Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Inspired by another thread. The question is simple. Is human monogamy natural or unnatural?

Hmmmmmm good question...

I'll side with the bible, without thinking about the question at all...

Sometimes is odd though, cause you can ask a person at different points in their lives and you'll get different answers depending on their age and circumstance's...

I think it is unnatural.

OK, then depending on religions also.

No, I believe its cultural. If the choice was mine, I would have a harem like an Arabian Prince. But my religion says I cant, so I only have one wife.

Originally posted by Draco69
Inspired by another thread. The question is simple. Is human monogamy natural or unnatural?

Polyamory is way more interesting

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Polyamory is way more interesting


It would be easier to just be a player and keep a bunch of GF's! Probably cost alot less as well prenup's anyone?

Monogamy is not the typical MO of most animals. However, some would argue that we are not part of nature. Therefore, monogamy is a gift from god and a pillar of civilized society. However, that argument falls on it's face when you consider the many animals that mate for life.

It goes both ways in nature......

Originally posted by debbiejo
It goes both ways in nature......

lol you said it goes both ways in nature.........................haha

I mean the question is "human monogamy natural or unnatural" so I guess we are assuming monogomy is natural in the first place.

I suppose it could be...........It's kind of a new thought for me....Well, with the divorce rate going up....hmmm...makes you wonder if people should stay together forever, and many stay together and are NOT happy, though there are many who are, but seems the relationship changes somewhat..

Originally posted by debbiejo
I suppose it could be...........It's kind of a new thought for me....Well, with the divorce rate going up....hmmm...makes you wonder if people should stay together forever, and many stay together and are NOT happy, though there are many who are, but seems the relationship changes somewhat..


Yeah know happiness is subjective. Most divorces occur in my opinion not for lack of caring but lack of people meeting specific expectations that aren't clearly communicated in the first part of the relationship

Hey you can be happy or married and I say come pry the smile off my face.

Originally posted by soleran30
It would be easier to just be a player and keep a bunch of GF's!

Word

Taking a wife and staying faithfull to her is natural.

Having and raising a family is natural.


We've only been doing it in countless cultures and societies for like, oh 5,000 years now.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Taking a wife and staying faithfull to her is natural.

Having and raising a family is natural.

No...

Supporting your kids is important.......They are your offspring.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Supporting your kids is important.......They are your offspring.

Doesn't mean it's natural

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Taking a wife and staying faithfull to her is natural.

Having and raising a family is natural.


We've only been doing it in countless cultures and societies for like, oh 5,000 years now.

Polygamy is just as "natural", and just as old, as monogamy.

Take a look at the divorce rates. The answer becomes obvious.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Doesn't mean it's natural No, but it should, cause they are your blood....and your responsibility as well.......

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Polygamy is just as "natural", and just as old, as monogamy.

Indeed. That's before we even get into whether cultures are natural.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Indeed. That's before we even get into whether cultures are natural.

Absolutely. We would also have to come to a basic agreement of what constitutes "natural".

Natural as in nature and biology. Like trees and guppies in the water. Hmmm.....I need to eat something. Guppies in the water...yep I need to eat something.

Originally posted by Draco69
Natural as in nature and biology. Like trees and guppies in the water. Hmmm.....I need to eat something. Guppies in the water...yep I need to eat something.

LOL, it's okay. Natural has a pretty firm definition in the minds of most people. However, when people want to go to the point of implying that nothing occurs "naturally" due to the influence of a creator god, then the definition is no longer applicable across the board. I think every one knows what I'm talking about...or to which people I am reffering.

Unnatural.

Although some species tend to choose a specific mate and reproduce solely with that mate, our closest relatives and ancestors, the apes, are not so faithful. Thus, it is unnatural for us to be monogamous.

However, that said, the chemical reactions in the brain commonly referred to as 'love' work in yet unknown ways. Though rare, some individuals desire one mate. Over the course of history, these thoughts have been so imprinted into our brain that we tend to think we are in love when in fact we have found what would normally be one of many mates. But seeing as society has twisted us into thinking we are above all other things and oh-so-special, the best thing to do is hope you find true love or go around ****ing anything that moves. It may be interesting to note that although I think monogamy is unnatural, I have found one person that I would be willing to maintain a lifetime relationship with. So my personal bias does not influence my argument.

