‘Discovering my true sexual self’: why I embraced polyamory (RSS style post)

Humans are supposed to pair up and raise children. That's the natural way for families to be.

It's business trying to break up the family unit - that's how they've managed to get twice as many people working for the same amount of money. (women working, but it takes 2 working adults to provide for a family instead of just the man, so nothing is really gained, and now they have to pay childcare).

Business funds feminism because it helps break up families.
 
billysielu said:
Humans are supposed to pair up and raise children. That's the natural way for families to be.

It's business trying to break up the family unit - that's how they've managed to get twice as many people working for the same amount of money. (women working, but it takes 2 working adults to provide for a family instead of just the man, so nothing is really gained, and now they have to pay childcare).

Business funds feminism because it helps break up families.
Click to expand...

I won't try to tackle the conspiracy theory part of your post, I'll leave that up to others... But why do you think that "Humans are supposed to pair up and raise children. That's the natural way for families to be."?
 
Zefan said:
So being honest about your feelings with your partner isn't an acceptable course of action in your eyes? It's either bottle it up or file for divorce instantly? What a black and white world to live in, life must be very simple.
Click to expand...

I don't find it excusable to ignore the effect of wanting infidelity, on your own family, to the point of asking a partner to agree to an open marriage midway through raising several children.

Despite you holding her corner and saying that in a utopia such urges should be acceptable it doesn't take much consideration to realise this is unlikely to be something a family bonds over in reality. Hence my earlier comment that it should be no surprise they are no longer together.

Also, you present options as if they are mine. They are your interpretation alone.

I'm saying it would have better if she followed her urges but went for a divorce in the first place because a fool could see that the husband would be left with a horrible feeling about it.

Do you think she's no fool by taking the actions she did? Better result?
 
Natural state of humans would be similar to a hareem or social extended large family group.

Think gorillas.

Relegious indoctrination and dominance over women for 2000 years gave us couples.

Women don't really need men at all other than a squirt of the good stuff. It's in their interest to allure as many willing providers to their bed in a modern world to pay all the bills.
 
Although it doesn't say it. Why does it sound like she didn't allow the same for him. After years and years so might feel differently, but I'd imagine some guys might jump at the chance to sleep around a bit in exchange for the same from his wife.
Yet this weirdly sounds like he was forced to watch in the corner whilst crying.

I reckon he did and realised he found better and so they split up.
 
Pooing in a field and wiping your ring with leaves is "natural", should we go back to that?

I would agree that marriage contracts should be revised. Maybe they should be periodic, e.g. last 7 years unless renewed.
 
NewGamer11 said:
Pooing in a field and wiping your ring with leaves is "natural", should we go back to that?
Click to expand...

It's funny you should pick that one specific thing, because that's a great example of something we would be better off with. Squatting is a much more natural position than the seated one the entire western world has somehow accepted, yet most of us have the gall to point and laugh at Asian countries that squat.
 
I think the problem in this kind of debate is trying to reach a consensus over what is supposed to be "normal", when there is probably no normal, just different behaviours with their own benefits and drawbacks that we either like or dislike. There have been different kinds of family structures in various cultures that worked out fine for the time and place they were practised in. I think the guy was totally naive and desperate to think he could deal with it despite not wanting to find other partners himself, and the woman probably could have done without making him publicly cuckold for the sake of advertising her book. If the guy had said "nope, we're getting a divorce" there would have been no article or book worth discussing.
 
Zefan said:
I won't try to tackle the conspiracy theory part of your post, I'll leave that up to others... But why do you think that "Humans are supposed to pair up and raise children. That's the natural way for families to be."?
Click to expand...

Humans are only slightly sexually dimorphic. The biological predictions e.g from testicle size) would indicate monogamous relationship with some amount of adultery and polyandry is the norm,i.e. exactly what we witness in reality.

The extraordinary long gestation and infant development time also requires stable relationships.

So monogamous relationships is the norm, but there will always be urges for external sexual gratification, and some will cheat or look for more open relationships.
 
My main issues about this is that knowing the Graun if it was the man that had told his wife of many years after a couple of kids that he wanted an 'open' relationship that it would be held up as abusive probably with something about male entitlement, female objectification and the patriarchy thrown in for good measure!
 
There is no scientific consensus on why humans are more monogamous than other mammals but a lot of evidence suggests we mostly are and that we evolved that way.

Using the 'monogamy is not natural' argument is nonsense.
 
This woman is happy she has found a weak male provider for her children, she now also wants a high testosterone male to meet her sexual needs. Fair play to her, if a man is so weak he'll allow that then she deserves to have her cake and eat it.
 
aardvark said:
There is no scientific consensus on why humans are more monogamous than other mammals but a lot of evidence suggests we mostly are and that we evolved that way.

Using the 'monogamy is not natural' argument is nonsense.
Click to expand...

50/50 gender distribution is an evolutionary trait that promotes it as is no set 'breeding season'.
 
Monogamy exists as a social compromise between a the sexes for ensuring reproductive success. However, it’s always a huge compromise (instinctively) for men.

First off, let’s define reproductive success as the sexual success of your grandchildren. That’s the real test of how alpha you are!

The way males (in xx/xy species) typically maximise their reproductive success is by having sex with as many females as possible. There is practically no limit to how many children a man can have other than how many ladies he has sex with. This is why men instinctively feel the need to have sex with pretty much everything. The numbers game wins.

The same is true for females to a degree in some species where there is sexy sperm competition, but in humans this doesn’t work for females - they can only grow one offspring at a time and have a cap on the total number of children. Whilst they are pregnant (and for awhile afterwards) they are effectively ‘off the market’ and instinctively unattractive to most men (because they are getting in the way of you having more children). The way a female maximises her reproductive success is by ensuring the male father contributes towards the upbringing of their offspring and has the resources to ensure each of her offspring are successful.

Ultimately both sexes want to sleep with the sexiest mates possible hence both are prone to wandering eyes. Remember - it doesn’t matter if your genes make you keel over and die at 35 if you are sexy as hell and you and your babies have children before death... sexy > viable, often!

In short, it’s perfectly normal to feel urges to sleep around with other partners. It you act on them... don’t engage in sustained dishonesty. That’s the most important thing.
 
Zefan said:
It's funny you should pick that one specific thing, because that's a great example of something we would be better off with. Squatting is a much more natural position than the seated one the entire western world has somehow accepted, yet most of us have the gall to point and laugh at Asian countries that squat.
Click to expand...

Yes, I’ve heard that before. I notice you didn’t offer to give up your Andrex Quilted though. :p
 
NewGamer11 said:
Yes, I’ve heard that before. I notice you didn’t offer to give up your Andrex Quilted though. :p
Click to expand...

I decided to focus on the more relevant part of your post, as opposed to the literal toilet paper part. Comparing the acceptance of an unnatural increase in comfort due to advances in technology over time to the institutional cultural/social stunting of one's natural instincts that has developed over time is a little bit of a reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom