FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Evolution Of Relationships
Evolution Of Relationships
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Wow... tricky one ... because apart from all your thorough thought on the evolution of relationships .... Humans also have an inherent need for security and belonging and we are (or can be) profoundly jealous. I think we will always try to conform to what the majority socially dictates and therefore there will always be a segment of those who succeed with that through either genuine happiness or the determination to stick at it and there will always be a segment who break away from that when they decide to persue what will truly make them happy. Likewise there will always be a group who challenge the norm. " Thats such a good point about the jealousy and the need for security - what you are saying is that there is an underlying monogamous streak but there is also a need for occasional excitement outside? | |||
| |||
| |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! " and some get bits filed off them over the years and then find they fit in new parts of the puzzle they didn't fit into before... lol Wolf 
| |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! and some get bits filed off them over the years and then find they fit in new parts of the puzzle they didn't fit into before... lol Wolf
"I was thinking of a few things after posting... Some are made for one puzzle and one puzzle only. Some are more generic and will fit into many puzzles. Some are just the lost bit which fell down the side of a sofa. | |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! and some get bits filed off them over the years and then find they fit in new parts of the puzzle they didn't fit into before... lol Wolf
I was thinking of a few things after posting...
Some are made for one puzzle and one puzzle only.
Some are more generic and will fit into many puzzles.
Some are just the lost bit which fell down the side of a sofa."The jigsaw puzzle theory gets the prize! Genius | |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! " great analogy.  | |||
| |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! and some get bits filed off them over the years and then find they fit in new parts of the puzzle they didn't fit into before... lol Wolf
I was thinking of a few things after posting...
Some are made for one puzzle and one puzzle only.
Some are more generic and will fit into many puzzles.
Some are just the lost bit which fell down the side of a sofa."great analogy - I agree | |||
"What a great thread... and I subscribe to that evolution idea of relationships. I believe that powerful institutions such as churches have introduced that concept of fidelity and monogamy to keep people under control; not just people actually but mainly women. There is absolutely no reason to assume that we are all monogamous, neither is there any reason to believe that monogamy makes better relationships. The growing manifestations of extramarital relationships and the growing number of divorces and separations underpin this. The trouble starts when there are children in the relationship and if and when they suddenly have to face a life of uncertainty?" Good post, I agree with you. Monogamous 'lifelong' relationships in the traditional sense do seem to be a control mechanism (especially for women), but on the other hand they do offer a base for children. Maybe in future women are less likely to need a man to provide for her and her kids? I know that many have that view today. | |||
"What a great thread... and I subscribe to that evolution idea of relationships. I believe that powerful institutions such as churches have introduced that concept of fidelity and monogamy to keep people under control; not just people actually but mainly women. There is absolutely no reason to assume that we are all monogamous, neither is there any reason to believe that monogamy makes better relationships. The growing manifestations of extramarital relationships and the growing number of divorces and separations underpin this. The trouble starts when there are children in the relationship and if and when they suddenly have to face a life of uncertainty? Good post, I agree with you. Monogamous 'lifelong' relationships in the traditional sense do seem to be a control mechanism (especially for women), but on the other hand they do offer a base for children. Maybe in future women are less likely to need a man to provide for her and her kids? I know that many have that view today. " This is the part that worries me slightly; while I am sure the majority of single parents are good parents and do their level best for their offspring, I still believe that a two parent family offers extra support and role models. If us women could, and were to, completely manage on our own... what does that mean for the future of the family as we know it? | |||
"Wow... tricky one ... because apart from all your thorough thought on the evolution of relationships .... Humans also have an inherent need for security and belonging and we are (or can be) profoundly jealous. I think we will always try to conform to what the majority socially dictates and therefore there will always be a segment of those who succeed with that through either genuine happiness or the determination to stick at it and there will always be a segment who break away from that when they decide to persue what will truly make them happy. Likewise there will always be a group who challenge the norm. Thats such a good point about the jealousy and the need for security - what you are saying is that there is an underlying monogamous streak but there is also a need for occasional excitement outside? " It is a good point Buffy, are you suggesting it's instinctive? If so why would anyone ever stray? Can we have deep desires that go against our instincts? | |||
"Wow... tricky one ... because apart from all your thorough thought on the evolution of relationships .... Humans also have an inherent need for security and belonging and we are (or can be) profoundly jealous. I think we will always try to conform to what the majority socially dictates and therefore there will always be a segment of those who succeed with that through either genuine happiness or the determination to stick at it and there will always be a segment who break away from that when they decide to persue what will truly make them happy. Likewise there will always be a group who challenge the norm. Thats such a good point about the jealousy and the need for security - what you are saying is that there is an underlying monogamous streak but there is also a need for occasional excitement outside? It is a good point Buffy, are you suggesting it's instinctive? If so why would anyone ever stray? Can we have deep desires that go against our instincts?" Again, there will be those who suppress the instinctive desire... and those who follow it; the latter risking and incurring condemnation of former. I am not sure that judgment is helpful in these cases. Anyway sex is such a powerful driver and it is attached to so many other things including power, happiness, fulfillment to name but a few. It cannot possibly be "right" to suppress the desire - then again it cannot possibly be "right" to ignore all other considerations and follow the desire? | |||
| |||
"Jealousy in ins right is not an emotion, rather, it is a symptom of some deeper insecurity. If you drill deeper into the feelings behind jealousy, you will usually find that it is all to do with security. Questions such as, will they leave me for the other person.etc. So you are right, Humans have an inbuilt desire to belong/conform/fit in. Even on this site, we are conforming to the rules and expectations of others here. " I agree re jealousy, it is about the fear of abandonment. I also subscribe to the idea of humans behaving in a herd manner, conforming to formal and unwritten rules and excpectations. Those who dare not to... are often ostracised. | |||
"I was saying the other day, i really cannot remember the last time i went to a wedding. Most of my friends children are at the age people used to think about marriage. Some live with their partners and some are single. One or two are in the second relationship where they have lived with someone. When i got married i was 25 and it was considered "the right age" now it seems so young. But i had already lived with someone from 18-22. People are just starting out on their lives now. Some go into relationships willy nilly and move in with people with in a couple of months. No longer do they seem to "date" and get to know people first its all rush rush. Then you have the ones with sensible head on there shoulders. When i was a child, it seemed the done thing to grow up, get married and have children. Now from what i see its soo different. If someone wasnt married and had children 30/40 years ago you would think there was something wrong with them. Nooone bats an eye now for someones life choices. Im in an old fashioned relationship where jay "courted me" and wooed me for a year before we got together. Obviously being swingers its not really traditinal, but it is definetly an old fashioned relationship and it works for us. With the internet its so easy to go into and out of relationships and it doesnt hold the same meaning. Also with such diverse relationships i dont think there is such thing as the norm now. Bi/gay relationships with children, single parents adopting children. People married but not living together, the word relationship is so different. For me its people that are in a strong emotional relationship, whether that be gay/straight/or mutliple partners. " That's a good account of the changes just in your lifetime, where will we be in another 50 or 100 years! | |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! " Brilliant. I wonder which piece or shape will be held up as being the norm, it obviously changes with time, even though the actual diversity of the pieces probably remain the same. | |||
| |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! Brilliant. I wonder which piece or shape will be held up as being the norm, it obviously changes with time, even though the actual diversity of the pieces probably remain the same. " It's the one with a tab sticking out on each side (left and right) and a blank cut out top and bottom......... but sometimes one of the tabs drops off. Happiness is about knowing what sort of piece you really are. Some pieces try so hard to be something they are not they will change the way they are seen by others... a bit like giving yourself a flat edge when you shouldn't have one. There's only one possible outcome when this happens.... they won't comfortably fit anywhere. | |||
"Jealousy in ins right is not an emotion, rather, it is a symptom of some deeper insecurity. If you drill deeper into the feelings behind jealousy, you will usually find that it is all to do with security. Questions such as, will they leave me for the other person.etc. So you are right, Humans have an inbuilt desire to belong/conform/fit in. Even on this site, we are conforming to the rules and expectations of others here. I agree re jealousy, it is about the fear of abandonment. I also subscribe to the idea of humans behaving in a herd manner, conforming to formal and unwritten rules and excpectations. Those who dare not to... are often ostracised. " I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. | |||
" It's the one with a tab sticking out on each side (left and right) and a blank cut out top and bottom......... but sometimes one of the tabs drops off. Happiness is about knowing what sort of piece you really are. Some pieces try so hard to be something they are not they will change the way they are seen by others... a bit like giving yourself a flat edge when you shouldn't have one. There's only one possible outcome when this happens.... they won't comfortably fit anywhere. " Happiness is also about respecting other pieces for what they are and allowing them to find their own way, if everyone else is free to find their best fit, you're more likely to find yours. | |||
"Just thought that in some religions and cultures, polygamy has worked well... usually for the men folk only though..." In some cultures women were polygamous, for some it was openly encouraged. | |||
| |||
" It's the one with a tab sticking out on each side (left and right) and a blank cut out top and bottom......... but sometimes one of the tabs drops off. Happiness is about knowing what sort of piece you really are. Some pieces try so hard to be something they are not they will change the way they are seen by others... a bit like giving yourself a flat edge when you shouldn't have one. There's only one possible outcome when this happens.... they won't comfortably fit anywhere. Happiness is also about respecting other pieces for what they are and allowing them to find their own way, if everyone else is free to find their best fit, you're more likely to find yours. " What if you already know you are from different puzzles. I may respect another piece as being made to be part of a 500 piece puzzle. But if I make my self out to be a corner piece of sky just so I can be part of their puzzle, will it lead to happiness? So I take back my knowing bit and replace it with: Happiness is being true to the piece you were made to be. | |||
"What is the future of relationships? Cavemen probably had no concept of marriage and any women was probably fair game at any time especially to an alpha male. At some point more of a structure evolved with union of one man one women for the longterm, eventually formalised into marriage. Marriage became the norm with all the rules of fidelity for life and no option of divorce. Divorce seem to have become almost a norm and multi marriages during a lifetime, but still the idea of fidelity a 'bedrock'. Marriage declines as cohabiting becomes more of a norm. Recreational sex becomes much more of a norm leading to less of a need to be 'tied' into a monogamous relationship or accepting of the idea of one sexual partner for life. Society has changed, women are much more self sufficient. What is the future dynamic of relationships? " Once again as other posters have said its a really interesting thread allowing swingers ,who potentially have a unique view of modern relationships to comment on what will be the future. I have always had the thought that monogamy is a sociological straightjacket,set up by religion's to ensure a constant flow of new devotees. Women through the ages have always been used by men as possessions to ensure the future proofing and spread of an individuals DNA.Monogamy was unheard of until puritanical rules were set up. ----------- "I think today the rules are there for those that wish to follow them ,clearly a piece of paper and a joint "i will" does not mean "you must" in today's free society where women and men, have a right to do as they wish with their bodies,without persecution and criticism..." ----------- I would loved to have been able to have written that on any site ,where personal choice is just that. Unfortunately some people in society wish to break there marriage vows of "forsaking all others" on the quiet and then point the finger of disgust at libertines or swingers. This normally involves a pseudo religious reaction of "i couldn't do that" from mainstream society (who deep down secretly wish it was them) and they were able without risk to do it. Swingers are not "outsiders" in today's society ,they generally appear to be a part of society that have realized enforced monogamy "feels wrong" and they choose to give in to those feelings, be honest with people who they encounter, that they actually like that most base of natural instincts sex. I think perhaps the reason that marriage is gradually losing popularity is that it forces people to endure,monogamy and conceal natural desires to procreate with others,under a banner of "you'll burn in hell if you do". Thank god gradually the old chestnut that men who have lots of partners are "studs" and woman "slags" is disappearing.Stuffing the concept of "owned" women to the bin. I reckon you should be together ,enjoy your time together,live life to your personal max as it suits you both,but don't let a archaic 17th Century contract or out of touch and behind the times Religion dictate how you live. Nirvana to me would be the evolution of human sexuality in mainstream society to the point where its totally acceptable for a "couple" in a relationship together to discuss "extra marital" sexual encounters before they take place with their partners,knowing its not a "relationship buster" and just a nice pleasurable thing the human body is designed to do. | |||