Originally posted by MC Mike
It may be interesting to note that although I think monogamy is unnatural, I have found one person that I would be willing to maintain a lifetime relationship with.

Look Mike, I said I would think about it. But I need space.

I guess it could also be viewed as a self-deluding construct.

If we truly believe we can find one perfect person, then it is possible for us to be the one perfect person for someone else.

Originally posted by MC Mike
Unnatural.

Although some species tend to choose a specific mate and reproduce solely with that mate, our closest relatives and ancestors, the apes, are not so faithful. Thus, it is unnatural for us to be monogamous.

However, that said, the chemical reactions in the brain commonly referred to as 'love' work in yet unknown ways. Though rare, some individuals desire one mate. Over the course of history, these thoughts have been so imprinted into our brain that we tend to think we are in love when in fact we have found what would normally be one of many mates. But seeing as society has twisted us into thinking we are above all other things and oh-so-special, the best thing to do is hope you find true love or go around ****ing anything that moves. It may be interesting to note that although I think monogamy is unnatural, I have found one person that I would be willing to maintain a lifetime relationship with. So my personal bias does not influence my argument.

haha most other animals are trying to proliferate their species so mating with many is a good idea.

Humans mate to take up more space and to create more mouths to feed cuz Sex is fun and feels good

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I guess it could also be viewed as a self-deluding construct.

If we truly believe we can find one perfect person, then it is possible for us to be the one perfect person for someone else.

Exactly. And that is really what I meant when I was joking with Mike, about needing space. What happens when the perfect person for you does not think you are the perfect person for them?

Sometimes you can tell that yourself, sometimes you can't, and sometimes you blind yourself from it to maintain a sense of pleasure.

In my case, it's either the first or last, and as far as I can tell it's not the last, but you never can know.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Look Mike, I said I would think about it. But I need space.






Originally posted by debbiejo
No, but it should, cause they are your blood....and your responsibility as well.......

Some people "accidentally" have kids and don't take care of them. It's an everyday incident

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Taking a wife and staying faithfull to her is natural.

Having and raising a family is natural.


We've only been doing it in countless cultures and societies for like, oh 5,000 years now. Wow! That's more than 70% of the time the universe has existed, it must be natural...

I don't think its natural or unnatural...

its purely a choice imo...

I call Baby Jesus on this one...He Who Is A Baby made women capable of having a baby once every 9 month, whereas we, who He Who Is A Baby calls 'men', can make many a baby any time of day.

Thus, therefore, thus it was written:

Men may make many love time with many woman, but it the woman must love only one big man for every passing of the age of nine months (not including leap-years).

Lovemanywomen.

It depends whether culture is natural or not.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wow! That's more than 70% of the time the universe has existed, it must be natural...

I saw a monkey take a stick with some poop on it once and put it in it's mouth..the monkey jumped on a bush and started humping it..so yeah...everything we observe in nature should be copied by humans and deemed as natural..

Originally posted by pr1983
I don't think its natural or unnatural...

its purely a choice imo...
I think you are correct.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I saw a monkey take a stick with some poop on it once and put it in it's mouth..the monkey jumped on a bush and started humping it..so yeah...everything we observe in nature should be copied by humans and deemed as natural..

See, this is what I'm talking about:


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
LOL, it's okay. Natural has a pretty firm definition in the minds of most people. However, when people want to go to the point of implying that nothing occurs "naturally" due to the influence of a creator god, then the definition is no longer applicable across the board. I think every one knows what I'm talking about...or to which people I am reffering.

hey guys look..I found this picture..

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7522/monkey3kl.jpg

See da monkee is playing gulf..so dat means that golf is a "natural" sport...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
hey guys look..I found this picture..
See da monkee is playing gulf..so dat means that golf is a "natural" sport...

And what does that have to do with, "Is Human Monogamy Natural or Unnatural?" ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And what does that have to do with, "Is Human Monogamy Natural or Unnatural?" ?

It proves that everything we see aminals doo is naturaal...

Smokinng is natural 2

see...http://www.maxabee.com/archives/monkey.jpg

And so is smoking

Just so we can all be on the same page Whob; you're of the opinion that the scientists who observe animals in the wild, or in zoos, are teaching these animals to act how they want them to so that they can advance their godless agenda?

Is that right?

Is that what you're saying?

If that's not what you think, let us know.

I see monkeys that make me embarrassed at the zoo........

