DescentBB

Since we seemed to be hijacking the Rick Warren's life NiteLine Interview thread with a discussion on the virtues of monogamy, I thought I'd start another topic for it.

This is something I wrote up about Monogamy a while back. It's frank, but not obscene.

---

I believe that God invented sex, and that he intended for it to work in certain ways. One of those was pair-bonding.

In animal species where the primary point of sex is reproduction, the female goes into \"heat\" when she is ovulating, accompanied by some easily determined signal to the male that she is ready.

That is the pattern for most animals. There are a few exceptions that work more like humanity though, and do not have any obvious way for a male to determine if a female is ovulating. In these species, the primary purpose of sex is NOT reproduction. (Not denying that that reproduction IS one of the purposes, but its not the PRIMARY purpose) The primary purpose is Bonding, strengthening ties between individuals. And thats the way humans use sex as well. In humans, the primary purpose of sex is to tie a husband and wife closely together, both physically and emotionally.

That's why God insisted upon virginity before marriage, and strict monogamy afterwards. He DESIGNED sex, he knows how it is supposed to work, and He knows that a couple that has sex, any couple, undergoes irreversible mental changes involved in pair-bonding. Let me start at the beginning so we can get a better understanding of this.

We were all born with certain genetic predispositions as to what kind of partners we would find attractive (like in my case, girls) That was later expanded greatly upon by our environment.

What we found exciting in the opposite sex was altered by our developing personalities, the way our parents got along, the way they looked, auto-erotic activity, the clothes the kid next door wore, what kind of flowers grew outside of your bedroom window, who knows what all went into the mix?

One way or another you end up a virgin with an opinion of what you like. But that perspective is still largely pliable and undeveloped. There are things you, as yet, have no strong preferences about. Things that you never questioned whether you would like them, sometimes because you didn't even know they existed.

But when we actually become sexually experienced, we discover that our sexuality is shaped by those we share it with.

Back in 1903, Ivan Pavlov published the results of an interesting experiment he had done. It was a study of dogs and their digestive systems. When a dog sees or smells food, it starts salivating (drooling). And that saliva signals the stomach to start getting ready to digest the food. This is an \"INNATE\" reflex. It's built in. The dog doesn't have to think about it or learn it, if they see food, they drool, and their stomach gets ready to digest.

But Pavlov thought he might be able to get something more interesting than an innate reflex. So every day, when it was time to feed the dogs, he rang a bell. And, after a while, he created a \"CONDITIONED\" reflex. When he rang the bell, the dogs would salivate, even if there was no food present. The dogs had learned to associate the bell with food. And their bodies RESPONDED to that stimulus, automatically. That \"automatically\" is an important point. The dog was not in \"control\" of this response, their brains had CHANGED in such a manner that the response was now burned into their neural pathways and happened as reflexively as the natural innate response. When you rang the bell, the dog drooled. It couldn't stop it if it wanted too.

You can develop a conditioned reflex in any animal who's brain is complex enough to associate two different stimuli. And people have the most complex brains on this planet, which makes it VERY easy for us to develop conditioned reflexes. We rely upon it. It's how we learn many important reactions needed for survival.

But the topic was sex, how does this whole Pavlov thing tie into sex? Quite directly. Sex is just about the most powerful stimulus most humans will ever experience. It's VERY good at creating conditioned reflexes, which is why I said that our sexuality is shaped by those we share it with. Not just influenced, but SHAPED. We are changed by sex, our brains actually alter and we develop new reflexes based on what happens during sex.

For example, when I was a young man, I only had one serious preference in women. They had to be female. I didn't much care if they were plump or skinny, short or tall, blonde, brunette or redhead, double A or double D. If it was female, it would probably catch my eye.

Now I've been married 19 years, and things have changed drastically. It's NOT that I never notice a pretty woman walking down the street. And I still think ALL women are beautiful. But, funny thing, when a woman grabs my attention now, she is most likely built in a similar fashion to my wife.

My tastes have narrowed, and in a very reasonable and predictable way. It's simple Pavlovian conditioning. And that is NOT a bad thing. It's the way sex was MEANT to work.

