on their freedom that wouldn't be there otherwise. I hate it. That doesn't mean I don't support these relationships, though. I love to see loving couples embrace and enjoy one another. But I still hate it for myself in every single way.

Why do people want to get married, knowing it's an institution that is inherently unnatural, that is based on a way of thinking that has been eliminated far ago, and understanding MOST relationships fail? MOST marriages fail, yet people still want to marry? That really perplexes me. It's a waste of time and for me, it's basically a piece of paper from the government saying your relationship is valid, which is an intrusion of personal freedom and privacy.

Anyway, what does everyone here think? Yes, I've made similar threads like this, but I've always tried to be PC about how I really felt. Not anymore.




P.S. Mods, I PLEAD that you do not merge this thread. PLEASE do not do so. Thank you.

 

[samanosuke]

you had really fulfilled life till you were banned when the first ban free day your are going berserk with opening the threads, like when child gets a candy . mods have to be very careful with next eventual ban because in your case may leave permanent consequences, not just on virtual life

 

[emotion]

I'm not personally a fan of the idea of monogamy, but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner. And exclusive relationships aren't disgusting, it's just a personal choice.

 

[Garson007]

I think it would be more natural to promote open relationships, polygamy and so forth. There are of course societal issues. Firstly marriage is ingrained into society's view of morality. Secondly, society is built around this moral view.

It's almost impossible to break the mould yet still fit into society. It doesn't matter if science tells us that it's better for rats to have a bunch of female parents that look after all the children, rather than just one mother - it's about the systems in place in society.

 

[munZe konZa]

I think it would be more natural to promote open relationships, polygamy and so forth. There are of course societal issues. Firstly marriage is ingrained into society's view of morality. Secondly, society is built around this moral view.

It's almost impossible to break the mould yet still fit into society. It doesn't matter if science tells us that it's better for rats to have a bunch of female parents that look after all the children, rather than just one mother - it's about the systems in place in society.

Marriage is about sacrifices and is all about procreation. Without marriage a man would never know that the baby is his and the wife would never know that she would be supported to bring up a baby at least in the all important infancy. Those not interested in certain sacrifices and procreation should do whatever they want for however long they can.

 

[Filo V.]

And that's one of my main beefs when it comes to marriage: Why would anyone intentionally put themselves in a position where they HAVE to sacrifice things in their life, and their own personal freedoms, just to attain a piece of paper? As for children, people have and will marry without having a child, so that to me is just an opinion, that marriage is for procreation. The truth is marriage was originally a business transaction between two families, or arranged marriages that were set up by families/society. All the other moralistic bullshit didn't enter the picture until organized religion entered the picture, which is another reason why I never will marry.

I also think children, while I love them, are a burden I don't want to deal with at all, because now on top of living for yourself, you're now living through someone else plus having to take care of a child who can't provide for itself. So you're basically providing for three people now. Life is hard enough providing for yourself.

 

[Garson007]

munZe konZa: Yeah, but society has power to change that. The only reason we have the current paradigm is because it works within the society we have.

 

[peribsen]

From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.

 

[Garson007]

From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a seconds notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp)are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates. Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckingl the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way.....

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

Nothing you list here actually corroborates your claim. What you're really saying is that humans are weak on their own. That's why we're a tribal society. It's also why we'd all stay together for as long as possible and the easiest way for that to happen is for all the men to form sexual bonds with all the women, i.e. spreading them oxytocin. It's also why the Greek legions had intercourse with each other.

 

[Filo V.]

but I do like the idea of holding romantic feelings for someone, even if not the lone sexual partner.

I agree, I love feeling a romantic connection towards a guy I'm in to. But that doesn't mean I would want to date him. You can have a romantic connection with someone and choose not to date them.

This leads me to raise another point: A lot of people confuse lust and love, thinking their passionate lust towards someone they are attracted to actually is a feeling of everlasting love and completion with that individual by your side. Not the case.

 

[peribsen]

Nothing you list here actually corroborates your claim. What you're really saying is that humans are weak on their own. That's why we're a tribal society. It's also why we'd all stay together for as long as possible and the easiest way for that to happen is for all the men to form sexual bonds with all the women, i.e. spreading them oxytocin. It's also why the Greek legions had intercourse with each other.

I beg to disagree. Although what you state would be a possible alternative solution to the problem, humans, unlike other social animals, have a mind that is very particularly rigged around ideas of self. In fact, one of the reasons monogamy is believed to have turned from long-lasting to almost life-long is that in-fighting over paternity issues may have been the most destructive menace afflicting early human groups. There are solid evidences in many mythologies that this was the case.

And, by the way, there never were any such things as "Greek legions". Greeks fought in phalanxes, legions are Roman.

 

[Filo V.]

From a strictly zoological point of view, the idea that long-term relationships between man and woman is totally unnatural is very uninformed. Some sort of 'marriage' didn't just spring up in all human cultures out of the blue, you know. That would be extremely unlikely. If long-term monogamous relationships were truly "totally unnatural", they would never have developed.

Natural=Produced by or present in nature.

Marriage is a man-made institution. Full-life monogamous relationships are rare in the animal kingdom overall. It is unnatural by definition. Just because it's "traditional" does not mean it is natural to marry. Marriage developed as a means for families to trade and share assets and to reduce the incidence of disease with children, who were dying regularly post-birth due to disease. Also, many marriages were arranged; basically a person with a high-social status would marry an individual with a low social-status, and that marriage was nothing more than a business relationship more than anything else. Marriage has virtually NOTHING to do with love in the original sense. You can love someone and choose not marry them.

