Evidence That Humans Desire Monogamous Relationships Rather Than Promiscuity

[Careless_Whisper]

I am not speaking for every signle individual on planet earth, just for most people in general. I come across a lot of people today who argue that humans were meant to be promiscuous and not monogamous. But this is not true. I'll explain why:

The vast majority of humans seek or desire a relationship. If humans were meant to be promiscuous then people would never bother having a relationship. They would remain single and just use each other for sex. The fact that most people, deep down, desire a loving relationship should be evidence that humans were meant to be monogamous. Another reason is that most people are hurt when their spouse cheats on them or leaves them. So, the fact that the majority of people desire to be in a loving relationship should be evidence that humans were meant to be monogamous and not promiscuous.

Now it is true that many people are choosing to stay single, but I believe the main reason for this is because a lot of men and women have trust issues and have lost faith in the opposite sex. They may have been hurt in the past and have lost faith in relationships, so now they are choosing to remain single and are looking to have sex without any commitment. However, I don't think these people planned on being promiscuous when they were very young. I think most people that have given up on monogamous relationships have either been hurt in the past, or because they live in a society that is highly sexualized and they are afraid of the divorce laws etc. But deep down they still desire a loving relationships rather than promiscuity.

And just because many people cheat is not evidence that humans were meant to be promiscuous. Some people are just selfish or are easily overcome by temptation. Even people who are serial cheats know deep down they are doing wrong. Some people are just very cruel and unkind and don't care who they hurt. But the fact remains that if humans were meant to be promiscuous, then people wouldn't even seek or desire a relationship. People would naturally avoid relationships and just sleep around.

What do you think?

[hellionthesage]

Well promiscuity is a part of our brain system, but what confuses people is that just because its their doesn't actually mean its our natural state. We have brain systems that are hold overs from pre primate times (hence the being borken up into three basic systems the reptilian mammalian and primate) so the promiscuis part of our brain system is the reptilian the most basic aspect of who we are the monogomas part is the primate brain and that is why we feel a tug of war between the two states. The fact is that we actually both as a species and a society require monogamy because we are investment parents, a child fairs much better with a mother and a father then any other combination of parents, promiscuity results in a child only having a mother which in turn leaves the child in a bad situation (hence 80% of inmates having been raised in single mother homes). Evolution is (as one person put it) a tinkerer, it doesn't remove old systems and replaces them with new ones but rather slaps on a new system onto the old one (for instance when you move your fingers your reptilian brain sends the signal to your hand to move all of your fingers, your mammalian/primate brain then interrupts that signal so that only one finger moves). In short yes we are predisposed to monogamy (or an appoximation of it) but we do have a part that is wired for promiscuity the difference is monogamy is far more beneficial but in this day and age everything is taylored to trigger those old systems responses ie everything is hypersexualized, hence promiscuity and the bitterness as we crave the monogamous relationships but act in a promiscuis way that further strengthens out old (and outdated) reptilian systems.(the more you do something the easier it becomes as the brain creates more neural pathways to stregthen the behavior which is why the more promiscuis a person is the harder it is to have a fullfilling long term relationship). In short, I agree.

[Careless_Whisper]

well said

[hellionthesage]

I do what I can, though I tend to be a bit long winded, oh well.

[SilenRose]

"many people are choosing to stay single, but I believe the main reason for this is because a lot of men and women have trust issues and have lost faith in the opposite sex"

This is pretty evident on GAG with the gender war going on.

[Careless_Whisper]

And who started the war?

[NatashaJ]

The people who come out and say negative things about the other sex started this war.

[Careless_Whisper]

@NatashaJ No, who started the war, not on here, but the war on marriage and family. Who were the one who destroyed the family unit?

[SilenRose]

Just like @NatashaJ said, "The people who come out and say negative things about the other sex started this war". This goes for online and offline. As to which gender is to blame is up for debate and I really don't care. The issue is that it continues on with neither side conceding.

[Careless_Whisper]

well, you're wrong.

[SilenRose]

by the way from what I have seen since joining GAG is that one side blames feminist and the other blames the MRA and MGTOW for the war on marriage and family.

[SilenRose]

How is that?

[koko124]

Nobody "started" the problem, the problem arose because society is in decline.

The fact that things like feminism and MRAism exist are just symptoms of a badly functioning society, not causes of it.

[hellionthesage]

Well technicly it was feminist who started the war on the family unit. I mean that quite literaly to, its in the second wave feminist literature and was one of their primary goals by their own words. www.azquotes.com/.../...-linda-gordon-59-80-39.jpg

www.azquotes.com/.../...-kate-millett-71-95-81.jpg

[WhatAreYouReading]

@koko124
Agreed. Things like Feminism and the MRA only came about because there were people unhappy with the status quo, if people were happy those groups would have never had a reason to form in the first place.

[koko124]

@hellionthesage

But the social and environmental factors that encouraged that kind of attitude, and that enabled them to be taken seriously, started before them.