For 19 years I've been TRAINED to associate my wife's shape, her walk, her voice, her hair, the way she kisses, and the way she makes love, EVERYTHING about my wife, with intense pleasure. I don't have to THINK about it, I don't have to concentrate on it, it's burned into my neural pathways now. I associate the way my wife looks and acts, with pleasure. My body responds to her, automatically.

This bias is a part of me now, and if my wife divorced me tomorrow, my sexual preferences would not change. Any new intimate relationship I tried to develop would have to get over the handicap that my body now responds MUCH more strongly to women of a certain height, build, and shape. That I have developed a particular style of lovemaking aimed at pleasing one particular woman, not women in general. Every difference between my new love and the old would be a barrier that had to be gotten over. A rough spot in the relationship that had to be sanded down. And the truth is that I would NEVER be able to fully eliminate the changes my wife made in my brain. They will always be there.

A virgin making love for the first time is learning a new art form, but this is an art that requires two, and the virgin is learning to play counter-beat to someone else's rhythm.

Every time a couple makes love, they learn a little bit more about each other, they actually change to become a little bit better fitted to each other.

If the lovers later take on new partners, they will have to start the learning process all over again, but this time with much stronger predispositions that have to be ground down or built up to match their new partners needs.

Every time someone switches lovers, they leave behind a little bit of themselves molded into the old partner's psyche, and take a little bit of that person along with them, making it, after a time, very difficult to ever achieve a real 'fit' with anyone at all.

Just think of the incredible advantage a couple has if they decide to remain virgins until they get married. No preconceived notions, no habits built up with other lovers. Instead of the husband remembering OTHER women's breasts, he'll be learning to associate his wife's breasts, whatever their size and shape, with pleasure. Instead of the wife having an internal debate about whether she prefers her men circumcised or uncircumcised, she'll be learning to associate her husband, whatever the status of his foreskin, with pleasure.

And MOST important of all, neither partner will be trying to adjust to the fact that their new lover has different taste from their previous ones. No, \"Oh, but so and so did this!\", or \"Ooo, yuck! Who taught you to do THAT?\" Instead, they will be learning to make love TOGETHER. They will be building up a style of lovemaking that is unique and particularly their own. A style uncontaminated by OTHERS wants and needs, but focused ONLY on pleasing the two of them. They will be becoming experts, not on sex in general, but on the specific and unique erotic needs and desires of their partner.

All of this nonsense about 'trying out sex to see if you're compatible' is exactly that, nonsense. No couple is truly compatible until they've been making love for fifty years. Then their sexualitys will be so well shaped to each other that the caresses of the best trained courtesan who can quote the Kamasutra backwards and forward will not compare to the ecstasies they can achieve.

If you really want to enjoy sex, wait until you are married, stay married, and of course, once you are married, practice, practice, practice!

It's obvious when a woman is ready for mating by scent. It doesn't apply anymore because we wear clothes and perfume and makeup and all that crap. Otherwise, we're no different from animals. I can tell when a woman is on her period. If she's not inundated in perfume, I can smell it. In 'the wild', it would be much more obvious. Also a woman's vagina changes shape..not shape, but..I don't know how to describe it..but it changes, opens, with sexual stimulant (being 'in heat').

Your preference only narrowed with age. When I was 16-18, I'd bang anyuthing that moved. It's called hormones. As they wane in later years, your drive isn't as bad. It might still be strong, but it's not as 'fevered'.

Sex is sex no matter what the species of animal to which you are applying it.

The only conditioning I see is by parents feeding this diatribe to their children at an age where they still believe in Santa Claus.

You should look up statistics to see howe many marriages have failed because of sexual incompatibilty. How many marriages are ruined because of cheating from one side because of sexual incompatibility. I am lucky I didn't marry my last girlfriend with no indication of her sexual style, or I'd be extremely miserable today, and we'd be divorcing.

Too much melodrama. Sex isn't that complicated.

Testiculese wrote:opens, with sexual stimulant (being 'in heat').

Sexual stimulation is NOT being in heat. Neither is a woman in heat during her period. Quite the opposite in fact. Being "in heat" refers to the time when a female has ovulated and is fertile. In humans, detecting ovulation is tricky.