"Jealousy in ins right is not an emotion, rather, it is a symptom of some deeper insecurity. If you drill deeper into the feelings behind jealousy, you will usually find that it is all to do with security. Questions such as, will they leave me for the other person.etc. So you are right, Humans have an inbuilt desire to belong/conform/fit in. Even on this site, we are conforming to the rules and expectations of others here. I agree re jealousy, it is about the fear of abandonment. I also subscribe to the idea of humans behaving in a herd manner, conforming to formal and unwritten rules and excpectations. Those who dare not to... are often ostracised. I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. " Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? | |||
"Just another thought... Relationships mean something like a non tangible, usually not clearly defined connection between two or more people. As such they will mean different things to different people and what is well within the "boundaries" of one may transgress the boundaries of another relationship. What are the key ingredients that "make" or define a relationship... that we could settle on?" Ooh good question, be interesting to hear peoples opinions on this. | |||
" Once again as other posters have said its a really interesting thread allowing swingers ,who potentially have a unique view of modern relationships to comment on what will be the future. I have always had the thought that monogamy is a sociological straightjacket,set up by religion's to ensure a constant flow of new devotees. Women through the ages have always been used by men as possessions to ensure the future proofing and spread of an individuals DNA.Monogamy was unheard of until puritanical rules were set up. ----------- "I think today the rules are there for those that wish to follow them ,clearly a piece of paper and a joint "i will" does not mean "you must" in today's free society where women and men, have a right to do as they wish with their bodies,without persecution and criticism..." ----------- I would loved to have been able to have written that on any site ,where personal choice is just that. Unfortunately some people in society wish to break there marriage vows of "forsaking all others" on the quiet and then point the finger of disgust at libertines or swingers. This normally involves a pseudo religious reaction of "i couldn't do that" from mainstream society (who deep down secretly wish it was them) and they were able without risk to do it. Swingers are not "outsiders" in today's society ,they generally appear to be a part of society that have realized enforced monogamy "feels wrong" and they choose to give in to those feelings, be honest with people who they encounter, that they actually like that most base of natural instincts sex. I think perhaps the reason that marriage is gradually losing popularity is that it forces people to endure,monogamy and conceal natural desires to procreate with others,under a banner of "you'll burn in hell if you do". Thank god gradually the old chestnut that men who have lots of partners are "studs" and woman "slags" is disappearing.Stuffing the concept of "owned" women to the bin. I reckon you should be together ,enjoy your time together,live life to your personal max as it suits you both,but don't let a archaic 17th Century contract or out of touch and behind the times Religion dictate how you live. Nirvana to me would be the evolution of human sexuality in mainstream society to the point where its totally acceptable for a "couple" in a relationship together to discuss "extra marital" sexual encounters before they take place with their partners,knowing its not a "relationship buster" and just a nice pleasurable thing the human body is designed to do. " Great post | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? " I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. " And before weapons? | |||
"I was saying the other day, i really cannot remember the last time i went to a wedding. Most of my friends children are at the age people used to think about marriage. Some live with their partners and some are single. One or two are in the second relationship where they have lived with someone. When i got married i was 25 and it was considered "the right age" now it seems so young. But i had already lived with someone from 18-22. People are just starting out on their lives now. Some go into relationships willy nilly and move in with people with in a couple of months. No longer do they seem to "date" and get to know people first its all rush rush. Then you have the ones with sensible head on there shoulders. When i was a child, it seemed the done thing to grow up, get married and have children. Now from what i see its soo different. If someone wasnt married and had children 30/40 years ago you would think there was something wrong with them. Nooone bats an eye now for someones life choices. Im in an old fashioned relationship where jay "courted me" and wooed me for a year before we got together. Obviously being swingers its not really traditinal, but it is definetly an old fashioned relationship and it works for us. With the internet its so easy to go into and out of relationships and it doesnt hold the same meaning. Also with such diverse relationships i dont think there is such thing as the norm now. Bi/gay relationships with children, single parents adopting children. People married but not living together, the word relationship is so different. For me its people that are in a strong emotional relationship, whether that be gay/straight/or mutliple partners. That's a good account of the changes just in your lifetime, where will we be in another 50 or 100 years!" I believe it will be a free for all and i dont mean that in a negative way. As i said we are already seeing such diversity in relationships i dont think we can imagine what will really happen then. 50 years ago anyone suggesting gay marriages would practically have been burnt at the stake. Not only can they now have civial partnerships they can adopt children. We as people are changing, more people are becoming transsexuals. We dont know what diversity there will be, sexuality is diverse now what will it be like then?Herm_phrodites not having an operation and living in partnerships with non herm_phrodites. That is only an extreme example i can come up with because 50 years ago noone had heard of a transexual. I do think the word relationship will just mean stability and nothing more. Thats if we are still around in 50 years time. Or there could be another disease thats like aids but incurable and make people far far more close nit and far less sexually free | |||
