Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Ask questions and discuss your relationships with partners or parents, family or friends.

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 18 January 2019, 06:06

Oh, so your point is that another person's pov (people who believe in monogamy) is inferior to your pov. Yep, that is new for you huh? Same shit, different day...
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3708
+1s received: 1810
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Stardust » 18 January 2019, 07:53

Honestly I sort of get what you are saying but I think loving your parents and traditionally people loving their partner are different things.

Straight people in love need to love each other and only each other in a stable relationship with kids in order to raise them effectively. I know this doesn't always work out but it's the ideal when looking at it from the kids' perspective, and reproduction is the ultimate goal of many species in order to ensure their ultimate survival.

It's a different kind of love to familial love, which keeps wider families together and creates different types of social bonds.

True I don't think there's anything wrong with people who want multiple partners and I know not every straight person wants a stable family with kids and this isn't always a concern of gay people even those who want to adopt, but not everyone is okay with this because having a stable romantic or sexual partner takes a different kind of devotion and love to that keeping families together, I'd say it's probably an evolutionary thing or a social function passed down through the generations since the early days of humanity. It's considered normal in terms of what's more socially acceptable for people who want to settle down I guess, I could be wrong but that's my take on things.
Image
User avatar
Stardust
 
Posts: 131
+1s received: 142
Joined: 9 January 2019, 01:43
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby PopTart » 18 January 2019, 11:58

:3 Stardust :3

You sexy when you smart :naughty:

I tend to agree with Stardust, it's not that one position is superior to another, but that for some people, one or the other choice is better for their emotional and psychological makeup and needs, often times defined by social and familial factors, personal experiences and even evolution.

I read a study some years ago that suggested that some people seem to be genetically pre-disposed to monogamy, as it has been effective in the propagation of the genes. That multiple partners can provide the same and epigenetic triggers get flipped, favouring one course of behaviour over another dependant on which behaviours delivered success for the individual, and their progenitors in each given circumstance.

It wasn't peer reviewed mind, but it did get me thinking at the time.

Edit: I hate having sausage fingers when i use a virtual keyboard :(
Last edited by PopTart on 18 January 2019, 16:23, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2514
+1s received: 2105
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 18 January 2019, 16:19

poolerboy0077 wrote:It’s not pointless if it gets under the skin of monogamous people.

Subversion. Like Ann Coulter, or gamers who "troll" by screaming the n-word on Xbox Live.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 19 January 2019, 18:17

mxguy01 wrote:Oh, so your point is that another person's pov (people who believe in monogamy) is inferior to your pov. Yep, that is new for you huh? Same shit, different day...

Three whole, consecutive posts by a person who says he doesn't care what I think.

Well, if you actually read what is being said rather than conjure up an emotionally reactive post storm, you would realize that my thread is directed at monogamous people who condescendingly dismiss non-monogamous relationships and those who partake in them. But straw men are your specialty.

Stardust wrote:but not everyone is okay with this because having a stable romantic or sexual partner takes a different kind of devotion and love to that keeping families together, I'd say it's probably an evolutionary thing or a social function passed down through the generations since the early days of humanity. It's considered normal in terms of what's more socially acceptable for people who want to settle down I guess, I could be wrong but that's my take on things.

I think you're getting the evolution wrong. Primates tend to be non-monogamous. It's one thing to argue that we should rise above animal instincts and "civilize" ourselves, but citing science as some argument in favor of monogamy won't get you anyway. And it won't get you anywhere not because it's factually wrong, but because how nature presents itself says nothing about how we should live. Natural propensities can be brutal and disregard needless suffering, after all.

But you have, like others here, asserted that the devotion of monogamous couples is different. Again, stating that it's different is in no way establishing that it is ideal or that we ought to stigmatize non-monogamy. I also don't see how non-monogamy prevents families being kept together. As I referenced earlier, sex columnist Dan Savage has a non-monogamous relationship (what he calls monogamish) that has lasted over a decade and raised a son with his partner. But whether these relationships are ideal in a family setting is separate and apart from the point of this thread which is both that the stigmatization of non-monogamous relationships is not only demeaning but that the arguments used to bolster monogamy over non-monogamy rest on unjustified assertions about commitment.