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Just so we can all be on the same page Whob; you're of the opinion that the scientists who observe animals in the wild, or in zoos, are teaching these animals to act how they want them to so that they can advance their godless agenda?

Is that right?

Is that what you're saying?

If that's not what you think, let us know.

Everything da monkeys do..we should do too..dat's my opinion..

Yeah da lions gay too..but not monogomous..seee

http://www.outtatown.com/04site3/Images/jef-big%20lions%20playing.jpg

It's because they're Mormon lions.........

Originally posted by debbiejo
It's because they're Mormon lions.........

correction: Mormon gay lions..

Human beings are animals.

Some animals are homosexual.

Some animals are monogamous.

Some animals are monogamous homosexuals.

I realize this is a tremendous blow to your worldview.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
It proves that everything we see aminals doo is naturaal...

Are you stupid?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Just so we can all be on the same page Whob; you're of the opinion that the scientists who observe animals in the wild, or in zoos, are teaching these animals to act how they want them to so that they can advance their godless agenda?

Is that right?

Is that what you're saying?

If that's not what you think, let us know.

Is there an answer to this question?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE



Some animals are homosexual.

Some animals are monogamous.

Some animals are monogamous homosexuals.

I realize this is a tremendous blow to your worldview.


You forgot to add..



Some animals eat crap.


Some animals play with their crap.


Some animals rub their asses against trees, then eat the crap on the tree.


Some animals like to lick the behinds of other animals and hump trees, and then eat the crap off the trees.


So anyway..this all explains why one can't control sticking their peeper up another man's poop shot. These are all natural behaviors, that a human being should emulate. We don't have enough control over ourselves to not do these things.



And anyway..these behaviors are the driving force behind a species advancement..not procreation.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You forgot to add..

Some animals eat crap


Some animals play with their crap.


Some animals rub their asses against trees, then eat the crap on the tree.


Some animals like to like the behinds of other animals and hump trees, and then eat the crap off the trees.

So anyway..this all explains why one can't control sticking their peeper up another man's poop shot.



And anyway..these behaviors are the driving force behind a species advancement..not procreation.

Well I think you just answered my question.

My answer to the question depends on the definition of the word natural.

If by natural one means that it's what we would do if we followed our own desires without inhibition, then no - I wouldn't say monogamy is natural.

I find myself attracted to many pretty members of the opposite sex and if I followed my 'natural' desires then obviously I'd just be out there with different women all the time.

Now if by 'natural' the question means simply 'right' in our personal point of view, then I'd have to say yes - monogamy is natural.

I am married and very happily so. I love my wife very much and am willing to stay faithful to her without question for my life, not just because of our faith, but also because I respect her feelings and wish to treat her with the devotion that she deserves.

Don't know whether it's natural or unnatural, but I think it's impossible.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You forgot to add..



Some animals eat crap.


Some animals play with their crap.


Some animals rub their asses against trees, then eat the crap on the tree.


Some animals like to lick the behinds of other animals and hump trees, and then eat the crap off the trees.


So anyway..this all explains why one can't control sticking their peeper up another man's poop shot. These are all natural behaviors, that a human being should emulate. We don't have enough control over ourselves to not do these things.



And anyway..these behaviors are the driving force behind a species advancement..not procreation.



An animal is what an organism is.

A human being is what an animal is.

A homosexual is what an animal is.



Eating feces is what an animal does.

Playing with feces is what an animal does.

Eating the feces of another animal is what an animal does.


Even a child can tell the difference.

Well when this was studied and I was watching it on tv some time ago, it said that Human Beings weren't programmed to be with one person for the rest of their life. They say that Human Beings are only attracted to their spouse for about 7 yrs, and then it goes away.

I personally don't know, I guess I'll find out if I ever get married and it last for 7 or more yrs.

is it comprehensible.....

Many animals mate for life.

Probably unnatural...but who cares, I think everyone should do what they please including polygamy (well some restrictions obviously...like not killing your neighbour....but 'cept that)

This question reminds me of the ol', "If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings!"

What is meant by "natural" when it comes to human affairs? Is clothing natural? Writing? Building machines? None of those things exist in nature, yet it is in our nature to make/do them.

I think "pair bonding" (to use the anthropological term) is natural; there is a lot of evolutionary advantage to it (obviously, or "marriage" would've had a different configuration all this time). The problem is, for 99.9% of homo-sapian existence, the average human lifespan was only about 40-50 years, so staying with one person most of your adult life was workable.