"What is the future of relationships? Cavemen probably had no concept of marriage and any women was probably fair game at any time especially to an alpha male. At some point more of a structure evolved with union of one man one women for the longterm, eventually formalised into marriage. Marriage became the norm with all the rules of fidelity for life and no option of divorce. Divorce seem to have become almost a norm and multi marriages during a lifetime, but still the idea of fidelity a 'bedrock'. Marriage declines as cohabiting becomes more of a norm. Recreational sex becomes much more of a norm leading to less of a need to be 'tied' into a monogomous relationship or accepting of the idea of one sexual partner for life. Society has changed, women are much more self sufficient. What is the future dynamic of relationships? " Which society has changed in this respect ? As someone who has travelled (and by travelling I mean wandering around in a country for at least three months) extensively on every continent in the world except Australasia and Antarctica I can assure you that women have not become more self sufficient on the Indian sub-continent or China whose combined populations make up more than half the world's population, anywhere else in Asia including Japan, South America or Africa. This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. With reference to your supposition that in primitive societies women were 'fair game for alpha males' this is not borne out by studies of societies which can still be classed as 'primitive' such as the Onge on the Andaman islands or the Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. There is little evidence for polyandry however, though it is still practiced by some people in the Tibetan regions. Also the idea of recreational sex outside relationships is not new. In this country it was practiced and advocated during the seventeenth century by for example The Ranters and The Family of Love. The Diggers also rejected marriage and advocated a form of what some people would call 'free love". | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. " Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. ." Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ??" I m curious how they worked those figures out but it sure shows that it is not uncommon.... | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ??I m curious how they worked those figures out but it sure shows that it is not uncommon...." i dont know but there is a lot of evidence out their to support the stats as there is more than one book quoting them. I surmise its a global nation state survey with deviation for religious beliefs,but i am not certain . | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. " Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading. | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading." In your statement you are saying "even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home" - I am merely asking for the evidence of your research; ie where is the information from, what books are you referring to as I am genuinely interested in the facts. If this is not allowed on the forums perhaps you could pm me. Thanks | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ??" Yes I am sure of my facts. | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? Yes I am sure of my facts." where have you got that from ,its a major point as i understand it we are still no where near a tipping point where monogamy is the predominant marital state globally.? Dismissing polyandry i have never found research differing from the 78-22% split...if you have that source i would welcome the research. cheers | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? Yes I am sure of my facts. where have you got that from ,its a major point as i understand it we are still no where near a tipping point where monogamy is the predominant marital state globally.? Dismissing polyandry i have never found research differing from the 78-22% split...if you have that source i would welcome the research. cheers " | |||
 | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? Yes I am sure of my facts. where have you got that from ,its a major point as i understand it we are still no where near a tipping point where monogamy is the predominant marital state globally.? Dismissing polyandry i have never found research differing from the 78-22% split...if you have that source i would welcome the research. cheers " Well I didn't say anything about what percentage of human societies practice polygamy or monogamy. The figures you gave may be true I don't know. But I would be interested to know where you got them because I know from first hand experience that whilst polygamy is accepted by a certain aboriginal people in Orissa, in India, it is practiced by only a very few of them. | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading. In your statement you are saying "even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home" - I am merely asking for the evidence of your research; ie where is the information from, what books are you referring to as I am genuinely interested in the facts. If this is not allowed on the forums perhaps you could pm me. Thanks " I am still hoping to get an asnwer to my question - I am really interested from both, an anthropological as well as sociological point. | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading. In your statement you are saying "even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home" - I am merely asking for the evidence of your research; ie where is the information from, what books are you referring to as I am genuinely interested in the facts. If this is not allowed on the forums perhaps you could pm me. Thanks " Well as the source of my information here was a recently published Ph.D so I can't really help you in this as I can hardly send it with its bibliography to you! If memory serves the percentage of households with a single male earner varies from country to country in Europe and North America, but in no country are they in the minority. On a lighter note, I can assure you that in this household there is absolutely no chance of the man working whilst his wife sits at home with her feet up!!!! | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading. In your statement you are saying "even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home" - I am merely asking for the evidence of your research; ie where is the information from, what books are you referring to as I am genuinely interested in the facts. If this is not allowed on the forums perhaps you could pm me. Thanks I am still hoping to get an asnwer to my question - I am really interested from both, an anthropological as well as sociological point." I've just answered it! Sorry I can't be more helpful! | |||
" This leaves Europe and the countries colonised by Europeans,(whose combined populations constitute a small number of the human beings on the planet) and even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home. Could you please show some evidence of this particualr part of your post - I am not native British and I have lived in several other European countries and found this not to be true. Well in the nicest possible way you cannot possibly have met the several million people who lived in each of the countries where you resided. My assertion was based on reading. In your statement you are saying "even in these countries as research makes abundantly clear, the majority of households, are still conventional in that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home" - I am merely asking for the evidence of your research; ie where is the information from, what books are you referring to as I am genuinely interested in the facts. If this is not allowed on the forums perhaps you could pm me. Thanks Well as the source of my information here was a recently published Ph.D so I can't really help you in this as I can hardly send it with its bibliography to you! If memory serves the percentage of households with a single male earner varies from country to country in Europe and North America, but in no country are they in the minority. On a lighter note, I can assure you that in this household there is absolutely no chance of the man working whilst his wife sits at home with her feet up!!!! " A single male earner does not necessarily mean a conventional relationship - it is but one of several possible interpretations of the stats and also, the numbers appear to vary from one European country to another; they vary within communities and cultural enclaves within a culture. This means for example if you took the population of Berlin with its large proportion of immigrants (Turkish to name but one) already distorts the interpretation. I am not here to debate individual cities/ cultures and how they perceive relationships - I really merely wondered where the evidence was. On the lighter note I would suggest that even the "non-working" wife does not necessarily mean she is putting her feet up... Maybe you interpret non-working in a different way, would you, for example class working on one's PhD or studying for a degree while looking after children, class as "non working?