PopTart wrote:I tend to agree with Stardust, it's not that one position is superior to another, but that for some people, one or the other choice is better for their emotional and psychological makeup and needs, often times defined by social and familial factors, personal experiences and even evolution.

But none of that contradicts the message in the original post. In fact, that would be my overall position--that whatever relationship lifestyle someone will thrive in will be person specific.

Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:It’s not pointless if it gets under the skin of monogamous people.

Subversion. Like Ann Coulter, or gamers who "troll" by screaming the n-word on Xbox Live.

Subversion in this context is fighting truth to power, not merely transgressing for its own sake. :oface: But I was only partially being facetious when I said that. I don't honestly see a relevant difference between the hypothetical scenario I described and the comments made by monogamist proselytizers. I "get" that commitment in romantic/sexual relationships have dissimilarities with commitment to family members, but you have to spell out why these are in any way relevant to my point. In other words, what is it about the emotional connection in a romantic/sexual relationship that precludes one from being able to be committed to more than one partner? I haven't had answer to this, just people coming into this thread stating that the relationships are different and leaving it there.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7263
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 19 January 2019, 20:40

poolerboy0077 wrote:Three whole, consecutive posts by a person who says he doesn't care what I think.

Well, if you actually read what is being said rather than conjure up an emotionally reactive post storm, you would realize that my thread is directed at monogamous people who condescendingly dismiss non-monogamous relationships and those who partake in them. But straw men are your specialty.


Think about it logically for a bit. I really don't know you. I really don't care to know you. That makes it impossible to like or dislike you.

What I know of you are the thoughts you express here. Now those are are different story. They tend to be so far of center of norm to be not much more than a pile of dung. Which brings me right back to the points in the prior paragraph.

^ Pretty fucking simple. No more than that. Choose to read and comprehend for a change.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3708
+1s received: 1810
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby BlackBoi666 » 19 January 2019, 22:57

Monogamy sucks. It fails most of the time. Otherwise The Murry Show and The Jerry Springer Show would be out of business. And life is too short to devote it all to one person. Now pass that boy-pussy around. :devil: :devil: :devil: :heart: :heart: :heart: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:
User avatar
BlackBoi666
 
Posts: 194
+1s received: 48
Joined: 15 November 2018, 04:34
Location: Mississippi
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby BlackBoi666 » 19 January 2019, 23:00

PopTart wrote::3 Stardust :3

You sexy when you smart :naughty:

I tend to agree with Stardust, it's not that one position is superior to another, but that for some people, one or the other choice is better for their emotional and psychological makeup and needs, often times defined by social and familial factors, personal experiences and even evolution.

I read a study some years ago that suggested that some people seem to be genetically pre-disposed to monogamy, as it has been effective in the propagation of the genes. That multiple partners can provide the same and epigenetic triggers get flipped, favouring one course of behaviour over another dependant on which behaviours delivered success for the individual, and their progenitors in each given circumstance.

It wasn't peer reviewed mind, but it did get me thinking at the time.

Edit: I hate having sausage fingers when i use a virtual keyboard :(

very few people can devote themselves to one person for their whole entire life. they are a rare breed, that is slowly fading away.
User avatar
BlackBoi666
 
Posts: 194
+1s received: 48
Joined: 15 November 2018, 04:34
Location: Mississippi
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 20 January 2019, 00:03

mxguy01 wrote:Choose to read and comprehend for a change.

Your lack of self awareness and irony is otherworldly.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7263
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby PopTart » 20 January 2019, 21:57

poolerboy0077 wrote:
PopTart wrote:I tend to agree with Stardust, it's not that one position is superior to another, but that for some people, one or the other choice is better for their emotional and psychological makeup and needs, often times defined by social and familial factors, personal experiences and even evolution.

But none of that contradicts the message in the original post. In fact, that would be my overall position--that whatever relationship lifestyle someone will thrive in will be person specific.

