What about polyamory

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, we were.

I was referring to the old famous argument that " aspie girls have it easier / apie guys have it harder", and not "women have it easier", and I think spongy and MXH got this.

Besides, weren't a radical anti-prostitution and any kind of paid sex (ie porn)?

Why prostitution is bad while promoting easy sex on a dating site is good?

Boo, you didn't specify it was aspies to start with, but again even if it WAS.... you have absolutely no credible information to back up your claims about dating. just because men complain about it more often on WP in the L&D section doesn't mean anything at all in terms of actual statistics.

and ithe rest of what you're talking about doesn't relate to this subject so i'm not going to address that. it's extremely off-topic.

From a psychological point of view.

We are really polygynandrous and we have an instinct to live in social groups of important size for cooperation (like in the bonobos and chimps). The standard monogamous relationship, is due to social pressure. The individuals basically developed a phobia of many relations, combined with the brain trying to fit the whole "social group" instinct with a single person instaid of the ....20??? as it was intended by natural selection. It means a little community of 20??? whatever individuals, not casual sex with no tomorrow.

In short, if you have ....20??? partners or whatever the actual number is, it will give what you need emotionally as with a single monogamous partner that you are really compatible with.

If you are rebutted by the idea of 20 partners, this is just a little phobia (=irrational fear). A comparable irrational fear is nudity. With a little desensitization therapy it will go away.

Im not so sure this is true. if it were then how would you explain the difference between love and lust?

Love = social instinct. We are supposed to live in a group, and theres a certain "quota" of "love" that the brain expects to receive from the out side world. The brain doesn't know more then that, if it get less then the genetically fixed quantity, it makes you get depressed so that you do something about it. The rational is, that love is just a mechanism to force humans to leave in communities and cooperate. We totally f****d up the system by choosing extremely carefully one individual that can give the whole quota in one go. Other sources of love was religion. Today religion got replaced by consumerism. Additionally, we developed a phobia of multiple partners.

I don't talk about casual no tomorrow sex, but having prolonged relationships with a lot of partners. These relationships of course will be far more diluted then a relationship with just one. As it was meant to be.

i think it sums it up.

umm no that had absolutely no point to it and eve less proof. now what has been proven is that the brain is susceptible for what is called "love" as a mixture of chemicals, nothing social telling us its immoral is actually stopping us. What are the odds that so many civilizations around the world would all fall into monogamy (forget the mormons as that is a social pressure to pursue polyamory).

Proof????? Theres only one way to prove this . In all cases it is scientific (its falsifiable) if you start being picky.

The chemicals are the mechanics of the brain. They are not important in the discussion. The example of nudity is quite telling. Everybody was naked once up on a time. If you try this today the police will come and arrest you. Why? Because people feel threatened (fear) if they see some one naked.

The thing is that dictatorships want monogamy over polygynandry. Polygynadry creates cohesive groups of say 10s of people. That means its 10 harder for the dictator to keep control. If there wasn't for the issue of reproduction, even monogamy would be forbidden.

I mean symmetric polyamory. In the Mormons its just polygyny.

so monogamy is beacuse of goverment dictators

Dictators try to eliminate or control the slightest gathering of people. Monogamy is the smallest marriage possible while still permitting for the new generation to come. If they could, they would have banned all forms of sex entirely.

Dictators wouldnt need to do that sort of things. Cause theyre dictators, they run the armies and stuff. They dont need to control peoples sex lives to keep them from congregating, they can just send troops to keep people from congregating

They need bigger armies then. And the possibility of a coup gets higher. And foreign invaders may take advantage of there weakness. They are probably more reasons.

or more simply it hasnt happened. Of all the reasons for polygamy ive heard here this one is the most outlandish. The "its in our genes" is debatable, but dictators?

I don't know the dude I'm pursuing at the moment is bisexual so that issue might come up considering what that means.

I think it needs to be noted that polygamy in the mormal style is completely different than polyamory, seeing as its not a balanced relationship.

Polygyny != polyamory.

Monogamous animals tend to have males and females of the same size and general appearance, humans males are on average 15% larger than female humans, have more facial/body hair, females have larger hips/breasts....

This sexual dimorphism screams polygamous history, also some studies showed a difference between male vs female historic lineage (in term of %) in our DNA , however the difference between men and women isn't as huge as other polygamous primate species.

I recall reading an anthropology study on a reliable site (can't find the link anymore) saying that humans (and some a direct hominid ancestors) might showed monogamous characteristics much earlier than what it was thought before (way before agriculture and even H.Sapien species).

One theory says that Monogamy has provided collective protection against STDs, which is an evolutionary advantage by itself (among the variations of hominids, the polygamous individuals were more likely to die from STD, hence evolutionary advantage for the more monogamous ones over the course of time).

Also humans might have been shaped by cultural evolution, I wonder if Saudi humans will evolve to an extremely dimorphic human species after millions of years while by contrast, for instance, Swedish men will become almost identical to their women.