[Guest]

I'm definetly not supporting unfaithful men but it happens because humans aren't biologically suited for one person.

you're not supporting them, you're justifying their actions with silly excuses.

you never heard me say that anyone was a future rapist or an evil person for watching porn.

your facts are a little too flexible for me. "look it up" - in what, the "universal fact book??" you're claiming your opinion & calling it factual.

i haven't said one word about you or your boyfriend or your promises or anything else. i just said - & i'll say it again - your assertions are absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

they're also pretty insensitive in the face of so many women enduring such devastating heartache at the hands of this evil industry that we've been talking about.

i guess if "these women" would just relax a little & let their husbands do whatever they wanted, everything would just be better.

can you prove that scientifically?

[ch1cka]

you're not supporting them, you're justifying their actions with silly excuses.

you never heard me say that anyone was a future rapist or an evil person for watching porn.

your facts are a little too flexible for me. "look it up" - in what, the "universal fact book??" you're claiming your opinion & calling it factual.

i haven't said one word about you or your boyfriend or your promises or anything else. i just said - & i'll say it again - your assertions are absolutely unfounded and ridiculous.

they're also pretty insensitive in the face of so many women enduring such devastating heartache at the hands of this evil industry that we've been talking about.

i guess if "these women" would just relax a little & let their husbands do whatever they wanted, everything would just be better.

can you prove that scientifically?[/quote]

As a future M.D. I can tell you that my logic is far from an excuse. All i'm trying to tell you is that the human species is not made to be monogamous. No need for silly excuses here.

I have studies human sexuality closely and I know the ins and outs of human monogamy.

This is the review of a book that I recently read....



*****But the question is, "why?" If infidelity is so popular among the populace, why is it still stigmatized? Why are the perpetrators often vilified? If "everyone's doing it," why are impeachments made and careers and lives ruined when sexual wanderings are publicly exposed? And if everyone knows what can happen, why do they stray from their monogamous relationships in the first place?
The answers to these and other questions can be found in the book, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People by husband and wife co-authors David P. Barash, Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton, M.D., in which they argue that despite the public's shock and surprise surrounding these infidelities, cheating on one's spouse is the rule; not the exception.
In this alluring book, Barash, a zoologist and psychology professor, and Lipton, a psychiatrist, contend that the unfaithful behavior displayed by so many in our culture is natural and that, in truth, the unnatural behavior is the attempted practice of monogamy. They maintain "there is no evidence, either from biology, primatology, or anthropology, that monogamy is somehow "natural" or "normal" for human beings. There is by contrast, abundant evidence that people have long been prone to have multiple sexual partners."
The Myth of Monogamy cites numerous biological, psychological, and sociological studies on humans and animals to prove that males and females are not naturally monogamous in any society, be it human, animal, or insect, and that women as well as men are biologically predisposed to cheat on their mates. In it, Barash and Lipton effectively show that from fleas to birds to monkeys to human beings, all manner of wildlife engage in the practice of EPCs or extra-pair copulations for a variety of reasons, and that EPCs are not the exclusive domain of the male animal. Females too can be counted upon to go looking for a more powerful mate, if they deem their own to be less so (lending a possible explanation for why Clinton, Jackson, and their ilk are successful in finding willing partners).
Furthermore, using the same DNA technology useful for identifying unknown soldiers or freeing the falsely convicted, biologists have discovered that even animals long thought to be monogamous are far from it:
"When we examine the genes of baby birds, even those species long thought to be absolute paragons of monogamous fidelity, we find that 10, 20, sometimes 30 percent of the offspring are not genetically connected to the socially identified father . . . But only now, with the accumulation of literally dozens of research studies using DNA data, do we know for sure: Females, even females in species long thought to be sexually faithful, often are not."
Armed with this new DNA evidence, scientists have also been able to explain:

• Why animals cheat,
• Why the myth of monogamy was created,
• How men and women were sucked into the monogamy hoax,
• How big a role procreation plays in the desire to have several sexual partners,
• Who stands to gain the most by perpetuating the myth of monogamy.

Does this mean that the faithfully monogamous segment of the population can be classified as freaks? Not at all, declare Barash and Lipton who, despite their findings, still respect and support the monogamous love union. In their estimation: "The perfect fit of a good monogamous marriage is made, not born. And despite the fact that much of our biology seems to tug in the opposite direction, such marriages can in fact be made. It is an everyday miracle."
Sure to inspire you to question your own ideas about sex and fidelity, The Myth of Monogamy promises to be of interest to anyone who is even the least bit curious about human sexuality-in other words, just about everyone! *****

Like I said before and I will say it again, by no means am I a supporter of cheating and lying spouses. I would be completely devistated if it happened to me. But all I'm trying to let you know is that humans are not biologically suited for one mate. THIS IS FACT. It has been studied and proven. I distinctly know the difference between fact and opinion. Please state your facts, oh I forgot you have no basis for your argument because it's complete babble.

