sbk Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Actually, going back to the darwinism idea here, most theories I have read argue that it was best for the female if she was monogamous thus ensuring to her partner that the children were his, guaranteeing his continued support of their children. Most theories argue that it was the male need to spread his genetic material that led to multiple partners but for the female the best guarantee of survival was not mulitple partners but one monogamous one; thus her need for a monogamous partner loyal to her survival became clear. Now, if we fast forward a few thousand years to the present, I, myself, prefer a monogamous partner, even if, again, only for survival reasons. AIDS perhaps being the new evolutionary factor encouraging monogamy? If I had found my partner was unfaithful to me it would not just signal a lack of respect for me as a person but a lack of concern for my health and well-being. Everyone has their own personal feelings on these issues but it is sheer arrogance to suggest that just because one person prefers multiple partners that anyone else who doesn't is neurotic! Each person has their own path to follow and it is not up to any one person to dictate to the other what that path should be. Follow your own path but do not judge me for mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Everyone has their own personal feelings on these issues but it is sheer arrogance to suggest that just because one person prefers multiple partners that anyone else who doesn't is neurotic! Each person has their own path to follow and it is not up to any one person to dictate to the other what that path should be. Follow your own path but do not judge me for mine! Please refer to my last post to see that I wish any happy couples a long and happy life. As I see it, the irrational expectation that your significant other should be with you and with you only, the notion that another human being 'belongs' to you, has caused and will continue to cause a multitude of problems. I didn't say that that anyone who does not prefer multiple partners is a neurotic. I said the entire state of affairs amounts to mass neurosis. Namely, rules and traditions ingrained in society which are contrary to the way we are hardwired, which you pointed out so well in your remarks on Darwinism. While the statement about going to the bathroom on the street was amusing, the fact is that in using the bathroom, there is no negative consequence. Actually, I can only see positives. On the other hand, as a result of our inability to act on our most basic of instincts, you have many millions of people going through feelings of guilt, anger, sadness, and fear. These are all the negative consequences of a society that ingrains in the minds of the people the notion that two people will satisfy eachother's needs forever and ever and straying from this path is very, very wrong. I do beleive that if you go into a marriage where the mutual understanding is that you will be faithful, you should do so or get divorced. The fact that half of those going into this life long commitment decide to end it should be a slight hint that the current system is not working for everyone or indeed for a great deal of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulsenp Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 My Father (RIP), once said to me - If a man cheats on his wife, he should not be trusted in business as if he treats his wife/mother of his children with contempt, what will he do to you! Wise guy, your father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IT Manager Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I voted yes. I am faithful to both my girlfriends. Sharing is caring.. How restrictive. I am faithful to my partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 "How restrictive. I am faithful to my partners." I only have one wife and currently, one GF...Still, I feel I am faithful but I voted no...I think that both think that I, on occasion, lie to them...so if they found out that I voted yes they may think I was not telling the truth and get mad at me...neither of them has any use for liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwiz117 Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 "How restrictive. I am faithful to my partners." I only have one wife and currently, one GF... You are Married and also having an Affair.. This is what it means.. Smart man + smart woman = romance Smart man + dumb woman = affair Dumb man + smart woman = marriage Just a joke.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecat Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Smart man + smart woman = romanceSmart man + dumb woman = affair Dumb man + smart woman = marriage I married beneath me - all women do. Nancy Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecat Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 To be faithfull, it helps to be in love with your partner, right? But what love are we talking about? Throughout history, mankind has deemed the heart the center of love. But scientists tell us love is all in our mind or brain. And fueled by chemicals and chemistry.When two people are attracted to each other, a virtual explosion of adrenaline-like nuerochemicals gush forth. Fireworks explode and we see stars. PEA or phenylethylamine is a chemical that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells. Also, involved in chemistry are dopamine and norepinephrine, chemical cousins of amphetamines. Dopamine makes us feel good and norepinephrine stimulates the production of adrenaline. It makes our heart race! These three chemicals combine to give us infatuation or "chemistry." It is why new lovers feel euphoric and energized, and float on air. It is also why new lovers can make love for hours and talk all night for weeks on end. This is the chemistry or the love sparks we all seek. Actually when we have chemistry with someone, it's not exactly flattering. In fact, some might call it insulting. Why? According to Harville Hendrix our brain dumps PEA when we identify someone who can: 1. Finish our childhood business. 