Is it natural to be with one person for a lifetime

by Leander 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • one

    DISCLAIMER: this post was typed without much thinking and intention to offend anyone. Read it at your own risk. You are not required to share its content nor repply if you dont feel like sharing.

    strange animals, what about horses, cow, MONKEYS,, dogs etc.

    99% DNA? what kind of animal?

    hi level issue here

    if you LOVE, you share with those you thin deserve the sharing, including MATERIAL thing, money, food. But your mate's material body, no way! Pure logic says somethng worong here, not that i adovocate one way or the other. This is MINE mentality somehow doen't fit.

    Dont even try to conviince anyone about the sharing thing unless the person is emotionally dettached from the issue.

    CULTURAL. Even today in some cultures it is totally 'normal' to share a HUSBAND. the ladies dont complaint as long as they get a fair share of the material. I have seen this even where there is no economic interest in the midle. Most woman dont feel inclined to share their own body. AND many men either, specially when they feel they are being fully complemented.

    Many men become fully complemented with litle difficultly, then you have the type of men who know who they are, know what they want and wont settle for less. But the lady who has what it takes, can prompt him automatically into a monogamous.status by default.

    But you also have those men (and women?) who only want phisical pleasure all the time, because they can't get pleasure from abstract thing due to lack of education and/or a disfunctional brain. They obviously know what they want but dont know who they are...

  • rem


    I was just gonna chime in with that MOSTLY manogamous comment until I saw yours. Cool! I'm reading The Third Chimpanzee right now and I think I like it even better than Guns, Germs, and Steel, but they are both most excellent. :)


    "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
  • one


    birds!? any anecdote about a mammal,

    I dont sing but a married lady always call me long distance and visit me whenever she travels around my place. I dont feel confortable, so i decided that no even 30 seconds... However we talk a lot.

  • teejay

    A lifetime of monogamous relationships is the goal, particularly in the West, that is sometimes achieved, but I don’t think it’s natural.

    Drawing parallels with animals for clues as to proper human behavior is a bit silly. Just because animals, regardless of their ‘intellect’, behave in certain ways has no relevance to humans. Just my opinion.

    I’m with Frank. Except under some hypothetical situation I’ve yet to experience, living with the same person gets boring after a while. Both ways. Now, THAT’S natural.

  • plmkrzy

    Has anyone addressed “The spreading of disease yet”?

    Why do HUMANS have so many sexually transmitted diseases?

    I’m sure there is SOMEONE out there that will find a way to refute that monogamy or not has nothing to do with sexually transmitted diseases.

    And there is probably someone out there who can also argue that throwing trash out the window has no effect on pollution.

  • cellomould


    Someone (ME) will address the issue of spreading disease:

    Simply put, viruses and bacteria which cause disease also contribute to that terrible thing we like to call...evolution.

    It is simply a social convention to think of STDs as 'dirtier' than other forms of illnesses. This is not a logical conclusion, but an emotional one.

    So how are are we seeing evolution in action?

    (example 1) - The spread of malaria in Africa and Asia has led to genetic resistance. From this resistance also comes the prevalence of the sickle cell anemia (and another not so fatal anemia that I can't recall right now) But anyhow, the disease has caused a major shift in gene frequencies. (And there is only one gene involved in each case here. Very interesting.)

    (example 2) - So what about the disease vectors themselves? They have a right to live don't they? Well, consider the current evolution of many different antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

    In summary, while the different forms of life (animal vs. bacteria or virus) seem to be competing, there is actually some amount of symbiosis in the entire system.

    Individuals die of disease, yes.

    But without change, species die.

    So it's genetically favorable (I've added another reason besides simply mixing the gene pool) for humans or animals to 'indulge in their own selfish desires'; even in moderation, such behavior will aid in the long-term viablity of the species.


    p.s.: plm, perhaps it's a bad thread to ask, but how about that coffee?

    "You're crying 'why am I the victim?' when the culprit is YOU" Stevie Wonder

Share this