It is a simple and obvious biological fact that in many (most) species the female gives obvious signals when they have ovulated. In a few species they do not. And there is VERY different sexual behavior between the group that signals ovulation and the group that does not. Get a biology text book and look it up.

Testiculese wrote:You should look up statistics to see howe many marriages have failed because of sexual incompatibilty.

Provide some statistics and I'll look, but I think its a case of mistaking cause for effect.

░

Kilarin wrote:In these species, the primary purpose of sex is NOT reproduction. (Not denying that reproduction IS one of the purposes, but its not the PRIMARY purpose) The primary purpose is Pair Bonding between the male and female. In these species, and in humans, the primary purpose of sex is to tie a husband and wife closely together, both physically and emotionally.

Dude, read up on Bonobos.

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food.

So much about the "pair bonding" and "tie husband & wife together" crap

Grendel wrote:Dude, read up on Bonobos.

Yes, I'm well aware of Bonobo's. They are one of the few species with concealed ovulation. They signal estrus, but the signal is unreliable and they may be fertile for weeks before or after the genital swelling occurs. Meaning, male Bonobos don't know exactly WHEN sex with a female Bonobo will produce young. So, they use sex for something besides reproduction, they use it for bonding.

Which was the point I was trying to make, that animals that do not signal ovulation use sex for bonding, not that all of these animals are monogamous. Hmmm, I can see where it implies that in the way I phrased it though. I'll correct that.

That is very interesting Kilarin, thanks.

Since when have humans been monogamous? What about before Christianity's god? Never, and never. Animals have no reason to be monogamous, and very few are. (Eagles mate for life I think, for one.) Survival of species is more important.

Also, your description about you and your wife is simple familiarity. It's apparent in a lot of things. You're comfortable with what you are familiar with. Same thing as a bowling alley you've gone to for 20 years. It's an extension of yourself, in a sense. Anyone can fit that bill, and anyone would. There's no mystery or anything complicated about it, and it isn't special to marriage.

Spooky wrote: There is a major problem in this nation today that is becoming more prevalent with each passing day. Folks want God out of their life.

Not god...religion. Most people want archaic, oppressive, superstitious religion out of their life. It needs to be updated, with a lot of the hocus-pocus garbage and self-important(as a species) egomania dropped.

Testiculese wrote:Since when have humans been monogamous? What about before Christianity's god? Never, and never.

Well, I don't believe there ever was a time before Christianity's God, so I guess I'll have to agree with you.

But seriously, assuming you don't insist upon monogamy meaning a culture where no one EVER commits adultery, and assuming you mean "before Christianity became a major religion", you statement here is hardly defensible. Polygamy has certainly been more popular than Monogamy, but are you forgetting Greece and Rome? Just to name two famous monogamous ancient cultures.

Testiculese wrote:Animals have no reason to be monogamous, and very few are. (Eagles mate for life I think, for one.) Survival of species is more important.

It all depends on what your survival strategy is. But you are missing my major point, humans are different from most animals, we do not signal ovulation. Why? Because we use sex for more than just reproduction.

Testiculese wrote:Also, your description abotu you and your wife is simply familiarity.
...
Anyone can fit that bill, and anyone would. There's no mystery or anything complicated about it.

Uhm, yes. That was the point. That familiarity "becomes part of you", burned into your brain. It would happen with anyone that you had sex with. That's the point. And no, its not complicated, but it does seem like I have to keep explaining it over and over.

--And thank you Spooky and Xamindar, you are very kind!

Monogamy is imposed by society to control sexuality. Different societies offer different amounts of freedom -- Mormons allow more than one wife as do hindus or some moslems. It's futile trying to see monogamous behavor as \"god sent\" You need to get out of your little box there

Biology wise human males are monogamous for about seven years before they start considering changes. It's about the time a kid & mom most benefit from the support of a father..

Edit: Just remembered -- there was a study about why human females don't (obviousely) signal ovulation. Theory was that since the male can't be sure an impregnation happened he has to stay around to find out, taking care of the female and creating a bond.

░

Kilarin wrote:
That's why God insisted upon virginity before marriage, and strict monogamy afterwards. He DESIGNED sex, he knows how it is supposed to work, and He knows that a couple that has sex, any couple, undergoes irreversible mental changes involved in pair-bonding.

