Monogamy, to be or not to be, a woman's role within
Hello boys, you may like this discussion. I have always wondered why it is the woman who mainly screams "he cheated on me" and expects sympathy, we are not beyond our own little dalliances.
Human beings have never been nor will ever be MONOGAMAS, it is an denial of species, since man first walked upon this Earth unknowingly we have indulged in species selection, "gene selection", the male looking for the traits of strength, ease of of birth, maternal instinct and more, the female looking for a good provider, strength in her protector for her and her children and yes more.
Monogomy came about as another control mechanism by the roman christian church to control women and degrade their place within society, prior to this families were based upon the ability of the male to protect and keep the family together, if he failed in this the result was not entirely different to what we see today in nature, survival of the fittest and the forfeit of goods and chattels by the loser, and yes women were chattels.
There were many changes as humanity advanced but the fact that women were treated as chattels remained until quite resent history and in some places still does.
Today we have advanced and consider ourselves an enlightened society yet still we refuse to except our self for what we are and are not and as a species we are not monogamous, polyamorous I believe would work better.
Polyamorous now there's a word, the knowledge of both partners sexual involvement with others and done consensually, done with knowledge that having brought children into the world together a responsibility exists with both and in this world today the sexual health of partners.
A friend of mine reminded me recently that she looked for the ALFA male type in males she showed an interest in, this to me demonstrates that for all our advances the older methods of partner selection still remain, only changed now are how we define, i.e "big penis, muscles, hairy chest and money", attraction yes permanent attraction I think not, the female selection criteria has changed also but still with the old standards still in mind, "big breasts, thin, shapely figure" again all denoting a child baring ability and a nurturing ability.
Monogamy is flawed, in mammals in nature although it exists it is indeed rare and expecting human beings to behave against there nature is a recipe for heartbreak, as witnessed by the ever increasing breakdown of the monogamous relationship, "Marriage".
We are better than just another mammal and for that reason we should recognize a failure and try to find a better way and make the happiness of all a priority rather than continue the heartbreak and sorrow monogamy is causing when it breaks down.
To all BLESSED BE
Human beings have never been nor will ever be MONOGAMAS, it is an denial of species, since man first walked upon this Earth unknowingly we have indulged in species selection, "gene selection", the male looking for the traits of strength, ease of of birth, maternal instinct and more, the female looking for a good provider, strength in her protector for her and her children and yes more.
Monogomy came about as another control mechanism by the roman christian church to control women and degrade their place within society, prior to this families were based upon the ability of the male to protect and keep the family together, if he failed in this the result was not entirely different to what we see today in nature, survival of the fittest and the forfeit of goods and chattels by the loser, and yes women were chattels.
There were many changes as humanity advanced but the fact that women were treated as chattels remained until quite resent history and in some places still does.
Today we have advanced and consider ourselves an enlightened society yet still we refuse to except our self for what we are and are not and as a species we are not monogamous, polyamorous I believe would work better.
Polyamorous now there's a word, the knowledge of both partners sexual involvement with others and done consensually, done with knowledge that having brought children into the world together a responsibility exists with both and in this world today the sexual health of partners.
A friend of mine reminded me recently that she looked for the ALFA male type in males she showed an interest in, this to me demonstrates that for all our advances the older methods of partner selection still remain, only changed now are how we define, i.e "big penis, muscles, hairy chest and money", attraction yes permanent attraction I think not, the female selection criteria has changed also but still with the old standards still in mind, "big breasts, thin, shapely figure" again all denoting a child baring ability and a nurturing ability.
Monogamy is flawed, in mammals in nature although it exists it is indeed rare and expecting human beings to behave against there nature is a recipe for heartbreak, as witnessed by the ever increasing breakdown of the monogamous relationship, "Marriage".
We are better than just another mammal and for that reason we should recognize a failure and try to find a better way and make the happiness of all a priority rather than continue the heartbreak and sorrow monogamy is causing when it breaks down.
To all BLESSED BE
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ashwini on -
This is a very interesating topic. I know saying this aloud can cause a lot of trouble, but I do believe that our natural lifestyle has been compromised with the so called 'civilisation'. I once read that civilisation is all about building fences. I think that makes a lot of sense in this context.
I remember having this discussion with someone and he was so enraged that I said monogamy is not really natural for humans. In today's society, I wouldn't go about openly embracing our natural lifestyle - polygamous, naked (hey, which other mamal wears clothes?) with unshaven body.
As with the alpha male, it is again natural. In the wild too, the strongest of the pack becomes the leader. He is the one all the female wants to mate with to produce the toughest offsprings. Let's not forget that the wild is not kind to the weak. I have no shame or regrets in going for the alpha male.
-
Permalink Reply by Olwynn Coyote on -
I believe the union between a man and another person can be on many levels, not just the physical. I don't believe cheating in a relationship has anything to do with the physical. Males need to fulfill emotional and spiritual needs too and if their significant other is not providing the attention and interest in them that they want may look elsewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Rain on -
Might explain why I am so picky when it comes to dating, hence only having two girlfriends for a brief period ever.
V_V
-
Permalink Reply by Celticwitch on -
Arha Brandon having read the posts so far I wonder are you the Alfa type male or as you say just picky, good luck on the girl friend front, why not try for 2 or 3 as long as there's no deception involved. BB
-
Permalink Reply by Buzzard on -
Women in todays time are not all the same, and they are often a drain on money, and sometimes pretty bitchy, why would someone want to put up with double of that? I would be perfectly happy with one women, and if i had more, i wouldnt complain, but i for sure, would not put up with their bitchiness that tends to come with it. Most women are not for the polygamy, and i know i am protective, so id get pretty pissed if the women had many males. I dont like to put up with drama, but freedom i believe in. I do, however, need to quiz any women that i may date to find genetic problems and behaviors i dont like :D
Some people do grow emotionaly attached, so the heartbreak and sorrow would still exist in a polygamist setting, im sure men in the old days were still pretty upset when they lost their goods and chattels, that is why there were many revenge and honor killings id imagine.
-
Permalink Reply by Celticwitch on
-
O dear Buzzard, double stands how quaint of you, a very man thing, and I disagree with your last statement, if the system was changed people would move from and between relationships, with out the guilt presently felt because of the monogamous tradition that has been taught for so long. BB
-
Permalink Reply by Buzzard on
-
Double standard because i can see two sides of the street instead of one. Monogamy came around before the roman church came around, and it's also been practiced for many years in cultures not influenced by the roman christian church. How would you explain that? Some people naturaly dont want many partners, some may. I myself would rather have one women to raise a family with, im not a people person. It is no denial of species, it's what youd rather do.
-
Permalink Reply by Celticwitch on
-
Greetings Buzzard, double standard, I quote you "if Ihad more I wouldn't complain" and then you say, again your words " I'd be pretty pissed if the woman had many male's" uumm If it looks like a double standard and it quacks like a double standard it's a double standard. BB
-
Permalink Reply by Buzzard on
-
I am a selfish person, what can I say? A women thats been with many men is not very attractive to me, and with the sexualy trasmitted disease all around in todays time, makes it even more. It is a natural instinct, within me, to see it as that, and of course, to be jealous or mad, if a women i was with was going around with other partners, just the same, as some women would get mad at a man having multiple partners. It's not a "typical Man" thing, as you said, but a typical human thing.
-
Permalink Reply by SIN on -
Some women prefer the 'don't ask ...don't tell' policy. Men ask stupid questions like 'How many men have you slept with?' They don't really want to know the truth, they often have the Madonna complex, women should be pristine and pure, while men can be dirty dogs. What is the relevance anyway? Do you judge a person by their sex life? Surely, people do. Personally, I don't.
I was recently told to stay away from a particular partner, because they are 'dirty'. In what way? Safe sex, and good personal hygiene - where's the dirt? It's all in the spirit of 'don't sleep with him, sleep with me - I'm clean' - and I just fell off the cabbage truck.
I enjoy the dirty dog role, and you can keep your pristine chapel filled with vestal virgins and chastity belts. I'll be in the hog-pen with my ilk.
We all have our turn-ons, turn-offs. You find promiscuity a turn-off, that's cool. I find such thought processes a turn-off myself.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc on -
I don't mind if she's been around the block but I prefer that she hasn't knocked on every door.
Marc
Advertisers
Donate/Sponsor Paganspace
Any donations to help with the rising costs of maintaining PaganSpace are always greatly appreciated. Many Blessings to you.
PS Podcast & Radio
Pagan Friendly Podcasts & Radio Show Listings. Join Now or View Show SchedulesCool Sites & Links