Now, in the last 50-100 years, humans have been living longer and longer, where the average age is almost twice what it used to be. So, IMO, the question may not be "Is it natural?" but rather, "Is it realistic?" especially given a society which emphasizes individual freedom and rights much more so than individual and social responsibility.

Furthermore, if in asking, "Is monogamy (still) realistic?" and the answer is "No," that should Not be taken as license for everyone to start porkin' one another with abandon. The next question should be, "What would be a practical replacement?" keeping in mind the long-term survival of the human species, rather than shallow, short-term hedonism.

jerry

Like I said swans mate for life and they are very natural.

Or maybe there aliens...

Unnatural....

Animals do not often practice this (except for Wolves)

It is not often found in NATURE, so its not natural.

I beleive it to be more of a CUSTOM that we integrated into and what almost all of us strive for.

Monogamy is beautiful, but its not natural. We choose whether or not to do this.


Think about it....if it was NATURAL than EVERYONE would be mongamous, and OBVIOUSLY that is not the case.

i dont see how monogamy could possibly be natural.... staying with one mate an animal would not be fulfilling its basic and unconsience drive to advance the species.

sure u (hopefully) love ur children, but the fact is that 98% of the animals out there dont even have a fleeting thought about their offspring

not to mention the ones that eat their young.... btw humans are animals so this applys to us as well.

But then how come there as some people who ONLY want to be with one person in thier lives, and others are fine with having numerous partners throughout thier lives?


I don't think its natural or unnatural...its different for everybody

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Ja!

Oder anal!

lol german is one of my favorite languages, it sounds so gutteral and indignifying when spoken. lol

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh, totally debatable. But, I'm a guy, and most of my friends are too. And, whether it be the truth or not, it always seems to be the guy who wanders first. Maybe the chick is lying. But, I only have my own perspective and experience on which to operate.

Well...I somehow assumed that it is always the guy that wanders first.......in male homosexual relationships.

If natural means 'the norm' or 'what mostly happens', or 'majority', then human monogamy is natural, by virtue of its statistical ocurance. Right?

Originally posted by Wonderer
If natural means 'the norm' or 'what mostly happens', or 'majority', then human monogamy is natural, by virtue of its statistical ocurance. Right?

If that was the case then yes. It isn't though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If that was the case then yes. It isn't though.

Ok, then it's unnatural. If that's the case. Why does it matter?

Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, then it's unnatural. If that's the case. Why does it matter?

Well, I'd say for two reasons, first because Christians (at least the radicals) pretend it was natural and the way things were since God created the earth 7234 years ago....ans second....because it is the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'd say for two reasons, first because Christians (at least the radicals) pretend it was natural and the way things were since God created the earth 7234 years ago....ans second....because it is the topic of this thread.

Firstly, God didn't create the earth, God is the earth. Secondly, I think the topic of this thread was sexually inspired, which is a bit mindless in the first place, which is why sex is so pleasurable...

Originally posted by Wonderer
Firstly, God didn't create the earth, God is the earth. Secondly, I think the topic of this thread was sexually inspired, which is a bit mindless in the first place, which is why sex is so pleasurable...

Firstly, prove it!

Secondly, I doubt it, I think it came about in one of the many gay marriage threads when the idiots that can't even spell "polygamy" correctly, decided it would be a good idea to pretend that monogamy is natural.....and that only man-woman monogamy is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Firstly, prove it!

Secondly, I doubt it, I think it came about in one of the many gay marriage threads when the idiots that can't even spell "polygamy" correctly, decided it would be a good idea to pretend that monogamy is natural.....and that only man-woman monogamy is.

Secondly, Good one! I agree.

Firstly, to proof that God is existence is akin to proving I exist, or that there is existence as such. God is everything, the earth, universe, etc. It's not something you can proof, as one cannot logically prove existence - we can't proove Nature, right? So, if God is nature, then we can't prove that either. It's just something you know.

Am I making any sense? You Germans have lots of brains, so you should understand what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Secondly, Good one! I agree.

Firstly, to proof that God is existence is akin to proving I exist, or that there is existence as such. God is everything, the earth, universe, etc. It's not something you can proof, as one cannot logically prove existence - we can't proove Nature, right? So, if God is nature, then we can't prove that either. It's just something you know.