A virgin making love for the first time is learning a new art form, but this is an art that requires two, and the virgin is learning to play counter-beat to someone else's rhythm.

Just think of the incredible advantage a couple has if they decide to remain virgins until they get married. No preconceived notions, no habits built up with other lovers.

If you really want to enjoy sex, wait until you are married, stay married, and of course, once you are married, practice, practice, practice!

This is my life! I absolutely love my fiance, & I couldn't imagine getting to experience this with anyone else. Because I wouldn't want to, why? Because I have no preconceived ideas or experiences, I can completely give myself to her, & her in return. Only 91 days to go!

Congrats, Sir Sam II. (I recommend The Marriage Bed for married and soon to be married couples. Good advice, good fellowship, and Dena's guide to stripping. What's not to love?)

Kilarin wrote:But seriously, assuming you don't insist upon monogamy meaning a culture where no one EVER commits adultery, and assuming you mean "before Christianity became a major religion", you statement here is hardly defensible. Polygamy has certainly been more popular than Monogamy, but are you forgetting Greece and Rome? Just to name two famous monogamous ancient cultures.

Monogamy can refer to either having a single sexual partner or to being married to a single person, but since you've introduced terms like polygamy and adultery, I think you're moving off topic. From what I understand, your topic was principally about how it was ideal to have one sexual partner in a lifetime (or at least this is what your evidences were directed toward), and not about different types of marriage. You can see how the two topics can be correlated, but not necessarily, as a society that allows for premarital sex and adultery, but only legally recognizing one marriage, isn't going to help your case but actually hurt it.

From what I understand, Greek and Roman cultures were chiefly monogamous when it came to legally recognizing marriages, but is there any strong evidence that Greek and Roman cultures actually promoted having a single sexual partner in a lifetime? If so, did this apply to the slave class, to the noble class, or to both?

Spooky wrote:In the beginning there was no limit to a man having many wives. However, as time went by changes were made.

So was God looking out for our better sexual interests when he allowed polygamy, or was he looking out for our better sexual interests when he disallowed it.

Kilarin wrote:But you are missing my major point, humans are different from most animals, we do not signal ovulation. Why? Because we use sex for more than just reproduction.

I have a lot to say about this subject but I don't have time to say it all now. However, I want to ask you to clear up something for me.

First of all, your statement seems to suggest that hidden ovulation is a result of the fact that humans use sex for more than just reproduction, i.e. for pair bonding. I see this logic as flawed; it puts the cart before the horse. If anything, the reverse would be true: that sex is used for bonding as a result of hidden ovulation. However, I am not ready to concede that either.

I think it FAR more likely that human pair bonding has occurred because it serves a biological purpose. Kilarin, you have actually missed a key factor that, while not unique to humans, is surely exaggerated in humanity: The human child is born in a quite half-baked condition. The human child requires much longer to reach maturation than even most other mammals. I would submit to you that it is far more likely that pair bonding evolved as a solution to the fact that the human child is so fragile and dependent on care during it's growth and development.

However, it is absolutely clear from even a cursory survey of anthropology that monogamy is not required for biological survival nor is it required for cultural efficacy and cohesion.

I hope this stimulates the discussion (a topic I find important and fascinating).

I promise to post an alternate view to the one here proposed, but it will have to happen later this weekend.

As a preview, my contention is that the human animal is not hard-wired for either monogamy or polygamy. I think that the types of bonding in which we engage are pliable and vary based on the function they serve within the culture at large. The decline of marriage is directly attributable to the decline of the utility of marriage.

More later.

Excellent choice Sir Sam II. I wish you all the best blessings marriage can offer!

Spooky wrote:In the beginning there was no limit to a man having many wives. However, as time went by changes were made.

Going to have to disagree with you here. Adam and Eve were Monogamous. Polygamy first entered in with Lamech (Gen 4:19), who was part of Cain's line. But you will note that Noah and his sons had one wife each.

During the time of the patriarchs, it's true, the men followed after the fashion of the land and had multiple wives, but I have yet to find a single story (in the Bible) where it turned out well. The Polygamous families are all worse off for it.