[hellionthesage]

@koko124 What do you mean? Who encouraged the dissalution of marriage and the family unit? Society becomes dysfunctional without it (its actually one of the primary pillars of a civilization next to agriculture) men and women both benefited from it so that doesn't leave to many groups who benefit except some organizations who gain power from that break up (feminist gained power as it put women in a position of power while having the government take over the role of the male thus giving the feminist woman privledge and power without responsibilites that traditionally came with being a wife and mother. So I really don't see how it was prevalent before feminism (again a society stops functioning correctly when the family unit is destroyed).

[lolatyou]

How do you start a war on something that should never exist in the first place? "The family unit" isn't for everyone. Forcing that onto people is starting a war in itself.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou No, its not forced you choose whether or not to be in a relationship you choose whether or not to be in a family. We know that it is healthier for offsrping to be within the traditional family model we know that this system is beneficial to society hence civilization as we know it not coming into existence until the creation of marriage and the traditional family unit. It allowed for women to be taken care of and not die alone, it alowed men to reproduce which they where not really doing before (only 40% of men reproduced as opposed to 80% of women pre monogamy/marriage thanks to hypergamy) and it allowed those men to be invested in the future since they actually had a reason to be, because they had children, thus resulting in a surplus of work and supplies which allowed for civilization to function. The entire time men and women had the choice to participate and they chose to because it was beneficial to do so.

[lolatyou]

But were you both not saying that feminism started the war on the "family unit". The family unit was originally basically forced onto most people.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou No it wasn't it was a choice, now sure parents pressured a person but that is different then force, basicly a woman for most of history was reliant on men to take care of them, it was men who where strong enough to till the soil (hauling a plow of considerable weight across long distances all day then the planting harvesting etc) and it was men who where able to do this consistently, a woman who was pregnant obviously was not going to be able to do this kind of labor, and then after birth the baby would require her for the next two years for feeding so she would be forced to be indisposed repeatedly through out the day. This was also the reason men where viewed as expendable since once concieved if the mother died the baby would starve if the man died the babies survival wouldn't be affected (hence men being expected to sacrifice themselves for women). It was a system that benefited all.

[lolatyou]

It didn't and wouldn't benefit people who had dreams beyond that though, this day and age. For men or women.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou It in fact does benefit them, because again, it is better for children to live in such an enviroment which has been proven, it is a happier enviroment as been shown by statistical evidence. Men and women are different intrinsicly different. This system played to those differences ensuring that both parties had what they needed/wanted. Women are less happy now then they where in the fifties according to surveys, people who are married are statisticly speaking, happier and healthier then those who are not. You are saying it doesn't work yet you personally have only a twisted false idea of what it is. You are told from the start that it is something to avoid that it was "subjugating" women that it hurt them that they could not function etc etc all of which is provably false. You do not want to believe in it because you have been told not to. It got us this far and that should tell you something.

[lolatyou]

People are always happier when they don't have other options. If my only option to survive was to depend on someone else and that person was caring for me, then how would I know any differently.

Actually if anything where i'm from people are more traditional. I don't have an issue with traditional, even if it's not my thing personally. I only have an issue with people saying that making other options available is destroying the family unit. You can still be a good parent in a variety of ways.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou Well no one is saying that, whats being said is feminism actively used propaganda to create an idea that the family unit is bad and restricts women and hurts women etc etc etc and its this active propaganda (all of which flys in the face of known facts) that is the issue. As I stated women always had the choice they could go it alone and do what they wanted when they wanted or they could get married and while they may have some of their freedoms restricted just as the men did, they could work together to have a better life. So women have always had choices, in fact more so then men to be perfectly honest. You are being taught that traditionalism was subjugation thanks to our educational system that has many feminist policies (in fact part of the reason why men are being pushed out of schools at record numbers) which have conditioned you to revile that thinking (without actually experiencing it yourself) and assume it to be inferior. Social conditioning.

[lolatyou]

Feminism also opened a lot of doors. I'm not some crazy feminist and god knows I don't agree with every minor detail that a lot of them make an issue about. But you can't deny that it has helped give women more options, good or bad. It just seems very one sided and biased to blame something for starting a war on destroying families when those limitations shouldn't even exist in the first place, this day and age.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou well I can say they didn't open doors for women because they didn't. Other people did far more feminism simply destroyed gender relations by telling society, specificly women, that men are evil and oppressed women (which again they didn't) and that men are the enemy, it said to men that they are evil and bad and should grovel and beg forgiveness. If we look feminism has in fact cause so many issues that its quite absurd that any one could deny the negative impact it has had. You claim it shouldn't have existed to begin with, why? What is wrong with it? Because its something you don't want?(despite never actually experiencing it yourself all the while being told how evil and bad it is from pretty much day one). The fact is women chose it, in fact women are complaining constantly about how men where and how men currently are. They are the ones upset that men have embraced hook up culture so readily, how men no longer have any inclination ot marry etc. Women are loosing out.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Love marriages have only been around for about 250 years. And marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option.

[WhatAreYouReading]

Marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity for centuries. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance — basically enabling — of informal promiscuity,

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

[WhatAreYouReading]

I think you need to do a lot of research on the history of marriage and what kind of rights woman had regarding it. Feminism was very much needed, without the Suffragists most woman wouldn't have had access to education, and woman were not allowed to vote or have too much of a say about anything. Woman were mainly brought up their whole lives to be prepared for a man and to take care of a family. Men got to have passions and dreams and educations and a woman got to support that, all while never getting a chance at her own. Yes, feminism hurt marriage. Woman who were educated were more likely to see them-self as equal to a man which was the main fear of educating woman, after seeing what the world had to offer who would want to go back to the roles that were previously set out for them.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage If woman were happy with how things were so many wouldn't have given up so much to change it.
I am married, happily to the love of my life because I choose to be. He doesn't have the right to rape me , and he doesn't have the right to strike me which are things that years ago would have been his right. If something happens to him I can own land and stand on my own. If something happens to me, he still has a right to raise his children. Marriage doesn't make sense for everyone now. Woman have wants and dreams that extend further then just being an amazing wife and mother and many woman are realizing that they may not even want that at all and that is okay. Haha okay rant over... before I get entirely carried away.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Really? I need to read history? So why are you conviently ignoring the fact that men didn't have the right to vote either? Or the fact that when they finally did gain the right, only seventy years before women, it was purely on the basis that the government could conscript them at their discression which resulted in them dying so the only consolation being that they could right a name on a piece of paper. What did women do to gain that right again? Oh right nothing. What marriage laws are you reffering to exactly? Is it the one that made a man responsible for his wifes debt? Put him in prison if he couldn't pay said wifes debt? Those laws? You do have a point that women where not prior to the 1800s allowed to go to school, but again you ignore why. A man was solely responsible for his families well being to educate a man was to feed a family, to educate a woman was to give her spending money (its actually the issue in the middle east right now as prior to economic

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading collapse women where not only allowed but where in school) in fact that is actually a female privledge ie her husband having the entire responsibility of her well being placed squarel on his shoulders, back firing. As for women being raised to take care of a family, what where men doing then? Sitting around scratching their testicles? Or where they working in fields and factors for fifteen hours a day (when they where not being forced to die in a war they wanted no part of) in order to ensure that their current/future family would be well taken care of (in fact this was the reason for the pentiont, it was to ensure tha upon the mans death his family would still have income, even in death he was still used as a paycheck by his family :) ) Its true though it must have been hard on all those women, like when the titanic sank and killed all those women since they where the ones treated as disposable tools. . .

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading oh wait, no that was men. 100 women died vs the 1358 men. Why was that again, women and children first? yeah thats strange because men where viewed as people and women as objects but men where expected to work in the fields and factories in order to give women everything they needed to live and then where expected to stay and die on a sinking ship so the women could shove off and abandon said tools, I mean men to their fate, you know of dying from exposure or drowning. You know the more I think about it the less your view of history makes sense, or even matches facts. Also fun fact women where actualy the greatest opponents to the suffragettes (not to be confused with the suffragist who wanted voting rights for everybody instead of just white upper class women). They where afraid that they would be forced to sign for the draft (how silly of them, their privledged they don't have to) they where afraid it would make them give up their special privledges.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Its funny you mention hitting, men who hit women where flogged, publicly and shunned:https://unknownmisandry. blogspot. ca/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic. html. Do you know what happened when a woman hit a man though? He was flogged, or publicly ridiculed and pelted with stones or what ever happened to be lying around, they called it riding the donkey backwards in france: https://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm
Good thing we don't have that happening any more do we? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMRmGOj-Kj4
Oh. I'm sure that doesn't count.
Rape? in what way did a man have the right to rape? Men where historicly executed for rape. If by rape you mean a womans obligation to give her husband sex then yes that is true, however isn't it strange that he was still obligated to give her everything she needed

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading (marital contract give the woman all her economical needs and all the mans resources in exchange for the rights of reproduction, she willingly entered said contract) He is still obligated to take care of you (80% of dates are paid for by men, alimoney childsupport etc.). So while I do agree that is a bit much I also think its a little ridicoulus that he is still obligated to follow his traditional role which women seem to have no problem with that. Women chose marriage, it gave her a lot of advantages, in fact not working was the goal, it was a status symbol women strove for. Women could also own land, the fact is, women gained that right in the late 1700s, and the reason was it was no longer necessary to give it to the man. See only a man was physically strong enough to till the soil ergo the only source of food was from land the man could farm so it whent to him so the woman could eat. Once technology advanced enough (and the advent of the middle class)

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading a woman was allowed to own land, it was no longer a matter of life and death. Women worked just as men did (we have documents dating back to the 1400s listing multiple female blacksmiths, their where female miners until the late 1700s when it was deemed to dangerous for them (but not to dangerous for men) etc.). The fact is you do not know history and I honestly cannot believe you love your husband by the simple fact that you are willing to believe that all men oppressed all women (despite all evidence to the contrary) he is a man and you believe he is capable of and is currently oppressing you (despite you having more rights then he does or men ever had). Men have wants and dreams that extend further then just being an amazing husband/slave and father/walking paycheck and many men are realizing that they may not even want that at all and that is okay.(in fact its why men have embraced our current culture more then women hence the drop in marriages)

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Do you think their is a reason that men make up 75% of all suicide victims? Or 80% of all homeless? Or 98% of all combat deaths? Or 98% of all work place accidents/deaths? Or that men pay child support 80% of the time while the woman gets full custody almost 80% of the time? Or that men pay alimony (in many places for life) 80% of the time despite women being the ones who file for divorce 80% of the time? Or that 70% of non reciprocal domestic violence victims are male? That reciprocal violence in intimate relationships are perpetrated by women 50% of the time (yet studies show that while violent relationships are indicators of past and future violence for women it is not for men suggesting women instigate it)? Or that 80% of emotional abuse in intimate relationships are perpetrated by women? Or that men are as likely to be raped by a woman a woman is a man despite society refusing to acknowledge it? Or that women get a third of the sentencing that men do

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading for commiting the same crime? Or that 90% of all rape in juvenile detention centers are perpetrated by the female staff? Or that mothers are actually more likely to abuse and kill their children (60% of the time its the male offspring)? Do you think their is a reason for all of this or more specificly all of this despite the fact that we blame all things on men while claiming only women are victims? Just curios?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkGZvC0z4I

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
For hundreds of years husbands have cited an old Common Law (i. e. a law created by precedent or custom, not statutory or written law) that made it legal for them to beat their wives for various 'offences' such as lack of obedience to him. Various sources say that it was indeed once included in Common Laws or England, Wales and Ireland.

For hundreds of years it was thought to be the law of the land by both sexes, most especially among the poor most of whom were of course illiterate and relied on hearsay and oral tradition for what small legal knowledge they possessed. This meant that most women who were 'moderately' beaten believed they had no legal redress, and only sought the protection of the law when she (or her friends/family) felt the man had gone 'too far'.

Some judges and magistrates also believed that men had this right in Common Law and so, although they personally frowned upon violence against wives, they tended to be lenient with the violent husband.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage In most cases, right back to the 1500s, a husband found guilty of wife-assault was merely bound over to keep the peace.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage Marital rape is wrong. No one should be forced to have sex if they don't want, if you want to equate that with a man taking care of his wife and children I am guessing that is quite common and one of the reasons woman fought to be-able to provide for themselves so that wouldn't need to be the case. the Suffragist movement wouldn't have arose or gained so much traction if woman were happy about their station in life. The old laws were keeping woman from earning money and money is both freedom and power. As far as voting goes no it wasn't fair that men weren't allowed to vote for so long but it was other men keeping them from doing so. Men had all of the power. All of the systems we have, including traditional marriage were concepts of men. Everyone should have the right to vote since the decisions being made effect us all... unless of course the men were the only ones who had to follow these laws but we all know that was not the case.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Women did not receive permanent military status in the regular and reserve forces of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and then-newly created Air Force until 1948 when President Truman signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act. SO obviously they weren't going to go from woman not being able to join to mandatory right away. Since 1973 The draft is currently used as a contingency plan and if ever needed again who is to say they wouldn't start including woman? Also woman not being able to fight or be drafted was not the rule of woman. men viewed them as too weak.
There is a lot in our military procedures that needs to change. It more or less preys on the poor now but that is a whole other issue.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage The Titanic sunk in 1914. Woman were still looked as weak and needing to be protected. If something like that happened now you are deluding yourself if you think the numbers would look like that now. There would be more men saved and less woman and children. They would most likely board the life boats by ticket (class) now... so the poor; woman, men and children would share the same fate unless people voluntarily gave up their seat (which if I had 1st class ticket and had the chance now I would to save the life of a child). Men were disposable because that was how they saw themselves... that how the system was made up and guess what? Woman had nothing to do with that, they had no choices or power as far as that stuff went. You think in the beginning of time men and woman got together and decided how things would work? I highly doubt it.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage I agree that men (esp. the lower classes of men esp. minorities) are not treated justly and fair in our legal system. Our justice system seems to make it's decisions based on a lot more then gender... I think class and race play a much bigger role. I'm not sure where your from but our law here in the US is very broken. Our Prison system is for profit. We jail people who can't put up bail which is more or less just punishing you for being poor. There are so many issues there but they weren't changed or caused by feminism. And pointing fingers will not change them. Educate others and vote. Write to legislators, make your voice heard.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
The gap, also called the "gender paradox of suicidal behavior", can vary significantly among different countries. Statistics indicate that males die by suicide more frequently than do females; however the prevalence of suicidal thoughts was significantly higher among females than it was among males and there is no statistically significant difference for suicide planning or suicide attempts between the genders.
Woman tend to think things out and men tend to be more action. We need a way as a society to combat it, we as a whole need to take depression more seriously and have more venues available for people to be able to get the help they need.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Yeah, thats wrong (about the wife beating): www.canlaw.com/your-legal-rights/thumbrul.htm
and even if we pretend that it was true (which, again, it is not) it ignores the fact that women abused men and it was not only acceptable but the men would then be punished by society as well so its kind of a crap argument. As for spousal rape, your right she should not have sex if she doesn't want it, no argument their but if he is still obligated to continue to take care of her (even if he divorces her for not upholding her end of the contract) why does he still have to provide for her?(he did hisotricly and currently so your claim of suffragettes fighting for that reason is flawed as feminist have ensured this tradtion continues) Isn't that theft and extortion?