Am I making any sense? You Germans have lots of brains, so you should understand what I'm talking about.

I think I might understand what you are talking about, but I don't understand how the reasoning goes that God is everything? I mean, lets just assume for a second that everything exists...why is it god? Isn't that just an additional attribute that is actually of no importance. I mean what does this "God" do? Just exist? If so, then it is no "God"....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I might understand what you are talking about, but I don't understand how the reasoning goes that God is everything? I mean, lets just assume for a second that everything exists...why is it god? Isn't that just an additional attribute that is actually of no importance. I mean what does this "God" do? Just exist? If so, then it is no "God"....

Ok, you are looking for a definition, right? By attributing the label "God" to "everything", I mean that God is the source of all consciousness and all that is. The very specific awareness that humans have of themselves, connects to the higher form of awareness, energy and meaning, which is God. This feeling of "I/we exist" has its origin inside God, who is not seperate from everything, but who is everything. It is one infinite sentient being.

Please don't ask me to "prove" this, because it's not categorically provable. It's something one becomes aware of the moment you start realising your own synonymous vibration with nature, the intimate realisation that you are nature, that you are God. It's all about knowing yourself and then at the same time knowing the truth and that you are the truth.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Ok, you are looking for a definition, right? By attributing the label "God" to "everything", I mean that God is the source of all consciousness and all that is. The very specific awareness that humans have of themselves, connects to the higher form of awareness, energy and meaning, which is God. This feeling of "I/we exist" has its origin inside God, who is not seperate from everything, but who is everything. It is one infinite sentient being.

Please don't ask me to "prove" this, because it's not categorically provable. It's something one becomes aware of the moment you start realising your own synonymous vibration with nature, the intimate realisation that you are nature, that you are God. It's all about knowing yourself and then at the same time knowing the truth and that you are the truth.

Well, I understand where you are coming from, but the thing is that Christians use the same arguments...they feel that there is a God....why do you think you can trust your feelings and not theirs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I understand where you are coming from, but the thing is that Christians use the same arguments...they feel that there is a God....why do you think you can trust your feelings and not theirs?

I'm not saying my feelings are more truthful or more right than their's. WHen it comes to life, nobody's right or wrong. Anyone can trust their own feelings, no matter what it is. And I don't think it's an argument, but rather a feeling, or an awareness...like when you listen to the miraculous music of Bach or Mozart.

Originally posted by Wonderer
I'm not saying my feelings are more truthful or more right than their's. WHen it comes to life, nobody's right or wrong. Anyone can trust their own feelings, no matter what it is. And I don't think it's an argument, but rather a feeling, or an awareness...like when you listen to the miraculous music of Bach or Mozart.

Okay, I'm happy you have this awareness I just can't really follow it. And I think when it comes to life someone is right and someone is wrong...we just can't know which is right or wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I'm happy you have this awareness I just can't really follow it. And I think when it comes to life someone is right and someone is wrong...we just can't know which is right or wrong.

No, there's no absolute point of reference concerning right and wrong, so right and wrong don't exist, right?

Originally posted by Wonderer
No, there's no absolute point of reference concerning right and wrong, so right and wrong don't exist, right?

You are assuming there is no absolute point. There might be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are assuming there is no absolute point. There might be.

Oh, yes. Now I see it, it was hiding behind that big, fluffy cloud. Sorry, I must have missed it. Ok, so then you're wrong and I'm right! The absolute point of reference (or should that be reverence) have just informed me that I'm right.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Oh, yes. Now I see it, it was hiding behind that big, fluffy cloud. Sorry, I must have missed it. Ok, so then you're wrong and I'm right! The absolute point of reference (or should that be reverence) have just informed me that I'm right.

It might have...but I can't be sure...neither can you.....

But to assume that there is no reality (that's what you are doing) is quite a big step. Almost as big as to assume that there is a reality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It might have...but I can't be sure...neither can you.....

But to assume that there is no reality (that's what you are doing) is quite a big step. Almost as big as to assume that there is a reality.

No reality? That's not what I meant. I think you are assuming that Reality = Absolute. Can't reality also be relative to an individual? There need not be any absolute point of reverence to sustain reality, right?

How do you define reality in a world with over 6 billion people?

