Please Read the "The Monogamy Myth"

[Owl]

Well, on a related note, I learned a bit when I started reading about the side affects of the anti-depression medication my wife started taking. It turns out that there are neuro-chemicals that build "bonding" in humans. What's really interesting is that they are produced predominately in two major situations...during childbirth/labor, and during sex.

 

Which is a contributing factor to how/why someone who is sexually active outside of their marriage can tend to do it over and over again...he/she is destroying those receptors associated with their mate. Now, when they become monogamous again, they once again begin building that up...which means that they can re-establish that "bond" with their mate over time.

 

Its also the reason why humans don't eat their young. We bond to our little beasts ( ) so that we don't go learn to hate them when we're spending all that time raising them.

 

Hmmm....based on that, it kinda is an opposite of what we've read here about monogamy being a myth, doesn't it? Let me look and see if I can find the link to that site again...

[EnigmaXOXO]

I've been doing a lot of reading on this lately to help ease my own pain.

 

Way to go Tanbark!!

 

Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

[Matilda]

Of course, Matilda conveniently left out the part that says humans have similar brain chemistry as the prairie voles. We're neurochemically wired to form monogamous, lasting relationships.

 

I didn't conveniently leave it out, it wasn't in the article I linked to.

 

And for the record, I am "pro-monogamy". I have been married for 10 years, and have absolutely no desire to have sex with any other man but my husband ever again.

 

And here's an article that talks to the addictive aspect.:

 

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/spring99/features_pgs/voles.html

"What makes it really intriguing," says Insel,"is that in the prairie vole, the receptors are found in circuits that are important for reward and reinforcement. Our theory is that when the monogamous animals mate and release these hormones, they get addicted to whomever they’re mating with—the odor, the sight, the experience. They want to go back again and again to the same mate."

[ConfusedInOC]

I agree it's not natural and you DO have to work at it. As with ANYTHING worth achieving in life, all require hard work.

 

If you're not willing to work at it, don't expect to stay married.

[dude x]

Perhaps if people informed themselves about the reality of monogamy, non-mongamous behavior of your spouse wouldn't be so hurtful.

 

Well with the understanding that non-monogomay does not violate the laws of physics, it could be easier to accept the fact that as humans we can feel attractions to many others besides our spouses. but for me it offers a tool to understand more of preventing affairs as opposed to coping with infidelity. All the book says to me with the quoted passages here is that if you want monogamy just work for it and you'll be more assured it won't happen. It does not let me have coping strategies to feel good or not care about my so's infidelity. So pain removal of actual infidelity no; a program to prevent affairs yes

[moimeme]

You people are WAY TOO emotional about this topic.

 

Actually, this topic has been debated with a great deal of logic, including scientific evidence.

 

and while this may hold true for prairie voles, the fact remains that humans have the ability to reason...

 

Well, now there you're on slightly weaker turf. Yes, we have the ability to reason, but reason was the most recently-developed of our functions and the first to go when we get into some situations. The brain goes back to its most basic of functions, which is to respond to instinct.

 

I think this is critical to keep in mind precisely so that people can use reason to avoid getting into situations where instinct takes over. If you're spending a huge amount of time with an unmarried friend of the opposite gender and you're married, eventually the pheremones might start to get to you. If you allow yourself to kiss, hormones might get rolling and you might go too far. Just as it's easier to avoid drinking the booze if you don't buy it or have it near you and to quit smoking when there are no smokes around, so too it's much easier to keep oneself out of a potential affair if one engages the bits above the neck long before instinct can assert itself.

[SoleMate]

...Monogamy is not a natural state-it's a social construct...

If this is intended to imply "less validity" to the idea of monogamy, it fails in my eyes. There are beaucoup social constructs out there that I buy in to TOTALLY. Like...language, culture, cuisine, courtship rituals, literature, the arts, friendship, justice, mercy, protecting the environment...

 

The "natural state" would have us all picking our noses, eating each other's lice and urinating at will. That's "natural". I am darn glad that we have social constructs that do an excellent - 99.999% effective - job of forcing us to act "unnaturally".

 

What is the point of this stupid "rule" that says I can't whip down my pants and empty my bladder when I am in line at Starbucks???

[EC]

Natural...human nature...scientific evidence...BLAH!!!

 

I think it's all crap written by people who are miserable. who have been cheated on and are looking for an excuse to heal their pain, or who have/are cheating and are looking for excuses to justify what they are doing.

 

It all comes down to who you are, who you are with and how much you love that person. I believe it is a choice.

 

Either you stay faithfull or you don't..end of story.

[NatoPMT]

However, entertain this comparison: having sex with whomever you please is as natural as eating or drinking – monogomy is like wilful starvation and thirst.

 

Jmargel pointed out the difference between starvation and cheating.

 

In addition to that, faithful couples DO have sex with whomever they please, each other. The faithful couple do NOT want to have sex with other ppl, even if they find others attractive, they don’t want to get intimate with others. So by your own argument they are doing what is natural to them.

 

In the first few years of a relationship (or first months, whatever) when there are no or few issues, the couple are fully ‘engaged’ within their relationship, chemical biology provides the faithfulness initially. Then issues start arising between them, if they don’t deal with those issues and begin to break down their trust, communication and respect then the danger point for infidelity looms - sssuming either one of that couple will react with infidelity – some may react with other behaviours. I have read that 7% of men and 20% of women (both different sources – cant quote either) are predisposed genetically to have extra maritals.

 

Your 60%’s and 40%’s are more indicative of how many people are incapable of maintaining a relationship rather than are incapable of staying faithful.

 

 

Matilda....

 

The once-promiscous voles formed bonds with single female partners and started spending a lot more time with them, even when they had the choice of being around other females.

 

That’s because the female prairie voles always have the dinner on the table as they don’t have to put up with the male prairie voles staying up till 4am playing Doom

 

What is the point of this stupid "rule" that says I can't whip down my pants and empty my bladder when I am in line at Starbucks???

 

snigger.

[250r]

I read that book! I have it sitting right next to the other one I read, "The Murder-Free Myth"

 

IT's a wonderful book written by husband and wife, one who is a psychiatrist, and the other a physician. They've concluded that peace is NOT natural, does NOT come easily to men or women, and it is something each human has to work toward in order to maintain the current society we live in.

 

You people need some perspective on all this. Your spouse murders? Big deal-they could do worse, like run the credit cards up to 10K, steal your money, get cancer...you see my point?

 

Humans have the urge to murder many people over the course of a lifetime. And if once they give in, who are YOU to judge??

 

Perhaps if you can distance yourself, you can get some perspective.

 

Besides, being MURDER-FREE is human society's mechanism to control tempers. To me that's not much of a reason to be murder free.

 

Maybe we need to rethink our expectations of our spouses-they can't be everything to us.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by 250r

I read that book! I have it sitting right next to the other one I read, "The Murder-Free Myth"

 

IT's a wonderful book written by husband and wife, one who is a psychiatrist, and the other a physician. They've concluded that peace is NOT natural, does NOT come easily to men or women, and it is something each human has to work toward in order to maintain the current society we live in.

 

You people need some perspective on all this. Your spouse murders? Big deal-they could do worse, like run the credit cards up to 10K, steal your money, get cancer...you see my point?

 

Humans have the urge to murder many people over the course of a lifetime. And if once they give in, who are YOU to judge??

 

Perhaps if you can distance yourself, you can get some perspective.

 

Besides, being MURDER-FREE is human society's mechanism to control tempers. To me that's not much of a reason to be murder free.

 

Maybe we need to rethink our expectations of our spouses-they can't be everything to us.

 

 

 

 

STANDS AND APPLAUDS!!! You win!!! Best response I've seen yet!!! Hehehehe, LOVED IT!

[Matilda]

What is the point of this stupid "rule" that says I can't whip down my pants and empty my bladder when I am in line at Starbucks???

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wonders about that.

[GirlDown]

Originally posted by moimeme

 

 

Actually, this topic has been debated with a great deal of logic, including scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Well, now there you're on slightly weaker turf. Yes, we have the ability to reason, but reason was the most recently-developed of our functions and the first to go when we get into some situations. The brain goes back to its most basic of functions, which is to respond to instinct.

 

I think this is critical to keep in mind precisely so that people can use reason to avoid getting into situations where instinct takes over. If you're spending a huge amount of time with an unmarried friend of the opposite gender and you're married, eventually the pheremones might start to get to you. If you allow yourself to kiss, hormones might get rolling and you might go too far. Just as it's easier to avoid drinking the booze if you don't buy it or have it near you and to quit smoking when there are no smokes around, so too it's much easier to keep oneself out of a potential affair if one engages the bits above the neck long before instinct can assert itself.

 

 

sure, sure. i was just making a point. it's a choice. you can reason to make your choice. just because you don't reason to make a choice doesn't mean you couldn't have.

 

but good point. i don't know what kind of turf you're talking about, because i'm not debating, but good point, nonetheless.

[uberfrau]

Apples and oranges.

 

Pathetic attempt at logic by substituting murder in for non-monogamy. You assume the two are equally as bad. They aren't. Murder is much worse, and the restrictions upon it are justified.

 

Or maybe you think cheating is just as bad as murder. You people probably secretly wish you could justifiably kill a cheating spouse. Or implant a chip in their brain to track any 'cheating' thoughts.

 

You people are so insanely possessive-i don't blame your spouses for cheating on you-they probably felt suffocated.

 

What's this BS about 'emotional' affairs? So what if your spouse seeks solace with someone else? You can't be everything to your spouse ALL the time. So much insecurity.

[Owl]

Originally posted by uberfrau

 

Pathetic attempt at ...

Or maybe you ....

 

You people are so insanely possessive-i don't blame your spouses for cheating on you-they probably felt suffocated.

 

What's this BS about 'emotional' affairs? So what if your spouse seeks solace with someone else? You can't be everything to your spouse ALL the time. So much insecurity.

 

 

Hmmm...who's insecure? Funny thing is, WE'RE not the ones doing the name calling just because we don't agree with your opinion. Suggestion...next time you post...THINK about the target audience BEFORE you post. You expected praise or something here??? What did you REALLY expect from your posts?? If you feel so strongly in favor of affairs...go for it...sounds like you and your husband have long since mastered the art, and found the perfect tool to justify your behaviour. Just do us a favor??? Stay away from OUR spouses please....LOL

 

Thanks for the humor...that's really all I think you've supplied here...

[uberfrau]

You assume that I think 1) monogamy is a flawed concept with no rational basis whatsoever 2) and serves no purpose whatsoever. That is not true.

 

Every society has its own sexual code-and justifiably so. And every society practices some kind of sexual exclusivity. Ors is unduly restrictive (though less in the past 50 years). Besides, when the bulk of all married people 'cheat' (i'm not sure if the term encompasses 'emotional affairs'), but yet still hammer aboslute mongamy at all costs and treat straying spouses as the Devil Incarnate, i think we have some ****ed up expectations of each other and marriage.

 

The idea of the emotional affair is an example of an undue restriction. In the end, your spouse is their own person on their own trip in this world. Its likely the cheating spouse had reasons for cheating completely unrelated to the betrayed spouse. If this is true, why take it so personally?

 

Additionally, from reading the posts, i think you LIKE beating up your cheaing spouse over what they did, and feel ENTITLED to do so.

[moimeme]

Once again - the 'logic' behind your original post has been pretty much disassembled by the responses. It would be interesting to see how you try to defend your case in the face of the facts which stand against your case rather than assumptions and accusations on your part, uberfrau

[immoralist]

It is impossible to hold any serious discussion on LS about monogamy, society's sacred cow, without angry posters braying at critics of monogamy for their perceived character defects and sinful ways. I've not read this book, and I won't comment one way or another. Although that little fact has not inhibited others.What I find striking is the over-emotional, hyperbolic vitriol heaped on frau because she dares to criticize monogamy.

 

The big question is why do people lose all sense of balance and perspective when, heaven forbid, monogamy's universal applicability to erotic relations is challenged? Why is frau's integrity being questioned because she recommends this book?

 

With hysterical "friends" like this, monogamy can use more critics. Perhaps frau has struck a nerve?

[dude x]

well, I think all uberfrau is saying is that overall there could be worse things than infidelity a person could suffer. Perhaps a person could cope and rebuild the relationship after an affair and have it much better. Whereas the $10,ooo in debt will not be resolved outside its own terms, unless you file bankruptcy or try other dodge tactics.

Perhaps she belives in forgiveness and thus infidelity is better than a fatal disease which is final, whereas forgiveness can heal the broken heart. As some have posted they chose the disease, and others have chosen the debt as a more favorable choice.

Due to statistics and personal experience, she has probably concluded that most people do indeed fail at being monogomous. Thus people in general are a bunch of cheaters. If you dont watch out the gobblins will get you!

If we do choose to achieve monogomy it would be wise to be vigiliant against the forever roaming eye in all of us, and as a player once told me "hey he wasn't keeping her happy so she came to me to get treated like a real woman, and she cried because she knew i made her feel things her husband couldn't" WOW that was something to hear at work! Let me tell you this guy was very onry. Never take our loved ones for granted they need love and need to know they are wanted. If neglected they most likely must go elsewhere.