| |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. " I know the period you meant. So you really beleive tht women sat there totally fucking non plussed waiting for the rufty tufty male to bring the dinosaur home? Which episode of the Flintstones was that ? I must have been out. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. " Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. I know the period you meant. So you really beleive tht women sat there totally fucking non plussed waiting for the rufty tufty male to bring the dinosaur home? Which episode of the Flintstones was that ? I must have been out." Oh Granny - I was one of those women waiting for the rufty tufty male... now you made me aware of my inadequacies and I have to become emancipated... and ...and... My security blamket has been destroyed - the world has come to an end | |||
| |||
"Quite synchronistically, just read this interesting piece about "Hulk" bacteria. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22022-gene-switch-that-turns-bacteria-into-mighty-hulk.html It goes to show, that there is usually more than one optimal reproductive strategy for any organism. The same is the case for humans. Monogamy, polygamy, open relationships, surrogacy, sperm and egg donation, etc. etc. all have their place in an evolving ecosystem of possibilities. Overlaying all of that are moral, cultural, pragmatic and political ideals which temper and modulate each of the above strategies at any given time. "Thank heaven, somebody comes up with a real explanation I can go to bed now and rest, knowing trhe world is right  | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. I know the period you meant. So you really beleive tht women sat there totally fucking non plussed waiting for the rufty tufty male to bring the dinosaur home? Which episode of the Flintstones was that ? I must have been out." I believe what I said, not what you said I believe. I stand by the basic point I was making as a suggestion of a root of jealousy. | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ??" Can you just clarify something (well two things actually) regarding those percentages .... firstly what do they represent? Is it the overall % of the worlds population, the % of countries where it is culturally acceptable (though may not be widely practiced) or the % of cultural ideologies where it is the actual way of life, or something else? If it is not the % of the worlds population, do you happen to know what that is..... in percentages? | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. I know the period you meant. So you really beleive tht women sat there totally fucking non plussed waiting for the rufty tufty male to bring the dinosaur home? Which episode of the Flintstones was that ? I must have been out." You ever seen a cavewoman trying to club a T-Rex to death when she's got PMT - fucking scary I tell ya!   | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. I know the period you meant. So you really beleive tht women sat there totally fucking non plussed waiting for the rufty tufty male to bring the dinosaur home? Which episode of the Flintstones was that ? I must have been out. You ever seen a cavewoman trying to club a T-Rex to death when she's got PMT - fucking scary I tell ya! "OY | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... " Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. " Absolutely! Would be so much better if it were the other way round! (Kidding!! After the more serious discussion earlier, only kidding | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. " We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. " I did not when I got married - I kept my own, we both agreed on that | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. I did not when I got married - I kept my own, we both agreed on that " I have a rare surname and Siren's friends asked her if she was marrying me for my surname is they thought it was cool. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. I did not when I got married - I kept my own, we both agreed on that I have a rare surname and Siren's friends asked her if she was marrying me for my surname is they thought it was cool. "Understandable
PS Wishy, you are a rare breed anyway in more than one way | |||
| |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. I did not when I got married - I kept my own, we both agreed on that I have a rare surname and Siren's friends asked her if she was marrying me for my surname is they thought it was cool.
Understandable
PS Wishy, you are a rare breed anyway in more than one way "I'm fookin unique I am. | |||
"The human brain emerged 60 thousand years ago, there is no reson to think that the relationship between men and women has become any more or less comlpicated since then......." Wanna bet! Try going round Sainburys hunter-gathering with a wife who thinks she knows how to bargain buy, but ends up buying a load of shit we don't eat or need.  | |||
"Ok, re the comments that Men brought home all the food, that's nonsense. Women, it's true, probably rarely went on 'the hunt' as they would have stayed much closer to the home camp, but they are likely to have brought home much more food than the men as they were gathering vegetable food stuffs (and likely set snares and such for smaller game). 'The Big Hunt' was likely to be a dominance game, the head man doled out the duts of meat by relative rank to the other males. This is how it is done by the variety of hunter gather societies which have been studied by current anthropologists. It is also a mistake to think that Paleolithic societies were any less sophisticated, in terms of their personal relationships, than our own. They were not. The human brain emerged 60 thousand years ago, there is no reson to think that the relationship between men and women has become any more or less comlpicated since then......." Perhaps not... but would nt you agree that over time the balance of power has shifted quite considerably? As technology and medicine evolved, this has put women in power of controlling whether or not they want children to name but one example of that shift. This has without a doubt an impact on relationships, whether monogamous or polygamous. Perhaps relationships ahve always been complex (or simple , depending on where you stand) but the dynamics have certainly changed and evolved. | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. We do it this country too. A woman takes a man's name upon marriage, if that's not a form of ownership of a woman by a man it's pretty darn close to it. I suggested to my first wife before we got married that she keep her name and I keep mine but our kids have both. She didn't like the idea and wanted my name. I did not when I got married - I kept my own, we both agreed on that I have a rare surname and Siren's friends asked her if she was marrying me for my surname is they thought it was cool.
Understandable
PS Wishy, you are a rare breed anyway in more than one way
I'm fookin unique I am. "I can only vouch for the unique | |||
| |||
"Ok, re the comments that Men brought home all the food, that's nonsense. Women, it's true, probably rarely went on 'the hunt' as they would have stayed much closer to the home camp, but they are likely to have brought home much more food than the men as they were gathering vegetable food stuffs (and likely set snares and such for smaller game). 'The Big Hunt' was likely to be a dominance game, the head man doled out the duts of meat by relative rank to the other males. This is how it is done by the variety of hunter gather societies which have been studied by current anthropologists. It is also a mistake to think that Paleolithic societies were any less sophisticated, in terms of their personal relationships, than our own. They were not. The human brain emerged 60 thousand years ago, there is no reson to think that the relationship between men and women has become any more or less comlpicated since then......." Are you suggesting relationships have not changed over time or the dynamic of relationships do not and have not evolved? | |||