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Again I would reitterate that I am not saying rapeing of the spouse is right only that by that reasoning all the things we allow and enforce by law within a marriage and out are by extention extortion and should equally be illegal. As for earning money, again, women worked, women earned an income that is patently false as I have already stated. books.google.com/books
Again, women chose marriage because it meant greater resources, it was not forced it was not prison it was a choice. If they chose they could remain unmarried and in fact many women did. Now as for your blatent sexism. How is rich men (and women) having the right to vote and withholding it from men, the fault of men? How?

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Don't you find it odd that you choose the tiniest fraction of a group and determine the entire group is that way. Thats like me saying that since 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, then 100% of the population must be rich. Apex fallacy.(a varient of the composition/division fallacy) So that is incorrect. Plus again, women also voted if they where rich enough making this a economic/status issue not gender. It also of course ignores how women asked for the vote, got it, but didn't have to do anything for it so again, bias sexism. Marriage was a choice by women, don't know how you hate women so much to not understand that. Do you really think women are that worthless? that women raise the children (and thus have the ability to heavily influence them) choose their mates (having the ability to heavily influence them) yet still had absolutely no control or power? If that is the case how are we equal?

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Yes, it is true that women where not a part of the arm forces, but lest consider the fact that women opposed the right to vote because they didn't want to be drafted into war, lets also consider the fact that you are saying feminist wanted equal rigths yet also concede that no feminist fought for womens responsibility (since men really didn't have a choice) to also participate in the military. Not one of them. So kind of hard to say its about equality if they where silent when it came to metting out responsibilites. Women cannot be drafted as they are not required to sign for the draft, every man of voting age is however even today. Women are not fit for the military (hence the lower standards) that doesn't mean they couldn't fill a non combat capacity. As for the titanic, which one is it? Did men view women as chattel or something important to protect? They are mutually exclusive making that argument, well not an argument.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading You claim that if it happened today it would be different, an assumption, and a bad one. I gave you the statisitcs, men suffer in all catagories while women suffer almost not at all. men are more likely to be vicitms of domestic violence yet women shelters are plentiful mens are near non existent. Women recieve less punishment for commiting the same crimes etc etc etc (I have already gone through that list) so you are wrong their again. So basicly your argument is women are weak and worthless in every way literally inable to do anything or provide anything of value and thats why they should be treated as equals? That men treated themselves as disposable, to the great benefit of women, yet women had nothing to do with it? That women literally benefited in every way but where innocent of anything and everythign and men where the evil oppressors of men, the slave was the slave owner? That is your argument? Did you read anything I wrote? I'm guessing not.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading The gender sentencing gap is actually purely due to gender: www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...r-gap_n_1874742.html
So yet again you are wrong. As for suicides, women think it out? Really? Even in this your going to be sexist? Okay. here's another theory, studies show that men where far more intent to die then women thats why they where more likely to succeed, for women it was a cry for help but for men it was an end to the pain. In short stop blaming men for everything look at the links, look at the data and then realize you are the most privledged gender on earth, that you instigate and allow for the continued mistreatment of men. Stop being self centered and start analyzing facts. everything you said I disproved (before you even said it mind you).

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife. One exception, however, was the 1641 Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts Bay colonists, which declared that a married woman should be "free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband."
Political agitation during the 19th century led to changes in both popular opinion and legislation regarding domestic violence within the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. In 1850, Tennessee became the first state in the United States to explicitly outlaw wife beating. Other states soon followed. In 1878, the UK Matrimonial Causes Act made it possible for women in the UK to seek legal separation from an abusive husband. By the end of the 1870s, most courts in the United States had rejected a claimed right of husbands to physically discipline their wives. By the early 20th century, it was common for police to intervene in cases of

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage domestic violence but arrests were rare.
Attention to domestic violence began to be drawn in the 1970s by the women's movement, particularly within the contexts of feminism and women's rights. The first known use of the expression "domestic violence" in a modern context, meaning "spouse abuse, violence in the home" was in an address to the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1973. A few months later the world's first domestic violence services federation (Women's Aid) was set up to provide practical and emotional support as part of a range of services to women and children experiencing violence in England. Studies in the 1990s showed that men may also be victims of domestic violence.

In most legal systems around the world, the issue of DV has been addressed only from the 1990s onwards; indeed, before the late-20th century, in most countries there was very little protection, in law or in practice, against DV.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Blatant sexism? Woman didn't have the right to vote so how could they have kept men from voting?
On that note, I'm done. I thought we were having a nice debate, I was enjoying it. Obviously I was wrong. Have a good day sir.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Its obvious your not even reading or looking at my links or my argument so I'm just going to stop. The fact is a woman was only answerable to her husband so he did have the right to punish her just as he would a child this however is different then abuse. Again even if that was not the case women beat their husbands and the husband was punished for it so your argument is invalid, studies show that women abuse men at significantly higher rates then men abuse women so again, your argument is invalid. www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...n-in-relationships.html
www.saveservices.org/.../
www.medicaldaily.com/domestic-violence-against-men-women-more-likely-be-intimate-terrorists-controlling-behavior-290662
Stop playing the victim card, study history, acknowledge that men are human beings (because obviously you do not think they are) and cite your sources.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Yeah, I was reading your links and trying to see things from your point of view but I will admit to not reading anything after you insulted me. I was pretty impressed with us up until that point but now I'm done.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Men didn't have the right to vote so how could they keep women down? Thats the sexism that I am talking about the complete one sided view of history completely ignoring womens role through out history, all of the female rulers artist etc, completely ignoring all the suffering that men whent through usually on the behalf of women, that is sexism you are saying women are worthless they could do nothing and men are evil because some rich jackass had all the power. How is that not sexism? How are you, belittling women and men not a sexist remark? Honestly how can you reconcile that? It was not a fun debate because you ignored everything I wrote everything. You pinned everything on men refused to acknowledge the hardships of men, the influence of women and this is why men are suffering in all areas. This is why, I'm sorry if that upsets you but I cannot ignore that.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading You blamed all men for everything, how is that not an insult? If you claim all men are something, that only men are bad that only women are victims then how are you not insulting me as a man, your husband as a man? Thats when I got angry and pointed out the sexism because that is what it is. Its not my point of view these are historical facts. And also the citation remark was actually meant in good faith that wasn't an insult, its a pet peeve of mine (i have stopped giving my citations right away because everyone just ignores them). As I said it isn't a personal attack but you are making sexist remarks and disregarding mens suffering you literally stated as much. Mens suffering was due to men and so was womens. This is your statements that made this claim and as such you have attacked all men.

[lolatyou]

I mean men set most of the rules and always have. That also means they set the rules for themselves. That's not really an attack

[lolatyou]

That's not really an attack, that's just how it's been.

pressed enter too fast

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Okay then you tell me who our Government was made up of in the 1800's? Men or woman? Who decided who had the right to vote 70 years prior to woman even gaining that right? I was responding to your comment that you made about many men not gaining the right to vote until 70years before woman. I just don't get how you think Feminism or woman had anything to do with that or had any control over that. I am not trying to play the blame game. All though now I get the sinking feeling that you are. Sorry if you felt attacked that was not my intention.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage
Like I said I am sorry and I didn't realized you were taking everything so seriously. I thought we were having a nice debate. I didn't realize you could take that statement as an attack. I don't do well with the easily offended. Neither of us is going to change the others opinion so let's just call it.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage Oh and sorry I didn't mean 'all men' the way you took it. I thought it was obvious that I meant the people in power. Most men didn't have much of a say in anything, but the people who did have a say were all men... see what I mean now? And I was referring to the U. S as I assumed you were (with the voting comments) but perhaps I was wrong.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@lolatyou Yeah that's what I was trying to say as well.

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou Wrong, women raise children ie boys who become men they instill values in said men unless you wish to argue that parenting does not exist or is some newfangled phenomenon, they then choose who they marry (yes it is and was a choice) which means they choose who breeds the only reason why humans (and life) exist, that means they have the power. How can you say that a man made the rule that he has to die for a woman? Does that benefit him? No. Does it benefit her? Yes. It was a contingent of marriage he had to provide her with all that she needed (and frequently what she wanted) and in return he got to reproduce she dicated her sons first thoughts what he learned what he felt she did the same to her husband, she had the power. How is that not obvious?

[hellionthesage]

@lolatyou Also you are presuming a lot. their where and are female rulers and also again, you are presuming that since a male king makes a decree, all men have that power which is ludicris. Obama is the president ergo I must be the president because I am a male as well? That is what your reasoning is its kind of insane. That is a fallacy of attibuting a quality of one to all. Thats like saying because my mother was abusive all women are abusive. Is that a logical conclusion to come to? No. Thats why I am having a hard time understanding why you and so many other women can't understand it, its so obvious that it boggles the mind. I mean one guy is rich so every guy is rich? How do you conlcude that. You also ignore that power and politics are not the same thing. Lobbiest have a lot of power despite not being politicians/rulers so again its a misleading statement.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Who was our government comprised of? Fucking rich people. The dorr rebellion of rhoad island in 1841 was because the filthy rich people got to vote, so they, in rich people fashion, voted for laws that only benefited them. So the poor MEN, rose up and tried to overthrow them. You are associating the fact that they are male with their power, that is an incorrect assumption it was because they where rich and it also ignores that rich women also voted. Its like saying that men have all the power today because most of the senate is male while completely ignoring that almost 80% of the homeless are male or that almost all bottom rung jobs like mining waste managment etc are held by men (over 90%) ie more men numericly hold lower positoins then women then do men in the upper echchalons of power. Its a fallacy its illogical and has no merit. Hence my ire at the repeated claim that men had power even when they clearly didn't/don't.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading I was offended when I repeatedly showed you that your statement was wrong. You claimed women where abused by men frequently and legally which I gave a link showing it to be false, you claimed it again and again I provided a link to show you it was false AND that women not only abused their husband but that husbands who where abused where punished for being abused. You claimed it a third time and again I pointed out and gave links showing that men are actually more likely to be abused then women. You continued to ignore this hence me asking if you even read my statements or looked at my links. This increased my ire and was quite insulting that even after all that you would ignore the facts, ignore the evidence and then go back to saying how all men where abusers (not all men but heavily suggested). You continued to portray women as weak and helpless which is not true and men as abusive and controling (they are not).

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading You then continued to ignore everything I wrote. Hence my ire and me calling out that your statements are sexist on account that they where prejudice, stereotyping, and discriminatiory towards men and women. I wanted you to realize that when you say women are victims and men are not that is descrimination, when you claim that all men had power because a few of the rich (which as I pointed out prior on two different occasions included women) had power that this some how benefited men. Now if it was a woman purely in power it might have since women have a 4x in group prefference, but men don't so it didn't. Men died for women, slaved for women and you had no problem blaming them for your/womens suffering as well as their (mens) suffering hence my remark about them being both the slave and slaver, its illogical I pointed that out multiple times as well.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage I don't see how I ignored what you said. You talked about jails and then so did I, the Titanic then so did I... I was reading your stuff and trying to hit the same point until you started to get offended and throw insults around but like I said I'm not doing this with you. I thought we were having a nice debate and we weren't so I'm not interested in whatever this is.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading As for the laws, again I gave you links I gave you data, no domestic violence was not acceptable, yes their was little laws for it, no that did not mean that it was common practice and accepted people had a different way of doing things usually through lynchings, yes men suffered domestic violence to and unlike with women it not only did the woman go unpunished but the man was punished again for allowing himself to be a victim (funny since you are doing the same thing, not allowing men to be victims that is). The fact is you where not debating me, you repeated the same thing over and over, you refused to acknowledg any of my comments you refused to look at my data all of which disproved your remarks (its why I said it to begin with, I don't refference facts unless I know them). I am not easily offended, but if someone starts talking at me instead of to me then yes I start getting really frustrated (character flaw I suppose, its something my mother would do).

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading Listen if you don't want to do "this" thats fine. But you didn't address my pionts you ignored them, you where at first but then it degenerated into god knows what. I am not attacking you, if thats what you think, I'm trying to get you to understand. I mean you ignored my statements about power, how you continue to associate it with being male when it was being rich, hence rich women voting. You ignored that and continued to do so. You blame men, you do and thats what is causing so much strife today, is blamign men for everything. Thats why men make up almost the entire homeless population, the suicides, the substance abusers, why men are dropping out of schools on all levels why women are graduating in an ever increasing percentage in comparison to men (63% and growing, no one seems to care). I pointe out that it was wrong to do so in hopes that it would make you think about what you where saying. Obviously I was wrong. Sorry I felt I needed to try.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage I read all of your replies and looked at your sites and watched your videos. I stayed on point until your comment and that's when I started having to repeat myself. To explain what I meant since you were taking things I said as attacks when they were not meant that way. Sorry if you feel I blame men. I don't. We were talking about feminism and you started bringing up all of this stuff and I was just trying to counter it. It seemed like you blamed woman almost. I'm not into pissing contests. I don't think one gender is any better then the other. And no I'm not touching your points with a 10 foot poll now even though I badly want to because you are too emotionally involved and I'm not interested in fighting, once someone starts flinging insults it's no longer a debate, there is nothing more to be learned or gained from that encounter.

[hellionthesage]

@WhatAreYouReading What insults did I "fling" exactly? To be perfectly honest yeah I am uncharacteristicly emotional, but that doesn't alter the validity of my comments or my data. I pointed out the illogical aspects of your argument I provided evidence for my stance, ample evidence, with sources and you just blamed men. As I pointed out yeah you insulted all men you looked down on them when you claim they oppressed women. Its fallacious and its wrong. I have had this argument a million times and irregardless of how I present the data how much data I present it is ignored it is dismissed. You did dismiss it and I don't understand how I can make you realize that men are not evil and bad and worthless as you want to claim hence me taking the emotional approach because logic doesn't seem to work evidence doesn't seem to work so maybe empathy or something of that nature would. I was wrong. I am sorry you feel the way you do, I have tried my hardest and it wasn't enough obviously. Good day.

[WhatAreYouReading]

@hellionthesage Let's agree to disagree.

[mistixs]

It's heartening to see a post like this written by a man.
I think it depends on the person.

[nalaa]

Ya I agree with this. I don't think we're a very promiscuous or polygamous species. And everyone wants relationships. The hook up thing is kinda in right but I think by the end of the day people are still looking for a connection

Even with guys that claim they want to just something casual, if you spend enough time with them, it eventually slips out that they'd love a good relationship but don't think it's realistic.
Like this guy I know, hooks up with a different girl every other week, claims he would never want to get married or have kids. And then came in the other day telling us enthusiastic about the article he read about Conor Mcgregor and that his wife was already with him when he was living off unemployment benefit

But that's the problem, people don't think having a good relationship is realistic for them, so they don't even try.

[genuinlysensitive]

Spot on! The problem is so many special interest groups out there don't want people to be happy. Since being in a loving relationship makes people happy they seek to destroy it by flooding the media with glorification of sex without relationships as "superior" even though they make you feel like shit! Even here on GAG, notice how all the BS takes about fwbs being awesome (total bullshit!) are front and center, whereas a take like this is not?

Anyway I hope you find your soulmate! I hope I find mine, and everyone out there finds theirs!

[oddwaffle]

You are wrong. Personal opinion is not evidence. I think I can fly with enough coffee but that's an opinion, not a fact.

Monogamous is not part of human reproduction. Male reproduction involves impregnated as many females as possible and flee while female reproduction involves getting the male (doesn't have to be the father) to stick around and help raise the few kids (they actually can have).

[Careless_Whisper]

That's a lie, usually told by people who want to sleep around. I'll repeat what I said in the mytake: if men were meant to sleep around then they wouldn't even seek relationships, they would remain single and just impregnate women. The fact that most men, deep down, desire a loving relationship is proof that you are wrong.

[Mekkalyn]

If every man thought like that we'd have an overpopulation epidemic... all those babies being produced.

[Azara]

if men are programmed to flee, then it would be huge waste of valuable time energy and resource to get them to stay. women would just from their own society raise kids with other women who are not fleeing, and men can live on their own on the fringes and visit annually like male elephants,. its much more efficient.

[ObscuredBeyond]

The getting hurt part is very true. I used to jump at the chance to start a relationship. Now, even when I'm being pushed to meet someone, I have the "eh... maybe" thing going on. And when her replies are too to-the-point and mechanical, they almost sound like rejection. Like something in me is looking for an excuse to run away.

[dominiquois]

Unless you're a psychopath/sociopath you're brain biology does not allow people to be very promiscuous. They'd get attached to people too often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbofwUoB8CU

[azanun]

I swear I am monogamous. I camt be attracted to more than one man

[dominiquois]

Its normal for humans to be. there's biological reasons for it

[ikissedtheskyonce]

The issues start when people who want a monogamous relationship try to convince the person they like to be in one, even after they expressed no interest in a relationship. To me it looks pathetic and desperate to try to convince someone who already told them they do not want to be with you to be with you when there are plenty of other people to pursue

[Careless_Whisper]

By that comment it is evident that you paid zero attention to anything I said.

[ikissedtheskyonce]

Just being honest

[Careless_Whisper]

Nobody said anything about convincing the person they like to be monogamous, so I have no idea why you brought this up.

[ikissedtheskyonce]

"I think most people that have given up on monogamous relationships have either been hurt in the past, or because they live in a society that is highly sexualized and they are afraid of the divorce laws etc"

Because one of the reasons some people who want a monogamous relationship, end up getting hurt is because they allow themselves to try to be with someone who does not want the same thing they want and think they can change them

[es20490446e]

The term is imperfect monogamy. It means we tend to be monogamous with the people we really connect with, and polygamous with those we don't.

So probably it depends on your standard of relationship, if you chose to be with someone you really appreciate or just with any piece of shit.

If I was to be promiscuous I will just quit the relationship, because that will mean I'm with the wrong person.

[tynamite]

This is not true. Monogamy was invented by men because men invented marriage.

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man
www.psmag.com/.../17-to-1-reproductive-success

[Anonymous]

I don't know... but what I surely know is that there is a lack of self-control nowadays... and I have no idea why there's some people who are proud of that. Anyways... don't you worry... good, loving, people are silent, if not also the majority in this planet. Regardless... being in true loving relationship is one of the best feelings and best gifts God has blessed us. Seek it.

[teenguy1]

I think you may be confusing polygamy with promiscuity as promiscuity is having sex with many sexual partners with no commitment but polygamy is having more than one commited relationship which has been seen in many cultures as acceptable. So the argument that we all desire monogamy is incorrect it the western culture that presents it as the norm

[Careless_Whisper]

No it'snot incorrect, but believe what you want.

[SexyStudent]

The desire to be with another person is an urge that applies to all living things. Monogamy is the rule with very little very few exceptions. Even earthworms bond together.

[Scrambledagain]

So where is this evidence? I see your thought out opinion based on what you feel. So Where is this qualitative or quantitative data you collected?

[Careless_Whisper]

The evidence is based on the fact that the vast majority of the human race desires a loving relationships rather than remaining single and sleeping around. If your brain can't understand that then that is your fault.

[Anonymous]

All I can say is quality over quantity, just like with friends. I've had lots of dates, hookups, and a few flings but no actual relationships. I'd much rather have a few really good relationships than a bunch of shitty ones that go nowhere.

[skeptic007]

no everyone wants a one on one relationship you are right on that part

[Anonymous]

You can find evidence to support any theory you want to be true.

[FilthyPervert]

So the ones who don't are not human? Lmao.

[TwentySomething]

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole.

[SunsetRose]

I completely agree.