Post Reply
Page 14 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Polygamy (AKA, Slippery Slope Ahoy!)
6 years ago  ::  Jul 29, 2008 - 9:06PM #131
appy20
Posts: 10,165
Did you read the part about traits becoming adaptations as in polygamy? 

Many W\omen are attracted to wealth, etc. That is the only way Donald Trump could get a date. LOL. Because in prehistoric times, women could not support themselves by themselves, they were entirely dependent on men.  Therefore, it made sense to find the best man who could provide for her and her offspring.  Nowadays, even though women no longer need that, it is ingrained into many women's
DNA.  Women, especially those that are attractive to men, do choose men of the highest status they can find.   Once again, that does not apply to me.  Since I have never been supported by a man in my life and I am not attracted to a man's wallet, the pattern does not fit me.  However, I do fit the pattern in that if I had ever been interested in having children, I would not want to support them entirely on my own.  I would pick a guy that could provide adequately for a child because I would not want to raise a child in poverty.  Being that I never wanted children, I never chose men according to that criteria.  Once again, I don't fit the pattern. Most women want children.  That does not mean that the pattern does not exist.  If you take a good look at our culture,  politics, entertainment, you will see that there is a lot of randy males and gold digging women in the limelight. 

Remember the worst gold digger in the world can only pass on her genes to a limited number of offspring.  Whereas, a randy male can pass off his traits to a large number of offspring. 

As for the court reference.  The court of law rarely acknowledges biological limitations.  The guy may be telling the truth.  He may be doing the best he can and may be unable to remain faithful.  It isn't from lack of trying. It is from just having a greaterbiological drive than perhaps another man. 

Where it could benefit the world is where discussions of things like legalizing polygamy come up.  Laws won't stop it, though. Laws never stop sex. 

For the record, I didn't say that because men are visual they are more likely to stray.  Their desire for variety is why men stray.  The ebb of the dopamine rush is why men stray.  Seeking out a dopamine rush is why men stray.  The roving eye is just part of the process. 

It isn't about applying a label to any one individual.  However, I do think that a man who wishes to have many wives most likely fits the stereotype and should not be encouraged to pass on those genes.I would also suggest that men who don't want gold diggers should not have children with women who are.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 30, 2008 - 5:53PM #132
Sailorlal79
Posts: 1,365
What percentage of men actually cheat, though? I think 21% (I can't quote this number, I just read it somewhere) admit to cheating on their wives. That's hardly a majority.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2008 - 9:26AM #133
appy20
Posts: 10,165
The stat changes all the time.  At one point it was believed to be 65%.  I believe that one because that matches what I see in several places of employment, church, academia, clubs, riding stables.  I worked for a trucking company.  Most truckers use truckstop prostitutes. Not all of course but most and their wives have no clue.  In college, there were married professors chasing coeds.  The computer lab is one of the departments I manage and the number of married guys online looking for dates is unreal.  I, who can't get a date with a single guy, do occasionally get hit on by married ones.  I worked all walks of life and saw pretty much the same thing.  My brothers say the same thing about the men they know.  My brothers think that 90% of men cheat.  No, they do not cheat but one is very socialy active in his church and civic duties and has known a lot of men and he claims the stats are very, very high.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2008 - 9:28AM #134
appy20
Posts: 10,165
In our community, every middle class and upper class neighborhood has a thriving house of prostitution.  According to the police officers I know, most of the men are married.  You can't have that many establishments thriving without clientele and women rarely use those services.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2008 - 9:34AM #135
appy20
Posts: 10,165
The point is though that even if only 21% of men cheat, that number would grow with polygamy or rather the number of men who cannot deal with monogamy would.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jul 31, 2008 - 1:34PM #136
croscoteo
Posts: 35
[QUOTE=appy20;659697]The point is though that even if only 21% of men cheat, that number would grow with polygamy or rather the number of men who cannot deal with monogamy would.[/QUOTE]

Even if polygamy was legal that does not mean that most man out there would seek to live a polygamous lifestyle.  Simply because there are patterns of behavior does not mean that MOST men exhibit those patterns.  Even in your community where EVERY upper and middle class neighborhood has a brothel, the clientele for that "business" is probably multiple repeat customers and a minority of the citizens in your community.  The community where I live has bars within easy access for the neighborhoods ... that does not mean that MOST people in the community frequent or are regulars at those bars.  I am sure there are the regular patrons ... but they do NOT represent MOST of the community.  That is really the only problem I see with your posts here.  You keep wanting to place MOST men into one stereotyped category based on adaptive behavior patterns and "business" locations.