"Ok, re the comments that Men brought home all the food, that's nonsense. Women, it's true, probably rarely went on 'the hunt' as they would have stayed much closer to the home camp, but they are likely to have brought home much more food than the men as they were gathering vegetable food stuffs (and likely set snares and such for smaller game). 'The Big Hunt' was likely to be a dominance game, the head man doled out the duts of meat by relative rank to the other males. This is how it is done by the variety of hunter gather societies which have been studied by current anthropologists. It is also a mistake to think that Paleolithic societies were any less sophisticated, in terms of their personal relationships, than our own. They were not. The human brain emerged 60 thousand years ago, there is no reson to think that the relationship between men and women has become any more or less comlpicated since then....... Perhaps not... but would nt you agree that over time the balance of power has shifted quite considerably? As technology and medicine evolved, this has put women in power of controlling whether or not they want children to name but one example of that shift. This has without a doubt an impact on relationships, whether monogamous or polygamous. Perhaps relationships ahve always been complex (or simple , depending on where you stand) but the dynamics have certainly changed and evolved." Not realy. I am certain that women knew what herbs and foods to eat to control their fertility. Certainly in Europe, there was a premium on healthy babies, rather than lots of babies. There is evidence from Aboriginal cultures all over the worl of infanticide, with babies concieved while the mother was still suckling being killed as there are just not enough resources available to feed a woman breast feeding two children. I do agree that there has been a revolution in the relationship between men and women in the last 50 or so years since the development of 'the pill', but the main thrust of my argument was the comment that 'Cavemen' were somehow inherently stupid and so their relationships were inherently brutal. Re Wishy............Oh, my friend, what can I say? No, women were no less capable of cutting their man's throat in his sleep 30 thoussand years ago than they are now.......... I agree with you about hunting and gathering in the local supermarket though..... | |||
"Re Wishy............Oh, my friend, what can I say? No, women were no less capable of cutting their man's throat in his sleep 30 thoussand years ago than they are now.......... " Yes, a woman could slit a man's throat in his sleep, but ostracision from her tribe stayed many a woman's hand I'd wage. | |||
| |||
"Re Wishy............Oh, my friend, what can I say? No, women were no less capable of cutting their man's throat in his sleep 30 thoussand years ago than they are now.......... Yes, a woman could slit a man's throat in his sleep, but ostracision from her tribe stayed many a woman's hand I'd wage." I don't think so Wishy.......There is plenty of evidence that in Paleolithic cultures women were just as important as men. Have you ever hear of the 'Donnii' figurines? They are little clay or ivory figurines of women (usualy faceless, with pendulous breasts, big thighs and heavy stomachs) which infer a cult of the female goddess and it can fairly safely infered that culture and society was orientated around women (as the birth givers etc). It isn't untill the great agricultural revolution of sedantary comunities tending herds or fields that culture orientates it's self around men (as the ones who defend property). Before that there was no point in owning anything which you can hold in your hand or stuff in your back pack and ones wealth was what one held in your head........... | |||
"Re Wishy............Oh, my friend, what can I say? No, women were no less capable of cutting their man's throat in his sleep 30 thoussand years ago than they are now.......... Yes, a woman could slit a man's throat in his sleep, but ostracision from her tribe stayed many a woman's hand I'd wage." I did try to mail you outside the forum, but I am blocked...... How come you and I always end up on opposing sides of the argument Wishy? lol | |||
| |||
| |||
"Am I the only person that wants to see Wishy and Georgypeorgy get it on?????? "And ain't that the top and bottom of it? | |||
"Am I the only person that wants to see Wishy and Georgypeorgy get it on?????? "ps that is some Evolution. | |||
| |||
"Am I the only person that wants to see Wishy and Georgypeorgy get it on?????? "LOL Unfortunately no one has asked me to suck a cock while I was doing nothing at a party, so you would have to be in the middle of us, but I have no objection to that scenario.......... | |||
"Am I the only person that wants to see Wishy and Georgypeorgy get it on?????? LOL
Unfortunately no one has asked me to suck a cock while I was doing nothing at a party, so you would have to be in the middle of us, but I have no objection to that scenario.........."It's a tough job, but.............. | |||
"Georgyporgy, forgive me but I'm a little confused by the overall point your trying to make and I have read your posts carefully. Are you suggesting that relationships and the dynamic in relationships have not changed since caveman days (apart from the pill impact on the last 50 years)?" No, I did post a little earlier that the main thrust of my argument was in objection to the general assumption that the people of the stoneage were stupid and lived a brutish life. If forced to I would probably say that of course there has been an evolution of the relationships between men and women over the last 60k years or so, but that in the last 20 or so we are now getting back to one of the equality which (I believe) existed before the initial development of Agriculture 10 thousand years ago....... | |||
| |||
"We are all shaped like a piece of a jigsaw. Some of us have been made in such a way we will only ever fit with one other peice and the jigsaw is complete. Some of us are made in such a way that we really should be part of a bigger collection of 4 or 6 or 8 peices. Some of us are part of a 5000 peice puzzle and are happy to try many positions to see how many we can fit into, even if it doesn't look right to other people. It can be fun to put a bit of grass on top of a house and break from the conventional rules of what constitutes a completed jigsaw. Some people try and force two bits together just for the sake of feeling a connection has been made.... I don't care if it doesn't fit, I got something! and some get bits filed off them over the years and then find they fit in new parts of the puzzle they didn't fit into before... lol Wolf
I was thinking of a few things after posting...
Some are made for one puzzle and one puzzle only.
Some are more generic and will fit into many puzzles.
Some are just the lost bit which fell down the side of a sofa."but oh so satisfying when you discover it! | |||
| |||
"I believe that in early human relationships men had the strength to subdue women and the freedom from law to do it if they wanted to, but as time passed and humanity developed men learned the value of companionship with women as well as with male companions and attitudes began to change, women were valued, not as commodities but as functional members of a relationship (albeit in a domestic role). It still took many thousands of years for women to be treated equally in society and in some respects that still has a ways to go, but humanity has developed enough now for men to not feel threatened by empowered women and there is enough information available to demonstrate that an equal partner in a relationship adds to that relationship as opposed to undermining the man's position as dominant male." In very few parts of the world. | |||
"I think the confusion is with fidelity and monogamy. They are not the same things. I seek fidelity in a relationship but not monogamy. Where people are cheating the 'crime' isn't the sex it's the breaking of trust and agreement (often defined as a vow). I like the jigsaw piece analogy... the only problem is that I think I am one of those pieces that has got lost in the sofa." Agreed | |||
"I think the confusion is with fidelity and monogamy. They are not the same things. I seek fidelity in a relationship but not monogamy. Where people are cheating the 'crime' isn't the sex it's the breaking of trust and agreement (often defined as a vow). I like the jigsaw piece analogy... the only problem is that I think I am one of those pieces that has got lost in the sofa."