As far as cyber sex is concerned I have concluded it could itself be much the same as playing to many video games or anything period that could cut into time. Time which could be used for real interaction between the couple. Too much internet chess, messageboards, television, reading, working. Fighting.

[hART]

I agree that monogamy is maladaptive to human (namely male) nature.

However, it doesn't justify cheating.

Betraying someone's trust and going behind thier back isn't healthy.

Polygamous relationships are difficult to maintain as well.

It requires the same basics of communication, respect and trust just like any monogamous relationship.

The only difference is, there are more people to communicate with, respect and trust. Most people can't respect, trust and communicate just one person.

[mental_traveller]

Originally posted by uberfrau

IT's a wonderful book written by husband and wife, one who is a psychiatrist, and the other a physician. They've concluded that monogamy is NOT natural, does NOT come easily to men or women, and it is something each human has to work toward in order to maintain the current society we live in.

 

You people need some perspective on all this. Your spouse cheats? Big deal-they could do worse, like run the credit cards up to 10K, steal your money, get cancer...you see my point?

 

Human have the urge to be sexual with many people over the course of a lifetime. And if once they give in, who are YOU to judge??

 

Perhaps if you can distance yourself, you can get some perspective.

 

Besides, MONOGAMY is human society's mechanism to control male sexual jealousy. To me that's not much of a reason to be monogamous. Furthermore, monogamy was only one sided, that is, the WOMAN was mongamous at the peril of death, while Husband did whatever he wanted with whomever.

 

Maybe we need to rethink our expectations of our spouses-they can't be everything to us.

 

If someone gives you their word they will be monogamous, and then screws around, then that's wrong not because they are no longer being monogamous, but because they went back on their word - if you had an agreed open relationship then polygamy would be no problem at all, therefore it is *not* monogamy that's the problem, but rather dishonesty and lying. If you sign a business contract that turns out later to be disadvantageous to you, then going back on it will require you to recompense the financial and psychological costs to the other party, and possibly pay punitive damages or even wind up in jail. Why should different standards apply to a marriage contract? A contractual promise is supposed to be binding. No one is forcing you to make it, if you don't want that restriction then don't make contractual promises you can't keep. If you think you can't be monogamous, then the simple solution is to avoid promising that you will be.

 

People have every right to expect others to keep binding contractual promises, and even normal promises should be adhered to whenever possible. Would you think it legitimate if your bank decided to change its mind about your mortgage after you had used it to buy the house, forcing you to sell? What about if your employer suddenly fired you and refused to pay your agreed severance? Do you like it when people make an engagement with you, then fail to turn up? Or is your response to say "Well, it's natural to want to get ahead, to save money, to be lazy and free of responsibilities - so we should understand it when people break their word in these situations"?

[Mr Spock]

Oh, just freaking forget it. I'm TIRED.

[Guest Chick]

I was reading the above posts regarding murder and adultery being different, having different constructs or whatever.

 

Adultery is a type of murder. Murder of trust. Murder of security. Murder of faith. Murder of the marital bond between man and wife. The death of a marriage is a soul death.

 

Affairs are serious matters, not to be glibly written off as "human nature." What is natural in undertaking to deceive and mislead the person you love the most in this world? There could not be anything more unnatural and sad.

[michelangelo]

I think it is interesting that the poster arrived a figure of $10K in bad debt as being worse than dealing with a cheating spouse.

 

I beg to disagree!

 

I racked up both a cheating spouse then about $200K in IRS hassles within a year of each other.

 

This was a decade ago. I am way over the debt problem and only minorly annoyed with that wasted cash. However, I am permanently changed for the worse by what I experienced with my wife.

 

I'd have gladly doubled that debt problem to not have experienced the infidelity road.

[Mr Spock]

Originally posted by Guest Chick

I was reading the above posts regarding murder and adultery being different, having different constructs or whatever.

 

Adultery is a type of murder. Murder of trust. Murder of security. Murder of faith. Murder of the marital bond between man and wife. The death of a marriage is a soul death.

 

Affairs are serious matters, not to be glibly written off as "human nature." What is natural in undertaking to deceive and mislead the person you love the most in this world? There could not be anything more unnatural and sad.

 

Oh, poo on you. It's not akin to murder at all. Cram that soul death where the sun don't shine.

 

I find it amusing how someone can compare adultery to murder and others agree but when a person posts that they feel their loved one masturbating to porn is cheating they're slammed for being closeminded.