Anyway, point being, the idea of monogamous relationships is from the beginning, multiple partners entered later.

Lothar wrote:I recommend The Marriage Bed

Yes, that's a Good site!

Jeff250 wrote:From what I understand, your topic was principally about how it was ideal to have one sexual partner in a lifetime

Yes, good point. I'm not real happy with "serial monogamy" either.

Jeff250 wrote:is there any strong evidence that Greek and Roman cultures actually promoted having a single sexual partner in a lifetime?

Thats why I specified that a monogamous culture can't be defined as one without any occurrences of fornication or adultery. They don't exist. Mankind is sinful. I would consider a culture monogamous if they have monogamous marriages. If monogamy is the ideal they encourage, although not the ideal they all achieve.

Jeff250 wrote:So was God looking out for our better sexual interests when he allowed polygamy, or was he looking out for our better sexual interests when he disallowed it.

God didn't "allow" it, He simply fought other battles sometimes, and came back to this one when He was ready for it. Humanity has LOTS of problems besides just sleeping around.

Kilarin wrote:Thats why I specified that a monogamous culture can't be defined as one without any occurrences of fornication or adultery. They don't exist. Mankind is sinful. I would consider a culture monogamous if they have monogamous marriages. If monogamy is the ideal they encourage, although not the ideal they all achieve.

But you can't assume that premarital sex or sex with another partner is a "sin," especially if the culture in question doesn't think so. For example, a culture that only allowed monogamous marriage but had no quibble with premarital sex isn't an example for your case but an example against it.

Besides, I think you make a mistake whenever you appeal to the \"primary purpose of sex\" as a whole, as if there is one. It would be fair to appeal to the purpose of any individual's decision to have sex, since it makes sense to apply purpose to things that people consciously decide to do, i.e. Joe's purpose to sex is maximizing sexual gratification, so Joe would be best to have one sexual partner, but, of course, this position would be much more difficult to try to argue. Instead, you're starting out by stating that the purpose of human sex in itself is bonding between a husband and a wife. Is it really any surprise then when you conclude that only sex with a single partner is ideal?

Kilarin wrote:God didn't "allow" it

God's mercy has allowed just about everything with respect to humans. He may not agree with it, but he has certainly put up with it.

This world is full of diverse cultures, and because of this there are many different attitudes for just about everything. From a Biblical point of view, all man-made rules are in opposition to the way God intended man to function. We have been left on our own, to fend for ourselves, to engage in just about everything the way we see fit - even if it is not in our best interest. Wrong or right? I think time has proven the validity of God's standards; they are for the benefit of man. When they are disregarded, problems always arise in one form or another. Monogomy is the divine standard. Only monogomy can be truly successful. When Monogomous relationships fail, it's not because the standard is faulty, it's because the participents are faulty. If we were all at the level of perfection that God intended us to achieve, then marriage would always be a blessing, and it would never fail, as Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians: "Love never fails."

Palzon wrote: As a preview, my contention is that the human animal is not hard-wired for either monogamy or polygamy. I think that the types of bonding in which we engage are pliable and vary based on the function they serve within the culture at large. The decline of marriage is directly attributable to the decline of the utility of marriage. More later.

Can we extrapolate from your preview that context defines morality?

Monogomy is simply a sympathetic emotion between two people who abide by an unwritten contract between each other. It could be man/women, man/man, or women/women. It has nothing to do with god. Whether the partnership survives is a roll of the dice like everything else in this life.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Whether the partnership survives is a roll of the dice like everything else in this life.

Bee

That couldn't be further from the truth. If you honestly believe that, then I'm afraid you are going to experience one failed relationship after another.

A monogamous relationship takes work, a lot of work. It is not simply up to chance. Most people evolve as they get older. Their interests change, their beliefs change or become refined, their pool of knowledge changes. In other words, they grow as people.

As two people in a relationship undergo this growth, they have a choice. Either they can grow together or they can grow apart from each other. To say that they can grow together is not to imply that they grow in lock step with each other. Each person will still have their own personal interests, likes, and dislikes. To grow together is to strive to maintain some common interests, or some other thing that bonds them emotionally. This takes work and it takes time. Time must be spent together working as a couple toward a common goal.

To grow apart is to not put in the work or the time. Years pass and each person has grown in a different direction. They may no longer have anything in common, no common goal in which to strive toward.

I believe this is one of the big reasons why so many celebrities get divorced. They are so busy working, that they don’t make the time for each other. You will see this in many relationships where one of both members is a workaholic.

Anyway, my point is that the success or failure of a relationship is hardly the crap shoot you think it is. A relationship is not a static thing. If it is treated as such, it will almost certainly fail. If it is nurtured, then it can grow far better than either person thought possible.

Dedman wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Whether the partnership survives is a roll of the dice like everything else in this life.

Bee

That couldn't be further from the truth. If you honestly believe that, then I'm afraid you are going to experience one failed relationship after another.

A monogamous relationship takes work, a lot of work. It is not simply up to chance. Most people evolve as they get older. Their interests change, their beliefs change or become refined, their pool of knowledge changes. In other words, they grow as people.

As two people in a relationship undergo this growth, they have a choice. Either they can grow together or they can grow apart from each other. To say that they can grow together is not to imply that they grow in lock step with each other. Each person will still have their own personal interests, likes, and dislikes. To grow together is to strive to maintain some common interests, or some other thing that bonds them emotionally. This takes work and it takes time. Time must be spent together working as a couple toward a common goal.

To grow apart is to not put in the work or the time. Years pass and each person has grown in a different direction. They may no longer have anything in common, no common goal in which to strive toward.

I believe this is one of the big reasons why so many celebrities get divorced. They are so busy working, that they don’t make the time for each other. You will see this in many relationships where one of both members is a workaholic.

Anyway, my point is that the success or failure of a relationship is hardly the crap shoot you think it is. A relationship is not a static thing. If it is treated as such, it will almost certainly fail. If it is nurtured, then it can grow far better than either person thought possible.

I re-read what I wrote and then kicked myself for throwing that last line in the way I did. Today was a down day for me and I'm not thinking straight. I wanted to imply that whether the relationship survives or not has nothing to do with religion.

I like what you said and I believe that too. Thanks for the shoulder shake.

Bee

Edit... I just kicked myself again for good measure.

Speaking of kicking, if I were to bring up a monogamous relationship up to my girlfriend, my balls would be kicked clean off my pelvis. I have a feeling though this would be a normal reaction...

But to what I was going to ask, don't Mormons allow monogamy? And I also frogot if monogamy counts a girl married to more than one guy or not. Can someone clear that up for me?

Dakatsu wrote:Speaking of kicking, if I were to bring up a monogamous relationship up to my girlfriend, my balls would be kicked clean off my pelvis.

Er....???


Are you thinking of polygamy by any chance? If not, may I suggest this.

Oh.... whoops!

Haha, it's okay, I just thought one of two things:

1) Your girlfriend is into the whole polyamory thing. Woot!

2) Your girlfriend \"just isn't ready to settle down with just one guy.\" Not so woot!

I chose the latter to err on the side of your safety.

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Palzon wrote: As a preview, my contention is that the human animal is not hard-wired for either monogamy or polygamy. I think that the types of bonding in which we engage are pliable and vary based on the function they serve within the culture at large. The decline of marriage is directly attributable to the decline of the utility of marriage. More later.

Can we extrapolate from your preview that context defines morality?

no. although a better errant guess would be that utility defines morality - but i do not hold that either.

Palzon wrote:I think it FAR more likely that human pair bonding has occurred because it serves a biological purpose. Kilarin, you have actually missed a key factor that, while not unique to humans, is surely exaggerated in humanity: The human child is born in a quite half-baked condition. The human child requires much longer to reach maturation than even most other mammals. I would submit to you that it is far more likely that pair bonding evolved as a solution to the fact that the human child is so fragile and dependent on care during it's growth and development.

As usuall P' you point out somthing i'd not thought about before. Good post, as is Ded's.

Monogamy, by it's definition is an idea based upon sex. Is love also by definition sex then? Can we love two people at the same time? Is love sex? Can we honestly say it's impossible to love two at a time. I think not.

Dakatsu wrote:But to what I was going to ask, don't Mormons allow monogamy?