[hotdogg]

right on ch1cka! i agree with you.

i think people who do not surpress their partners have stronger relationships.

[Guest]

i think people who do not surpress their partners have stronger relationships.

yes that's brilliant. if only we encouraged more infidelity among our spouses, marriages would be strengthened. stop surpressing all those natural desires.

chick -

the book you cited doesn't prove a thing. look at your quoted description:

In this alluring book, Barash, a zoologist and psychology professor, and Lipton, a psychiatrist, contend that the unfaithful behavior displayed by so many in our culture is natural and that, in truth, the unnatural behavior is the attempted practice of monogamy.

they contend that their opinion is correct. we all do - otherwise we would adopt a different opinion. they apparently believe science backs them up - OK, fine. but you should recognize that this is no more a factual issue than the big bang theory. they - and you - may believe passionately that this makes scientific sense, and therefor you believe it.

but doesn't pass as fact.

please also understand that it will take many more than one study to document such a claim. a husband/wife team completes a research study & asserts a theory.

far from fact status.

this is what i really liked:

They maintain "there is no evidence, either from biology, primatology, or anthropology, that monogamy is somehow "natural" or "normal" for human beings. There is by contrast, abundant evidence that people have long been prone to have multiple sexual partners."

they go on to reference the habits of birds.

if we're going to take our lead from animals, sex is definitely going to take a turn for the worst. a stroll around a pond in april to observe the mating habits of geese might be revealing. 9 or 10 male geese violently gang rape the one female for about 4 weeks, biting her nack until it bleeds.

common sense might tell us that our natural tendency is to be entirely self centered. spent any time with an infant? he/she is absolutely selfish. focused on self gratification.

shall we celebrate selfishness, along with infedility & porn?

your book, for me, is just a timid leftist attempt to undermine what has, since antiquity, undergirded society everywhere: a strong family unit. in fact, a brief historical look at how cultures have oppressed one another will show that the primary target of attack has always been - the family. today in jamaica, 97% of children are born out of wedlock. that began when the english wanted to keep the jamaicans from rising against their rule - they encouraged, in fact mandated, that jamaican men would sleep around.

the result - as it always is - was that the social structure in jamaica broke down & there was no power there. family was weakened - nation was weakened.

your book offers nothing new. nor does your opinion. people have always sought to rationalize their poor behavior.

[ch1cka]

yes that's brilliant. if only we encouraged more infidelity among our spouses, marriages would be strengthened. stop surpressing all those natural desires.

chick -

the book you cited doesn't prove a thing. look at your quoted description:

In this alluring book, Barash, a zoologist and psychology professor, and Lipton, a psychiatrist, contend that the unfaithful behavior displayed by so many in our culture is natural and that, in truth, the unnatural behavior is the attempted practice of monogamy.

they contend that their opinion is correct. we all do - otherwise we would adopt a different opinion. they apparently believe science backs them up - OK, fine. but you should recognize that this is no more a factual issue than the big bang theory. they - and you - may believe passionately that this makes scientific sense, and therefor you believe it.

but doesn't pass as fact.

please also understand that it will take many more than one study to document such a claim. a husband/wife team completes a research study & asserts a theory.

far from fact status.

this is what i really liked:

They maintain "there is no evidence, either from biology, primatology, or anthropology, that monogamy is somehow "natural" or "normal" for human beings. There is by contrast, abundant evidence that people have long been prone to have multiple sexual partners."

they go on to reference the habits of birds.

if we're going to take our lead from animals, sex is definitely going to take a turn for the worst. a stroll around a pond in april to observe the mating habits of geese might be revealing. 9 or 10 male geese violently gang rape the one female for about 4 weeks, biting her nack until it bleeds.

common sense might tell us that our natural tendency is to be entirely self centered. spent any time with an infant? he/she is absolutely selfish. focused on self gratification.

shall we celebrate selfishness, along with infedility & porn?

your book, for me, is just a timid leftist attempt to undermine what has, since antiquity, undergirded society everywhere: a strong family unit. in fact, a brief historical look at how cultures have oppressed one another will show that the primary target of attack has always been - the family. today in jamaica, 97% of children are born out of wedlock. that began when the english wanted to keep the jamaicans from rising against their rule - they encouraged, in fact mandated, that jamaican men would sleep around.

the result - as it always is - was that the social structure in jamaica broke down & there was no power there. family was weakened - nation was weakened.

your book offers nothing new. nor does your opinion. people have always sought to rationalize their poor behavior.

By no means is that the only source that explains that humans are not naturally monogamous. There is tons of more information out there on that specific topic but I'm definetly not going to type all of that up for you. Takes way too much time. If YOU want more scientific information, look it up on your own. My theory has more scientific basis than your opinion which is "we are just making excuses".

The book's purpose was to not take a "lead for animals". i don't know if you know but in scientific experiments, dependent variables and independent variables are needed. The birds are simply dependent variables. If we were to just study humans, we wouldn't understand the universal theory of monogamy.

Oh and please quote me where I said that men should sleep around. When I said that we need not to supress our men, I'm simply stating letting out sexual tension in other healthy ways that does NOT involve cheating with another person. If this involves watching porn, then why not if its in the borders of your own home and there is no harm being done to the relationship? You have still failed to answer this question......

But all in all, this could go on forever, but by no means am I going to just take your advice that we are "making excuses for our men". I believe SCIENCE over OPINION. and these claims have been studied. There is no other way around it. Before I brought up the whole universal monogamy thing, you probably had no clue about it but I have been looking up plenty of research on this topic for a while now. Like I said before Im going with the SCIENCE.

I'm done with this topic, there is no way to change you people's opinions because you are definetly stuck in your supressive ways, no matter how much scientific proof is stated. I could give you enormous amounts of medical journals and scientific studies on this topic and you still would say "we are just making excuses"....complete garbage in my opinion


Talk to you all later.....

[Guest]

Oh and please quote me where I said that men should sleep around. When I said that we need not to supress our men, I'm simply stating letting out sexual tension in other healthy ways that does NOT involve cheating with another person. If this involves watching porn, then why not if its in the borders of your own home and there is no harm being done to the relationship? You have still failed to answer this question......

haven't failed to answer it - it's in a previous post. they tend to be lengthy so you probably didn't read it.

why not? because it's wrong. wrong on 2 fronts - typically harmful to the viewer. but, if in your case it does no harm to you, your boyfriend, or your relationship - that lack of harm still does not redeem porn. it still requires abuse in order to exist. see my previous posts in this thread for that commentary - or i'll be glad to word it again, if you want to stick around.

now i never said you advocated sleeping around. but there was a reason you brought all this up - specifically in response to the idea that porn was harmful. you responded that people are not naturally designed to be monogamous, and that we were biologically engineered to cheat.

you seem to have entered that idea to refute the notion that porn is a bad thing - but then back away & throw your hands up as though you don't support the idea you injected.

regarding birds, bees, and animal sex - sure i understand the variables of scientific study, unfortunately all too well. more important to me here is the relatability of your findings. lack thereof, in my opinion. you study a sample of birds (they would be the INdependent variable, no?) & expect to relate your findings to a population of humans.

that's fine - you, they, anyone can design & implement any study you want to. i'm saying that the validity of any such findings would be questionable, at best, for me when your sample is so far removed from your population.

but like you said - we could go on forever there. and, no, you will never succeed in convincing me that porn is a good thing or that people are designed to have multiple sex partners.

there are, you know, monogamous animals in the wild who mate for life - inconvenient for the book's theory at hand & i would imagine excluded from the study?

best wishes with med school.

may your future husband, should you choose to marry, defy science and offer you a lifetime of fidelity.

[ch1cka]

haven't failed to answer it - it's in a previous post. they tend to be lengthy so you probably didn't read it.

why not? because it's wrong. wrong on 2 fronts - typically harmful to the viewer. but, if in your case it does no harm to you, your boyfriend, or your relationship - that lack of harm still does not redeem porn. it still requires abuse in order to exist. see my previous posts in this thread for that commentary - or i'll be glad to word it again, if you want to stick around.

now i never said you advocated sleeping around. but there was a reason you brought all this up - specifically in response to the idea that porn was harmful. you responded that people are not naturally designed to be monogamous, and that we were biologically engineered to cheat.

you seem to have entered that idea to refute the notion that porn is a bad thing - but then back away & throw your hands up as though you don't support the idea you injected.

regarding birds, bees, and animal sex - sure i understand the variables of scientific study, unfortunately all too well. more important to me here is the relatability of your findings. lack thereof, in my opinion. you study a sample of birds (they would be the INdependent variable, no?) & expect to relate your findings to a population of humans.

that's fine - you, they, anyone can design & implement any study you want to. i'm saying that the validity of any such findings would be questionable, at best, for me when your sample is so far removed from your population.

but like you said - we could go on forever there. and, no, you will never succeed in convincing me that porn is a good thing or that people are designed to have multiple sex partners.

there are, you know, monogamous animals in the wild who mate for life - inconvenient for the book's theory at hand & i would imagine excluded from the study?

best wishes with med school.

may your future husband, should you choose to marry, defy science and offer you a lifetime of fidelity.

Thank you for the good wishes.

[Guest]

yes - and they are sincere, despite my argumentative nature.

[ch1cka]

yes - and they are sincere, despite my argumentative nature.

Yes I understand as I am very argumentative myself and I love debates . I appreciate it again

[AngelicBunny]

my word you people have serious issues!

firsty 99% of all men view porn, that is a fact.

so if you think you are going to find a man that never looks at porn, never finds other women attractive, never thinks about having sex with another women apart from you for the rest of their lives, you need to wake up and smell the coffee!

porn will always be around that is a fact!

... I found a guy who doesn't like porn... and doesn't look at other women... they're not impossible... there's just not many of them ^_^

My problem with porn is the fact that it degrades women... that's it...