oooooo i hope my sofas,got a lost one of you. | |||
" oooooo i hope my sofas,got a lost one of you. "That would be a very large sofa then. | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? I m curious how they worked those figures out but it sure shows that it is not uncommon...." Me too, curious that is. Oh the joy of statistics…. and how easy it is to just accept them at face value and think it is conclusive. When we really know if presented in the right way, we can probably make them support whatever we want them to. I've been thinking about if we truly know what the natural relationship behaviour for the human race is and do these percentages really mean anything of any value? To study any societies today is it really possible to identify which aspects of relationship preference are derived form what we instinctively need and which is deeply rooted in cultivated traditions, religious intervention and political ideologies passed down from generation to generation and bolstered by filial piety. Which is desired and sought through the free will of those within a society and which is imposed upon on them though coercion …. whether that be monogamy or any form of polygamy. To state a percentage of societies conform to or even just accept one form of relationship over another means very little until you can separate free will from conformity, intimidation and involuntary compliance. So we can probably rule out a number of societies from the percentages for the simple fact they are autocratic dictatorships: tyranny and despotism do get in the way somewhat when studying social behaviour. We may want to ponder over some of the societies where the power is held by a dominant religion too. I am lead to believe, in terms of world population, the majority follow a variety of traditions based on the patriarchal authority figure; though not necessarily a clone of the post war Britain nuclear family and certainly not embracing the ideal of a companionate marriage. So yet again, how much is natural behaviour and how much is just another example of a social system of unequal power relations between men and women? Surely only societies with a true symmetry of power distribution are likely to provide indicators of the more natural choice and behaviour. This knocks quite a few more societies out of the running in the percentage stakes. Large percentages of the worlds population are quite comfortable with arranged marriages and even selling a daughter off to the heist bidder, so we should probably also take those out of any percentages we look at, as they are clearly based on control rather than natural behaviour. So if you revise the stats, I wonder what we would be left with? The question I am pondering over is…. if polygamy is more suited to the nature of the human race, why do many people living in societies where forms of polygamy are accepted choose not to do so and instead choose a monogamous relationship? I guess that question also works the other way around to some degree. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? I m curious how they worked those figures out but it sure shows that it is not uncommon.... Me too, curious that is. Oh the joy of statistics…. and how easy it is to just accept them at face value and think it is conclusive. When we really know if presented in the right way, we can probably make them support whatever we want them to. I've been thinking about if we truly know what the natural relationship behaviour for the human race is and do these percentages really mean anything of any value? To study any societies today is it really possible to identify which aspects of relationship preference are derived form what we instinctively need and which is deeply rooted in cultivated traditions, religious intervention and political ideologies passed down from generation to generation and bolstered by filial piety. Which is desired and sought through the free will of those within a society and which is imposed upon on them though coercion …. whether that be monogamy or any form of polygamy. To state a percentage of societies conform to or even just accept one form of relationship over another means very little until you can separate free will from conformity, intimidation and involuntary compliance. So we can probably rule out a number of societies from the percentages for the simple fact they are autocratic dictatorships: tyranny and despotism do get in the way somewhat when studying social behaviour. We may want to ponder over some of the societies where the power is held by a dominant religion too. I am lead to believe, in terms of world population, the majority follow a variety of traditions based on the patriarchal authority figure; though not necessarily a clone of the post war Britain nuclear family and certainly not embracing the ideal of a companionate marriage. So yet again, how much is natural behaviour and how much is just another example of a social system of unequal power relations between men and women? Surely only societies with a true symmetry of power distribution are likely to provide indicators of the more natural choice and behaviour. This knocks quite a few more societies out of the running in the percentage stakes. Large percentages of the worlds population are quite comfortable with arranged marriages and even selling a daughter off to the heist bidder, so we should probably also take those out of any percentages we look at, as they are clearly based on control rather than natural behaviour. So if you revise the stats, I wonder what we would be left with? The question I am pondering over is…. if polygamy is more suited to the nature of the human race, why do many people living in societies where forms of polygamy are accepted choose not to do so and instead choose a monogamous relationship? I guess that question also works the other way around to some degree. " I like the points you raise. Obviously, my politics play a part in my opinion, but I do believe that in monogomistic (I have no idea if that's spelt right! lol) societies the woman was, esentialy, prperty, a chatal if you will. This attitude may not have existed in all cultures, but it does require a culture where the 'idea' of property exists. In all of the 'Hunter/Gatherer' cultures I have ever heard or read about the idea of 'property' is on a scale of loosely defined to non existant. Therefore, surely, in hunter gatherer societies without a 'developed' concept of property, the woman is valued for her worth in terms of contribution and ready fertility to produce healthy ofspring rather than any other 'values' of 'beauty' or the quantity of ofspring....... | |||
"Bushmen in the Kalahari desert. There is evidence of both polygamy and monogamy in human societies going far back into history and and indeed prehistory but of the two, the latter seems to be the most common. . Are you sure, that is correct as all the evidence i have read confirms quite the reverse a recent comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. ?? I m curious how they worked those figures out but it sure shows that it is not uncommon.... Me too, curious that is. Oh the joy of statistics…. and how easy it is to just accept them at face value and think it is conclusive. When we really know if presented in the right way, we can probably make them support whatever we want them to. I've been thinking about if we truly know what the natural relationship behaviour for the human race is and do these percentages really mean anything of any value? To study any societies today is it really possible to identify which aspects of relationship preference are derived form what we instinctively need and which is deeply rooted in cultivated traditions, religious intervention and political ideologies passed down from generation to generation and bolstered by filial piety. Which is desired and sought through the free will of those within a society and which is imposed upon on them though coercion …. whether that be monogamy or any form of polygamy. To state a percentage of societies conform to or even just accept one form of relationship over another means very little until you can separate free will from conformity, intimidation and involuntary compliance. So we can probably rule out a number of societies from the percentages for the simple fact they are autocratic dictatorships: tyranny and despotism do get in the way somewhat when studying social behaviour. We may want to ponder over some of the societies where the power is held by a dominant religion too. I am lead to believe, in terms of world population, the majority follow a variety of traditions based on the patriarchal authority figure; though not necessarily a clone of the post war Britain nuclear family and certainly not embracing the ideal of a companionate marriage. So yet again, how much is natural behaviour and how much is just another example of a social system of unequal power relations between men and women? Surely only societies with a true symmetry of power distribution are likely to provide indicators of the more natural choice and behaviour. This knocks quite a few more societies out of the running in the percentage stakes. Large percentages of the worlds population are quite comfortable with arranged marriages and even selling a daughter off to the heist bidder, so we should probably also take those out of any percentages we look at, as they are clearly based on control rather than natural behaviour. So if you revise the stats, I wonder what we would be left with? The question I am pondering over is…. if polygamy is more suited to the nature of the human race, why do many people living in societies where forms of polygamy are accepted choose not to do so and instead choose a monogamous relationship? I guess that question also works the other way around to some degree. I like the points you raise. Obviously, my politics play a part in my opinion, but I do believe that in monogomistic (I have no idea if that's spelt right! lol) societies the woman was, esentialy, prperty, a chatal if you will. This attitude may not have existed in all cultures, but it does require a culture where the 'idea' of property exists. In all of the 'Hunter/Gatherer' cultures I have ever heard or read about the idea of 'property' is on a scale of loosely defined to non existant. Therefore, surely, in hunter gatherer societies without a 'developed' concept of property, the woman is valued for her worth in terms of contribution and ready fertility to produce healthy ofspring rather than any other 'values' of 'beauty' or the quantity of ofspring......." Is that not the very definition of hunter/gatherer....man as the hunter, woman as the gatherer of vegetation and provider of continuation of the species..... Jean M Auel's "Earth's Children" series of books is quite a thought provoking fiction regarding the development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs the alleged extinction of Neanderthal man (and a damned good read too) | |||
"Jean M Auel's "Earth's Children" series of books is quite a thought provoking fiction regarding the development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs the alleged extinction of Neanderthal man (and a damned good read too) "I thoroughly enjoyed the series tbh Not that the work of fiction dictates my opinion on the matter. Ever read Elaine Morgan's "the ascent of woman"? | |||
"Jean M Auel's "Earth's Children" series of books is quite a thought provoking fiction regarding the development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs the alleged extinction of Neanderthal man (and a damned good read too) I thoroughly enjoyed the series tbh
Not that the work of fiction dictates my opinion on the matter. Ever read Elaine Morgan's "the ascent of woman"?"Doesn't dictate my opinion either, my old archeology tutor (God rest his soul) reckoned Neanderthal man was alive and kicking, check the length of your 3rd toe against your 2nd - longer or same n you're a Neanderthal) haven't read Ascent of Woman, but it's just gone on my wish list.....will have a look on my ebook DVDs tomoz see if I can find it | |||
"Jean M Auel's "Earth's Children" series of books is quite a thought provoking fiction regarding the development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs the alleged extinction of Neanderthal man (and a damned good read too) I thoroughly enjoyed the series tbh
Not that the work of fiction dictates my opinion on the matter. Ever read Elaine Morgan's "the ascent of woman"?
Doesn't dictate my opinion either, my old archeology tutor (God rest his soul) reckoned Neanderthal man was alive and kicking, check the length of your 3rd toe against your 2nd - longer or same n you're a Neanderthal) haven't read Ascent of Woman, but it's just gone on my wish list.....will have a look on my ebook DVDs tomoz see if I can find it "Try AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) as well, completely changed my opinion on Homonid evolution, against my will as well. | |||
"Jean M Auel's "Earth's Children" series of books is quite a thought provoking fiction regarding the development of Homo Sapiens Sapiens vs the alleged extinction of Neanderthal man (and a damned good read too) I thoroughly enjoyed the series tbh
Not that the work of fiction dictates my opinion on the matter. Ever read Elaine Morgan's "the ascent of woman"?
Doesn't dictate my opinion either, my old archeology tutor (God rest his soul) reckoned Neanderthal man was alive and kicking, check the length of your 3rd toe against your 2nd - longer or same n you're a Neanderthal) haven't read Ascent of Woman, but it's just gone on my wish list.....will have a look on my ebook DVDs tomoz see if I can find it Try AAT (Aquatic Ape Theory) as well, completely changed my opinion on Homonid evolution, against my will as well."Cheers G, will have a look at that tomoz when my brain starts working again (hopefully ) | |||
" I think jealousy has it's roots in men not wanting to unwittingly raise the offspring of other men, and women needing a man to provide for her or she could literally starve. Do you honestly believe that? That women could not feed themselves ? I don't mean now, I am referring to the distant past. When the 'kill' was brought back to the cave a hunter was probably more likely to ensure his women got food. Oh jesus....... 'his women' ....... Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. " mankind... snigger.... give it up Blackspice n go kill me some branflakes. | |||
"I believe that in early human relationships men had the strength to subdue women and the freedom from law to do it if they wanted to, but as time passed and humanity developed men learned the value of companionship with women as well as with male companions and attitudes began to change, women were valued, not as commodities but as functional members of a relationship (albeit in a domestic role). It still took many thousands of years for women to be treated equally in society and in some respects that still has a ways to go, but humanity has developed enough now for men to not feel threatened by empowered women and there is enough information available to demonstrate that an equal partner in a relationship adds to that relationship as opposed to undermining the man's position as dominant male." Well done Wishy the Unique........ this is only 50% bollocks xx | |||
" Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. mankind... snigger.... give it up Blackspice n go kill me some branflakes. "I don't think the shame is with womenkind in some of todays societies where women are treated as property. Not clear on what to give up Granny, I was hoping with this thread to get an idea of peoples views on the dynamic of future relationships, I'm greatful for everyones opinion, it's been an interesting read. | |||
"Georgyporgy, forgive me but I'm a little confused by the overall point your trying to make and I have read your posts carefully. Are you suggesting that relationships and the dynamic in relationships have not changed since caveman days (apart from the pill impact on the last 50 years)? No, I did post a little earlier that the main thrust of my argument was in objection to the general assumption that the people of the stoneage were stupid and lived a brutish life. If forced to I would probably say that of course there has been an evolution of the relationships between men and women over the last 60k years or so, but that in the last 20 or so we are now getting back to one of the equality which (I believe) existed before the initial development of Agriculture 10 thousand years ago......." Thank you for clarifying, you make an interesting point. | |||
" Even today, sadly and much to the shame of mankind, their are societies where women are treated as property of their man. mankind... snigger.... give it up Blackspice n go kill me some branflakes.
I don't think the shame is with womenkind in some of todays societies where women are treated as property.
Not clear on what to give up Granny, I was hoping with this thread to get an idea of peoples views on the dynamic of future relationships, I'm greatful for everyones opinion, it's been an interesting read. "*grateful | |||
| |||
"many birds,and animals,relate for life. so i'm thinking,nature must play some part in that process." Good point, Sauacy! | |||
"many birds,and animals,relate for life. so i'm thinking,nature must play some part in that process. Good point, Sauacy! " Saucy, even | |||