DCrazy wrote:Are you thinking of polygamy by any chance?

The simple answer to that is no. The Mormon church officially denounced polygamy decades ago.

Grendel wrote:Biology wise human males are monogamous for about seven years before they start considering changes. It's about the time a kid & mom most benefit from the support of a father.

That's very interesting, do you have a reference?

I also believe that there is a fallacy in the whole concept of hidden ovulation. The idea of non-hidden ovulation implies that the, for instance, the male cat hears the singing of a another cat and thinks "wow she's ready to mate". However, it is much more plausible that this singing just evokes an incredible feeling of lust in the tom, so that the makes his pass at her --- he is not aware that she is ready to mate. What I am saying is, only because it is obvious to us that the cat is ready to mate does not mean that the male cat is equally aware of that. He may just feel how his body responds to the signals his body picks up from the female.

Now, humans. Can anybody of us men be sure that we do not behave in an identical manner? Why do we pick one girl that we approach instead of others. Possibly, our psychological mechanisms have picked up certain features that are very clear to them, without us being aware of them. So, these mechanisms do not signal to us 'she's ready to mate' but what they signal is 'wow, shagging her would be nice'.

There are a lot of studies that actually support this claim. Don't have a reference after all these yeasr, but a professor told us of a study were males imagined the attractiveness of women from having only their t-shirts in their hands. Guess what, men found the t-shirts most attractive that were worn by women ready to mate, and those the most unattractive that were worn by women that had their period. So, obviously, and as Testi has said, men can smell the difference, even without being aware of it. But - as in the cat example - we don't realize why this is, we just realize that a woman just appears quite sexy to us.

Kilarin wrote:But the topic was sex, how does this whole Pavlov thing tie into sex? Quite directly. Sex is just about the most powerful stimulus most humans will ever experience. It's VERY good at creating conditioned reflexes, which is why I said that our sexuality is shaped by those we share it with. Not just influenced, but SHAPED. We are changed by sex, our brains actually alter and we develop new reflexes based on what happens during sex.

So what you are saying is that our sexuality is mostly shaped by masturbation (especially in those that wait the longest because they save themselves up for marriage)?

Flabby Chick wrote:Is love also by definition sex then? Can we love two people at the same time? Is love sex?

No.
Yes.
No. But the equation of these two is certainly the cause of much confusion amongst the general population and the writers of contemporary music lyrics in particular.

Bettina wrote:Monogomy is simply a sympathetic emotion between two people ...

Hardly.
(a) in relationships, few things are "simple".
(b) As Dedman has already pointed out, monogamy is based on a choice you make, not on how you "feel". If a "sympathetic emotion" was all that was involved, then I don't see how any marriage would last long at all. When inevitable conflict arises in a relationship, love may very well dictate that one goes completely against their particular feelings at that moment.

So you wouldn't say loving two people at the same time is breaking monogamy. Only if you screw the second person? I put it thats not only is it easy to love two, but sex is an extension of the love felt.

....ok i'm gonna start drinking now i better leave the dbb for a while.

\"love\" is not congruent with \"in love with\", as commonly understood. Is that the source of confusion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monogamy

mo·nog·a·my

1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
2. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
3. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.

4. The reality that you have to look at this sea hag for the rest of your life.

5. Oh man, her cousin is so freakin' hot, and I have to abide by some ludacris social norm when I know down to the core of my being I want to bang that idiot just once.

6. Social construct designed by men that couldn't please their women sexually so we made up some crap that has nothing to do with human nature to feel better about ourselves.

Zoology The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.

-----------------------------------------------------
mo·noga·mist n.
mo·noga·mous adj.
mo·noga·mous·ly adv.

dissent wrote:"love" is not congruent with "in love with", as commonly understood. Is that the source of confusion?

I think that's a source for many, many people.

I can't wait 'till Palzon posts. He's going to type exactly what I'm thinking.

Shoku wrote:God's mercy has allowed just about everything with respect to humans. He may not agree with it, but he has certainly put up with it.

You put that much better than I did. Thank you.

Palzon wrote:your statement seems to suggest that hidden ovulation is a result of the fact that humans use sex for more than just reproduction, i.e. for pair bonding.

No, opposite. I would say designed, you would say evolved, but the chicken and the egg go in the same order either way. Hidden ovulation shows that humans are not structured to use sex only for reproduction, but also, and I would say primarily, for pair bonding.

Palzon wrote:I would submit to you that it is far more likely that pair bonding evolved as a solution to the fact that the human child is so fragile and dependent on care during it's growth and development.

You won't get any argument from me on this point really. I come from a different perspective, but I think the end result is identical either way.

Jeff250 wrote:But you can't assume that premarital sex or sex with another partner is a "sin," especially if the culture in question doesn't think so.

*I* certainly can. But I wouldn't expect your assumptions to necessarily match up with mine. My point was that humans do not live up to their ideals in any respect. Every society has child abuse, even though some officially sanction it and others don't. When attempting to identify a "Monogamous" culture, we have to settle for one that promotes monogamy as an ideal.

Bettina wrote:Monogomy is simply a sympathetic emotion between two people who abide by an unwritten contract between each other.

Unwritten contracts leave the members of the union, ESPECIALLY women in most societies, VERY vulnerable to betrayal. Realize that STILL in many societies in the world, a woman cast off by her husband has little recourse other than prostitution as a means of survival. Official marriage contracts help to defend women against that kind of loss. The contracts can usually be gotten out of with a divorce, but that divorce usually left women with improved chances at life afterwards.

It could be man/women, man/man, or women/women.

Gender is not actually critical to the Monogamy argument. Regardless of whether you believe that homosexuality is wrong or not, I believe that homosexuals would be better off in one monogamous homosexual relationship than in many promiscuous ones.

Bettina wrote:I like what you said and I believe that too. Thanks for the shoulder shake

It takes guts to say "I was wrong", my hat is off to you.

Flabby Chick wrote:Is love also by definition sex then? Can we love two people at the same time? Is love sex? Can we honestly say it's impossible to love two at a time.

Others have already covered this, but let me throw in my 2 cents worth.
Love is NOT sex. I don't believe in soul mates or any such idea that there is only one person out there for you. Love is not an emotion, it's a choice. Someone who has made the promise to be married to (and have sex with) only one person, should have the testicular fortitude to stick BY that promise, no matter what emotions and hormones get stirred up with someone else later. Love is a choice, and (outside of force) having sex is a choice. You can CHOOSE to be loyal.

Pandora wrote:So, obviously, and as Testi has said, men can smell the difference, even without being aware of it.

The pheromone arguments are not without merit, but are certainly still very controversial. However, I would still say they have little bearing on the topic. When a female cat is in season, the toms show up for a party. Of COURSE their little minds don't understand exactly how reproduction works, but they know when its the right time to have sex. Humans think ANY time is the right time to have sex. If we are unconsciously aware of when women are fertile, it seems to have very little influence on our behavior or fertility. And thats because we use sex for bonding, not just for reproduction.

Pandora wrote:So what you are saying is that our sexuality is mostly shaped by masturbation (especially in those that wait the longest because they save themselves up for marriage)?

Ha!
Yes and no. You will note that I listed it as an influence. However, there is a gigantic difference between pleasing yourself, and learning how to please another. While autoerotic activity probably has some influence on what kinds of stimulation we enjoy, it simply can't compare to the powerful experience of sharing sex with another human being. That's a very different skill. And you will note that many of the types of stimulation people enjoy in a physical relationship with another human are (almost?)impossible to perform alone.
So, influence? yes. But not at anywhere near the same level as actual sexual experience with another human being.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:Monogomy is simply a sympathetic emotion between two people who abide by an unwritten contract between each other.

Unwritten contracts leave the members of the union, ESPECIALLY women in most societies, VERY vulnerable to betrayal. Realize that STILL in many societies in the world, a woman cast off by her husband has little recourse other than prostitution as a means of survival. Official marriage contracts help to defend women against that kind of loss. The contracts can usually be gotten out of with a divorce, but that divorce usually left women with improved chances at life afterwards.

That is a good point. Last time I checked, my marriage licesnce was a WRITTEN contract that Mrs. Dedman, myself, and the person who married us had to sign.