I know! :awesome: I wasn't disagreeing with you, but explaining why I, personally tend towards monogamy and how I rationalise it in relation to non-monogamous alternatives :shrug:

Is there are clear contentious attitude towards non-monogamy from monogamist types? I think maybe there is, yes. I think that partly that comes from the feeling that monogamy is "out of fashion" that it's generally seen as idealistic and fanciful, that people should wish to commit to one person when there is a veritable buffet of people to choose from. So people who do value monogamy and perhaps, would like to see it more widely valued (possibly for selfish reasons :P ) tend to react harshly towards those that advocate and promote non-monogamous alternatives.

Compounded by some non-monogamy advocates having a very negative and unflattering view of monogamy and those that choose it.

I'm happy for people to pick and choose as they please. I'll just quietly or not so quietly do my own thing, which makes me happy, over here in the corner.... with just one person at a time. :awesome:

What do you go in for Pooler? Are you a monogamy kind of guy or the spread it out and love two or more at once kind of guy?

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Stardust wrote:but not everyone is okay with this because having a stable romantic or sexual partner takes a different kind of devotion and love to that keeping families together, I'd say it's probably an evolutionary thing or a social function passed down through the generations since the early days of humanity. It's considered normal in terms of what's more socially acceptable for people who want to settle down I guess, I could be wrong but that's my take on things.

I think you're getting the evolution wrong. Primates tend to be non-monogamous. It's one thing to argue that we should rise above animal instincts and "civilize" ourselves, but citing science as some argument in favor of monogamy won't get you anyway. And it won't get you anywhere not because it's factually wrong, but because how nature presents itself says nothing about how we should live. Natural propensities can be brutal and disregard needless suffering, after all.

But you have, like others here, asserted that the devotion of monogamous couples is different. Again, stating that it's different is in no way establishing that it is ideal or that we ought to stigmatize non-monogamy. I also don't see how non-monogamy prevents families being kept together. As I referenced earlier, sex columnist Dan Savage has a non-monogamous relationship (what he calls monogamish) that has lasted over a decade and raised a son with his partner. But whether these relationships are ideal in a family setting is separate and apart from the point of this thread which is both that the stigmatization of non-monogamous relationships is not only demeaning but that the arguments used to bolster monogamy over non-monogamy rest on unjustified assertions about commitment.
I think Stardust is saying (if I'm wrong feel free to correct me Stardust ;) ) on a human, social evolution front, monogamy has always had better, long term survival benefits. In a world where, for the most part of history, lives have been harsher and shorter, communities smaller and risks greater, long term singular commitment, reaps the biggest rewards, for the minimum of investment.

One exception might be Muslim states in the early to late middle ages, in which men might have had multiple wives. But the social structure of families in those cultures and in that time was very different and prone to shortcomings, much as one might find in monogamous alternatives of the same time period, in the west.

Swings and roundabouts.

It is easier in many ways to maintain a partnership of two, than it is to maintain a partnership of three, four or more, for cultures of the past, that had more to lose, less time to invest. Religion and social ideals all play in too.

Thats the kind of point I think Stardust was making. I don't think he was refering to primates!

BlackBoi666 wrote:
PopTart wrote:.....

very few people can devote themselves to one person for their whole entire life. they are a rare breed, that is slowly fading away.

I think this attitude can be part of monogamists reaction. Not knocking the attitude itself. But that one has to be a dinosaur, out of touch with the modern world, to want to even try to commit to or devote themselves to just one person at a time. Implies that it's wrong headed. Which makes people who want that, that seek to live that idea, feel like their choice is regarded poorly and that with the spread of that notion, there will be fewer and fewer people, with whom they might explore that desire.

It does cut both ways. Both monogamists and non-monogamists can be equally scathing towards the other :shrug:

The arguements then, are defensive in nature, the monogamist, seeks to protect their interest from incroaching sexual and emotional liberty, while the non-monogamist seeks to defend and justify their choice to break from the mold and seek what they want.

Or I could be wrong. :P
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 2514
+1s received: 2105
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 14 February 2019, 22:37

PopTart wrote:...
The arguements then, are defensive in nature, the monogamist, seeks to protect their interest from incroaching sexual and emotional liberty, while the non-monogamist seeks to defend and justify their choice ...
Or I could be wrong. :P


Actually, spot on. It is funny to see the same old non-acceptance shit that comes from the person who exhibits the least ability to find acceptance of others' opinions.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3708
+1s received: 1810
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 15 February 2019, 02:54

It is also interesting to think if it is perhaps hormonal influences:
https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/ ... o-monogamy
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3708
+1s received: 1810
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 15 February 2019, 03:07

Well, acceptance is not a virtue if one is accepting incoherent streams of consciousness coupled with an unwillingness to comprehend what is actually being said. But thank you for the month-long bump. I love the free advertisement.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7263
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby mxguy01 » 15 February 2019, 19:55

Actually I wanted to take the opportunity to link your recent post with your outcry from above about how I persist in antagonizing you.

mxguy01 wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:Levi, tell us your opinion on blacks and poor people. I’m sure I could draw a Venn diagram with your opinions and a few other members on here.


Which members do you refer to?

poolerboy0077 wrote:Three whole, consecutive posts by a person who says he doesn't care what I think.
...


and call you an hypocrite, as your is pretty much your norm. Always with others "project" and such. But you don't XD. Only the great PB can have any understanding of the plight of others. Most of your posts are only really looking to incite as you get a kick of of it. So what if I think that pretty pathetic behavior. At least I have the decency to state it outright.

I guess we're doomed to repeat this interaction because somehow you thing if you persist I will go away???

Cue your normal response of this is where I over react again or whatever other dismissive response you like to shove at people.
Image

---
I love to travel but hate to arrive -- Albert Einstein
---
The only thing worse than an Did Not Finish (DNF) is an Did Not Start (DNS). ~~ Me
---
It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. ~~ Chinese fortune cookie
User avatar
mxguy01
 
Posts: 3708
+1s received: 1810
Joined: 23 October 2017, 23:12
Location: NorCal
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby GaySpacePirateKing » 15 February 2019, 20:14

Forced monogamy and monogamy as the expectation I think is wrong.

I remember reading somewhere (although I can't remember where but I'll see if I can find it) that monogamy originally benefited men as in woman where expected to be monogamous to their husbands, but their husbands where expected to have sex with many women.
User avatar
GaySpacePirateKing
 
Posts: 59
+1s received: 21
Joined: 14 January 2019, 18:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby GaySpacePirateKing » 15 February 2019, 20:20

Stardust wrote:Straight people in love need to love each other and only each other in a stable relationship with kids in order to raise them effectively. I know this doesn't always work out but it's the ideal when looking at it from the kids' perspective, and reproduction is the ultimate goal of many species in order to ensure their ultimate survival.

It's a different kind of love to familial love, which keeps wider families together and creates different types of social bonds.


I really disagree with this not only because gay people can have families too, but because the concept of families is a modern one.
User avatar
GaySpacePirateKing
 
Posts: 59
+1s received: 21
Joined: 14 January 2019, 18:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 15 February 2019, 22:34

mxguy01 wrote:and call you an hypocrite

Except to qualify as a hypocrite, I would have had to claim that I don’t care what you think but show obsession. I’ll freely admit I’m obsessed. I’m as obsessed as an onlooker to a freeway accident. You’re not very good at this game.

But I’m amused you knew exactly who I was talking about.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7263
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Derek » 15 February 2019, 22:41

poolerboy0077 wrote:But I’m amused you knew exactly who I was talking about.

...Me, right? You're both talking about me?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 15 February 2019, 22:43

Derek wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:But I’m amused you knew exactly who I was talking about.

...Me, right? You're both talking about me?

Everyone knows you’re the forum’s dunce and that I just tolerate you because of your ginormous tits.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 7263
+1s received: 1428
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Fundamentalist Monogamist Zealots: Please Answer!

Unread postby Sherri » 18 February 2019, 17:44

Did someone say ginormous tits? Count me in!

On a (somewhat more) serious note, I find it very amusing that you boys all started bickering about nonmonogamy only after I'd gotten a life and stopped posting so much xP.
The path to Heaven runs through miles of clouded Hell ~

"Deeds such as these do not go unnoticed by the universe. They echo in all who hear them. That is why I am here."


Image
User avatar
Sherri
Moderator
 
Posts: 1293
+1s received: 623
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: ajakes124, BlueBoy19, caco, CommonCrawl [Bot], Delishes, rogonandi, SebPeace and 14 guests