There is a pattern of men with natural physical prowess and abilities to become proffessional athletes.  Thus, these men gain social status and monetary gain.  All three conditions MOST females find attractive (physically fit/strong, high social standing, and rich).  Why aren't the Average Joe's that are not gifted athletically being bred out of existance?  After all, these athletes have many opportunities to spread their seed with nubile women (as evidenced by the reports of male athletes producing many children from multiple women and these young women making themselves accessible to these men because they are attracted to them).  By your behavior pattern thesis, the average guy should be bred out of existance.  However, I don't see that happening.  The number of naturally gifted athletes does not seem any higher today than it has in the past.  Modern advances are allowing modern athletes to exceed standards set by previous generations but there is not a preponderance of naturally gifted athletes out there.  As a matter of fact, the Average Joe's that have always been here are still here and make up MOST of the male population.  There very well may be patterns that indicate men are attracted to young women and are genetically wired to pass their own genes to future generations ... but the existance of a pattern does not mean that MOST men will choose to cheat or choose to live a polygamous lifestyle.  You seem to be using a pretty broad brush to paint your picture of men.

And for the record, just because I stated that most females will find a physically fit, rich man (athlete, rockstar, politician, or what-have-you) ATTRACTIVE, that she will act on that attraction and try to mate with the individual.  There are SOME women that will ... but MOST will not.  You seem to be implying that if a pretty woman walks by that MOST men seeing her will react like a Pavlovian dog and immediately want to breed.  This simply is NOT reality.  SOME men may talk like pigs and say "Ooooh, I'd like to tapp that ...", but in reality, VERY few of them will actually act on that statement.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 03, 2008 - 9:53AM #137
appy20
Posts: 10,165
First of all, I am not implying anything.  Men, almost always breed with women they are attracted to.  Period.  I fyouthink men walkl around looking for women that are UNATTRACTIVE to breed with, you live in an alternative universe.  That is irrelevant to polygamy.

I think you are hung up on the fact that I won't date men because they are visual.  THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.  The visual issue, from my point of view, has NOTHING to do with infidelity.   If you imtroduced me to the most faithful man in the world, hardwired for 100%monogamy who told me that I was the most beautiful woman in the worled, I would not date him.  If you introduced me to a guy that was only 85% hardwired for monogamy but was not visual then I would seriously consider dating him.  This has no relevance to the discussion as Paula has pointed out.  ONCE AGAIN THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.  Now, I may find it hard to find men who are 100% faithful but I always did.  It does reduce the dating pool.  However, the visual thing is a separate issue here.

I do that there are not enough monogamous men for monogamous women.   That does not mean that EVERY man is not monogamous.   I just think the world needs a few more.  Yes, monogamous women too.

Is that clear?

Natural athletes are not having more children than the rest of humanityl.  A polygamous male WOULD be passing HIS genes to more offspring.  Those genes would be replicated more often. 

As for prostitution. It isn't possible for a few males to economically keep prostitution alive to that extent. It takes a lot of males.  These are not street hookers living in poverty.  They live very well. 

I do not believe that men are liars. I believe that women refuse to believe them.  When men talk like pigs, I believe them.  I don't stick a gun to their heads and force them to talk like that. They are speaking their truth.

Plus, Crosocoteo, none of that matters to this discussion.  My point is that one polygamous male would spread his seed to more than 2 offspring as is the current statistic.  If only 25% of men chose that lifestyle within very few generations, the male;s propensity for promiscuity would increase exponentially. 

Furthermore, it isn't MY theory that men are programmed to spread their seed.  Most evolutionary biologists take that position as well.  Read the  artilcle. 

Furthermore, if men were not interested in having multiple sex partners, would polygamy or male infidelity exist at all?  If it were equal between the sexes, then why have there been more polygamous cultures than polyandrous (is that even a correct adjective) ones?  Once upon a time, polygamy was very common.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 03, 2008 - 11:59AM #138
PaulaEdwina
Posts: 1,720
Gosh, Appy. I wish you would start your own thread.

Paula
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 04, 2008 - 1:46PM #139
appy20
Posts: 10,165
Paula, I am trying to stay on it while still answering Crosocoteo.If we can bear you love affair with a woman and desire to share a man with her then you can put up with my trying to get Crosocoteo to understand what I am and am NOT saying. 

My point is that polygamy should not be legal because it would encourage an exponential growth of nonmonogamous males.  When one male passes his genes to offspring from six women, HIS genetic traits are being exponentially passed on. Within time, those traits will become a permanent adaptation toward a less monogamous male.  We know from recent evolutionary studies, that those changes in evolution do not take long.

Polygamy is a genetic threat to monogamy.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 04, 2008 - 3:53PM #140
PaulaEdwina
Posts: 1,720
If we can bear you love affair with a woman and desire to share a man with her

Wow, Appy you are in rare form. And by the way, it wasn't a love affair, and second, thank goodness I'm not that needs readers to be sensitive or anything.

Well have at. The floor is all yours.

Paula
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 14 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 19 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook