Monogamy

Discussion in 'Ladies Lounge' started by Shit with corn in it IRM'S BITCH, May 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apparently, from the dung beatle to the lioness there is no evidence atall that females were built for monogamy. so do you think it should follow that women are not built for it either?
    test
  2. Ignorant

    Ignorant Village Idiot

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,755
    I don't really follow that logic, though. Just because we're not "built for" something, doesn't give us license to do otherwise.

    Aggression is also a natural instinct, but it's not okay to murder. Is it?
    test
  3. Well, that is what we are trying to discern. Should evidence like this give people license to do otherwise, and if not, why? Perhaps It should just be a case of saying that these things are what seperate us from animals, but its not quite as simple as that because monogamy is not the standard which everyone aspires to. Leading from this are many questions regarding natural/unnaturalness/benefits vs disadvantages of monagamy and repression and the possible side effects of that state.
    test
  4. MiSt_Of_CoNfUsIoN

    MiSt_Of_CoNfUsIoN Ray of Sunshine

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2000
    Messages:
    15,678
    I don't think we were built to wear stillettos either, but it happens.. The logic is the same to me. We evolve ( not that shoes come into serious play regarding that, but you know where I'm headed) monogomy wasn't always the accepted way of life.. but as things evolved our expectations changed and now its become the most accepted way of life in some places.
    test
  5. but just because it is the most accepted way of life in some places, does that mean we should disregard the info in the innitial post that relates to females not naturally being mongamous?
    should we ignore the pain which stilettos do to our our feet because of their the advances of fashion are more important?
    test
  6. skandelous_lala

    skandelous_lala back from the dead

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Messages:
    26,748
    No we don't hafta disregard it, but if it doesn't pertain to the way we think why hold onto it? Disregarding it seems like the proper thing to do.

    Science can keep saying we are not built for monogomy, but so what? To me that is great and all, but perhaps I am built for monogomy. That is what makes me happy, so why reject it?

    Some animals are monogamous. I don't see people as being "animals" either though, but that's a whole other thing.

    Obviously it works for some people and for other people it doesn't work.


    "Should evidence like this give people license to do otherwise, and if not, why? "

    ^^B/c of the morals of society. Maybe morals isn't the right word..I often wonder how many society as a whole has left, but anyways....it's a nuture thing...this is what we are programmed to believe...(I'm speaking generally)If we were programmed with the opposite ..it would be the same arguement flipped.

    To me it boils down that we aren't just animals that do what other animals do. Other animals don't have the logic and emotions of humans.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)