2. Give us back what we lost to the socialization process of growing up. Singles search for love armed with a list of qualities desired in a mate/lover, such as honesty, fidelity, loyalty, sense of humor, intelligence, warmth, etc. Yet when that person appears they say, He/she is a really nice person, but nothing clicked, just no "chemistry." Unfortunately, we hear that click when we recognize our original parent/child situation. That's when our brain really gets those phenylethylamines and other chemicals moving. Some people become veritable love junkies. They need chemistry or this chemical excitement to feel happy about and intoxicated by life. Once this initial rush of chemicals wanes (inevitable after six months to three years, depending on the individual and the circumstances), their relationship crumbles. They're soon off again, detectives seeking a quick fix to their forlorn feelings: another chemical high from infatuation. These love junkies also have one other problem. The body builds up a tolerance to these chemicals. Then it takes more and more chemistry to bring that special feeling of love. They crave the intoxication of chemistry and infatuation. Many adults go through life in a series of six-month to three-year relationships. If these love junkies stay married, they are likely to seek affairs to fuel their chemical highs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Something about feeding my little boy to a chicken makes it quite easy to be faithful. (hmmm come to think of it no more chickens so might be safe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayenram Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Is receiving a Barclay's from a massuese considered 'unfaithful'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nat Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 To be faithfull, it helps to be in love with your partner, right?But what love are we talking about? Social psychologists have described various types of love through different theories - they all pretty much describe the same thing, just use different terminology. One of the most popular theories is Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. According to this theory there are 3 components of love: 1. Intimacy – self-disclosure through sharing emotions and stories with partner; closeness; etc. 2. Passion – erotic interest and sexual consummation (Bluecat’s description would fall in here). 3. Decision / Commitment – decision to stay with your partner and defer this type of relationship with other potential partners. (These form a triangle – use your imagination) When all 3 are present in a relationship and balance than we have the most complete form of love “Consummate Love” – it involves a close friendship, physical urges and a strong commitment. However, this does not often happen, most people tend to emphasize 1 or 2 of the components, which results in the following types of love: 1. Infatuated Love: high passion, low intimacy & low commitment (e.g. love at first sight). 2. Empty Love: high commitment, low intimacy & low passion (e.g. residual love). 3. Romantic Love: high intimacy, high passion & low commitment (e.g. liking & physical desire). 4. Companionate Love: high intimacy, high commitment & low passion (e.g. later stages). 5. Fatuous Love: high passion, high commitment & low intimacy (e.g. stalker). 6. Liking: high intimacy present, low passion & low commitment (e.g. friendship). 7. Nonlove: all 3 components are absent. People tend to have more than one love triangle, for instance real and ideal triangles. Sternberg believes that in particular relationships the 3 components take different courses. For example, in a long term relationship the level of passion goes down after it reaches a peak, but intimacy increases. A good to acceptable arrangement is one where both partners want, receive and give the same amounts of the 3 components. Relationships can begin to deteriorate the further the partners’ 3 dimensions of love differ. For example, one partner may mainly be seeking passion while the other intimacy. If the partners are devoted to each other and resolve their differences all is fine. However if not this may result in one or both searching out the ingredient that’s lacking. The less we receive of the thing we want the unhappier we are. Sternberg claims that divorce is not due to choosing the wrong partner, but because the partners’ “needs” change over time. (apologies for the theoretical and bland post ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Sternberg claims that divorce is not due to choosing the wrong partner, but because the partners’ “needs” change over time. And that is what I call neurotic. We know in advance that our needs will change over time and yet we make a life long commitment that will prevent us from fulfilling these vary needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK_BACKDOORBANDIT Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 THE WORD "Faithful" does not apply to any man who travels to Thailand with his girlfriend , wife etc... BDB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impy_la_blimpy Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 THE WORD "Faithful" does not apply to any man who travels to Thailand with his girlfriend , wife etc... BDB sh1t! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 THE WORD "Faithful" does not apply to any man who travels to Thailand with his girlfriend , wife etc... BDB Now I am, what to say?, flabbergasted. I understand your meaning of girlfriend , wife but what is etc. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davethailand Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 i'm 31, married to a great thai girl and feel no need to shag everyone i meet (been there done that) apart from the old 5 knuckle shuffle after a massage yeh i'm faithfull, in my opinion i now have a real life, ie no bullsh*t, not having to hide wallets etc and actuallly going home to someone who wants me. ps i go gogo ing with mates, so does my wife we've had 3 big arguments in 3 years and she's my eye's and ears at work and also my best mate. life is ******* great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveYo Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Not bad for only once a year biggie argument. Question do you know when this argument is supposed to take place. If you do, then perhaps take a flight out and still have fun Saves a man some asprin more or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D80 Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Hmmmm.... I prefer to be with a partner who is faithful to me. I am faithful to my partner and would appreciate it if he does the same. If he were to play around, I would rather not be with the guy at all. Quite agree with SBK on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecat Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Quite agree with SBK on this one. SBK is the lucky one, does not count,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 37% are 'unfaithful'. Not an insignificant number... With a little luck, we'll see it get up over 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadish_sweetball Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Nice discussion. And nobody has resorted to country-bashing or racism yet, as far as I can see. Sweet. ChiangMaiThai: funny - I used exactly your line of reasoning in an e-mail to a friend yesterday - I was a bit surprised to find it here this morning. cdnvic: Well thought, as well. I think what this all boils down is that if you plan to have kids, they deserve to have you around. Don't take off on them. If not, you may strike any arrangement you see fit with your partner(s). Just make sure you try to define your basic roles and commitments, if any, from the start. And make sure you use protection. I see marriage as an institution which has evolved with a purpose, to bring order into people's love lives and to have a firm base for kids to grow up in. Of course, marriages may become extremely fear- or hate-infested institutions. The debate about this was heated already in the late nineteenth century (August Strindberg "Giftas" Ibsen "The Doll House", Freud's theories...) I've been unfaithful before though, and the reason for this is that I stayed for too long in a futile relationship. Neither she, nor I had the guts to end it, and so, when the opportunity came up - and what an opportunity - being picked up by a gorgeous heavy metal chick to the tones of Black Sabbath - I could not resist. It was bound to happen. I felt bad afterwards, so I ended my relationship asap, for the better of me and my then-GF. That relationship was far different from my present one though. My present GF shows her love for me in almost everything she does, which has set off a positive trend in me as well. Unlike most other girls I've been with, she makes a true EFFORT to make our relationship work, and for this reason, I can't but do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbkudu Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Thai women are just too hot to resist, man. The little hands and hard titties drive me freakin crazy. With a few beers slammed back, I'm a pushover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf5370 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I don't accept this "f'ing around makes us human BS". Millenia ago, perhaps we did have to to spread the old seed - darwinian like. We also used to bash each others heads in with rocks, eat raw flesh and sh!t where we stood. We evolved (maybe not much biologically, but morally at least). We formed rules to live with that allowed us to encompass the earth. Sure we've broken these rules we call civilasation, wars etc, but they have always worked against the species not for it - population retardation rather than growth. What makes us human IS our humanity - our ability to follow rules that are not based soley on instinct and to judge our limits within these boundaries - that is, an ability to know right from wrong. This is civilisation. We soon pick out the wierd ones that break these rules - murderers, rapists, paedophiles, etc - they are all outside of established norms; outside our boundaries. Monogamy has been part of these civilsation for many generations in most countries - why do we find it so hard as a species to avoid straying outside the boundaries. Simple, we can get away with it and we see it as a victimless crime. Sometimes the former is true, the latter is rarely so. If couples do not belong together and they feel the need to move on, then it is within the norms of society (in most societies) to part ways - this is your get-out-of-jail card - extra marital relations is simply cheating and outside the norms and therefore immoral in our society and a weakness in our personality. Divorce is simply a law suite. You are suiting your partner (or being suited by them). One of the main reasons sited is infedelity/unfaithfulness. This summounts to a breach of contract. By the fact that you can suit for this shows that it outside of the 'rules' posed by society in our age. Guess how I voted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Wolf, you elude to the fact that in our society the rule is that you are with one partner and this adhering to the rule is what makes us civilised. Logically then, one who breaks this rule should then be considered uncivilised. So what do you have to say of societies that condone men who have numerous wives? Those men who do are well respected, are acting within the rules of society and based on your argument, by all accounts they must be completey civilised. But wait, I thought a man who has multiple partners is uncivilised??? Or if the society condones it, then it is civilised? Be careful of using relative terms as if they are absolute. As far as I am concerned, all the evidence points to the fact that we are not designed to be with one partner for all of eternity. But we are taught that this is the way it should be. And so problems are bound to arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf5370 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Actually I disagree with your conclusion. Where a person comes from a society where the 'rules' of that society allow for polygamy, then polygamists exist inside the moral code of that society - hence why I kept saying 'most countries/societies/etc' and not 'all'. Granted there are societies that allow for this, but they are few and far between. Most of us, however, do not come from such societies. This being the case it is still not morally acceptable to use external society's caveat to justify breaking our own. Let me give an analogy: Some societies allow for the marriage of children, 13 y/o, to be married off to adults. Some allow for forced marriages. Those of us from other sociological frameworks still see this as wrong. We live by our own honour code and morality. This is heavily based on our society's rule system. Most of the world pretty much follows the same boundaries these days. While I agree that many do not do so well in long term relationships, I am still of the thinking that: a) our society allows for this - its called separation/divorce and that we probably picked the wrong partner in first place. We can use (a) to overcome (. It is immoral (granted to most of the world, not all) to move out of our society's boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Actually I disagree with your conclusion. Where a person comes from a society where the 'rules' of that society allow for polygamy, then polygamists exist inside the moral code of that society - hence why I kept saying 'most countries/societies/etc' and not 'all'. Granted there are societies that allow for this, but they are few and far between. Most of us, however, do not come from such societies. This being the case it is still not morally acceptable to use external society's caveat to justify breaking our own. Let me give an analogy: Some societies allow for the marriage of children, 13 y/o, to be married off to adults. Some allow for forced marriages. Those of us from other sociological frameworks still see this as wrong. We live by our own honour code and morality. This is heavily based on our society's rule system. Most of the world pretty much follows the same boundaries these days. While I agree that many do not do so well in long term relationships, I am still of the thinking that: a) our society allows for this - its called separation/divorce and that we probably picked the wrong partner in first place. We can use (a) to overcome (. It is immoral (granted to most of the world, not all) to move out of our society's boundaries. Okay, so in the Taliban's society, we ban the woman from having any freedom's, working, going to school etc. Now, your logic tells us that this is perfectly civilised. The men who treated women this way were following the rules of socitety after all. There's a fallacy in assuming that following the rules set forth by society make us civilised. The rules set forth by society and engranied in us from birth can not be considered objectively right or wrong or civilised or uncivilised. They are arbitrary rules, which over time, we come to accept as simply the way things are. For those that think for themselves and have their own understanding of right and wrong, operationg outside of these rules does not neccessarily make them a bad person or uncivilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utapaortnab Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 My take is that IF you have any kind of self-respect for yourself, you would never marry anyone unless you were determined to be 100% faithful to that person. To be anything less, would mean you were either NOT yet an adult but just a child who had never matured, or a shameless worthless being and not deserving of a wife, lifetime partner, someone to care for you all the days of your life, etc. Is there something about some men that make them think that the are super macho by having a wife and still cheating with another or many others. Does sleeping with 100 women mean you are 100 times the man as those who choose to be 100% faithful. IF you are unwilling to accept your wife as the treasure she is, then you really don't deserve a wife. What you will end up as is less of a person and someday in the future, when you grow old, you will become unacceptable to all the honorable neighbors and family members you have left. Ken Bower San Antonio Texas Those with differing oppinions are invited to flame away. All I have to say is I have too much respect and love for the lady I chose as my lifetime partner to disrespect her in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbkudu Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 One thing that seems to have escaped the mind's of the forum guests here is that it's nobody's d##n business what other people do with thier sex lives. If I want to spice up my life a bit here and there it's not your, his, her, their business. It's not the government's either. It's mine and my wife's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiangMaiThai Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 My take is that IF you have any kind of self-respect for yourself, you would never marry anyone unless you were determined to be 100% faithful to that person. To be anything less, would mean you were either NOT yet an adult but just a child who had never matured, or a shameless worthless being and not deserving of a wife, lifetime partner, someone to care for you all the days of your life, etc.Is there something about some men that make them think that the are super macho by having a wife and still cheating with another or many others. Does sleeping with 100 women mean you are 100 times the man as those who choose to be 100% faithful. IF you are unwilling to accept your wife as the treasure she is, then you really don't deserve a wife. What you will end up as is less of a person and someday in the future, when you grow old, you will become unacceptable to all the honorable neighbors and family members you have left. Ken Bower San Antonio Texas Those with differing oppinions are invited to flame away. All I have to say is I have too much respect and love for the lady I chose as my lifetime partner to disrespect her in any way. If you've read some of my previous posts then you know that I think the very concept of marriage is flawed and bound to result in problems. Nevertheless, if you go into a marriage with both parties promising to be faithful, then I agree that you should abide by this pledge. But in a less neurotic society, lifelong bondage to one person which prohibits you from having experiences with others would be the exception rather than the norm. You also seem to have a romantic ideal of marriage in general. I dont disagree that there are married couple out there who are truly in love and I wish them all the best. But the reality of the world is that people often marry out of neccessity. Whether it be for money, because a child is on the way or for stability, people get married for many reasons that don't involve love first and foremost and so it shouldn't be surprising that over time they become unsatisfied and end up 'cheating'. In my opinion, this hardly means that they lack self respect or respect for their partner. It means they live in the real world and they are looking out for number one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisele Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 people get married for many reasons that don't involve love first and foremost and so it shouldn't be surprising that over time they become unsatisfied and end up 'cheating'. In my opinion, this hardly means that they lack self respect or respect for their partner. It means they live in the real world and they are looking out for number one. v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats v. tr. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye. To elude; escape: cheat death. v. intr. To act dishonestly; practice fraud. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards. Informal. To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse. If not lacking in respect for one's partner then what does dishonesty and deception mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now