(04-20-2017 02:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 12:05 PM)Rob Wrote:  We live in a less restrictive time. Christian morality is not the force it has been and I think

Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Define "on the surface"... Do all pair bonding societies have people cheat / divorce / move on???? yes.

But as a rule, ideal, and goal it benefits society. The minute we let postmodern "im ok, your ok" taint this things will decline.

Quote:Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

Were talking the past 3-3.5k years here... What ugg the caveman did is not really relevant.

I think "on the surface" basically means "as far as we know". I don't believe that ideal has ever been reached.

Were Romans strictly monogamous? Greeks? All the way up to European powers and Americans? Known mistresses were common and the most tame parts of those societies.

I'd say the ideal of successful societies is the appearance of monogamy and stability.

(04-20-2017 03:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 12:05 PM)Rob Wrote:  We live in a less restrictive time. Christian morality is not the force it has been and I think

Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Define "on the surface"... Do all pair bonding societies have people cheat / divorce / move on???? yes.

But as a rule, ideal, and goal it benefits society. The minute we let postmodern "im ok, your ok" taint this things will decline.

Quote:Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

Were talking the past 3-3.5k years here... What ugg the caveman did is not really relevant.

I think "on the surface" basically means "as far as we know". I don't believe that ideal has ever been reached.

Were Romans strictly monogamous? Greeks? All the way up to European powers and Americans? Known mistresses were common and the most tame parts of those societies.

I'd say the ideal of successful societies is the appearance of monogamy and stability.

Appearance is not the word I would use for your situations..

I would say that monogamy is the *Standard* and *primarily acceptable* situation but that societies can and have tolerated enclaves of outliers. e.g. Kings and Clergy... Some have more than one, some have none at all.

And FTR, outside of men of power and their mistresses or whores and their johns, the Romans were very monogamous (in terms of legal arrangements) before Christians were a thing.

(04-20-2017 04:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 03:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Define "on the surface"... Do all pair bonding societies have people cheat / divorce / move on???? yes.

But as a rule, ideal, and goal it benefits society. The minute we let postmodern "im ok, your ok" taint this things will decline.

Quote:Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

Were talking the past 3-3.5k years here... What ugg the caveman did is not really relevant.

I think "on the surface" basically means "as far as we know". I don't believe that ideal has ever been reached.

Were Romans strictly monogamous? Greeks? All the way up to European powers and Americans? Known mistresses were common and the most tame parts of those societies.

I'd say the ideal of successful societies is the appearance of monogamy and stability.

Appearance is not the word I would use for your situations..

I would say that monogamy is the *Standard* and *primarily acceptable* situation but that societies can and have tolerated enclaves of outliers. e.g. Kings and Clergy... Some have more than one, some have none at all.

And FTR, outside of men of power and their mistresses or whores and their johns, the Romans were very monogamous (in terms of legal arrangements) before Christians were a thing.

Agreed.

(04-20-2017 03:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 12:05 PM)Rob Wrote:  We live in a less restrictive time. Christian morality is not the force it has been and I think

Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

So most people are not monogamous?

Maybe it's just the availability heuristic but it seems that way. Once options open...

Options are temptations. Those that recognize and understand that are more apt to avoid them. Allowing someone to screw your wife and humiliate you is not a temptation, it is sick and the opposite of what we want our men to be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

(04-20-2017 08:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 03:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

So most people are not monogamous?

Maybe it's just the availability heuristic but it seems that way. Once options open...

Options are temptations. Those that recognize and understand that are more apt to avoid them. Allowing someone to screw your wife and humiliate you is not a temptation, it is sick and the opposite of what we want our men to be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I wasn't talking about that. Then again, we don't know how long this phenomenon has been going on.

(04-20-2017 08:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 08:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 03:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

So most people are not monogamous?

Maybe it's just the availability heuristic but it seems that way. Once options open...

Options are temptations. Those that recognize and understand that are more apt to avoid them. Allowing someone to screw your wife and humiliate you is not a temptation, it is sick and the opposite of what we want our men to be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I wasn't talking about that. Then again, we don't know how long this phenomenon has been going on.

I would think it's ultimately a subset of BDSM. Isn't the goal of the cuckold to derive sexual pleasure thru humiliation. It doesn't seem all that different to the submissive having a dominatrix.

(04-20-2017 03:39 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 01:51 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 12:05 PM)Rob Wrote:  We live in a less restrictive time. Christian morality is not the force it has been and I think

Stable, monogamous, human pair bonding is a feature of nearly every successful human society, regardless of what religion or philosophy they follow.

Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Define "on the surface"... Do all pair bonding societies have people cheat / divorce / move on???? yes.

But as a rule, ideal, and goal it benefits society. The minute we let postmodern "im ok, your ok" taint this things will decline.

Quote:Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

Were talking the past 3-3.5k years here... What ugg the caveman did is not really relevant.

I think "on the surface" basically means "as far as we know". I don't believe that ideal has ever been reached.

Were Romans strictly monogamous? Greeks? All the way up to European powers and Americans? Known mistresses were common and the most tame parts of those societies.

I'd say the ideal of successful societies is the appearance of monogamy and stability.

I think the majority of people in those societies probably were.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

I chuckle at the idea that modern culture has somehow has changed sexuality in any way.

At the end of the day, men by and large still have proclivities for conventional sex lives with young and attractive women. And how many romance and adult novels that women are buying up feature a male paragon that's a sensitive feminist and thinks men should help more around the house and child-care duties? About zero. They want the bad***, Christian Gray male paragon that's a neurosurgeon by day and wrestles alligators by night.

The idea these proclivities can be changed by boys not being raised manly enough is not much different than the cheesy feminist idea of getting more egalitarian marriages to help women in their careers.

As for these paraphilias, it's very unlikely they're any more common today than they ever have been. They're just a lot more visible today. Much like gays and lesbians.

(04-20-2017 08:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 08:25 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 03:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:40 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 02:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Are you sure about that? Or do you just saying monogamous on the surface?

Successful people in successful human society have a LONG history of being more than monogamous.

So most people are not monogamous?

Maybe it's just the availability heuristic but it seems that way. Once options open...

Options are temptations. Those that recognize and understand that are more apt to avoid them. Allowing someone to screw your wife and humiliate you is not a temptation, it is sick and the opposite of what we want our men to be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I wasn't talking about that. Then again, we don't know how long this phenomenon has been going on.

I would think in most societies these men would be priests or be squeezed out via social darwinism. I believe it is a modern phenomenon.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

A Twitter search of these words was eyeopening

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

I'll need to conduct my own study on this topic. I'll report back in a couple of days.

(04-21-2017 06:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

Who is saying we need to take action, much less government action or creating a law? Just because these people have the right to do this does not mean we can't discuss it or shame their arses. Yes, weak pathetic men have every right to be little biotches.

(04-21-2017 06:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

On this we agree.

(04-21-2017 07:30 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 06:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

Who is saying we need to take action, much less government action or creating a law? Just because these people have the right to do this does not mean we can't discuss it or shame their arses. Yes, weak pathetic men have every right to be little biotches.

[/quote]

You're talking to someone whos answer for every one of life's problems is either "See no evil" or "Let's pass a law".

(04-21-2017 06:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

I have no problem publicly condemning this type of behavior. It is simply perversion. I am though not going to be involved with the bedroom police.

Why condemn it? I think its weird as ****, don't get me wrong, but its not hurting anyone. Not sure why it matters so much to y'all.

(04-22-2017 01:35 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why condemn it? I think its weird as ****, don't get me wrong, but its not hurting anyone. Not sure why it matters so much to y'all.

After taking a day to think about it, I think it's ok to condemn. What is condemning going to do at the end of the day? No ill effects.

(04-21-2017 06:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can not believe this thread is 7 pages long and has this much interest. I thought it would be one that continued to slide down the page. I'm of the philosophy I can not tell others how to live their lives. That's my very first reaction. I take care of my family first. I woryy about the health and well being of the others 2nd. If they are not breaking the law they obviously seem to enjoy it who am I to tell other people how to live? Now if laws are being broken. Different story. However, I always find my default position to be in lockstep with Fo. I CAN NOT STAND TELLING OTHERS HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES if they are not hurting others.

Just checking back in.

Mach. As an educator, a teacher of children, you cannot tell me or anyone else that this stuff, or stuff like this, hasn't harmed millions of kids, millions of families, eroded our culture and made your life as a teacher in the classroom tougher.

Can you?

(04-22-2017 01:35 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Why condemn it? I think its weird as ****, don't get me wrong, but its not hurting anyone. Not sure why it matters so much to y'all.

I condemn perversion of all types...including this. All of this is contributing to the breakdown of society and the families. Our moral compass is broken. I don't though advocate the use the violence of the state to stop it.