Realist3 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 But you just said it wouldn't matter if your children were not yours biologically. Also how can a woman trap a man with her pregnancy if it's about love and not paternity. You believe monogamy un-natural, that it's fabricated to suit religion and your community's expectations. How can you accuse women of trapping men with kids that aren't theirs if monogamy is un-natural. Because they try and use the child as a means to keep a relationship that is over. They use the child to trap them emotionally and financially. Link to post Share on other sites
Realist3 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I had it happen to me three times before I got married. One completely faked a pregnancy, which didn't last long. The next one was pregnant, and it was mine, but she decided on abortion after I said I wasn't staying with her. The third was pregnant by someone else and tried to use the child as a means to get me to stay. Link to post Share on other sites
Realist3 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The point being made is if monogomy is unnatural, then we would have people running amock having sex with any NUMBER of people. Therefore, why would someone be surprised to find out they have a child that isn't really theirs? If people want to have a sexual free-for-all, then they should expect their wives to do the same. I guess, in that case, just have a DNA test done on every single child then there'll be none of this so-called "trapping" going on. I still don't get the point. I don't see anything a pregnancy has to do with monogamy. They are unrelated. Link to post Share on other sites
Furious Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) I still don't get the point. I don't see anything a pregnancy has to do with monogamy. They are unrelated. Are you serious. Sex makes babies. Sometimes they're your's, sometimes they're not if your not monogamous. Not that hard to understand. Edited February 21, 2013 by Furious 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Realist3 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Are you serious. Sex makes babies. Sometimes they're your's, sometimes they're not if your not monogamous. Not that hard to understand.. You are trying to relate to different subjects. Yes, everyone knows sex makes babies. That has nothing to do with the whether someone is monogamous or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I had it happen to me three times before I got married. One completely faked a pregnancy, which didn't last long. The next one was pregnant, and it was mine, but she decided on abortion after I said I wasn't staying with her. The third was pregnant by someone else and tried to use the child as a means to get me to stay. So you and your AP are not monogamous! Correct? what if she were to become pregnant and claim it is your baby. Would you demand a paternity test? the two are very related. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Realist3 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 So you and your AP are not monogamous! Correct? what if she were to become pregnant and claim it is your baby. Would you demand a paternity test? the two are very related. The prospect you bring up is not related to whether humans are by nature monogamous. Of course I would want to find out, but those concerns would be out of legal obligation. Link to post Share on other sites
Author promises Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 The prospect you bring up is not related to whether humans are by nature monogamous. Of course I would want to find out, but those concerns would be out of legal obligation. true. not related to being monogamous by nature. Link to post Share on other sites
Author promises Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 this conversation is becoming about procreation vrs. recreation of sexual intent. That's why children are not relevant in the monogamous generality. Yes, children come from sex. But, children don't always drive sexual activity. So, unless we are talking about sex as a means to have kids, then it doesn't really fit the topic. Link to post Share on other sites
SunshineToday Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I had it happen to me three times before I got married. One completely faked a pregnancy, which didn't last long. The next one was pregnant, and it was mine, but she decided on abortion after I said I wasn't staying with her. The third was pregnant by someone else and tried to use the child as a means to get me to stay. Not to sound mean, but maybe you should question why you kept choosing such unscrupulous women! It would be a cold day in hell before I would try to use a pregnancy ploy to hold on to a man. Since we all know how well that usually ends... 4 Link to post Share on other sites
beenburned Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Realist, You are responsible for your own birth control if you don't want any kids! 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Realist3 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Realist, You are responsible for your own birth control if you don't want any kids! What on earth does that have to do with the topic? Link to post Share on other sites
Eggplant Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Humans are living right now today in our natural state. Humans have always lived in clans, tribes, or states, or some form of larger society with rules and regulations. Society is our natural state. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Author promises Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 I agree with you, but we have to remember that some folks approach life from a position of mindlessly following their impulses. A successful society requires that people put some thought into their decision making and not just react to biological urges. Unless you're of a religion that allows men to have multiple wives and the women to only have that one man. Then, the man is still able to give in to his biological urges. But, society says, 'not the woman'. Link to post Share on other sites
HonestNeurotic Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 In Tibetan culture, the women get to have multiple husbands. I think as long as everyone is happy, and was totally free in making the decisions they did in their sexual relationships, it's all good with me. i.e., no one is coerced, everyone is of age, etc. The breaking of promises, vows, that's another matter. Though a promise broken, whether it was for extramarital sex or something else, weighs in the same for me. Betrayal is betrayal. Of course, most married people do not think that way. Having children changes things. I do think it's why some women turn a blind eye towards their husbands dalliances, because they know, that they ARE the life partner. Then "love" gets thrown in and well - stuff gets all confusing, to be sure. Lots of people throw that word around, but it's really just the sex they want. It also does a bit to assuage the guilt, it's somehow deemed less illicit, because it's "love". Just sharing some observations. Not judging or moralizing. Just had lots of conversations with my husband these last couple days. Illuminating. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Coco: As humans we are ambivalent regarding this issue. As a species we are not programmed one way or the other despite societal pressures. Promiscuity is wonderful, but monogamy can also be wonderful. And those that are against monogamy may fall into situations where they cannot tolerate promiscuity in their mate. I understand your point just fine, and don't disagree that there may be *SOME* people who are like that. Where I disagree is with your using me as an example to "prove" your point, because I am *NOT* as you describe, I have no ambivalence, and am not in a situation where I could not tolerate promiscuity in my mate. So, if you want an example, you'll need to pick on another, because it does not apply to me. Is all I'm saying. Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Please explain. The fiercest, most dangerous animal in the kingdom, hands down, is a mama protecting her young. She kills with abandon, swiftly, quickly. Maternal instinct, procreating and protecting the progeny until maturity is one of the most powerful, primal urges there is. She will attack her mate if she senses he is a threat to THEIR offspring. If you do not think both men and women agonize over sharing resources of the clan, with another man or woman ( I.e., divorce) then you will never understand those who protect that at all costs. THAT IS AS PRIMAL as monogamy may be unnatural and those are maybe the two oldest and forever in conflict urges left over from when we were cave dwellers wielding jaw bones at our attackers. That is true in some animals. In others, offspring are considered to be food by both parents (eg crocodiles) in other species, the parents will single out *one* of the offspring to nurture, and will ignore the other/s, since these are only "plan B" in case something happens to the chosen survivor. And in other species, the mother leaves the parenting to the father. You should watch more BBC Nature programmes, especially the David Attenborough ones, they're very educational! There is such a huge range of parenting possibilities and practices out there in nature, and each of them works just fine in a particular context. Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I doubt many men would choose another man's child to inherit their life's worth over their own biological It happens. I know several such cases. Usually involving men who walk away from their xWs and see their kids as part of that package, just sending a cheque every month but having nothing further to do with the kid/s, and meeting up with a young, single mother, getting together with her and taking on her kids as their own (often legally adopting them) and transferring their parenting to those kids instead of their "own". When I was a young, single mother I had *many* men wanting to step in and "adopt" my kids as their own, replacing any claim on their affections and resources any offspring of their own may have had. Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 read a recent study by the evolutionary biologists that claimed the greatest indicator of a second marriage failing was a man having to raise a child not his biologically. to a mother, her baby is her baby, but for many men? Not so much, apparently, and it can be a huge stressor in blended families. Similarly, a great many *first* Ms fail when a man has to raise kids he doesn't want, even if they're his. I think it's far less to do with the DNA in the child, and far more to do with the men wanting a partner, and finding that instead they've M a mother. Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Is there anyone participating in this thread in such a society? Polygamy is legal in my home country. Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 polygamy is not carried out through sneaking and lying. Huh? What does that have to do with anything? The point was: Unless you're of a religion that allows men to have multiple wives and the women to only have that one man. To which you asked if anyone from that context was participating in this thread, and I responded. Shifting the goalposts retrospectively achieves nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
Pierre Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Polygamy is legal in my home country. I'm there dude! Link to post Share on other sites
ComingInHot Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Coco; Really?!? Si I could move to your country and have a bunch of "husbands"??!! I'd be "on" that love train if I didn't already know how much work just having One man is, let alone three or four** 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 That is true in some animals. In others, offspring are considered to be food by both parents (eg crocodiles) in other species, the parents will single out *one* of the offspring to nurture, and will ignore the other/s, since these are only "plan B" in case something happens to the chosen survivor. And in other species, the mother leaves the parenting to the father. You should watch more BBC Nature programmes, especially the David Attenborough ones, they're very educational! There is such a huge range of parenting possibilities and practices out there in nature, and each of them works just fine in a particular context. I wouldn't compare mammals, or human maternal instinct, to crocodiles, penguins and hawks. Mammalian mothers kill or attack those who threaten their offspring. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
cocorico Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I wouldn't compare mammals, or human maternal instinct, to crocodiles, penguins and hawks. Mammalian mothers kill or attack those who threaten their offspring. Some do. There are others who do not. And others who kill their own offspring, including some humans. "Maternal instinct" in humans is a myth. It is learned behaviour, otherwise every mother would have it, per definition Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts