Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species

[Gaillo]

What say ye all?

Original article here:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html


Editor's note: Christopher Ryan is a psychologist, teacher and the co-author, along with Cacilda Jethá, of "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality," published by Harper Collins.

(CNN) -- Seismic cultural shifts about 10,000 years ago rendered the true story of human sexuality so subversive and threatening that for centuries, it has been silenced by religious authorities, pathologized by physicians, studiously ignored by scientists and covered up by moralizing therapists.

In recent decades, the debate over human sexual evolution has entertained only two options: Humans evolved to be either monogamists or polygamists. This tired debate generally devolves into an antagonistic stalemate where women are said to have evolved to seek male-provisioned domesticity while every man secretly yearns for his own harem. The battle between the sexes, we're told, is bred into our blood and bones.

Couples who turn to a therapist for guidance through the inevitable minefields of marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species, but marriage is still a lot of work.

Few mainstream therapists would contemplate trying to persuade a gay man or lesbian to "grow up, get real, and stop being gay." But most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is "normal," while the curiosity and novelty-seeking inherent in human sexuality are signs of pathology. Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner portend a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo sapiens.

This is a problem because there is no reason to believe monogamy comes naturally to human beings. In fact, for millions of years, evolutionary forces have cultivated human libido to the point where ours is arguably the most sexual species on Earth.

Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything. Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly universal in their so-called "fierce egalitarianism." Sharing is not just encouraged; it's mandatory.

Most foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breast-feed one another's babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other every day for survival. Although our social world revolves around private property and individual responsibility, theirs spins toward interrelation and mutual dependence. This might sound like New Age idealism, but it's no more noble a system than any other insurance pool. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone's benefit in a foraging context. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly.

For nomadic foragers who might walk hundreds of kilometers each month, personal property -- anything needed to be carried -- is kept to a minimum. Little thought is given to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, the clouds in the sky, or the kids underfoot. An individual male's "parental investment," in other words, tends to be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not directed toward one particular woman -- or harem of women -- and her children, as conventional views of our sexual evolution insist.

But when people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably. It became crucially important to know where your property ended and your neighbor's began. Remember the 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbor's." With agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and asses.

The standard narrative posits that paternity certainty has always been of utmost importance to our species, whether expressed as monogamy or harem-based polygyny. Students are taught that our "selfish genes" lead us to organize our sexual lives around assuring paternity, but it wasn't until the shift to agriculture that land, livestock and other forms of wealth could be kept in the family. For the first time in the history of our species, biological paternity became a concern.

Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. Research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy and psychology points to the same conclusion: A nonpossessive, gregarious sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago, about 5 percent of anatomically modern humans' existence on Earth.

The two primate species closest to us lend strong -- if blush-inducing -- support to this vision. Ovulating female chimps have intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and bonobos famously enjoy frequent group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and conflict-free.

The human body tells the same story. Men's testicles are far larger than those of any monogamous or polygynous primate, hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler temperatures help preserve standby sperm cells for multiple ejaculations. Men sport the longest, thickest primate penis, as well as an embarrassing tendency to reach orgasm when the woman is just getting warmed up. These are all strong indications of so-called sperm competition in our species' past.

Women's pendulous breasts, impossible-to-ignore cries of sexual delight, or "female copulatory vocalization" to the clipboard-carrying crowd, and capacity for multiple orgasms also validate this story of prehistoric promiscuity.

"But we're not apes!" some might insist. But we are, in fact. Homo sapiens is one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas.

"OK, but we have the power to choose how to live," comes the reply. This is true. Just as we can choose to be vegans, we can decide to lead sexually monogamous lives. But newlyweds would be wise to remember that just because you've chosen to be vegan, it's utterly natural to yearn for an occasional bacon cheeseburger.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Christopher Ryan.

[sirgonzo420]

You've gone mormon.

Too much LDS.

[chad]

all part of operation search, seek, & destroy the family unit.

[sirgonzo420]

It is probably against man's nature to be monogamous, but civilization is founded upon monogamy and the family unit.

So I'm reluctantly monogamous.

;D

[Gaillo]

You've gone mormon.

Too much LDS.

???

I didn't say I agreed with any of it. Also, I'm staunchly Atheist... Not Mormon.

[Shami-Amourae]

I think monogamy is unnatural personally. Humans should act more like bonobo chimpanzees (conflict resolution through sex), and not common chimpanzees (conflict resolution through violence).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KagyO9zS_ro

[sirgonzo420]

???

I didn't say I agreed with any of it. Also, I'm staunchly Atheist... Not Mormon.

I was just referencing our new-found friend from the Romney/LDS campaign.

just funnin'

[Gaillo]

I was just referencing our new-found friend from the Romney/LDS campaign.

just funnin'

No worries, man. I'm a bit touchy about being associated with any religion... probably about the same expected reaction as if I were to refer to the typical GSUS member as a Keynesian or communist.

[Shami-Amourae]

Well I'm an atheist who runs and adult business so I have a totally different perspective.

To me religion and Statism are the same thing: It's just a different method of control. You get a lot of atheists who are Statists (Communists/Socialists), which to me is turning to the State as a religion. I reject both of these forms of control and try to be open to different perspectives. Don't mix up wanting to be free of religious control as an admission of wanting to be enslaved to State control.

[singular_me]

It is probably against man's nature to be monogamous, but civilization is founded upon monogamy and the family unit.

So I'm reluctantly monogamous.

;D

I think our species is suited for both... "monogamy" or "open relationships" . it just depends on the education first... but then there are many people who wish to experience open mindedness but dont run into right mates. However both aspects are a real challenge as society teaches monogamy, and thats why, I think, "open relationships" are tough to sustain too. But in the end, that is all about trust in your partner, being monogamous and jealous doesnt work either. Being a monogamous cheater is the worse of all.

faithfulness cannot be imposed, it has to be self-evident... if it is not, then an open relationship might be a lot better.

[slowbell]

I think the term hypergamy is the most important thing to understand.

From a biological perspective, men are more monogamous than women. What we call the family unit, is really men's ideals pushed onto women. Think about this for a minute, when starting a family, men want to ensure their women are faithful, so as to pass on their genes to their children. Women pass on those genes, regardless of who the actual father is. A woman will always put her children before anything, the father, or even herself. That happens in all species of life. It's nature. It's in her best interest to seek out both a man who will fulfill the role of a father and provider, but also, to pass on the best genes to her offspring for survival purposes.

Wilt Chamberlain slept with over 20,000 women. How many men are raising, or raised, his children without even realizing it. Since DNA testing, it's estimated a whooping 25% of men who think they are the fathers of their children, but are not. That's in the millions, you can't argue with stats like that.

So, monogamy, is basically men's way of securing women all to themselves. The act of "marrying up" is just another way of seeking out the best environment for a woman and her children to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

[Horn]

all part of operation search, seek, & destroy the family unit.

I thought this was a pro-polygamy thread?

LDS anyone?

[k-os]

I am listening to an audiobook right now called Sex at Dawn, and it's really fascinating. It can be dull sometimes but when it's interesting, it's really interesting. And when it's really interesting, it's about subjects that I can't bring up here. (Don't ask.) Just read it or listen to it. You'll know when you get there. Too bad I can't remember and share any of the less tantalizing stuff from the audiobook. :[]

All I know is that I am "wired" for monogamy. It's probably more nurture than nature, though, that made me this way. I personally couldn't care less what other consenting adult humans do with their body parts.:)**

[osoab]

It is probably against man's nature to be monogamous, but civilization is founded upon monogamy and the family unit.

So I'm reluctantly monogamous.

;D

Wife didn't like the swinger idea? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Agrippa]

I think monogamy is unnatural personally. Humans should act more like bonobo chimpanzees (conflict resolution through sex), and not common chimpanzees (conflict resolution through violence).

So we start acting like Bonobos. Men quit going to work to to gain the resources to support their family, since they don't got one any more. Instead they spend their time chasing tail. Without the resources and help provided by a dedicated partner, women end up raising one child at a time, like Bonobos, because trying to raise two at once is likely to prove so hard that all three starve. This greatly reduces our viability as a species, since women would be barely able to rear enough children to maintain our population.

Now suppose that, while this was going on, in some backward corner of the earth a group of humans maintained their old monogamous customs. With the help of a dedicated partner, their women could raise several children at once. With the males competing with each other economically for access to mates, this tribe would not only produce far more offspring, they would be far wealthier than the wanna-be Bonobos. Before long, the people who tried to live the Bonobo lifestyle would be curiosities that one would have to trek into the darkest corner of the jungle to find.

Life is a competitive game, and Homo Sapiens, with their odd monogamous customs, and all the religious trappings that help them hew to that course; have long ago left the Bonobos in the dust. There is no going back.

The unstated plan of most women who idealize the Bonobo lifestyle is that the State will keep men's noses to the grindstone, and transfer the resources they produce to women so they can raise children without having to suffer a monogamist lifestyle. So far they have gotten their way -- but it doesn't look like a stable situation to me.

[sirgonzo420]

Wife didn't like the swinger idea? :D (Sorry, couldn't resist)



Not every night.

We have our moments.... no other dudes though.


;D


In any event, I consider myself monogamous.

[Horn]

All I know is that I am "wired" for monogamy.

How long have you been married for?

[Horn]

Life is a competitive game, and Homo Sapiens, with their odd monogamous customs, and all the religious trappings that help them hew to that course; have long ago left the Bonobos in the dust. There is no going back.

http://answeringchristian.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/world-biggest-christian-polygamist-family.jpg

[k-os]

How long have you been married for?

Good question.

[Horn]

Good question.

Hmmm, hard wired, I see... :eek:

[sirgonzo420]

http://answeringchristian.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/world-biggest-christian-polygamist-family.jpg

A difference between that man and monkeys is that the male monkeys do not necessarily stick around and support their progeny, and presumably the man in the picture does.

So Agrippa's logic stands. In fact, your picture is a manifestation of the principle to which Agrippa alludes. That is to say, a man raising/protecting/increasing his family. Agrippa's post was addressing the notion of humans adopting the sexual/social behaviors of bonobos; it was not necessarily an attack on polygamy per se. Most all cultures today have a monogamous basis, but committed human polygamous relationships (as in, one man and plural wives) and bonobo sexual/social patterns are not the same at all.

Hell, look at the mormons... they sometimes venture into polygamy, and they have generally retained some level of civility.

;D

[Horn]

A difference between that man and monkeys is that the male monkeys do not necessarily stick around and support their progeny, and presumably the man in the picture does.

Sorry, thought we were speaking about the U.S. welfare class.

[sirgonzo420]

Sorry, thought we were speaking about the U.S. welfare class.

Now you just leave Barry and Michelle out of this!

[LuckyStrike]

I am not one to argue that humans are animals, nor do I believe we evolved from ooze.

That being said, from what I observe in nature the strongest bull breeds all the cows and the calves are therefore genetically superior.

So based on a purely secular standpoint I think a man should be able to have as many wives as he can provide for, morally though I'm not sure.



Edit to add that the real crisis we face is one of numbers, over time the fiat financial crisis will play itself out, but when the demographics in your country get to a certain point there is no recovering from that, ever. So realizing this it may skew my opinion.

[JDRock]

If a marriage is based on true love, then monogamy IS natural......i dont see it (marriage)holding together for any other reason.

[FreeEnergy]

I am not one to argue that humans are animals, nor do I believe we evolved from ooze.

That being said, from what I observe in nature the strongest bull breeds all the cows and the calves are therefore genetically superior.

So based on a purely secular standpoint I think a man should be able to have as many wives as he can provide for, morally though I'm not sure

You think some of that isn't going on right now? You think women don't mate with strong men that they think is "their dream guy" eventhough they are "happily" married to the not so aggressive one? That what women want YOU to think.

women are only monogamous as long as they found a strong mate. if their mate isn't providing, most women will look around (or divorce).

But if you make the laws hard enough to jump through to get some tail (weird dating "rules", rings, crazy weddings, hard divorce procedures etc.) people will naturally tend to stay monogamous. entropy.

[LuckyStrike]

You think some of that isn't going on right now? You think women don't mate with strong men that they think is "their dream guy" eventhough they are "happily" married to the not so aggressive one? That what women want YOU to think.

women are only monogamous as long as they found a strong mate. if their mate isn't providing, most women will look around (or divorce).

But if you make the laws hard enough to jump through to get some tail (weird dating "rules", rings, crazy weddings, hard divorce procedures etc.) people will naturally tend to stay monogamous. entropy.

No doubt about it, you don't see women leaving alpha males to be with beta guys, but I've definitely seen it the other way.

[slowbell]

You think some of that isn't going on right now? You think women don't mate with strong men that they think is "their dream guy" eventhough they are "happily" married to the not so aggressive one? That what women want YOU to think.

women are only monogamous as long as they found a strong mate. if their mate isn't providing, most women will look around (or divorce).

But if you make the laws hard enough to jump through to get some tail (weird dating "rules", rings, crazy weddings, hard divorce procedures etc.) people will naturally tend to stay monogamous. entropy.

Yup, pretty much what I was saying in my post. Those 'laws' are man made to shame women into staying with beta men. Ideally, women would be happier sharing one alpha male guy for mating purposes, while the betas hover around providing for everything else, shelter, child raising, emotional support, etc. Nowadays, women can jump ship and blame the guy, divorce laws support this...historically though, women where held back from doing that by all the societal shaming and marriage laws restricting infidelity. IE, kept on a short leash.

I suppose these days, the biggest alpha male is .gov and all child support services and payout single women get from reproducing from the state. You could argue, the rest of us are beta males supporting a woman with 10 kids from different guys through the taxes we pay. Kind of a disturbing thought, but arguable true.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H_IiK6p-40

[Skirnir_]

If a man and two women, two men and a woman, or even a man, a goat, and a shoe want to play house, that is their business.

[Santa]

If a man and two women, two men and a woman, or even a man, a goat, and a shoe want to play house, that is their business.

Ew! A goat? Baa! I don't need no stinking goat. Not while I have a harem of shoes... from which to choose. :)

[JDRock]

a goat?...What i think your not seeing here is people have FEELINGS....they can be hurt ,damaged and scarred for life somtimes. sex is all fun and games,till someone gets hurt. Then the pain they/you caused haunts and lingers...was it worth it?? Theres more to love than ejaculation, fellas....

[Skirnir_]

a goat?...What i think your not seeing here is people have FEELINGS....they can be hurt ,damaged and scarred for life somtimes. sex is all fun and games,till someone gets hurt. Then the pain they/you caused haunts and lingers...was it worth it?? Theres more to love than ejaculation, fellas....

'Baaaa' is sort of like 'aloha' in that it can mean both yes and no.

[slowbell]

a goat?...What i think your not seeing here is people have FEELINGS....they can be hurt ,damaged and scarred for life somtimes. sex is all fun and games,till someone gets hurt. Then the pain they/you caused haunts and lingers...was it worth it?? Theres more to love than ejaculation, fellas....

JD, there's more to love than monogamy as well. If you truly love someone, why force a social convention that restricts them? Love isn't about monogamy (control) either.

[JDRock]

JD, there's more to love than monogamy as well. If you truly love someone, why force a social convention that restricts them? Love isn't about monogamy (control) either.
Because i have never yet,met a woman who was not about exclusivity. I would not "force" someone into anything, as that is the antithesis of love. I believe the whole 1 man 1 woman thing is a naturally occuring result of true love,not a social convention, that how i see it slowbell. Is it easy? NO.

[Skirnir_]

Because i have never yet,met a woman who was not about exclusivity. I would not "force" someone into anything, as that is the antithesis of love. I believe the whole 1 man 1 woman thing is a naturally occuring result of true love,not a social convention, that how i see it slowbell. Is it easy? NO.

I have only met one or two who knew what a 'false dichotomy' was, so more likely than not, most people are just territorial morons.

Furthermore, 'love' is a trick that is played on the ego by the id. That saccharine baloney can be tossed of a bridge.

[slowbell]

Because i have never yet,met a woman who was not about exclusivity. I would not "force" someone into anything, as that is the antithesis of love. I believe the whole 1 man 1 woman thing is a naturally occuring result of true love,not a social convention, that how i see it slowbell. Is it easy? NO.

I like how you see it JD. That's how I was raised to see it too, but life has taught me otherwise. We talk about a lot of 'red pill' topics here, but this is one that few will discuss. In our day and age, love is conditional and can change in an instant. The way I see it, if I truly love a woman, and I have in the past....I need to be able to let her go. If she feels that there's better options in life, I want her to pursue them, and not hold her back. This is why I am against marriage. Women can come and go through my life, and I'll cherish the time spent with them, but nothing stays the same. This is true in all aspects in life. You can enjoy time spent with someone without the societal pressures placed on them.

[Horn]

Furthermore, 'love' is a trick that is played on the ego by the id. That saccharine baloney can be tossed of a bridge.

Love is being able to put with someone you who hates you.

Even if she multiplied, and grew two heads overnight. :)

[Skirnir_]

Love is being able to put with someone you who hates you.

Even if she multiplied, and grew two heads overnight. :)

Anything that makes someone do that is surely a symptom of masochism.

[Horn]

Anything that makes someone do that is surely a symptom of masochism.

Hows that work towards a synthetic surrogate progressing, must be frustrating?

[Skirnir_]

Hows that work towards a synthetic surrogate progressing, must be frustrating?

How is the weather at Westminster Abbey?

[JDRock]

Love is being able to put with someone you who hates you.

Even if she multiplied, and grew two heads overnight. :) been there- done, still doing that ;)

[Horn]

How is the weather at Westminster Abbey?

There's too many single mothers here.

[slowbell]

Because i have never yet,met a woman who was not about exclusivity. I would not "force" someone into anything, as that is the antithesis of love. I believe the whole 1 man 1 woman thing is a naturally occuring result of true love,not a social convention, that how i see it slowbell. Is it easy? NO.

Marriage laws initially bound women to stay with men, and not stray. In Ireland, for example, up until the past 20 years ago, divorce was against the law. When you got married, by law, you had to stay together for life. That, is by the definition, "forced".

I'd like to challenge some ways of thinking here, while I'm enjoying a good cup of morning coffee.

For those who think love is unconditional, etc. Try looking at online dating as an example. You will see 99% of women's ads having a huge laundry list of requirements, must be 6 feet tall, must have a good job, on and on...a woman will fall in 'love', as you call it, based upon many conditions placed on that. That's reality, the love part just is a way of making things socially acceptable. Not that love can't be a part of that, but things change often.

It's important to not have any ego to be free in understanding. I'm an average guy, average height, average looks, average job that I enjoy...I happily go through life being the best man I can be. Now, if I'm with a gal, for 3 months, heck 3 years, and I am monogamous with her in a committed relationship. Say, a guy comes along who's taller, better job, better car, better at impressing people (go back to the list of requirements she had for me to even get a first date with her)....if I loved her, why would I want to hold her back from pursuing the 'better' option? This is the question nobody wants to answer.

All women have requirements or a list of what they want to be qualified for "love". People just have big egos to not see that, or they want to use marriage, or monogamy, to shame and guilt those requirements away.

[Skirnir_]

There's too many single mothers here.

There are too many people who write like they just exited public schools, but that is not my problem.

[Horn]

There are too many people who spell like they just exited public schools, but that is not my problem.

...

[slowbell]

You know, I'm going to lower my sails for a bit, and make a post. Somewhat on topic for this thread.

If there's two bits of advise I could give a younger man starting out in life, in regards to life itself, and women, it's this.

1) Either you are moving forward in life, or you are moving backwards, nothing ever stays the same.

2) Applying this to women...she may love you for the man you are today, but she also loves you for the man you will become in the future.

Women innately know this, men often learn it the hard way. Take a young couple, say guy is 19. He's in school, lives at home with mom and pop, delivers pizza for a modest income. They fall in love. Fast forward 10 years, they are both 29 years old now. He's still in school, still lives with his parents, and still delivers pizzas. Are they still in love? No, she's long gone by then.

The times I've loved in the past, I can tell you exactly where I failed. Life's great, as it usually is, I'm sailing along in life, perhaps slowly, but moving forward. The sail is getting smoother and sweeter every day. Along comes a gal, she hops on board, and we start falling in love....everything is even better. In fact, things are so well, I don't want them to change. I take down my sails and stop moving forward to focus on her, and the great life we have. Well, that's complacency. I am no longer the man she fell in love with anymore. Without even realizing "why" she loses interest, or perhaps a better boat comes along. A boat moving forward in life! She hops on that boat and is gone. I look around, raise my sails again, and start moving forward.

Life is a balance of sailing forward, but also enjoying the present sail, the whole journey. It doesn't mean I didn't love those women, I still do, but I appreciated the times they were onboard my life.

Anyway, rant off. Sails back up again.

[Skirnir_]

(spell in lieu or write)

Spelling is a composite act of writing, and writing goes beyond purely lexical matters. Please read "write and think" in lieu of "write" in my earlier post.

[k-os]

Marriage laws initially bound women to stay with men, and not stray. In Ireland, for example, up until the past 20 years ago, divorce was against the law. When you got married, by law, you had to stay together for life. That, is by the definition, "forced".

I'd like to challenge some ways of thinking here, while I'm enjoying a good cup of morning coffee.

For those who think love is unconditional, etc. Try looking at online dating as an example. You will see 99% of women's ads having a huge laundry list of requirements, must be 6 feet tall, must have a good job, on and on...a woman will fall in 'love', as you call it, based upon many conditions placed on that. That's reality, the love part just is a way of making things socially acceptable. Not that love can't be a part of that, but things change often.

It's important to not have any ego to be free in understanding. I'm an average guy, average height, average looks, average job that I enjoy...I happily go through life being the best man I can be. Now, if I'm with a gal, for 3 months, heck 3 years, and I am monogamous with her in a committed relationship. Say, a guy comes along who's taller, better job, better car, better at impressing people (go back to the list of requirements she had for me to even get a first date with her)....if I loved her, why would I want to hold her back from pursuing the 'better' option? This is the question nobody wants to answer.

All women have requirements or a list of what they want to be qualified for "love". People just have big egos to not see that, or they want to use marriage, or monogamy, to shame and guilt those requirements away.

I agree with everything you said, but I noticed your post was extremely one-sided (which makes sense, since you are concerned with the male perspective). So while I agree with you, I am here to offer the female perspective, which might get us closer to the whole:

Marriage also once bound men to stay with women.

Plenty of men also have a list of requirements in their online profiles. I doubt you browse to look at male profiles, but you should, just for the heck of it. (I know this is not normal for either gender, but my dating profile says something along the lines of "I am looking for chemistry, so let's just have a cup of coffee and find out." No requirements. Interestingly, in the 3-4 months that it's been up, I have been asked to go for coffee twice, and I went . . . twice.)

All men also have requirements for what they can fall in love with, as well. Otherwise, you, my dear salty-sweet friend, would be happy and in love with some crackhead or 84 year old lady. We all have requirements, and it's a good thing. My requirements may not include money, but I do require chemistry - and I can't explain what chemistry is, I just know it when I feel it.

I had a conversation with a male friend last night about love and marriage. He's known me for a decade, so he knows that when I am in a relationship, I am committed to that person, through ups and downs, fights and peace. He's also known me long enough to know that I don't want to get married. He asked "What if you loved a guy and he really wanted to get married?" I thought about it, and said that I wouldn't mind a small ceremony, and if he needed to, he could tell everyone that it was a state-sanctioned matrimony, but I would not sign a marriage license. The government has no business in love, and just like you, I have no interest in forcing someone to stay with me if I don't make him happy. I don't think it has been proven that a piece of paper can make love any more full or any better to weather life's storms.

NOTE: I realize that my circumstances are different than those of other people (no kids, etc.), and I don't think marriage is a "bad" thing, it could actually be a good thing, for certain people. I don't have many examples of the latter in my real life, however.

Love, on the other hand . . . well, everybody needs love. Most people want love. Some people deserve love. The luckiest amongst us are so blessed to be able to meet someone with which they can forever share love. That's a beautiful thing.

[Horn]

Spelling is a composite act of writing, and writing goes beyond purely lexical matters. Please read "write and think" in lieu of "write in my earlier post.

Now you're covering up for your obvious shortcomings. Whether this hinders your progress towards creating synthetic mate remains to be seen.

True good grammar is sexy, but I've always found that women who neglect, or delay cleaning the house (being exact) to be better in the sack.

[Skirnir_]

Whether this hinders your progress towards creating synthetic mate remains to be seen.

I do not wish to create one. I would, one day, like to have in-vitro fertilisation with a donated egg so that the matter of a mate never enters the equation.

[slowbell]

nice post, K-os.

[Horn]

I do not wish to create one. I would, one day, like to have in-vitro fertilisation with a donated egg so that the matter of a mate never enters the equation.

For some reason, I find myself siding with the Bush team in regard to your cloning experiments.

[Skirnir_]

For some reason, I find myself siding with the Bush team in regard to your cloning experiments.

It is therefore fortunate that there are other jurisdictions available besides this bloated backwater.

Also, do you even know what cloning is, or whether what I have described is or is not cloning?

[Horn]

I am committed to that person, through ups and downs, fights and peace.

As in "institutionalized"?

[gunDriller]

i had to look to see if this was about human beings or dragonflies.

human beings have a strong jealousy complex. but they also have a strong need for company including romantic-ness.

i observe that humans are monogamous and polygamous - it depends on the situation and the brain chemistry of the person. a person with monogamous intentions can find themselves depressed and in the mood for a 'fling' - i had this happen to an 'ex' when she moved from California to Connecticut for 'junior professor' duties.

she found herself depressed enough that she could not perform her duties, saw it as an emergency, and devised an extra-marital affair as a temporary mood elevator - to save her career, sort of.

[joboo]

Every time I scan the title of this thread I keep reading Mahogany
unnatural for our sexy species.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4768526760870994&id=f047247745fcf0530d6886901b36bd3f (https://s4-us3.ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&cat=pics&c=pf&q=Mahogany&h=901&w=1384&th=104&tw=160&fn=mahogany_big.jpg&fs=290.1%20k&el=boss_pics_1&tu=http:%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbnail .aspx%3Fq%3D4768526760870994%26amp;id%3Df047247745 fcf0530d6886901b36bd3f&rl=NONE&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.cites.org%2Feng%2Fnews%2Fpr%2F200 3%2F031111_mahogany.shtml&udata=82909bac5fa01c934590327af02b2f74&rid=NJLNOOSKQNQR&oiu=http:%2F%2Fwww.cites.org%2FI%2Fnews%2Fmahogany _big.jpg)

Got Wood?

Calling Dr Freud?

[Osiris]

I know a lot of people who have tried an "open" relationship or the friends with benefits thing, I have never seen it work out, not once. That tells me it is not natural or healthy.

I agree with kos about the marriage cert. Why would I ever need/get permission from the state to live happily ever after?

Also, I think the majority of people aren't grown up, people react to everything very selfishly. IMHO, anyone always looking for the bigger better thing is missing out on life.

[hoarder]

I can't imagine wanting more than one woman. Usually one is too many. Some men are gluttons for punishment. Most of my life I was either with one woman or was a hermit. I never wanted two. Now that I'm older, fulltime hermit is the ticket.