# Off-Topic Discussion > The Lounge > Ask/Tell Me About >  >  Tell Me About Sex

## mjtbdreams

i dont get why noone willl wait to have it till mariage and they are with the right person...

is it thattttttt good?

----------


## thegnome54

If humans have anything near an objective purpose, it's reproduction - reproduction is the only reason the species exists, and the only reason it will continue to exist after all of us have died.

We are evolved to want to reproduce, and to reproduce as successfully as possible. This is obviously a very strong urge, and some people 'succumb' to it (not that that's 'wrong' or anything).

It really just depends on your personal values.

----------


## mjtbdreams

Sure..

----------


## O'nus

> i dont get why noone willl wait to have it till mariage and they are with the right person...
> 
> is it thattttttt good?



I can tell you this;

Sex changes a relationship.  Once you have it, your relationship changes drastically - especially if it is your first time.
~

----------


## Mes Tarrant

Yeah. Some people just don't want to wait till marriage. Personal choice.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Reproduction is among the most basic of human needs. Even if one doesn't have sex to reproduce, that sex drive is still apart of us. It is something that is, often, dangerous, if denied. 

The necessity for marriage, on the other hand, is completely arbitrary. Outside of social and/or religious constructs, marriage is, in no means, necessary. Take into consideration the divorce rate, in America. In and around 2002, it was concluded that nearly (if not more than) 50&#37; of all marriages ended in divorce. That rate has gone down, in recent years, although the distributions of those statistics have also changed, which kind of throws the balance off. My point is that marriage, while great in many situations, isn't always all it's cracked up to be; _especially_ nowadays. Although I believe that sex that produces a child is best left to a married couple, it can neither be assured that any couple will stay together, in the long run, nor stated as fact that all sex should be done with the purpose of creating a child.

Sex (specifically, safe sex) will always be more intimate, for lovers, but it is just as acceptable, for recreation, if you ask me.

----------


## TamiDoll

I haven't a clue. But I've heard it's 10 times better than going off by yourself, lol. 

Personally, I'm still waiting. But I'm starting to get tired of waiting! G'ah~ x.x;

----------


## tkdyo

as people have said, it is not necessary, but to me, I dont want to accidently make a baby with someone who I couldnt live with.  I think that is what started marriage, waiting to find someone compatible so that the child has a good father and mother to take care of it in a loving enviroment.  I realize this doesnt always work, but that is how I plan to treat my child.

----------


## Carôusoul

> I haven't a clue. But I've heard it's 10 times better than going off by yourself, lol. 
> 
> Personally, I'm still waiting. But I'm starting to get tired of waiting! G'ah~ x.x;




Last night you said you're 20..

And your hot.

What went wrong there?!











On a lighter note, to the OP:

Sex is tight. Literally.

----------


## Moonbeam

> i dont get why noone willl wait to have it till mariage and they are with the right person...
> 
> is it thattttttt good?



Yes, and marriage is thatttttt bad.

----------


## Adam

> I can tell you this;
> 
> Sex changes a relationship.  Once you have it, your relationship changes drastically - especially if it is your first time.
> ~



Really? None of my relationships have changed after sex. I don't dive right into sex with someone the moment I meet them, but I wouldn't say any of them really changed afterwards...





> The necessity for marriage, on the other hand, is completely arbitrary. Outside of social and/or religious constructs, marriage is, in no means, necessary. Take into consideration the divorce rate, in America. In and around 2002, it was concluded that nearly (if not more than) 50% of all marriages ended in divorce. That rate has gone down, in recent years, although the distributions of those statistics have also changed, which kind of throws the balance off. My point is that marriage, while great in many situations, isn't always all it's cracked up to be; _especially_ nowadays. Although I believe that sex that produces a child is best left to a married couple, it can neither be assured that any couple will stay together, in the long run, nor stated as fact that all sex should be done with the purpose of creating a child.
> 
> Sex (specifically, safe sex) will always be more intimate, for lovers, but it is just as acceptable, for recreation, if you ask me.



I 100% agree with you! Marriage is nowadays hard to take as a solid binding commitment to each other - the divorce rate is at 50% there or there about's, well it is in the UK. And you might think, well I am different, but is the person you are with different.

I don't see what all this _waiting till I am married_ approach is for anyway. I mean if you love someone, then why not sleep with them, you kiss them, and have intimate moments with them, sex is just another intimate moment? Why wait till you have a piece of paper to say you are going to be married before having sex? What if you get divorced, do you wait again, or just have sex with anyone since you have already broken the seal?

Maybe I am a little cynical, but coming from a broken family, and seeing how so many marriages fail, the values associated with marriage depreciate with this, thus making waiting for sex till marriage a desultory thing to do.

Just my thoughts.

p.s yes it is that good  :boogie:

----------


## TamiDoll

> Last night you said you're 20..
> 
> And your hot.
> 
> What went wrong there?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah. Turning 21 very soon. I was shy and a tom boy back then - that's what went wrong, lol. No dude wanted me, but now they come flocking when I'm taken. Also, I'm into nice guys. So they dun wanna scare me off or take advantage of my 'innocence' lol. Wait for me to make the moves... *doesn't make any* XD

And I totally agree with O and Adam. That's why when my baby gets his butt down here Imma pounce!  ::banana::

----------


## DeadDollKitty

*sighs* Sex is a vile thing that can make even the most respectable men into pigs..

on the other hand... its soooooo good. IF youre with the right person, that is, and not some slimey underhanded bastard that jumps on every hot girl in town .. *glares* 
   No worries, tami. I was a tomboy ANd shy once upon a time.. still tomboy.. not so shy.. but im only 16 got years ahead of me. 
 Mostly its life is short, take the leap. 

*zips lip and leaves*

----------


## Carôusoul

> Mostly its life is short, take the leap.



What if the leap makes your life even shorter?

Hence; don't take the leap. XD.



Unless your a male. We're pigs.

----------


## Siиdяed

> *sighs* Sex is a vile thing that can make even the most respectable men into pigs..



Hey a girl! Wanna cyber!?

----------


## Replicon

"Waiting till marriage" is a man-made idea. I personally find it's worth waiting till you have a good connection with someone, but I won't think any less of someone who is more promiscuous. I find it sad that so many people think of sex as something vile and disgusting. Ah, social conditioning... where there is damage to be done, it will do it.

----------


## Jeff777

Psych testers say that men with trust issues usually do it by themselves...excessively.

----------


## Marvo

Yeah, AIDS rocks!

----------


## Carôusoul

> Yeah, AIDS rocks!



12.

----------


## cuddleyperson

> Yeah, AIDS rocks!



you could always wear a condom. Anyway it isn't like everyone has HIV. Turst your partner and don't sleep around, that's the way to avoid it.

----------


## TheUncanny

Yeah…, I hate to shake your pride in the human species but monogamy in _Homo sapiens_ is a cultural phenomenon, not biological. Some animals are naturally monogamous and some are naturally polygamous.  Humans are naturally polygamous, but socially/culturally monogamous. The evidence for our polygamous nature can be found in the fact that we are sexually dimorphic (which basically means that the two genders of a species differ from one another in more ways than just reproductive organs).  This is a tell tale sign of sexual selection, be it intrasexual selection epigamic selection. 

Epigamic selection is what happens when females choose their mates, and usually do so based on appearance or behavior. Take peacocks for example. The reason male peacocks look the way they do is because only the most colorful and decorative peacocks would be selected by the females to mate, and over time, as these “more colorful than average” genes were passed on _ad nauseum_, the males seamlessly became more and more colorful/decorative until then end up looking significantly different than the females of the same species. 

Intrasexual selection is what happens when males have to physically compete with one another in order to mate with females. Because of this, only the largest and most physically apt males mate frequently, and over time, the male gender of such species becomes larger and more “combat capable” than the females of the same gender.

This dimorphism is only caused by polygamy, because in monogamous species there is no sexual selection, meaning there is no sexual dimorphism. Humans are sexually dimorphic.  In general:

-	men are larger than women
-	men act more aggressively than women
-	have much more facial and body hair
-	have deeper voices (calls)

All of which points to our species having evolved to its current state through polygamy, as we seem to have both epigamic and intrasexual dimorphism. We have probably been polygamous for millions of years, since before homo erectus and homo sapiens split-off from one another.  Only in the last 10,000 years (maybe) have we been practicing monogamy…

----------


## O'nus

Well said.  
~

----------


## Siиdяed

...Mormon!

Run, children, run!

----------


## skysaw

I don't believe in marriage before sex. 

I know that sounds glib, but it's how I feel. Sex is an important part of a relationship. If you don't have the chemistry, the relationship is not as solid as it could be. Why take a chance and marry someone you might not click with sexually? 

In other words, marriage is for when you're _sure_. I don't think you can be totally sure if you haven't tried to relate on every level, including a sexual one.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't believe in marriage before sex. 
> 
> I know that sounds glib, but it's how I feel. Sex is an important part of a relationship. If you don't have the chemistry, the relationship is not as solid as it could be. Why take a chance and marry someone you might not click with sexually? 
> 
> In other words, marriage is for when you're _sure_. I don't think you can be totally sure if you haven't tried to relate on every level, including a sexual one.



I concur.  

The only reason I can see to wait to have sex is because of the fear of hell or some other form of punishment.  In addition, we can easily say that men manipulated this rule (from the good ol' days of Augustus) in order to maintain the double-standard; men get all the sex they want, with whoever they want, and women have to stay fervently loyal to them.
~

----------


## Adam

How can you say that homo sapiens are naturally polygamous? I can honestly say naturally I am more monogamous than polygamous. You saying it is natural for all of us to be polygamous, and that we are only monogamous because what, it is only a practice of ours?

Regardless of us being sexually dimorphic, I don't see how this is evidence of us being naturally polygamous? Please explain, you have lost this theory on me.

Again, comparing humans to a peacock, is wrong maybe? The human female is not epigamic, neither male being intrasexual. In humas at least I don't see the comparison. The bigger man does not get the girl...

Yes we have been practising monogamy, but to say we are naturally polygamous, I think is wrong. Naturally I think we are polygamous now. You are right that through evolution we may have evolved from a previous polygamous species, but through intelligence, and the evolution to homo sapiens, with this I believe we are naturally monogamous. All be it some peope still find it a little difficult to remain monogamous.

I think through evolution the evidence is there we were once polygamous and one had epigamic and intrasexual dimorphism, but now, I don't think this is important for the survival of humans. It is not survival of the fittest as such for us. Unlike the animal kingdom, where it is very evident, I don't believe it is true for us...

Just my thoughts anyway...

----------


## O'nus

> How can you say that homo sapiens are naturally polygamous? I can honestly say naturally I am more monogamous than polygamous. You saying it is natural for all of us to be polygamous, and that we are only monogamous because what, it is only a practice of ours?



Yes, it is.  Our culture is what moulds us to think otherwise.





> Regardless of us being sexually dimorphic, I don't see how this is evidence of us being naturally polygamous? Please explain, you have lost this theory on me.



Just watch an episode of Jerry Springer and you will see evidence.  Furthermore, even when you are in a relationship, you will continue to be sexually attracted to other people.





> Again, comparing humans to a peacock, is wrong maybe? The human female is not epigamic, neither male being intrasexual. In humas at least I don't see the comparison. The bigger man does not get the girl...
> 
> Yes we have been practising monogamy, but to say we are naturally polygamous, I think is wrong. Naturally I think we are polygamous now. You are right that through evolution we may have evolved from a previous polygamous species, but through intelligence, and the evolution to homo sapiens, with this I believe we are naturally monogamous. All be it some peope still find it a little difficult to remain monogamous.



Yes, culturally we are monogamous.  Biologically, we are polygamous. 

Agree...?
~

----------


## Spartiate

If this is the case, then where did the concept of having a single mate arrise from?

----------


## Adam

> If this is the case, then where did the concept of having a single mate arrise from?



Was it not a religious thing first?

----------


## Spartiate

> Was it not a religious thing first?



Nonetheless, short of god comming down from the skies and telling humanity, that doesn`t really explain _why_ we chose to be monogamous...

So either it`s encoded in our genes or it serves some useful pupose for human survival.

----------


## Ynot

> If this is the case, then where did the concept of having a single mate arrise from?



being top of the food chain, possibly

limited resources and a natural instinct to care for our young until they are old enough to fend for themselves means the need to limit the amount of people we produce

one mate for life helps to curb over-population

----------


## innerspacecadet

I think humans are designed to have both monogamous and polygamous tendencies - to bond especially strongly with one sex partner, but also to shop around for better genes for their offspring.  Few species are fully monogamous.  Even some birds with little or no sexual dimorphism who mate for life will still occasionally cheat on their life partners.  We're probably not quite as devoted as even those birds, as without the socioeconomic pressures to do otherwise we seem to change our main squeezes every so often - maybe 1-10 year periods.  (The Female 4-Year Itch theory holds that, after a woman has had enough time with a male partner to have conceived, born, and raised a baby to an age at which it can enter a play group with other children watched by a few adults, the woman will naturally be more inclined to seek out another male partner for her next baby.)  However, we're also not on the extreme polygamous end like those bird species where the cocks sit and look pretty to attract hordes of horny hens, or those sea lions where the males are 3 times the size of females and mate with harems, or even dolphins and pygmy chimpanzees who fool around with one another randomly just for kicks.  (Actually, the latter kind of situation is reported in Western homosexual male communities, and the sea lion situation is similar to how some male leaders have been known to act.)

The thing with us humans, though, is that we're very flexible in our behavioral capacities, and can arrange all kinds of different sexual situations.

As another poster apparently suggested, it's likely that marriage was invented by men to control women - make them exclusive property and use them for trade in bartering between neighboring groups.  But that's not to say long-term partnerships didn't exist before then.

The reason people don't wait 'til marriage to have sex is probably because our mainstream culture doesn't pressure us to do so anymore.  And even in cultures that did pressure people to wait 'til marriage, either they got married about as soon as they finished puberty (or sometimes even just before puberty, especially with girls), or people tended to "accidentally" have premarital sex and then got pushed into marriage so that their kid wouldn't be born out of wedlock, or both.

----------


## TheUncanny

> How can you say that homo sapiens are naturally polygamous? I can honestly say naturally I am more monogamous than polygamous. You saying it is natural for all of us to be polygamous, and that we are only monogamous because what, it is only a practice of ours? 
> 
> Regardless of us being sexually dimorphic, I don't see how this is evidence of us being naturally polygamous? Please explain, you have lost this theory on me.



The short answer is that sexual dimorphism is the byproduct of polygamy, and we are sexual dimorphic, those are just facts. Considering that there are virtually no monogamous species with sexual dimorphism (and that the same can be said about a polygamous species that doesn’t have sexual dimorphism), I think it’s safe to say that for the mass majority of our evolutionary phylogeny, we have been polygamous.  That’s what I meant when I said that we are “naturally” polygamous. 





> You are right that through evolution we may have evolved from a previous polygamous species, but through intelligence, and the evolution to homo sapiens, with this I believe we are naturally monogamous. All be it some peope still find it a little difficult to remain monogamous.



It’s not only that we have come from polygamous species, but Homo sapiens themselves are (were) a polygamous species, biologically speaking. We were “built” to be polygamous, but because of our intelligence, we are able to restrain ourselves from those natural dispositions and pursue a sexual life of our own designation. 

This shift probably happened in the time in which we transitioned from a nomadic species to an agricultural species. Because of this life style change, people survived better in larger communities composed of several groups (as opposed to smaller, individual groups)…which means that cooperation amongst the community was of the utmost importance, and perhaps no longer were the “alpha males” able to just do whatever they wanted without repercussion…because now there was collective repercussion.   Its quite possible that in larger communities where people are very dependent on the whole, that individuals are indeed better suited being monogamous.  But even still, were only talking about 10,000 or so years ago when we began living like this, and this is compared to millions of years otherwise. Homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. Agriculture was invented about 10,000 years ago, meaning that 95&#37; of homo sapien history was most likely polygamous, and that’s not to mention the millions of years of hominid polygamy that led up to the appearance of homo sapiens to begin with.  Evolutionarily speaking, monogamy is a very very new phenomenon in our phylogeny and species.





> I think through evolution the evidence is there we were once polygamous and one had epigamic and intrasexual dimorphism, but now, I don't think this is important for the survival of humans. It is not survival of the fittest as such for us. Unlike the animal kingdom, where it is very evident, I don't believe it is true for us...
> 
> Just my thoughts anyway...



Nowadays it’s not as important, you are right.  But it takes a looooong time for sexual dimorphism to appear in a species, meaning that it wasn’t a brief blip in time that we were polygamous.  And similarly, sexual dimorphism doesn’t just go away as soon as it stops being evolutionary beneficial either.  Sexual dimorphism is still there as remnant of our past, but it becomes vestigial and diluted, as it is today.  But men are still very different from women in a dimorphic sense, and as you said, it doesn’t play a significant factor in our current cultures. If anything, this only goes to prove my point…that monogamy is a fairly recent practice among Homo sapiens (and extremely recent in terms of hominids in general).  It is no doubt the result of human intervention, and one that hasn’t been around long enough to cause an evolutionary change in the population’s biology.

So I would have to disagree. By comparison, monogamy is not nearly as “natural” as polygamy in Homo sapiens, in fact it’s a few million years short of that (or at least a few hundred thousand years if we are only looking at homo sapiens). Of course, that is not to say that monogamy is unnatural or anything, it’s just a relatively new trend in sexual practices among our species.  But, there is no doubt (both in my kind and in science) that our history is polygamous in nature.  The fossil record shows it, the other great apes that split from the same ancestors as us show it, and we still have the evidence of polygamy in our biology even to this day.

Now, we may be on the way of becoming a monogamous species…that much it true. But it is a long way indeed before we get there.

----------


## O'nus

> Nonetheless, short of god comming down from the skies and telling humanity, that doesn`t really explain _why_ we chose to be monogamous...
> 
> So either it`s encoded in our genes or it serves some useful pupose for human survival.



Only a guy would think this - does that help to hint where it came from?

Guys did not want their girls to go around sleeping with other guys, so we invented rules to restrict them to one person.  Since males were the ones in power, we just simply bended the rules and if they complained *bitchslap*.  
~

----------


## Spartiate

> Guys did not want their girls to go around sleeping with other guys, so we invented rules to restrict them to one person.



But doesn't that controdict the definition of polygamy?

----------


## O'nus

> But doesn't that controdict the definition of polygamy?



Like I said, guys invented it to manipulate women.  Do you think horny guys that can control women give a crap about the universality of their policies?  No, they want to be able to sleep with as many women as they want and have them all as literal slaves to them.  Thus, monogamy was invented by males to enslave women.  Just that plain and simple.
~

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> But doesn't that controdict the definition of polygamy?



Actually, no. 

Ask any guy that cheats frequently. For the most part (at least, in the case of those that I know, personally), they will create some BS reason why it's ok that they cheat, but will get pissed off, beyond belief, if they were to find out that one of their women were cheating on them.

----------


## Moonbeam

> one mate for life helps to curb over-population



Evolution doesn't work like that.  Your genes don't care how many other individuals there are; their only goal is to make themselves as numerous as possible.

----------


## thegnome54

> Evolution doesn't work like that.  Your genes don't care how many other individuals there are; their only goal is to make themselves as numerous as possible.



To be fair, it doesn't quite work that way, either.  Genes have no goals or cares.

The simple fact is that genes which are still around today have managed this by making copies of themselves before they got destroyed.  Therefore, genes tend to create more of themselves.  Some fail at this, and are pretty much killed off. (Don't they say redheads are dying out?)

----------


## Ynot

nought to do with evolution

it's society
society says it's bad form to raise your population over that which your local resources can sustain

as I said, we care for our young
and noone wants a family of 10 with only food for 6

dunno,
maybe I'm wrong

----------


## grasshoppa

> To be fair, it doesn't quite work that way, either.  Genes have no goals or cares.
> 
> The simple fact is that genes which are still around today have managed this by making copies of themselves before they got destroyed.  Therefore, genes tend to create more of themselves.  Some fail at this, and are pretty much killed off. (Don't they say redheads are dying out?)



I hope not, I love redheads, they can be the sexiest and the ugliest of all women.

----------


## Oneironaught

> i dont get why noone willl wait to have it till mariage and they are with the right person...
> 
> is it thattttttt good?



The issue is purely cultural. There was once a time when screwing around was frowned upon. But the global society has deteriorated to the point where we are inundated with sex from every angle, from every form of media: music, movies, TV shows, commercials, print ads, etc... We've become so jaded and desensitised to sex that it's the "norm" now. I think it's pretty sad, honestly.

Now, I'm not saying I choose to wait until marriage either. But the fact that sex is so in-your-face (no, that's not a sex joke) really ruins society, in my opinion. It's taken the value and significance of sex and turned it into a recreation whereby, if you aren't out there screwing every one you can, you're somehow "not with it". This is also why so many people are lying, cheating, self-serving jerks who don't give a crap about giving their full commitment to one person.





> Last night you said you're 20..
> 
> And your hot.
> 
> What went wrong there?!



See what I mean? Some one actually abstains and somehow they are labeled as "less than", as if "something went wrong".





> I 100&#37; agree with you! Marriage is nowadays hard to take as a solid binding commitment to each other...



That's disappointing to hear you say, Adam. The whole subject disappoints me. Some of you are aware of my previous rants on the subject of total commitment to another. If marriage doesn't mean "total commitment" to you then you have no business getting married: EVER. I'm tired of people who treat marriage as only a piece of paper, a legal contract. 

Don't lose sight of what marriage really is and means. And, for your own and everyone else's sake, quit devaluing marriage. If it means so little to you then you don't deserve it. You can only expect to receive what you give. Love and respect each other - and give your 100% commitment - or don't pretend to play the game.

Oh, the heated battles I've had on this subject at Gamewinners. I made a cheating husband cry and his wife think twice about the bastard. It's funny how people can consider sex with the same sex not cheating on your spouse. Argh...




> Actually, no. 
> 
> Ask any guy that cheats frequently. For the most part (at least, in the case of those that I know, personally), they will create some BS reason why it's ok that they cheat, but will get pissed off, beyond belief, if they were to find out that one of their women were cheating on them.



True, and sad.

----------


## thegnome54

> I hope not, I love redheads, they can be the sexiest and the ugliest of all women.



 ::wtf::   So can any women, if they've got heads at all.


Ynot:  You're basing your model on the fact that humans raise their young - I could be wrong, but I don't think this is a trait of polygamous animals.  I believe that the females typically raise the young alone, instead of the couple working together as occurs in human societies.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> That's disappointing to hear you say, Adam. The whole subject disappoints me. Some of you are aware of my previous rants on the subject of total commitment to another. If marriage doesn't mean "total commitment" to you then you have no business getting married: EVER. I'm tired of people who treat marriage as only a piece of paper, a legal contract. 
> 
> Don't lose sight of what marriage really is and means. And, for your own and everyone else's sake, quit devaluing marriage. If it means so little to you then you don't deserve it. You can only expect to receive what you give. Love and respect each other - and give your 100&#37; commitment - or don't pretend to play the game.



You misunderstand.

(And I speak for myself, alone, here.)

There is a difference between feeling 100% obligated to one person - having that all-encompassing bond with that one that you feel you want to spend the rest of your life with - and signing than piece of paper. Do you somehow see it that two people that are married are, somehow, more "in love" or "on some higher plane" that two people with the exact same bond, but with such understanding of the reality of human nature that they do not go the extra step of signing that contract? 

Marriage, in itself, is nothing more than a contract. Marriage does not, fundamentally, mean unconditional, eternal, love. It is a legal stipulation that makes it easier to receive benefits, under the illusion that these people are, de facto, soul-mates, though it doesn't mean, necessarily, that.

Case in point: I was watching "Blind Date" the other day, and these two eccentrics got together for a blind date. They had a great time, and were completely overwhelmed with how compatible they were. Well, they were both admitted pranksters, and wanted to play a joke on their friends, so, halfway through the date, they started playing the public joke that they were going to get married on their first date. They made a public announcement at a bar; they called all of their friends. They even said they were going to get married at a strip club, all the while acting (but not officially confirming) that they were joking with each other.

Well, what happened was that they took the joke so far (and they were obviously comfortable enough with each other) that they actually DID end up getting married. They never called off the joke, and had a friend that was an ordained minister marry them. By the end of the night, they were both like "WOW WTF DID WE JUST DO???!!!" but they _really_ liked each other, so they decided to actually let it play out.

Awesome story? Sure. But, the kicker was when they were doing the after-show interviews. The _girl_, while being interviewed, did the whole, expected "yeah, I don't know what the hell we were thinking but, I really liked him, and I could tell that we made a great couple. We just clicked" thing. From all points of view, it looked like they were completely serious. But, at the end of the interview, her last words (that stuck with _me_ personally) were "well, we will see how it goes. If everything works out, it could be the greatest story ever...if not...we break up...and I get half of his stuff," and she laughed.

Marriage, itself is nothing more than legal stipulations on top of a concept that doesn't need these legalities to be obtained. Being married, legally, is on no higher plane that two people that are in love committing themselves to each other, unofficially.

[Edit: Granted, this doesn't mean that I would not like to be married, someday, but I hold no illusions about my love with someone being, somehow, incomplete, unless I'm married to them.]

----------


## Oneironaught

> You misunderstand.



No, I don't misunderstand. I just think you shouldn't enter the contract unless it's for the right reasons. To me, legal benefits aren't the right reasons. The right reason is that you've reached a point where you are so committed that you want to make it official in every way.

Commitment then marriage. I just don't like the idea of marriage for the sake of convenience or status. It cheapens the whole institution.





> There is a difference between feeling 100% obligated to one person - having that all-encompassing bond with that one that you feel you want to spend the rest of your life with - and signing than piece of paper.



I agree with that.





> Do you somehow see it that two people that are married are, somehow, more "in love" or "on some higher plane" that two people with the exact same bond, but with such understanding of the reality of human nature that they do not go the extra step of signing that contract?



No, I don't think that non-married couples are necessarily less committed or less in love. But why go through that extra step of becoming married if you don't really, truly mean it and have the intention of "having on other"? To me, marriage actually means something, something rather profound. It's not something to take lightly.





> Marriage, in itself, is nothing more than a contract.



True. But it's a legally binding contract. Even more importantly, it's a social and personal contract that should only be entered if you mean what you say and say what you mean.





> Case in point:



And that supports my position. Marriage merely for the sake of it or as "a joke" cheapens it so much. No one takes their commitments seriously anymore. No one's word means anything anymore. And that's what worries me. The degradation of marriage is only one aspect of modern life that's ruined by the lack of values and honesty.





> but I hold no illusions about my love with someone being, somehow, incomplete, unless I'm married to them.



And neither do I. But you must admit that marriage is a promise that's not to be taken lightly. And people who aren't ready to keep that promise have no business making that promise lest they commit the ultimate betrayal.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> No, I don't misunderstand. I just think you shouldn't enter the contract unless it's for the right reasons. To me, legal benefits aren't the right reasons. The right reason is that you've reached a point where you are so committed that you want to make it official in every way.
> 
> Commitment then marriage. I just don't like the idea of marriage for the sake of convenience or status. It cheapens the whole institution.



Of course. It looks good on paper, but it's not always reality. The fact of the matter is that people change - with or without marriage. People that have loved each other for years often, for one reason or another, fall out of love with each other. That's is simply the way that human nature works. No matter how long you've loved one person, you cannot, with any certainty, say that you two won't reach irreconcilable differences, down the road. Were this the case, not only would the divorce rate be much lower than it is right now, but divorce, itself, wouldn't be possible. Marriage would be final - no ifs, ands or buts.





> No, I don't think that non-married couples are necessarily less committed or less in love. But why go through that extra step of becoming married if you don't really, truly mean it and have the intention of "having on other"? To me, marriage actually means something, something rather profound. It's not something to take lightly.



I completely agree. Marriage is _not_ to be taken lightly, but is also not to be _fantasized_. In the context of this thread, to wait for sex with another person until you are married to them is to be completely out of touch with reality. It is to ignore the fact that, above all else, people are human. People have falling-outs. People cannot always reconcile their differences. It is to save one your most basic of human needs for something that is, in all probably, _not_ a "sure thing." Do not confuse me statements of what marriage is, _at a fundamental level_, with what marriage _should be_. Though marriage, itself, may mean something profound, the _love_ that would bring about marriage (in its most coveted form) is just as profound. 






> True. But it's a legally binding contract. Even more importantly, it's a social and personal contract that should only be entered if you mean what you say and say what you mean.



I agree.





> And that supports my position. Marriage merely for the sake of it or as "a joke" cheapens it so much. No one takes their commitments seriously anymore. No one's word means anything anymore. And that's what worries me. The degradation of marriage is only one aspect of modern life that's ruined by the lack of values and honesty.



Though I agreed with your last statement, the truth of the matter is this: For those that are not married, or that are "saving themselves" for marriage, it may often be a shock to the system that (and Adam was right, on this), being married to someone does _not_ guarantee that that person is "the one." Ideally, it would mean nothing but (realistically) that _no one_ can put all their eggs in the basket of such an assumption. To do something as detrimental as "Save yourself" for a marriage, as if your marriage to that person is going to be the end-all, be-all of your endeavor of "finding that right one" (even if you believe that you _know and love_ this person, to the fullest extent) is to set yourself up for absolute _heartbreak_, if/when that "perfect love" fails, as they often do. 






> And neither do I. But you must admit that marriage is a promise that's not to be taken lightly. And people who aren't ready to keep that promise have no business making that promise lest they commit the ultimate betrayal.



Again, I agree. However, I think the "ultimate betrayal" part takes it a little far, as it is not completely realistic. In a perfect world, people wouldn't change, once they got married. They would talk out _every_ problem. They would diffuse _every_ situation. They would overcome _every_ obstacle. This, however, is not always the case...and it is only human nature. Again, to stay within the main point of this thread; though I don't believe marriage should be taken lightly, it should also not be taken lightly that it's only natural for many marriages to not work out. With such being the case, I don't think that "Saving oneself" for marriage, as if that marriage was going to guarantee to be worth the sacrifice and subsequent submission, is neither warranted, nor realistic.

----------


## Sornaensis

Homo Sapiens are most likely what you would call multigamous.

Like polygamy, but different. (At least, in the context i am using)

Naturally, if your partner died, you would seek a new one, whereas a monogamous creature would never seek a new partner. Take Falcons for example:

They mate for life, but if a falcon's partner is killed/dies, the falcon will noot seek a new one.

Humans, on the other hand, will.

So we are in limbo between Mono and poly.

I guess.  ::?:

----------


## Oneironaught

> With such being the case, I don't think that "Saving oneself" for marriage, as if that marriage was going to guarantee to be worth the sacrifice and subsequent submission, is neither warranted, nor realistic.



For the record: That is my position exactly. I think the "saving one's self" is unrealistic, especially in today's world.

I only put up a fight because I hope that my passion will help others to understand the real implications that come along with saying "I do". I view marriage through a very idealised prism and I personally plan to take the commitment very seriously if I ever have the pleasure and opportunity to do so. If my marriage were to collapse, it won't be due to a lack of commitment on my part.

I've been cheated on in relationships too many times. And if people can't even take a non-legal contract seriously how are they going to feel the weight of the real thing? I'm not trying to imply that boyfriend/girlfriend is a binding contract but, it is an understood commitment for the duration of the relationship. If you don't like the one your with then it's time to move on. Cheating is never the right - nor the acceptable - answer.

----------


## Moonbeam

> To be fair, it doesn't quite work that way, either. Genes have no goals or cares.



It works exactly like that.  I didn't mean they have a conscious goal, of course.  The best replicators are the ones that replicate the most.  Bodies are the genes' way of doing that.

It's the same thing as water "wanting" to run downhill.  It just happens.

----------


## Spartiate

> Like I said, guys invented it to manipulate women.  Do you think horny guys that can control women give a crap about the universality of their policies?  No, they want to be able to sleep with as many women as they want and have them all as literal slaves to them.  Thus, monogamy was invented by males to enslave women.  Just that plain and simple.
> ~



What I meant was that if we are naturally polygamous, why would it bother men if women had many mates?  Doesn't that go against the idea that we are all encoded to have multiple mates?  I don't think that the sexes in polygamous animal species display this kind of "jealousy".

----------


## TheUncanny

> What I meant was that if we are naturally polygamous, why would it bother men if women had many mates?  Doesn't that go against the idea that we are all encoded to have multiple mates?  I don't think that the sexes in polygamous animal species display this kind of "jealousy".



Well, no.  Polygamy is a generic term that describes having multiple partners, if you will. 

In reality it comes in two forms, polygny and polyandry. Polyandry is the much rarer case in which the females of a species are the one's who mate with multiple males. However, the most common form of polygamy is polygny, which is when the males are the one's who "get around", and effectively have "jurisdiction" over a group of females. These males are very very territorial over their females, which is percisely why there ends up being sexual dimorphism in the long run (only the most badass males can fend off the numerous challengers and mate frequently, thus passing on the "badass" traits). These males have sexual rights over a large number of females, and will fight and sometimes kill any other male who tries to get a piece of their action.

In this sense, polygamy in its most common form (polygny) is a double standard in which the males mate with several females, but the females belong to just the one male (until over thrown or killed by a more aggressive male, that is).

----------


## Oneironaught

> ...(only the most badass males can fend off the numerous challengers and mate frequently, thus passing on the "badass" traits). These males have sexual rights over a large number of females, and will fight and sometimes kill any other male who tries to get a piece of their action.
> 
> In this sense, polygamy in its most common form (polygny) is a double standard in which the males mate with several females, but the females belong to just the one male (until over thrown or killed by a more aggressive male, that is).



And coming up next on Animal Planet...

----------


## Carôusoul

> And coming up next on Animal Planet...



He was refering to People.

People aren't on "Animal Planet".

----------


## Ynot

> He was refering to People.
> 
> People aren't on "Animal Planet".



they should be

especially round here after dark

----------


## Moonbeam

> What I meant was that if we are naturally polygamous, why would it bother men if women had many mates? Doesn't that go against the idea that we are all encoded to have multiple mates? I don't think that the sexes in polygamous animal species display this kind of "jealousy".



Males have cheap and easy to spread sperm, and women have expensive, hard to care for eggs.  Therefore is makes sense for males to spread theirs around, hoping some eggs that they fertilize will grow up, while women should protect their eggs to be fertilized by the best sperm possible, since they can only have a limited number of offspring.

Powerful men have always had numerous partners, spreading it around, and women have always wanted to have the offspring of powerful men, since they want the best genes they can get for their offspring.  Men want the offspring that they are raising to be theirs (if not, they fail evolutionarily), therefore they get jealous.  However, women get jealous too because if their man gets interested in other women, it may take resources away from their offspring.  The more powerful the man, theoretically the more a woman will put up with to have his offspring, because he has more to offer.  In many societies thruout history it is obvious that the more powerful the man, the more offspring he has. (That's why we're all descended from a few very, very powerful men.)

As someone pointed out, you can tell the relative polygamy of a species by looking at the dimorphism.  In monogamous bird species, you can't even tell the males from the females.  In walruses, where the males have 1000's of mates, they are like 5 times bigger than the females.  In humans, males are about 1.5 times as big as females, so they tells you about the relative amount of polygamy.

It does get a little more complicated; females may want to be with a man who provides resources (an older, richer one for example) while wanting the genes of a different man (younger, better looking, for example) for her offspring.  Therefore, females have a some reason for polygamy too; studies show that 10-30&#37; of kids' father's are not who they think they are.  Even in supposedly 100% monogamous bird species, when they genetically test the eggs, they find that some are the result of the female mating with a male other than her mate.

One theory about why monogamy has been so enforced by religion and western society:  When you let nature take its course, there are some men with many wives, some with a few, and many men with no wives.  These unattached men are dangerous and disruptive to society.  They have nothing to lose, just like the male seals or lions that don't have a harem.  By enforcing monogamy, more men get a wife, and therefore are not as dangerous.

Oh, and to answer the quote:  those fights to the death that you see between males in polgynous species--that's jealousy.

----------


## Carôusoul

> they should be
> 
> especially round here after dark



True. 

But then who would make animal planet if the humans were being filmed.

----------


## ClouD

> 12.



There's only one of him.

----------


## O'nus

> What I meant was that if we are naturally polygamous, why would it bother men if women had many mates? Doesn't that go against the idea that we are all encoded to have multiple mates? I don't think that the sexes in polygamous animal species display this kind of "jealousy".



In short:

Because men want a lot of mates but want them all to just be with him.  This way, their genes have better chances to survive.  So, it is not jealousy, but a form of control.

What do you think...?
~

----------


## skysaw

> True. 
> 
> But then who would make animal planet if the humans were being filmed.



"And here we see a wild camera man in his native habitat: behind a camera. Observe how he uses his camera to film yet another camera man, in this case me."

----------


## Oneironaught

> In short:
> 
> Because men want a lot of mates but want them all to just be with him. This way, their genes have better chances to survive. So, it is not jealousy, but a form of control.
> 
> What do you think...?
> ~



Jealousy leads to control. So it's actually a nasty melding of jealous control freaks that feel they are somehow entitled to be less faithful than their mate. Because, as much as the guys are being picked on here, women - in general - are just a slutty and spread their seed receptors as much as (and in many cases, more than) their male counterparts.

I don't like all this assumption that somehow men are less faithful than women. Without a large number of loose women there couldn't be a large number of loose men. And trust me, there are a hell of a lot of loose women out there. The only difference is that men generally brag more about their exploits and women tend to be more hush-hush about it because it's somehow "honorable" for men to be cheaters and it's "slutty" for women to be the same way. It's all about social perception, not reality and statistics.

----------


## Spartiate

> What do you think...?
> ~



I think I now have a good excuse to start spreading the seed  :tongue2: , anyways, I see what you are all saying now...

----------


## Carôusoul

Imagine one slab of bloodied pulsating meat slapped onto another, squelching and rotting.


Sex rocks.

----------


## O'nus

> Jealousy leads to control. So it's actually a nasty melding of jealous control freaks that feel they are somehow entitled to be less faithful than their mate. Because, as much as the guys are being picked on here, women - in general - are just a slutty and spread their seed receptors as much as (and in many cases, more than) their male counterparts.
> 
> I don't like all this assumption that somehow men are less faithful than women. Without a large number of loose women there couldn't be a large number of loose men. And trust me, there are a hell of a lot of loose women out there. The only difference is that men generally brag more about their exploits and women tend to be more hush-hush about it because it's somehow "honorable" for men to be cheaters and it's "slutty" for women to be the same way. It's all about social perception, not reality and statistics.



Yeah, that's true.  I am not saying that women are any less promiscuous.  However, it was men that purported the rule of monogamy.  Hell, just go back and take a look at Augustus and the laws he proclaimed.  I would say that that was the first significant instance of it. (I forget the name of the policies.. I will try to look in my book and bring it up later.)
~

----------


## grasshoppa

> Imagine one slab of bloodied pulsating meat slapped onto another, squelching and rotting.
> 
> 
> Sex rocks.



You make it seem so beautiful.

----------


## Ynot

rotting?

wtf

----------


## TheUncanny

what, so you aren't perpetually rotting?

*arm falls off

----------


## Carôusoul

> rotting?
> 
> wtf



Constantly. Dead skin etc.

Gets replaced every week or so.

----------


## Ynot

sex and rotting are just two words that shouldn't be put together

ever

----------


## grasshoppa

images of zombie's having sex keep poping up in my head. 

"oh shit, it fell off aagain."

----------


## Carôusoul

I feel pleased.

----------


## Oneironaught

> However, it was men that purported the rule of monogamy.
> ~



Perhaps so. But that's only because men are traditionally the ones with the political power. Therefor, they generally are the most outspoken with respect to the making of rules. But I doubt that implies that women wouldn't make the same rules given the opportunity.

----------


## O'nus

> Perhaps so. But that's only because men are traditionally the ones with the political power. Therefor, they generally are the most outspoken with respect to the making of rules. But I doubt that implies that women wouldn't make the same rules given the opportunity.



Right, but the fact remains that men did.
~

----------


## tkdyo

yet so many women yearn for finding "the one" and actually perpetuate monogamy...so even if it started as a control thing, it has become a good thing over time...most things do quite the opposite.

----------


## Moonbeam

O'nus, you never read any of my posts.





> I don't like all this assumption that somehow men are less faithful than women. Without a large number of loose women there couldn't be a large number of loose men. And trust me, there are a hell of a lot of loose women out there. The only difference is that men generally brag more about their exploits and women tend to be more hush-hush about it because it's somehow "honorable" for men to be cheaters and it's "slutty" for women to be the same way. It's all about social perception, not reality and statistics.



Didn't you read my post either?  You're taking it personally when the truth simply based on evolution and the different strategies that the sexes have for maximizing their reproductive potential.  This isn't to decide who gets blamed on for cheating or something.  It's just science, not a judgement.

It doesn't reflect on anyone individual, or even one whole gender.  Because we have brains, we can override what our genes tell us to do, we all do it to a certain extent.  However, the general group behavior will tend to follow the rules that have evolved, especially if you look at more primitive societies.

There have been many societies that practice polygyny to some degree or another; very, very few that practice polyandry.  You may say that's human nature, but where did that "nature" come from?  You may say it is men oppressing women, but really that system is bad for a lot of men, because it means that they are left out altogether.  It's just a result of how the strategies differ, depending on if you have sperm or eggs.

Another interesting thing about monogamy is this (remember, humans aren't completely or extremely polygynous, they just tend that way somewhat):  it may not be natural for people to be with the same person for their whole life, as is pushed on us by religion and society.  In some primitive societies, couples pair up for 3 or 4 years, long enough to have a baby and get it somewhat independent (weaned.)  Not coincidentally, that's about the same time period after which a lot of relationships break up, as you naturally lose interest in that particular partner and passionate love begins to fade.  Again, of course not everyone will do this, it's just a pattern that may have some explanation in evolution.

At some point in the development of western society, they decided that they had to make the rules about monogamy, for the stability reason I mentioned above.  (Because if not, some men will get more than one woman, and some men will get none.  Women will naturally want to have 1/2 or 1/4 or even 1/10 of a really good man instead of a whole bum.)  If you don't kill off the bums in wars or something, you got a lot of trouble-makers around.  I believe it was a conscious decision to prevent powerful men from getting all of the women.   When people were hunter-gatherers, it didn't matter so much--no one had that much more than anyone else, so everyone had a shot at everyone else, and that's why we are only slightly polygamous.  But with the development of concentrations of power held by certain people, this became very inequitable, and some men had way too much advantage.

----------


## O'nus

> O'nus, you never read any of my posts.



Yes I did, I did not feel there was anything to say.  I agree with what you said.  How am I neglecting you?





> Didn't you read my post either? You're taking it personally when the truth simply based on evolution and the different strategies that the sexes have for maximizing their reproductive potential. This isn't to decide who gets blamed on for cheating or something. It's just science, not a judgement.



Unfortunately, this won't jive with society as a means to conduct policy statements and legal matters.  





> It doesn't reflect on anyone individual, or even one whole gender. Because we have brains, we can override what our genes tell us to do, we all do it to a certain extent. However, the general group behavior will tend to follow the rules that have evolved, especially if you look at more primitive societies.
> 
> There have been many societies that practice polygyny to some degree or another; very, very few that practice polyandry. You may say that's human nature, but where did that "nature" come from? You may say it is men oppressing women, but really that system is bad for a lot of men, because it means that they are left out altogether. It's just a result of how the strategies differ, depending on if you have sperm or eggs.



Exactly, this is why I said that men started it.  I am not neglecting the fact that they were obviously biologically inclined.  I am simply stating the order of events.  It seems like you are trying to excuse mens behaviour...?





> Another interesting thing about monogamy is this (remember, humans aren't completely or extremely polygynous, they just tend that way somewhat): it may not be natural for people to be with the same person for their whole life, as is pushed on us by religion and society. In some primitive societies, couples pair up for 3 or 4 years, long enough to have a baby and get it somewhat independent (weaned.) Not coincidentally, that's about the same time period after which a lot of relationships break up, as you naturally lose interest in that particular partner and passionate love begins to fade. Again, of course not everyone will do this, it's just a pattern that may have some explanation in evolution.
> 
> At some point in the development of western society, they decided that they had to make the rules about monogamy, for the stability reason I mentioned above. (Because if not, some men will get more than one woman, and some men will get none. Women will naturally want to have 1/2 or 1/4 or even 1/10 of a really good man instead of a whole bum.) If you don't kill off the bums in wars or something, you got a lot of trouble-makers around. I believe it was a conscious decision to prevent powerful men from getting all of the women. When people were hunter-gatherers, it didn't matter so much--no one had that much more than anyone else, so everyone had a shot at everyone else, and that's why we are only slightly polygamous. But with the development of concentrations of power held by certain people, this became very inequitable, and some men had way too much advantage.



Yes, see, here again, I agree with you.  If you want me to make conscious efforts to acknowledge and fully illustrate that I concur with your points without fully elaborating on my residual posts, I can do so - but hopefully we can just stop with this one, lol.  

*I sat here for a minute trying to think of what to say but there's nothing.. you covered it and I agree with you.*

Edit; I wanted to note that, for what I understood, we weren't discussing the biological or evolutionary side of things and that is probably why you thought your comments were neglected - it almost seemed to be irrelevant, to me, as I was focusing on the order of that which things happened.  Men came up with these rules first.  We could go the step further and discuss why, which you did.. so.. thank you.
~

----------


## Oneironaught

> Right, but the fact remains that men did.
> ~



Granted. But that's only a situational fact. It says nothing of the woman's desire to deny or perpetuate monogamy (or in the original context, abstinence until marriage). Yet, if you only look at that then you're saying that only men would make that rule, given the chance.

I know that animal societies also have a more or less structured system of one gender having the majority of the social authority. Humans are more able to exercise higher conscious direction of their personal actions. So Humans can't completely be compared to their basic "animal instincts" and other-species counterparts, as discussions like this so often gravitate towards. Then again, it certainly can't be ruled out and it does play a part.

Basically, we're involved in a moral issue here. There's no real right answer, only cultural lens through which to judge our own personal actions and honor of commitments. And in response to the original post again: at the core, it takes both desire _and_ willpower, and most people lack either one or both. For my explanation of _why_ people often don't have those qualities, see my earlier posts. (Hint: social acceptance and glamorisation of wanton sex/early sex.)

----------


## O'nus

> Granted. But that's only a situational fact. It says nothing of the woman's desire to deny or perpetuate monogamy (or in the original context, abstinence until marriage). Yet, if you only look at that then you're saying that only men would make that rule, given the chance.



Yup, true indeed.  

Are you also saying that not putting up a fight is just as good as advocating what your oppressor is oppressing?  ie. men set-up the double-standard and women don't fight it.  Thus, they are also advocating it..?

Reminds me of the play Lysistrata and how women used sex as a form of political power in order to prevent war.  Also, Augustus set out a rule that women would get less jewelry and could not spend as much money so they protested and would not give any sex to men until this policy was abolished.  

Just noting how sad it is how humans operate sometimes.
~

----------


## Oneironaught

> Are you also saying that not putting up a fight is just as good as advocating what your oppressor is oppressing? ie. men set-up the double-standard and women don't fight it. Thus, they are also advocating it..?



Yes, I guess I am. That's the way it's worked itself out. I never thought about it in quite that way but, I agree with the statement. Well... actually, that _is_ very much the way I've always thought about it. Just not in those words.





> Reminds me of the play Lysistrata and how women used sex as a form of political power in order to prevent war. Also, Augustus set out a rule that women would get less jewelry and could not spend as much money so they protested and would not give any sex to men until this policy was abolished.



That's funny. And it's more true than many people might realise. I don't know anything about that story but I know that sex is a real power for women. They can and do use it to their advantage. The popular image of "sexploitation" focuses around the guy but, women actually have much more sexual power than guys do. (By "sexual power" I only mean the ability to impose great influence over the actions and direction of men - and by extension, mankind - by virtue of their sexual qualities.) Sex is a very powerful thing. That's why it pays to wield it responsibly.





> Just noting how sad it is how humans operate sometimes.
> ~



I hear ya. We Humans really are a sad species.

----------


## O'nus

> Yes, I guess I am. That's the way it's worked itself out. I never thought about it in quite that way but, I agree with the statement. Well... actually, that _is_ very much the way I've always thought about it. Just not in those words.



Makes sense to me because of the following....





> That's funny. And it's more true than many people might realise. I don't know anything about that story but I know that sex is a real power for women. They can and do use it to their advantage. The popular image of "sexploitation" focuses around the guy but, women actually have much more sexual power than guys do. (By "sexual power" I only mean the ability to impose great influence over the actions and direction of men - and by extension, mankind - by virtue of their sexual qualities.) Sex is a very powerful thing. That's why it pays to wield it responsibly.



It definitly is powerful.  I think women are starting to get a hold of their sexual power.  Thus, I am apparently an asshole in either case; I open the door for a women, or not open the door. *Sigh*
~

----------


## Oneironaught

Hehe, 'sexual powers". Makes them sound like frickin' superheroes. Luscious, beautiful, alluring superheroes. Maybe a better term would be "sexuality", because it's not necessarily a physical power. It's source is largely emotional and non-physical.

Cannot... resist... Power... too... strong...

----------


## Moonbeam

> Yes I did, I did not feel there was anything to say. I agree with what you said. How am I neglecting you?



You basically repeated a little of what I said, then said "What do you think?"  No biggie; I just thought you hadn't read what I said.





> Unfortunately, this won't jive with society as a means to conduct policy statements and legal matters.



You were missing my point; I wasn't trying to suggest a means to conduct policy; just an explanation as to why people behave the way that they do.





> Exactly, this is why I said that men started it. I am not neglecting the fact that they were obviously biologically inclined. I am simply stating the order of events. It seems like you are trying to excuse mens behaviour...?



Coming from the sociobiologic view-point: there are scientific explanations for human behavior; there is no need to make any moral judgement, assign blame, or make excuses.  We can learn from it, and with knowledge people _should_ have more insight into why we do what we do, and be able to protect ourselves better against the tendencies that may maximize our reproductive fitness, but not necessarily our happiness as individuals.





> Edit; I wanted to note that, for what I understood, we weren't discussing the biological or evolutionary side of things and that is probably why you thought your comments were neglected - it almost seemed to be irrelevant, to me, as I was focusing on the order of that which things happened. Men came up with these rules first. We could go the step further and discuss why, which you did.. so.. thank you.
> ~



Earlier, people brought up animal behavior and polygamous species; that's how the biology/evolution discussion got started.  That's why I didn't think you read what I said, since you sort of repeated me with the comment about maximizing gene-spreading--so weren't we discussing evolution?





> I know that sex is a real power for women. They can and do use it to their advantage.



Why do you think that is?  It all comes back to biology.  Relating back to your statement that women are as promiscuous as men, which I disagreed with.  You can't have it both ways; women can't be as easy to get as men, yet also have this power over men.  That's where the power comes from; women are holding out for the best possible choice (that bar, that night, that life-time, whatever) and men are just trying to do it as much as possible.  Remember, this is speaking generally, basic strategies, not applicable to all individuals at all times, and easily over-come with a functioning human brain.  

To me, it is interesting to think about how evolution applies to human behavior, but ultimately, it matters more so that we can understand why people do what they do, and over-come the parts we don't like.  We can easily defeat what our genes would have use do, and live for our own lives and our own happiness.  Screw the selfish genes, and live for your brain instead.

----------


## O'nus

> Earlier, people brought up animal behavior and polygamous species; that's how the biology/evolution discussion got started. That's why I didn't think you read what I said, since you sort of repeated me with the comment about maximizing gene-spreading--so weren't we discussing evolution?



Yeah, to be honest - I did not want to get into the evolution of sexual prowess in humans especially in relation to socio-biological behaviour.  It demeans individuals as it is significantly inclined to a reductionist point of view.

However, I am also saying here that it hols a lot of logical strength - I just don't like it.

Why?  Because I think males are biologically inferior to women on a psychological scale.  Considering the nature of our biology, I would not be surprised if, one day, the human race was similar to other animals in that males are chosen by females as they have become a subjective and inferior gender.  

Feminism scares me because of its power and the male gender's incompetence.  I just hope that I at least make 1 feminist in my life think that males deserve some respect and equal treatment.  I say this because all feminists I have met are fervently opposed to the political power that males have...

What do you think...?
~

----------


## Oneironaught

> Why do you think that is? It all comes back to biology.



Yes it does.





> Relating back to your statement that women are as promiscuous as men, which I disagreed with. You can't have it both ways; women can't be as easy to get as men, yet also have this power over men. That's where the power comes from; women are holding out for the best possible choice (that bar, that night, that life-time, whatever) and men are just trying to do it as much as possible. *Remember, this is speaking generally, basic strategies, not applicable to all individuals at all times, and easily over-come with a functioning human brain.*



I mean that I know women have just as much potential to stray, spread around, whatever... as men do. And in fact, many woman live up to that kind of behaviour. But, as you said, it was a general statement that obviously doesn't apply to every man or woman. But I can't deny that I've known of way too many women that are just out for the next good time and have little regard for the moral side of this issue so it really does work both ways.





> We can easily defeat what our genes would have use do, and live for our own lives and our own happiness. Screw the selfish genes, and live for your brain instead.



Exactly, it's all about being better than mere primal instinct.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Yeah, to be honest - I did not want to get into the evolution of sexual prowess in humans especially in relation to socio-biological behaviour. It demeans individuals as it is significantly inclined to a reductionist point of view.



I don't think it demeans people. Knowledge is power, and helps people to understand the forces that may be driving them and others.  Why keep it a mystery?  It also could help societies understand why certain rules may have developed, and why they no longer apply to free individuals who should have control of their own destiny.





> However, I am also saying here that it hols a lot of logical strength - I just don't like it.
> 
> Why? Because I think males are biologically inferior to women on a psychological scale. Considering the nature of our biology, I would not be surprised if, one day, the human race was similar to other animals in that males are chosen by females as they have become a subjective and inferior gender.



Well, I hate to tell you this...males _are_ chosen by the females, in humans and very many other species.  It has nothing to do with females "becoming" a subjective and inferior gender.  You said before that you were putting cause and effect in order--now you have them backwards.  The cause is males compete over females, and females choose males based on that competition.  The effect of that competition is that males are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than females.  The end result is society as we know it.





> Feminism scares me because of its power and the male gender's incompetence. I just hope that I at least make 1 feminist in my life think that males deserve some respect and equal treatment. I say this because all feminists I have met are fervently opposed to the political power that males have...



Male gender's incompetence at what?  How are they more incompetent than women?  Of course males deserve respect and equal treament.  I don't know where you're meeting your women, but that's what feminism is about--equal treatment for everyone.  (I realize there are radicals of every type.)  It's all about getting past our biology, and living by intellect and reason.  Our biology should only be for fun. :wink2:

----------


## Moonbeam

Sorry for double-post; Gh and I posted at the same time.





> I mean that I know women have just as much potential to stray, spread around, whatever... as men do.



Well...I'm never going to agree to that exactly, but I know what you mean.  There is course such a spectrum of behavior; men and women are not that different, especially compared to the sex differences of some other species.  But we were high-lighting the differences here.  And small differences in biology have made big differences in society.





> Exactly, it's all about being better than mere primal instinct.



Yes, without that, there is no point to life; we don't have to act like animals just because we are.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't think it demeans people. Knowledge is power, and helps people to understand the forces that may be driving them and others. Why keep it a mystery? It also could help societies understand why certain rules may have developed, and why they no longer apply to free individuals who should have control of their own destiny.



I intended that biological reductionism deters the free existential consciousness of human beings.  Essentially we fringe on behaviourism which I fervently oppose.  I do not want to believe that everything we are is reduce to biological processes but the result of our biology manipulating our biological processes with the influence of external stimuli.  I am not sure where you stand in response to this, but I think you can agree that it is digression and leads to nature vs. nurture, right?  In which case, I am just arguing that reductionism leads to the detriment of free consciousness and a whole other debate about free will vs. biological determinism.





> Well, I hate to tell you this...males _are_ chosen by the females, in humans and very many other species. It has nothing to do with females "becoming" a subjective and inferior gender. You said before that you were putting cause and effect in order--now you have them backwards. The cause is males compete over females, and females choose males based on that competition. The effect of that competition is that males are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than females. The end result is society as we know it.



Yes, I mean a society that operates in the sense that men are no longer regarded as significant contributors to society but are both biologically and socially inferior to women.  Men=slaves in the perspective I was saying that I would be worried about.  I think you can see where I was going with that..?





> Male gender's incompetence at what? How are they more incompetent than women? Of course males deserve respect and equal treament. I don't know where you're meeting your women, but that's what feminism is about--equal treatment for everyone. (I realize there are radicals of every type.) It's all about getting past our biology, and living by intellect and reason. Our biology should only be for fun.



Males are more developmentally vulnerable than females, men have slower learning curves, men are verbally inferior to women, etc.  Although these are statistically marginal, they are still evident and the awareness perpetuates a self-fulfilling prophecy which only strengthens the originally purported deficits.  

Help me out here - are you a biological reductionist or a behaviourist..?  Or do you advocate existential freedom?  Or something else..?
~

----------


## thegnome54

> We can easily defeat what our genes would have use do, and live for our own lives and our own happiness.  Screw the selfish genes, and live for your brain instead.



...And what do you think determines how your brain works, exactly? 

Everything we do is 'primal instinct' - if it wasn't, we wouldn't do it!  ::doh::

----------


## Spartiate

> Everything we do is 'primal instinct' - if it wasn't, we wouldn't do it!



Consciousness gives us ways around that.  For example, if I wanted to, I could leave my hand on a hot oven element despite my reflex to take it off.


And this thread's title has become a little misleading  :tongue2: ...

----------


## thegnome54

> Consciousness gives us ways around that.  For example, if I wanted to, I could leave my hand on a hot oven element despite my reflex to take it off.



No - if you leave your hand on the stove, you are merely obeying a new instinct which you've developed in response to this thread.  And what determines the way you reacted to this thread?  Your current brain configuration and past experiences - it all boils back to your genes.  Causal Determinism.  We are machines, and while we can do whatever we want to do, we can't actually change what we want to do.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I intended that biological reductionism deters the free existential consciousness of human beings. Essentially we fringe on behaviourism which I fervently oppose. I do not want to believe that everything we are is reduce to biological processes but the result of our biology manipulating our biological processes with the influence of external stimuli. I am not sure where you stand in response to this, but I think you can agree that it is digression and leads to nature vs. nurture, right? In which case, I am just arguing that reductionism leads to the detriment of free consciousness and a whole other debate about free will vs. biological determinism.



I don't think "not wanting to believe something" is a good idea to try and not understand it or avoid the subject because it is dangerous or something.

Yes, all we are is a result of nature vs. nurture; I[m not sure I understand where you're coming from there.

I actually don't believe in free-will, because I can't see a source for it.  But I have to act as if we do have it, because it feels as we do, and I don't know how else to act.





> Yes, I mean a society that operates in the sense that men are no longer regarded as significant contributors to society but are both biologically and socially inferior to women. Men=slaves in the perspective I was saying that I would be worried about. I think you can see where I was going with that..?



Mmm, not really...why would that happen? 





> Males are more developmentally vulnerable than females, men have slower learning curves, men are verbally inferior to women, etc. Although these are statistically marginal, they are still evident and the awareness perpetuates a self-fulfilling prophecy which only strengthens the originally purported deficits.



So males do better or worse on some subjects than females, and vice versa, so what?  There is so much overlap, it doesn't matter, and individuals should be treated as such.  The "awareness" is only the product of society trying to keep people in their place--if that is done away with, it doesn't matter.





> Help me out here - are you a biological reductionist or a behaviourist..? Or do you advocate existential freedom? Or something else..?~



I can't deny against the first, but believe in the latter.





> ...And what do you think determines how your brain works, exactly? 
> 
> Everything we do is 'primal instinct' - if it wasn't, we wouldn't do it!



Well, we do things all the time that defeat what our genes would have us do, don't we?  For example, birth control.  There were evolutionary forces that developed our intelligence as well as our sexual instincts, etc.  The intelligence can be decoupled from the other drives, and actually used to the detriment of your genes.  A bad strategy for the genes; mine are a complete failure because I haven't reproduced, but so what?  That's more fun for me.  I'm a failure of evolution.

----------


## thegnome54

> Well, we do things all the time that defeat what our genes would have us do, don't we?  For example, birth control.  There were evolutionary forces that developed our intelligence as well as our sexual instincts, etc.  The intelligence can be decoupled from the other drives, and actually used to the detriment of your genes.  A bad strategy for the genes; mine are a complete failure because I haven't reproduced, but so what?  That's more fun for me.  I'm a failure of evolution.



You're personifying genes and evolution too much, I think.

The genes don't have an agenda you can defeat, and neither does evolution.

You use birth control because you want to, and you want to because of the way your brain is currently configured, which is a direct result of the way you process the input you receive from the world around you, which is again a direct result of your genes.

Everything you decide to do is determined by your brain, and that is essentially an expression of your genes and the way they make you react to the world.

----------


## O'nus

> I don't think "not wanting to believe something" is a good idea to try and not understand it or avoid the subject because it is dangerous or something.



It isn't a good reason - I am just saying I don't like it.  It's analogous to how I don't like living - but I have to deal with it.





> Yes, all we are is a result of nature vs. nurture; I[m not sure I understand where you're coming from there.
> 
> I actually don't believe in free-will, because I can't see a source for it. But I have to act as if we do have it, because it feels as we do, and I don't know how else to act.



But you advocated defying the selfish gene..?





> Mmm, not really...why would that happen?



It was a slippery slope example of an extremely bad case of female power.





> So males do better or worse on some subjects than females, and vice versa, so what? There is so much overlap, it doesn't matter, and individuals should be treated as such. The "awareness" is only the product of society trying to keep people in their place--if that is done away with, it doesn't matter.



I guess to further illustrate what I mean, I can tell you that all I see and have been told are things that I, as a male, should watch out for and avoid (ie. being sexist, racist, discriminatory, aggressive, perverted, etc.).  Whereas I see much more enthusiasm and encouragement for females (ie. girl power).





> I can't deny against the first, but believe in the latter.



I'm confused.  You think we have no free-will but encourage existential freedom?
~

----------


## Spartiate

> No - if you leave your hand on the stove, you are merely obeying a new instinct which you've developed in response to this thread.  And what determines the way you reacted to this thread?  Your current brain configuration and past experiences - it all boils back to your genes.  Causal Determinism.  We are machines, and while we can do whatever we want to do, we can't actually change what we want to do.



I wouldn't call it an instinct, more of a choice.  I can chose whether or not to keep my hand on the stove.  It's our choices that affect our personality, not the opposite.  Our (rational) choices are based on future precautions, present needs and past trial and error.  This explains why people with identical DNA would not necessarily proceed in the same manner when given a task, because their environment molded their perceptions.

----------


## Oneironaught

> Everything we do is 'primal instinct' - if it wasn't, we wouldn't do it!



You're omitting the biggest thing that distinguishes Human from most other species: Conscious thought and the ability to reason. Surely you can't think that everything we do is only instinctive reaction. What about learning? Everything we experience or learn influences our thoughts, actions and decisions to some degree. That couldn't be so if your statement were true.





> No - if you leave your hand on the stove, you are merely obeying a new instinct which you've developed in response to this thread.



No, if you leave your hand on the hot stove you're just stupid. Not to mention you'd have to fight reflex.





> And what determines the way you reacted to this thread? Your current brain configuration and past experiences - it all boils back to your genes.



Yeah but, experience has nothing to do with genes. It's a different, far more versatile factor. In fact, I'd bet anything that experience and environmental factors are way more important factors than genes are.





> Causal Determinism. We are machines, and while we can do whatever we want to do, we can't actually change what we want to do.



I'm going to have to disagree with that as well. You're assuming again that genes determine everything. That's a huge mistake. For example, how can it be that kids develop hobbies and interests like those of their circle of friends and often not like their parents? It is genes? No, it's environmental and experiential.





> Everything you decide to do is determined by your brain, and that is essentially an expression of your genes and the way they make you react to the world.



The brain is a product of genetics, yes. But the software running in that hardware and instinctual operating system are not purely genetic in origin. Most of it is learned, not instinctual. Behaviour is almost purely a learned attribute.

----------


## Moonbeam

> You're personifying genes and evolution too much, I think.



No, your interpreting what I say as personification.  Genes are nothing more than molecules that reproduce, and the ones that reproduces the best end up being more abundant.  That's all there is too it.  





> The genes don't have an agenda you can defeat, and neither does evolution.



Again, you can say the genes "agenda" is to replicate themselves, because that is what they do.  The same way water's "agenda" is to flow downhill, gravity's "agenda" is to pull things to the earth, etc.  You're arguing semantics.

Because my genes come from a long line of genes that were successful at replicating themselves, they are good replicators, right?  So what they do as a result of their chemical actions is try to get my body to continue the cycle, right? But by using intelligence, which before now may have worked to help the genes to keep the bodies that they have inhabited passing them on, I can overcome the genes directions and they die with me.  Hence, they "fail", as a group they are not going to replicate themselves anymore, yet I (this body) wins, because I enjoy my life more.





> You use birth control because you want to, and you want to because of the way your brain is currently configured, which is a direct result of the way you process the input you receive from the world around you, which is again a direct result of your genes.



Yes--I am not saying that is not true.  I am saying that they fail.  What genes are supposed to do is pass themselves on.  Mine aren't going to.





> Everything you decide to do is determined by your brain, and that is essentially an expression of your genes and the way they make you react to the world.



By letting my brain decide what to do, and overriding hormones, instincts, etc. by recognizing them for what they my genes fail.  That's what I'm saying.

You can understand what I am saying, right?  We're animals, we're smart animals, so by using intelligence we overcome the "primal instincts"--good for our own personal selves, not good for the genes that got us here.  Hence, failure of the genes.  






> But you advocated defying the selfish gene..?



YES!  That's what I've been saying!  What is good for my genes is not good for me, so screw them!






> I guess to further illustrate what I mean, I can tell you that all I see and have been told are things that I, as a male, should watch out for and avoid (ie. being sexist, racist, discriminatory, aggressive, perverted, etc.). Whereas I see much more enthusiasm and encouragement for females (ie. girl power).



Oh, give them a break.  Not only males should avoid being sexist, rascist, etc.   






> I'm confused. You think we have no free-will but encourage existential freedom?
> ~



Hey, what can I do?  I have no choice!

----------


## Serkat

What the hell is this thread about by now?

Anyway, you're wondering why people chose to have sex before marriage?
I wonder why people chose to have relationship before sex.

----------


## O'nus

> YES! That's what I've been saying! What is good for my genes is not good for me, so screw them!



lol.





> Oh, give them a break. Not only males should avoid being sexist, rascist, etc.



Hey, I can certainly tell you that if I ever even thought about making a "male pride" group or article, I would be ridiculed beyond belief.  I tried to have a discussion in a philosophy class over what "male pride" is now-a-days and all we could come up with is that males should be proud when we are _not_ something (ie. not perverted, not an ass, not chauvanistic, etc.).  If you can define what it means to be a proud male now-a-days, I would be very interested in reading it.





> Hey, what can I do? I have no choice!



That is the perfect response - I love it.
~

----------


## Serkat

> Hey, I can certainly tell you that if I ever even thought about making a "male pride" group or article, I would be ridiculed beyond belief.  I tried to have a discussion in a philosophy class over what "male pride" is now-a-days and all we could come up with is that males should be proud when we are _not_ something (ie. not perverted, not an ass, not chauvanistic, etc.).  If you can define what it means to be a proud male now-a-days, I would be very interested in reading it.



I agree with you very much on this point. It's really quite crazy how some aspects of feminism got interpreted in such a way that nowadays people tend to think that really there's not so much difference between males and females, or there shouldn't be. That's one crazy aspect. The other one is that, in fear of coming off as politically incorrect, men not only lost their balls to simply be their male selves, manliness is also systematically repressed and seen as bad.

And people wonder why relationships don't really work that good anymore, ha! It's because males behave like fucking pussies and females act like they're all tough and untouchable because the emancipation movement told them that a woman has to be strong and competitive to survive.. that basically manliness is superior to femininity. What a joke! Actually both genders are fine the way they are, but they're certainly not anything like the other.

I mean, I'm all for political and economical gender equality, but there are certain things that should not be touched by such equality, and these are general psychology, social role and sexuality. You can't just swap genders around like they're the same and expect nothing to happen. No worky. Here in Germany we actually have government-induced "Gender-Mainstreaming"-Bullshit. It's seriously not funny. What's the point of systematically pushing girls into doing classic male jobs that they're probably not even interested in and teaching boys how to be a fucking kindergardener? Anybody come to think that IT'S PERFECTLY FINE if more women chose to do classic female jobs? What's the big deal? I don't wanna see women working their beautiful bodies on a construction site. Unless they're naked.

Anyway... to get back on the track... you actually have to come to terms with your own gender and ignore the bullshit that modern society tries to feed you. There's a severe difference between giving a woman the right to vote and giving her the right to walk all over your sorry feminized ass. Men should actually be men and be OK with that. Men are actually more dominant than women, more aggressive, more direct and less emotional. That's perfectly fine. If you raise them like girls, they're gonna end up as sissies and worse than that, they're gonna be very unhappy, thanks to gender role confusion. Same goes for girls.

So yeah... I'm 20 now and I consider myself pretty normal and politically correct but if I told some of the things about how I think a healthy relationship looks like, I'm probably gonna land in fucking prison. Fucked up world this is!

So yeah, male pride... means to me to have a goal in life and never stray from it for any other person, especially females. It also means to be self-confident, honest, respectful, integrated, socially adept, goal-oriented, to have high self-esteem and to accept yourself fully. It means to do what has to be done and to not let anything interfere with that. In a relationship, it means to be the dominant male part that leads the female part. In other words, you sit in the driver seat and the girl is the passenger, end of discussion. It means to only make compromises to the degree that you set for yourself. It means to be the proactive part, both in life and in a relationship. It means to achieve what you want to achieve and take what you want and need, without shame or fear of loss.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Hey, I can certainly tell you that if I ever even thought about making a "male pride" group or article, I would be ridiculed beyond belief. I tried to have a discussion in a philosophy class over what "male pride" is now-a-days and all we could come up with is that males should be proud when we are _not_ something (ie. not perverted, not an ass, not chauvanistic, etc.). If you can define what it means to be a proud male now-a-days, I would be very interested in reading it.



I'm not sure what to say.  It's kind of like white people responding to the NAACP by saying that they want a group to advance _their_ interests (which I have actually heard in red-neck conversation).  It's obvious that their (the white people's) interests have already been advanced, at the expense of non-white's, so exactly what is it that they want?  They are saying they regret the loss of their dominance, and wish there was a way to hold on to it. That's the best way I can explain why it is reacted to like that.

I don't know why the conversation couldn't be more positive than what you describe tho.  There are male fellowship groups and stuff.   Kind of like Fight Club.  ( ::lol:: kidding.)

----------


## O'nus

> I'm not sure what to say. It's kind of like white people responding to the NAACP by saying that they want a group to advance _their_ interests (which I have actually heard in red-neck conversation). It's obvious that their (the white people's) interests have already been advanced, at the expense of non-white's, so exactly what is it that they want? They are saying they regret the loss of their dominance, and wish there was a way to hold on to it. That's the best way I can explain why it is reacted to like that.
> 
> I don't know why the conversation couldn't be more positive than what you describe tho. There are male fellowship groups and stuff. Kind of like Fight Club. (kidding.)



You see, you pointed out the real problem - even if I created a male pride group; what the hell would it be about?  Certainly anything chauvanistic will not make me feel "proud".
~

----------


## TheUncanny

> You're taking it personally when the truth simply based on evolution and the different strategies that the sexes have for maximizing their reproductive potential.




And I'd go as far as to say that they aren't even sexual "strategies". A strategy implies a plan or a conscious method, whereas evolution only works off of _genetic_ dispositions (which is how such traits are able to be inherited).  Back to EvoDevo 101, for evolution to be possible, two things must be true:  1.) That there is genetic variance, and 2.) that this variance affects the organisms ability to survive and/or mate. In short, what this means is that, for polygamy to have become an evolutionary trait, it must have originated as, and permeated our species via, genetics.  Unless what we learn in our lifetime somehow leaves an impression on our genetics, evolution (in a scientific sense as opposed to a figurative sense) isn't a learned thing.

This is a small but important detail that many people overlook or don't seem to understand. Evolution isn't a cognizant phenomenon in the sense that the organisms "know" what needs to be done in order to have the evolutionary "edge" over other organisms (except for in the past 200 years or so); its just the accumulative nature of the playing out of unequal probabilities. If a certain animal is found throughout an entire island, but this animal survive slightly better on the coast as opposed to inland, overtime that slight advantage builds on itself in an exponential fashion. What happens is that, in time, you will find many more of this animals around the coast compared to those that live inland...but as you can see its wasn't a conscious decision of the animals to just up an migrate to the coast. Those that just happened to be on the coast (or that just happened to come across the coast) flourished, whereas those that didn't eventually dwindled in numbers.

The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving".  The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision.  And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread _biological_ ramifications on the species as a whole. 

Bada bing, bada boom.Thats how it works.

----------


## Moonbeam

> And I'd go as far as to say that they aren't even sexual "strategies". A strategy implies a plan or a conscious method, whereas evolution only works off of _genetic_ dispositions (which is how such traits are able to be inherited). 
> 
> This is a small but important detail that many people overlook or don't seem to understand. Evolution isn't a cognizant phenomenon in the sense that the organisms "know" what needs to be done in order to have the evolutionary "edge" over other organisms



I know it!!  I'm not trying to say that there is any conscious plan!  It's just hard to talk about without using words that imply that!  

Disclaimer:  Genes are molecules which replicate themselves.  That is their nature, and it is the same as any other chemical reaction.  They do this by means of the bodies of orgnisms.  The better a gene is at getting the organism to reproduce itself, the more common that gene will be.  

That's all!  

Even Dawkins talked about "Selfish Genes"; did he have to go around his whole life explaining that, no, he wasn't really saying that genes don't know how to share or play well with others! :Pissed: I guess I should get out his book and see how he dealt with it.  Of course he probably only had to do it once at the beginning, not every paragraph!  ::?: 





> The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving". The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision. And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread _biological_ ramifications on the species as a whole.



Obviously.

----------


## Serkat

> The same is true for polygamy. Some people were more polygamous than others, which allowed a slight advantage in spreading one's genetic information. But remember, this wasn't our intention. We didn't stop and say, "You know what, if I mate with many different women, my genetics will have a better chance at thriving".  The reality was that this trait was more of an impulse, not a decision.  And because this impulse indeed did unintentionally benefit that genetic disposition, over time this trait became more and more prominent in the population until eventually having widespread _biological_ ramifications on the species as a whole.



That's not really true in my opinion. We're talking about genetic traits that evolved probably over a million years ago. People were living in congenetic tribes. Quite simply, not everyone got to fuck. Males have a much stronger disposition to be polygamous because certain social positions that not everybody got to be in, basically made this possible for them. However, for the genes to actually survive, there's more to it than mere fucking. I'm talking child raising and protecting the community long term. So you can't have losers banging the tribe-chicks.

----------


## TheUncanny

> ...



Youd be suprised by how many people who think they understand evolution really have no understanding the basic fundamentals. The words you used seemed very similar to the words often used by such people. My mistake.





> That's not really true in my opinion. We're talking about genetic traits that evolved probably over a million years ago. People were living in congenetic tribes. Quite simply, not everyone got to fuck. Males have a much stronger disposition to be polygamous because certain social positions that not everybody got to be in, basically made this possible for them. However, for the genes to actually survive, there's more to it than mere fucking. I'm talking child raising and protecting the community long term. So you can't have losers banging the tribe-chicks.



I'm not quite sure I understand what you are getting at.  What exactly don't you think is true...that polygamy is genetic in nature?

Thats about all I was really trying to get at. For polygamy to have become an evolutionary trait, it must have been genetic in nature...not social (unless I am misunderstanding what you meant).  In such tribes, the social standing of an individual, such as the "alpha male", is based on how big/strong/aggressive that male is...all of which are largely determined by genetics.  The social standing of an individual is byproduct of such things, so I wouldn't say that they are what caused males to have polygamous dispositions, at least not ultimately.  Sure, the social standing is what allows one males to have sexual rights over several females...but the social standing arises from genetics that have long been selected for being "badass". 

Its like this genetics > social standing > polygamy > genetics

If I missed your point, feel free to correct me.

----------


## hankwheels

I don't think there is anything wrong with having sex before marriage, as long as you honestly love the person you're having sex with and you see yourself with him/her for the long run. 
I'm waiting till marriage.

----------


## grasshoppa

Waiting till marriage is pointless because marriage is pointless.

----------


## Jeff777

...I wonder if you get this.

----------


## cuddleyperson

ah, a tad more on track now. ::D: 

I agree about marriage being more of a written statement of something you already know, " you two love each other and, for now at least, want to spend the rest of your life's together". So unless it is strict taboo and you will be punished for having sex outside marriage( stoned to death for example, is that only the women though in such cultures?), which is simply barbaric, there is no reason not to.

----------


## O'nus

Jeff, that movie poster thing is hillarious.
~

----------


## Jeff777

I know!  ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Oneironaught

> ...marriage is pointless.



I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.

The movie posters picture is cool.

----------


## Carôusoul

> I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.
> 
> The movie posters picture is cool.





Have you ever had the pleasure of marriage?

Do you deserve it?

----------


## Oneironaught

> Have you ever had the pleasure of marriage?



No, only two failed engagements.





> Do you deserve it?



Only if I continue to respect, value and hold in high regard its meaning. Why would anyone deserve anything that they refuse to appreciate or that they treat as a meaningless joke? You've heard the expression about "not casting pearls before swine", no? That means that you don't give things to people that have no intention of realising its value.

----------


## grasshoppa

> I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you never have the pleasure of marriage. With that attitude you don't deserve its benefits.
> 
> The movie posters picture is cool.




You mean the financial benifits? Having a loving relationship with a woman is all I need in that regard. I don't need to be married to her to make our relationship official. Have you seen the divorce rates over the last 50 years...? most people who get married don't take it seriously anyway.

----------


## Oneironaught

> ...most people who get married don't take it seriously anyway.



Ahhhhh, yahhhh. That's precisely my point. People who think it's a joke and don't take their commitments seriously need not apply. I wonder why it might be that so many broken families end in broken marriages. Oh, that's right: people jump into it without any intention of taking it seriously. Duh! Marriage isn't meant to be a financial perk. It's meant to be a commitment to another Human Being, to whom you pledge your heart and loyalty.

Hence my statement that you don't deserve marriage. You don't deserve the commitment that goes along with it because it doesn't mean sh!t to you. Duh!

It's only "pointless" if you don't have the honor, value system, sense of duty and commitment, selflessness and testicular fortitude to make it mean something. If you think it's a damn joke then that's exactly what it will be.

Don't say it if you don't mean it.

----------


## grasshoppa

> Ahhhhh, yahhhh. That's precisely my point. People who think it's a joke and don't take their commitments seriously need not apply. I wonder why it might be that so many broken families end in broken marriages. Oh, that's right: people jump into it without any intention of taking it seriously. Duh! Marriage isn't meant to be a financial perk. It's meant to be a commitment to another Human Being, to whom you pledge your heart and loyalty. 
> 
> Hence my statement that you don't deserve marriage. You don't deserve the commitment that goes along with it because it doesn't mean sh!t to you. Duh!
> 
> It's only "pointless" if you don't have the honor, value system, sense of duty and commitment, selflessness and testicular fortitude to make it mean something. If you think it's a damn joke then that's exactly what it will be.
> 
> Don't say it if you don't mean it.



I have been deemed unworthy of marriage! oh noes. Obviously I don't care. Just because you are not married doesn't mean you can't have a meaningful relationship with your spouse. When it comes down to it, the relationship is all the matters. If you have honour and trust then why the need for the legal documentation and publicity?

----------


## Oneironaught

> I have been deemed unworthy of marriage! oh noes. Obviously I don't care. Just because you are not married doesn't mean you can't have a meaningful relationship with your spouse. When it comes down to it, the relationship is all the matters. If you have honour and trust then why the need for the legal documentation and publicity?



Quit trying to equate "relationship" with "marriage". We're talking about MARRIAGE. If MARRIAGE means nothing to you then stay the hell away from it: you are not worthy. How much more plain can it be stated?

----------


## grasshoppa

I was planning on not ever getting married  :smiley:

----------


## ClouD

Marriage takes away the freedom we value as much as love.

----------


## Oneironaught

> Marriage takes away the freedom we value as much as love.



Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.

----------


## Carôusoul

I think if two people are in love it doesn't matter whether they have official documentation or official vows themselves.




All the vows they need they have made together, in their hearts.









That said I don't believe true love exists. But you get what I'm saying.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.





Not to be nasty but,


Actually yeah, I need more nasty.





How the hell can you talk about its greatness having failed twice and never experienced it!?

----------


## ClouD

> Again, it will be what you make it. If you think it's a ball-and-chain then you'll always feel trapped under its vice. Strive for greatness and you'll never be happier.



The very act of swearing your life materialistically away to someone seems quite ball and chain to me.
Till death do we part?

Understanding that greatness is always existant is much easier.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

It is only a ball and chain because people like to cheat... What is love if your lover is found after the both of you have screwed around with 100 other partners in look for "the one"?

    Humans are humans.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Humans are humans.




Groundbreaking stuff, really.



Lulz. I'm so gonna pwn you in Anti-Heroes.

----------


## Oneironaught

> I think if two people are in love it doesn't matter whether they have official documentation or official vows themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the vows they need they have made together, in their hearts.



If - to go through this _yet_ again - marriage means nothing to you then you don't deserve marriage. It's not really all that difficult to understand.

And when did I say that love can't occur without a ring, a piece of paper and a public ceremony? Never, actually. What I did say is that you (anyone) shouldn't lie to someone else and pretend that it does matter to you if it doesn't. If marriage is such a "oh, no, my life is ruined; I think I'll keep on doing the same selfish stuff I always do" event then why the hell should those with that opinion be allowed to water it down and ruin its importance for the rest of us?





> That said I don't believe true love exists. But you get what I'm saying.



You get what you give. If you don't believe in love then you are destined to be loveless. Enjoy your wallow in self pity. And enjoy lying to others (and yourself).





> Not to be nasty but,
> 
> 
> Actually yeah, I need more nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell can you talk about its greatness having failed twice and never experienced it!?



Oh, imagine that: another wise guy  ::roll::  So, because I've been cheated on and fucked over I'm not allowed have a sense of value. I can't appreciate the institution of marriage simply because I've never been married? You people are making less and less sense. And that's a real accomplishment, even for this group.

Frankly, I'm sick of discussing grown-up stuff with a bunch of selfish brats children with little to no sense of perspective and what's really important in life.

Like I said, if you feel that you aren't willing or suited to make a real commitment to someone else then don't. But don't go trashing marriage because you're too immature to understand what REAL love is really all about. Or, more specifically, what marriage is all about.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

> Frankly, I'm sick of discussing grown-up stuff with a bunch of selfish brats children with little to no sense of perspective and what's really important in life.



Not that I'm one to talk but...

I'm glad to hear someone say that.

----------


## Carôusoul

> You get what you give. If you don't believe in love then you are destined to be loveless. Enjoy your wallow in self pity. And enjoy lying to others (and yourself).



Oh noes.

If you don't believe in Middle Earth you are destined to be without it your whole life. Sucks.

I'm not very self-pitying at all. In fact, from every post you've made on here, I think I'm probably more happy than you in life.

Enjoy your wallow in self pity. And enjoy lying to others (and yourself).






> So, because I've been cheated on and fucked over I'm not allowed have a sense of value. I can't appreciate the institution of marriage simply because I've never been married? You people are making less and less sense. And that's a real accomplishment, even for this group.




Ugh. I'm just saying you can't rave about soemthings greatness having never done it. Stick to "admiring from afar".





> Frankly, I'm sick of discussing grown-up stuff with a bunch of selfish brats children with little to no sense of perspective and what's really important in life.



What's important in life? Failed marriages?






> Like I said, if you feel that you aren't willing or suited to make a real commitment to someone else then don't. But don't go trashing marriage because you're too immature to understand what REAL love is really all about. Or, more specifically, what marriage is all about.




Haha.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Not that I'm one to talk but...
> 
> I'm glad to hear someone say that.



You tell em straight.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

> Oh noes.
> 
> If you don't believe in Middle Earth you are destined to be without it your whole life. Sucks.
> 
> I'm not very self-pitying at all. In fact, from every post you've made on here, I think I'm probably more happy than you in life.
> 
> Enjoy your wallow in self pity. And enjoy lying to others (and yourself).



     People write down what bothers them. Its a therapeutic, so its no surprise to see woes online.  The support from strangers is one of a kind. 






> Ugh. I'm just saying you can't rave about soemthings greatness having never done it. Stick to "admiring from afar".



Have you been married? (assuming you got your parents consent for obvious reasons). Some insights come with age even without the full experience.





> What's important in life? Failed marriages? Haha.



You like rubbing shit in peoples faces, don't you? I'm sure you'll get your fair share of shit in the future.

----------


## Carôusoul

> People write down what bothers them. Its a therapeutic, so its no surprise to see woes online.  The support from strangers is one of a kind.



Indeed.







> Have you been married? (assuming you got your parents consent for obvious reasons). Some insights come with age even without the full experience.



No consent needed in my country from parents.

Apart from that; "Indeed"





> You like rubbing shit in peoples faces, don't you?



Yes.






> I'm sure you'll get your fair share of shit in the future.



Indeed.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

You've been married?

Well, you win this time.

----------


## Carôusoul

Multi-kill.

----------


## grasshoppa

> And when did I say that love can't occur without a ring, a piece of paper and a public ceremony? Never, actually. What I did say is that you (anyone) shouldn't lie to someone else and pretend that it does matter to you if it doesn't. If marriage is such a "oh, no, my life is ruined; I think I'll keep on doing the same selfish stuff I always do" event then why the hell should those with that opinion be allowed to water it down and ruin its importance for the rest of us?



Can I get your opinion on gay marriage? Since you seem to think it's so imporatnt and sacred.






> Frankly, I'm sick of discussing grown-up stuff with a bunch of selfish brats children with little to no sense of perspective and what's really important in life.



Grown-ups...lol havent used that term since I was 5. 





> Like I said, if you feel that you aren't willing or suited to make a real commitment to someone else then don't. But don't go trashing marriage because you're too immature to understand what REAL love is really all about. Or, more specifically, what marriage is all about.



Why do you need to be married in order to feel like you are commiting yourself? You should be commited to that person before marriage if you ever want to have a chance of it lasting.

----------


## Carôusoul

Grasshoppa *knows.*


I sense a disturbance in the GH.

----------


## cuddleyperson

hmm Oneironaught i guess i'll speak my mind, however i am only 16, so disregard what my opinions from lack of life experience if you will...

Obviously marriage is very important to you, may i ask if this is related to any religious beliefs/upbringing?

Anyway like some have said, marriage is a large commitment and yes i suppose it solidifies your feelings toward each other and is surely an amazing experience. However i don't think you have the right to portray all those who do not agree marriage is necessary for commitment as people who cannot love or have commitment themselves. 

Although it's obvious you disagree with this opinion i will say it anyway. I believe that if a couple are even thinking of marriage, then in their hearts they should already have an ever lasting love and commitment to one another. So personally i don't see, apart from to prove it others if you need to do that for reinforcement, what a piece of paper and some vows really add  to your commitment.

Also unfortunately, although you may think you wish to live forever, things can change, there are so many variables. We like to think as humans we are such compassionate creatures and so loyal, we can be yes, but we are not above animals in our basic instincts. After 20 years a couple can plane, loss their sense of love, why? Because naturally we are not necessarily a monogamous(ist?) species, in fact not to long ago a man had many wifes.

Now i;m not saying that's good or right. But i just think marriage can make a relationship seem forced, especially with time if there are troubles. I can;t exactly word my feelings and the previous paragraph probably makes me seem shallow, which is not true. I guess i'm just trying to explain that:

1) Marriage is not needed for full commitment or love

2) Things don't always last forever, as sad as it is, when people need to move on, marriage can be a depressing obstacle in any cases. 

I don't want to fight about it though, your entitled to your opinion also, it is a very noble one. :smiley:

----------


## Oneironaught

> Not that I'm one to talk but...
> 
> I'm glad to hear someone say that.



Thank you. I feel like I'm the only one around here who ever stands up for what's right and just and who speaks out openly against what's wrong with the world. Even though I know for a fact that quite a few members actually stand by me in private (PMs and such), it's a rarity that some one actually has the guts (or freedom, in some people's cases) to publicly side with what's right rather than to put upon a pedestal all the bull crap that permeates today's world.





> Oh noes.
> 
> If you don't believe in Middle Earth you are destined to be without it your whole life. Sucks.



I'm once again pelted by the immature ramblings of some one who has no idea what he's talking about. You know, with everything I see of you I like you just a little bit less (alright, that's an exageration for my own sick amusement). Coincidence? I think not. Nothing personal, of course.





> Ugh. I'm just saying you can't rave about soemthings greatness having never done it. Stick to "admiring from afar".



That's another prime example of the fact that you are far too immature to make such a decision. Come speak to me in about 10 years and we'll see how much your opinion has grown. My guess is that you'll have a much better perspective on the world and a far greater ability to make an intelligent stance on the marriage issue. Until then, you're just speaking from your rectum.

Rectum? Hell, damn near killed 'em.





> What's important in life? Failed marriages?



When you're done smoking that crack may I have a word with you? Dude, your eyes are so glazed over. You might want to lay down for a little while. Feeling better? Good... From what in my posting history have you derived "failed marriage = good"? I'm guessing it's the part you just retrieved from your ass because my stance is in rather remarkable contrast to your implications.





> Can I get your opinion on gay marriage? Since you seem to think it's so imporatnt and sacred.



No, you may not. I'm not opening another door for children to bash a mature view of the world. I will refer only to marriage in the traditional sense. Nothing else is relevant to this conversation.





> Grown-ups...lol havent used that term since I was 5.



So what has changed for you in the past year? Besides the whole turning 6 thing?





> Why do you need to be married in order to feel like you are commiting yourself? You should be commited to that person before marriage if you ever want to have a chance of it lasting.



One of these days some one here will actually _read_ before they comment. I know, don't hold my breath.

Exactly when did I claim that love comes only with a marriage vow? Answer: NEVER. In fact, I believe that love MUST come *before* marriage in order for it to have even a glimmer of hope. Whoaaa! Deja-vu... It seems like I've already stated all of this. Could it be my mind playing tricks on me? Nope, I'll be damned. I DID say this already. Oh you silly kids these days. Always putting your foot in your mouth.





> hmm Oneironaught i guess i'll speak my mind, however i am only 16, so disregard what my opinions from lack of life experience if you will...



I respect your opinion. What I don't respect is the way others find joy in bashing marriage simply because they lack the ability to appreciate what it means and stands for. More importantly: what it CAN mean to those involved.





> Obviously marriage is very important to you, may i ask if this is related to any religious beliefs/upbringing?



To be honest, I don't draw my views from a religious standpoint at all. I just believe that marriage is a contract that should *only* be entered into if both parties are serious about it. I'm tired of seeing everything that makes life great being systematically destroyed by those who couldn't give a shit. I'm tired of seeing the trends gravitate towards "serve thyself and fuck everybody else". I'm tired of people who think they have to cater to bullshit and bow to idiocy trying to fuck up what's worked for so long. I'm tired of seeing people fuck over others because they feel entitled to do so. I believe that your word is all your really have, as far as your interaction with others goes.

Like I've said, if some one doesn't feel marriage is right for them: FINE. I have no problem with some one not wanting to become involved and give their all to some one else for the greater good of each. But don't think I'm going to stand by while a bunch of people who have just sprouted the first pubes on their nuts try to bash what's good and right with the world. 

If you've never been in love - I mean truly in love, not some playground crush - then to say that marriage is a pile of bullshit is, well, a pile of bullshit. All it proves is how short-sighted and shallow people can be.





> However i don't think you have the right to portray all those who do not agree marriage is necessary for commitment as people who cannot love or have commitment themselves.



*Not another word until you READ WHAT I SAID*. I'm sick of being taken out of context and I'm sick of people trying to put words into my mouth. Especially when I've _plainly_ stated my view and have left *no* room for misinterpretation.





> Although it's obvious you disagree with this opinion i will say it anyway. *I believe that if a couple are even thinking of marriage, then in their hearts they should already have an ever lasting love and commitment to one another.*



I agree with that (the bolded part) 100&#37;.





> So personally i don't see, apart from to prove it others if you need to do that for reinforcement, what a piece of paper and some vows really add to your commitment.



Wait until you find "The one". Hopefully you will have a change of heart. Even if you don't, I can respect that. But don't be fooled into thinking that marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper. That paper is only what the government sees. It's the underlying intention and commitment that gives the paper its value. It's the willingness to make that step into the ultimate relationship situation that gives it its value. You folks are searching for the forest when you're standing here completely surrounded by trees.

Don't look at the legal crap. That's only formality and posturing. Look at what it means if you want to understand what marriage is. Look at the implications. Look at the enormous promise to love and cherish you make. It can be the ultimate in expression, the ultimate in commitment: as long as it's done for the right reasons.





> But i just think marriage can make a relationship seem forced, especially with time if there are troubles.



ONLY if it's done for the _wrong_ reasons. Remember, marriage is to be a binding heart-to-heart contract for only those who VALUE its message and significance. Not every relationship is marriage material. Hell, _most_ are not.





> 1) Marriage is not needed for full commitment or love



I think I've already hammered that one to death*. Verdict: agreed. Next...





> 2) Things don't always last forever, as sad as it is, when people need to move on, marriage can be a depressing obstacle in any cases.



That's why it's of utmost importance that the vows be taken seriously. I can't stress enough that it's all about what you put into it. If one or both parties enter marriage with a half-assed attitude of "Well, the odds are against us but, what the hell. I'm up for a fun frolic" then it's doomed before it begins.

Another part of marriage is the courage to not bail just because you're going through a rocky patch. Every relationship has its ups and downs. If you love some one enough to marry them don't you think they deserve for you two to try to work past the rough patches? When you are with the right person, those are just speed bumps, not Earth shakers. And sure, not all marriages are going to be a success. But you can increase your odds of a happy marriage by cooking with the right ingredients. If it's all based in lies, cheating and half-hearted superficial promises then, yes, your chances are pretty darned poor. That's why it's so vital to realise that marriage must be taken seriously, not thrown around like so many cliches.

The underlying problem is that we've developed a culture wherein marriage has become a joke. Too many people get married for all the wrong reasons: convenience, babies out of wedlock, "something to do for the weekend", etc... with little regard for what they are really doing and for the promise they are making to someone who expects that promise to be honored.





> I don't want to fight about it though, your entitled to your opinion also, it is a very noble one.



As are you and yours. Hopefully you (and I) will one day find some one who fills your heart with so much love that you can't imagine life without them. THAT'S what marriage is about.

You dont have to have been married yourself to understand the significance it can have in your life. But it has to be with the right person and it has to be for the right reasons. Just because so many fools today enter marriage on a shallow whim doesn't discredit the entire institution. It only strengthens the notion that you have to mean what you say and say what you mean.

"I do" doesn't mean "I do whomever and whatever I please." Save that shit for Jerry Springer. Better tidy up the green room. You're about to be called on stage.




* That's what _she_ said :-)

----------


## Xox

> Thank you. I feel like I'm the only one around here who ever stands up for what's right and just and who speaks out openly against what's wrong with the world. Even though I know for a fact that quite a few members actually stand by me in private (PMs and such), it's a rarity that some one actually has the guts (or freedom, in some people's cases) to publicly side with what's right rather than to put upon a pedestal all the bull crap that permeates today's world.



I just want to come here and say that I* totally* agree with GH on this one.


It's responses like these :




> Oh noes.
> 
> If you don't believe in Middle Earth you are destined to be without it your whole life. Sucks.
> 
> I'm not very self-pitying at all. In fact, from every post you've made on here, I think I'm probably more happy than you in life.
> 
> Enjoy your wallow in self pity. And enjoy lying to others (and yourself).








> What's important in life? Failed marriages?








> I sense a disturbance in the GH.



That make this accurate:





> I'm once again pelted by the immature ramblings of some one who has no idea what he's talking about. You know, with everything I see of you I like you just a little bit less (alright, that's an exageration for my own sick amusement). Coincidence? I think not. Nothing personal, of course.



Just wanted to put my two cents in.

----------


## ClouD

Dear Oneironaught, your lack of tolerance is a murky reflection of behaviour.

I wouldn't mind discussing love and marriage, yet it's always up to the interpretation of the reader to filter out unwanted noise.

If you can't be bothered, that is entirely your choice. Though do understand it _is_ a choice.

Life is just a game.

I think it is a hinderance to someone who doesn't understand what commitments truly are... an illusion.

Right and wrong, only interpretations of difference.

Again, choice seems to be the factor of avidity here. Preference seems decided by choice, not vice versa.

----------


## Ruhe1986

> Dear Oneironaught, your lack of tolerance is a murky reflection of behaviour.
> 
> I wouldn't mind discussing love and marriage, yet it's always up to the interpretation of the reader to filter out unwanted noise.
> 
> If you can't be bothered, that is entirely your choice. Though do understand it _is_ a choice.
> 
> Life is just a game.
> 
> I think it is a hinderance to someone who doesn't understand what commitments truly are... an illusion.
> ...







Poetry sheer poetry my friend.  ::bowdown::

----------


## Siиdяed

> I'm sick of being taken out of context and I'm sick of people trying to put words *cocks* into my mouth. Especially when I've _plainly_ stated my view and have left *no* room for misinterpretation.



Gay!  ::shock::

----------


## Oneironaught

> Dear Oneironaught, your lack of tolerance is a murky reflection of behaviour.



Another bonehead that refuses to hear WHAT I SAID. What, pray tell, is even the slightest bit intolerant about "if you decide to get married you should honor your commitments and if you aren't interested in marriage then keep your mouth shut and quite trying to bash it"? Apparently you just thought you'd be another cute wise-ass trying to twist my words into your own little version of stupidity.





> Life is just a game.



More meaningless cliches from more meaningless posters.





> I think it is a hinderance to someone who doesn't understand what commitments truly are... an illusion.



There you go proving my point again. Here, let me spell it out for you since you seem to be so blinded by your own ignorance: If you don't "understand what commitments truly" then marriage IS NOT for you.

And if you really think that commitments are "an illusion" then you have A LOT to learn: about love, about life and, obviously, about commitment. And we wonder why today's world is so screwed up  ::roll:: 





> Poetry sheer poetry my friend.



Uh, your taste in "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired.





> Gay!



Wow, now Sindred has manged to be a total prick. Welcome to my list of assholes. Why don't you sit and spin.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Another bonehead that refuses to hear WHAT I SAID. What, pray tell, is even the slightest bit intolerant about "if you decide to get married you should honor your commitments and if you aren't interested in marriage then keep your mouth shut and quite trying to bash it"? Apparently you just thought you'd be another cute wise-ass trying to twist my words into your own little version of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> More meaningless cliches from more meaningless posters.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go proving my point again. Here, let me spell it out for you since you seem to be so blinded by your own ignorance: If you don't "understand what commitments truly" then marriage IS NOT for you.
> ...






I think Sindred was joking..


You're fummmingg. Lulz.

----------


## Oneironaught

> I think Sindred was joking..



No, I think he was being a fucking dick. Much like yourself.





> You're fummmingg. Lulz.



Dickhead much? LULZ  <--- the favorite expression of said penile cranium.





> I'm an asshole.



Finally, something we can all agree on.

----------


## Siиdяed

Haha. GH just went coco-loco.  :smiley:

----------


## PatienceMarie

> ...I wonder if you get this.




I feel... so... stupid....

I had to look at that for like 15 minutes to get it.

-patience

----------


## Siиdяed

I'm sexually frustrated, took me 0.1 seconds.  :smiley:

----------


## Oneironaught

> Haha. GH just went coco-loco.



Just? No, that happened a long time ago. But thanks for being a jerk to me. I really appreciate that. No really, I do.

Maybe you guys need to put some "words" into your own mouths. It might help keep the thoughtless shit from leaking out.

----------


## Siиdяed

> Just? No, that happened a long time ago. But thanks for being a jerk to me. I really appreciate that. No really, I do.



No problem.  :smiley:

----------


## PatienceMarie

> I'm sexually frustrated, took me 0.1 seconds.



I'm just blonde....

Point period dot dot dot.

-patience

----------


## Siиdяed

I KNEW IT!  :tongue2: 

ell oh ell.

----------


## Carôusoul

> Just? No, that happened a long time ago. But thanks for being a jerk to me. I really appreciate that. No really, I do.
> 
> Maybe you guys need to put some "words" into your own mouths. It might help keep the thoughtless shit from leaking out.

----------


## Oneironaught

> 



Coming from some one such as yourself, that means a little less than nothing.
Oh wait, that's you.

----------


## Siиdяed

Touche.

Oh wait, no it wasn't.  :tongue2: 

Haha. He utterly failed to appreciate basic irony and it's led to an all-out brawl. Bring it, GH. Bring it like I brung it on your mom. Hard and long. Do it!

----------


## Spartiate

> 



I crack up every time you use that  ::chuckle:: ...

----------


## Xox

Ok now stop trolling the thread.  ::roll::

----------


## Siиdяed

He started it!  :Sad: 

Sorry, Xox. So, tell me about sex, plz?

----------


## Carôusoul

Yes. tell us about sex.

----------


## Siиdяed

I heard that, like, if you do it standing up then you don't get pregnant? Is this true?

I've got like 50 kids so far, can't afford another mistake.  :Sad:

----------


## Ruhe1986

> Uh, your taste in "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired.




It was a joke man. 

You know . . . . hahaha 

nevermind ::roll::

----------


## Siиdяed

GH doesn't do jokes, I'm afraid.  :Sad: 

Back on-topic, does anyone have any sex-related problems they'd like to discuss? I'm in need of laughter.  :tongue2:

----------


## Oneironaught

> GH doesn't do jokes, I'm afraid.



You are incorrect about that. What I _don't_ do is people piling on - when an asshole starts in with attacks - because they think it's humorous to do so.

----------


## Siиdяed

Hmm...joke then, please? Has to be sexually orientated (stay on topic!  ::shock:: ) mind.

You have...five minutes.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

Dammit. There are a hundred threads on the forum to dick around in. If one does not have logical debate points than go to senseless banner. This "doing things for the lulz" is starting to piss a lot of people off, including me. I understand the freedom to speak the topic but a lot of you are maliciously chipping away at someone who presents a view different than your own.

    I'm not trying to be a bastard, but when there are other threads for getting your lulz out, use those instead.

----------


## Siиdяed

Gestalt, join the revolucion. GH was being ubermean. We opposed him with our benevolence and free-lulz. Therefore, we win!

And we're mostly in senseless. So...we're good.  :smiley:

----------


## Xox

> I heard that, like, if you do it standing up then you don't get pregnant? Is this true?
> 
> I've got like 50 kids so far, can't afford another mistake.



Well I can tell you that's not true!

Your best bet would be to have the girl take birth control pills and use a condom.

Keep it safe.

----------


## Siиdяed

> Well I can tell you that's not true!
> 
> Your best bet would be to have the girl take birth control pills and use a condom.
> 
> Keep it safe.



Wait, there's a _girl_ involved? Ew, _cooties_!

----------


## Xox

> Wait, there's a _girl_ involved? Ew, _cooties_!



If there is, anyway, if there isn't, use a condom kay?

----------


## Siиdяed

...you took me seriously.  :tongue2: 

I loves you for that. There would definetly be a girl involved. Possibly some form of furry outfit, too. Hmm...

Incidentally (and since it's vaguely related) what are cooties? It's not something we do it England...  ::?: 

Oh, and VIVA LA!

----------


## Grod

> Dammit. There are a hundred threads on the forum to dick around in. If one does not have logical debate points than go to senseless banner. This "doing things for the lulz" is starting to piss a lot of people off, including me. I understand the freedom to speak the topic but a lot of you are maliciously chipping away at someone who presents a view different than your own.
> 
>     I'm not trying to be a bastard, but when there are other threads for getting your lulz out, use those instead.



14 minutes too late, I'm afraid.

----------


## Spartiate

The thread's topic died, senselessness inevitably followed suit, no one ruined anything...

----------


## lizmunchausen

i always thought, allow the whole no sex before marriage.. it sounds sweet, but what if you never get married does that mean you never get laid. i bet horny people end up rushing into marriage. and you only get to shag one person in your whole life unless you get divorced.

----------


## GestaltAlteration

> The thread's topic died, senselessness inevitably followed suit, no one ruined anything...



    I was directing the post more towards the immature responses given right after GH's. I was just a little late in plopping the post down here. If it's lulz not at the direct expense of someone trying to be serious, than whatever

----------


## ClouD

> Another bonehead that refuses to hear WHAT I SAID. What, pray tell, is even the slightest bit intolerant about "if you decide to get married you should honor your commitments and if you aren't interested in marriage then keep your mouth shut and quite trying to bash it"? Apparently you just thought you'd be another cute wise-ass trying to twist my words into your own little version of stupidity.
> 
> More meaningless cliches from more meaningless posters.
> 
> There you go proving my point again. Here, let me spell it out for you since you seem to be so blinded by your own ignorance: If you don't "understand what commitments truly" then marriage IS NOT for you.
> 
> And if you really think that commitments are "an illusion" then you have A LOT to learn: about love, about life and, obviously, about commitment. And we wonder why today's world is so screwed up 
> 
> Uh, your taste in "poetry" leaves a lot to be desired.
> ...



Do you completely fail to see your own intolerance _here_?

DID I SAY I WANTED TO BASH MARRAIGE. *DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.*

I'm no cute wise-ass.

Meaningless posters? Not impressed.

"Sadly" ignorance isn't on the menu here. Interpret what you will.
I've experienced more in life than you have, blind fool.

I told you, I'd discuss love and marriage with you, yet I think your little black book malfunctioned and started spewing shit everywhere.

I expected better from you. I was wrong. You chose how to react, and you continue to choose to rot in your hell.

I honestly hope you die.

Have fun in your cliche. You've lost my ill-earned respect.

I won't reply to you again.

----------


## Siиdяed

ClouD's angry?  ::shock:: 
I hasn't seen this side to him. It's...scary...  :tongue2: 

I'd agree with lilzmunch, sex before marriage should be okay. I'm not saying we should turn sex into something meaninglessly casual, but I think if you truly love someone it's a very powerful way to express it, within marriage or without.
I believe it's the Quaker Church that said that sex was - like many things - sometimes exploited by humanity, but in the end it's something beautiful and meaningful that we should enjoy.

----------