Purely anthropological evidence for that is quite compelling:

- Human offspring are, by a very long shot, the most defenceless and slowly maturing offspring of any species. To have even a fair chance of surviving alone in the wild, a child would need to be about 7 before he leaves his mother, and even then, 7 years is probably too short for a child to learn but the mere basics of the knowledge needed in a hunter-gatherer society. Seven years is a huge time span for a species that probably lived barely up to 30 in the wild.

- Human females are, also by a very long shot, the most handicapped of all mammalian females during mid- to late pregnancy. That is because we walk upright, with the baby pressuring against the perineal opening, in sharp contrast to all other mammals. A mare or a bitch can run for it almost till parturition; a 7-month pregnant woman is in no shape to scurry up a tree or into a hole at a moments notice to avoid a predator. So she -and the survival of the species- needs prolonged support.

- Humans and bonobos (a subtype of chimp) are the only mammals that have sex all year around; other species have mating seasons, breasts are only perceived when they are to be used (lingerie manufacturers would be out in the cold in the same was true for women). But even bonobos have oestrus: they may have sex games all year around, but the females are only fertile at short and specific dates (lucky they). Again in sharp contrast, women ovulate roughly every four weeks, rain or shine.

Add two and two together: species survival dependent on long periods of special protection for the pregnant female + child needing being taken care of for ages + the man who stays long term to perform the protection mentioned is sex driven all the time + the female is soon again fertile after suckling the child = another baby coming; repeat cycle = a third one on the way..... (and with an infant mortality rate probably over 70%, that was very much mandatory for assuring survival).

It would seem as if long term liaisons between individuals of different sexes is an ethological condition of our species, more than a mere custom appearing out of thin air. Of course, culture did come in afterwards to enshrine life-long commitments and call them matrimony, but it was building on realities on the ground.

The only unnatural thing is to imagine that culture itself doesn't have biological roots. And that applies too to long lasting monogamy, of one form or another.

We often forget we've had the pill for about 50 years, the rubber for about 120, the industrial revolution for about 200, a really competent agriculture for a few millenia, writing for less than 5,000, bows and arrows for about 10,000... but we've been surviving barefoot and armed with a stick and a chunk of stone for many hundreds of thousands of years before all that.

Basically my South African friend said almost exactly what I was going to say, but I will add that, ultimately, none of this means that humans are equipped to be in exclusive, monogamous relationships. Yes, what you are saying is true, but none of it particularly means one has to be in a relationship. A woman doesn't have to be in a relationship to have sex, have a child, nor to take care of a child, now that doesn't mean it isn't an ideal circumstance, for certain reasons, but it's not necessary. As for bonobos, you raise a good point there, since bonobos are the animal closest to humans biologically; there are many differences between most species and female humans in regards to female humans' menstrual cycle compared to other species' estrous cycles, but none of the reasons really prove that everlasting, exclusive relationships work at the end of the day, or are actually beneficial.

 

[Filo V.]

The reason why monogamous relationships came about were about children dying due to disease, famine, lack of wealth leading to children being forced into labor and industries such as sex trade from an early age, and other reasons. That is at least that aspect of the reasoning why monogamous relationships came about. But we're now in 2012, so why are we living in accordance to what happened so long ago? Why hasn't the human species progressed beyond this way of thinking? That's the issue.

 

[Sunset of Age]

Filo, do you even believe in long-lasting relationships being possible, no matter if they are legally confirmed as 'marriages' or not?

 

[Filo V.]

They are possible but what it takes to maintain them isn't worth the hassle of being in them. Positive/negative list, and the negative list is longer than the positive list, at least that's how I see it, so therefore, I think it's a negative situation overall.

 

[Johnny Groove]

I prefer monogamy.

Instead of making love to a million women, I'd rather make love to one woman a million ways.

This way also takes out of the equation all jealousy and all other kinds of bullshit.

Federer? Nadal? Djokovic? All have one, long term woman.

 

[Sunset of Age]

They are possible but what it takes to maintain them isn't worth the hassle of being in them. Positive/negative list, and the negative list is longer than the positive list, at least that's how I see it, so therefore, I think it's a negative situation overall.

Well it might be just me, but I am rather happy to have been in a long-lasting relationship for over 10 years right now. Not married, neither of us has any inclination to do so. We're just, uhm... HAPPY. :shrug:

 

[Filo V.]

Well it might be just me, but I am rather happy to have been in a long-lasting relationship for over 10 years right now. Not married, neither of us has any inclination to do so. We're just, uhm... HAPPY. :shrug:

This is good. Because that shows me your relationship is real. People in a real committed relationship don't feel any desperation to marry and don't need a title on their relationship to validate it.

You're one of the lucky ones, hun. One of the lucky few.

 

[Seingeist]

:lol:

OK. I see that you've decided to return from your ban as more of a troll than ever.

Thread = farce.

/thread.

 

[Filo V.]

I've always been told by my grandparents that when you have to resort to attacking the person who has an opinion you disagree with, that means you don't have a valid position of your own. I now can see why this was something they stressed I not do in a debate of any kind.