Originally posted by Wonderer
No reality? That's not what I meant. I think you are assuming that Reality = Absolute. Can't reality also be relative to an individual? There need not be any absolute point of reverence to sustain reality, right?

How do you define reality in a world with over 6 billion people?

Well to put it simple, Reality is what exist and is not subjective. I don't know if there is actually such a thing. But there might. And if there is then that is absolute. And if there is an absolute then there are facts. And where there are facts there is a right and wrong when talking about them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well to put it simple, Reality is what exist and is not subjective. I don't know if there is actually such a thing. But there might. And if there is then that is absolute. And if there is an absolute then there are facts. And where there are facts there is a right and wrong when talking about them.

Reality, or that which exists, as you put it, is experienced and interpreted by individuals as well as pointed at by individuals, hence expressed subjectively and relatively from the point of view of the individual, right? Where is the absolute in all of this? Where is the proof that any of these individual expressions have a common absolute as object?

Originally posted by Wonderer
Reality, or that which exists, as you put it, is experienced and interpreted by individuals as well as pointed at by individuals, hence expressed subjectively and relatively from the point of view of the individual, right? Where is the absolute in all of this? Where is the proof that any of these individual expressions have a common absolute as object?

I will say it again, I can't even prove that I exist. How do you assume I am able to prove that some sort of reality exists?

I am just saying it might. And it might be expressed by what we experience subjectively. You could maybe say that the similar experiences point at some sort of similar cause...but that is not really a proof for it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I will say it again, I can't even prove that I exist. How do you assume I am able to prove that some sort of reality exists?

I am just saying it might. And it might be expressed by what we experience subjectively. You could maybe say that the similar experiences point at some sort of similar cause...but that is not really a proof for it.

Let's be honest, I don't think you and I are going to solve this issue here, I mean, philosophers have argued over this topic for millenia.

I think a is real enough, and enjoyable enough, but not an absolute reality.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Let's be honest, I don't think you and I are going to solve this issue here, I mean, philosophers have argued over this topic for millenia.

I think a is real enough, and enjoyable enough, but not an absolute reality.


Yeah, my point exactly. It is unsolvable.

My opinion is that a banana is real enough, and enjoyable enough, and also based on some sort of absolute reality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, my point exactly. It is unsolvable.

My opinion is that a banana is real enough, and enjoyable enough, and also based on some sort of absolute reality.

Well, I've just swallowed the top of your absolute reality then!

Now don't get going again.

hmm..so i logged online now and came across this article where Scarlett Johansson claims, "I do think on some basic level we are animals, and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly-".


This ignited my curiosity about what the general views on the idea of monogamy is.

Personally, for myself I can't help but find a completely monogamous relationship very appealing and can't see myself thinking otherwise.Its very interesting how we seem to limit ourselves to social monogamy but sexually the idea seems to be thrown out the window, most often excused as "instinctual" and "natural" similar to the views expressed by Johansson above.

So yeah, thoughts?

Monogamy is a fine concept when two people are committed to each other, but in a natural state, people just....sex sex sex...ermm

isn't she going out with Bob Dylan or something? I saw them together in an article of Rolling Stone....

Monogamy is for squares.

Originally posted by SelphieT
isn't she going out with Bob Dylan or something? I saw them together in an article of Rolling Stone.... I shudder to think

This article makes no ****ing sense what so ever. I dunno if it's her or the person who wrote the article who's not quoting her correctly...

First she says this, in fact it's the title of the whole freaking article...

'I'm Not Promiscuous'

Then she adds this...

"There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow"

And then she says this...

"I get tested for HIV twice a year"



I don't get it and I don't care, she's still hot as hell.

Like that dude told her in the movie The Island, 'I know Jesus loves you'

Originally posted by RZA
This article makes no ****ing sense what so ever. I dunno if it's her or the person who wrote the article who's not quoting her correctly...

First she says this, in fact it's the title of the whole freaking article...

'I'm Not Promiscuous'

Then she adds this...

"There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow"

And then she says this...

"I get tested for HIV twice a year"



I don't get it and I don't care, she's still hot as hell.

Like that dude told her in the movie The Island, 'I know Jesus loves you'

LOL.

Too true.

i have never thought of anything other than monogamy personally

Originally posted by Mr. Bacon
i have never thought of anything other than monogamy personally

Ditto...

Only one girl for me.

yeah..but not many people, men specially don't think like that...