This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

Postby IJ » Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:25 am

CXT, this one seems a discussion more than an argument.

"I don't know what tell you IJ---I think its a reach that you equally love multiple people---the idea that you can love multiple kids is predicated on being around them from childhood. My feelings for the friends I have had since I was a kid are stonger than the feelings I have for friends I have made recently.......its just how people work."

That's your experience; mine differs. Perhaps that's why you think this wouldn't work and others do. Another reason is that you are content to dismiss data without even knowing what it is. As you point out, I haven't seen all the data possibly available, but I've seen more, and I'm not dismissing findings I'm not familiar with. It doesn't make much sense to indict me for having opinions based on having read a whole book about it.

"The oldest codified laws from as far back as we can check had rules/laws pertaining to adultry and even "primitive" hunter gatherers in the recent past had pretty serious penelties for women sleeping around."

I'd be interested in your references.

"So I'd guess that whatever examples the author can produce there are more counter examples."

This isn't an issue where they negate each other; if two authorities produce examples that differ, that merely illustrate that it works for some societies and not others, which I'm perfectly happy to accept right now. My point is only that our nature permits it and when culture doesn't, divorce, adultery and dissatisfaction are common. (Same applies to your observation that nonadulterers may be as common as adulterers. Ok, they're both common, agreed).

"Even out closest animal relatives (bobono's aside) become hyper violent when somebody else tries t co-op "their" mate. Males and females both.........and sure both sets sometimes fool around.....but the anger over it seems hardwired into them.......so I doubt its wholly cultural."

Actually.... the authors beg to differ, and they present a detailed analysis of our social, genetic, and anatomic relationships to the other great apes and our closest relatives are basically promiscuous and peaceful with minimal sex dimorphism and relatively oversized "junk." I would need to see some real specifics or references to refute the lengthy account I just read.

As for what constitutes "little" sexual excitement, the term is deliberately vague, but every account I've ever read documents a decline in frequency and satisfaction over time. Not overall necessarily, but the passion phase definitely declines. I can research a detailed response once you invest similarly in less commonly accepted theories / theories that differ from the research you haven't read of your own.

"Maybe if they spent as much time working on their current relationship instead of the time and energy in getting and maintaining a new relationship, they would not be having problems."

Are we talking about.... average married people in the USA? I don't think constantly searching for new mates is really standard practice in this culture and yet frequency and interest commonly decline.

"In terms "lots of people" (your term) that live that way now........I'd again check the actual numbrs of people that currently live in places that allow multiple wives ......and the number of people that actually do it."

You mistake my meaning. I didn't say, "multiple wives." I'm talking about people who don't settle down with one partner for life the way culture says we should, the way it's supposedly natural for us.

"Besides, why bother to go thu all the stuggle to be able to "marry" at all if your just going to skip all that "fidelity" stuff and move right to an "open" arrangement?
Multiple relationships would seem to create more confusion about whom had "rights" to what than the present situation."

I assume you're talking about same sexers here? I don't speak for all gay people! We're not "homogenous!" I support people's right to marry because.... I support equal rights, that's pretty basic. Lots of those gays will want monogamous relationships or won't marry, while dating other people; some will have lesbian bed death and hardly mate at all :) Others want to get married for all the obvious reasons people get married for... and then, male or female, but probably more often male, as seems to be our nature, they may want variety. Why? Well, gay people have already gone thru the bother of being openly gay, admitting that they want to modify the relationship norm one more way is less a big deal, especially since for many same sexers, not speaking for myself here, there is already an established culture of promiscuity (in part spurned on by efforts to keep us from having stable pairings). They might also acknowledge, as I do, that people weren't designed to have a single partner for their entire lives and that negotiating the terms of the outside contacts is preferable to risking divorce for serial monogamy or to risking actual cheating. Or because they want it themselves.

I mean, really--do you not think that most straight guys would find it awesome if their wives said they could have Ashley Greene or other partners on the side?? They'd love it! So does it surprise you that some gay guys in stable relationships think it would be cool to have a little Jake Gyllenhaal or whomever now and then? Please tell me you're not actually shocked.
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby Panther » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:15 pm

Van Canna wrote:
mhosea wrote:
Van Canna wrote:You guys are nuts...don't like Ashley Greene?

Just send her over my way will you :wink:

You send me Salma Hayek, and I'll send you Ashely Greene. Deal?

Deal... :lol:

Noooooo! I want 'em BOTH!

At least that was a nice thought for a second there... It'd be fun trying to handle it tho... (Just like it's fun to try to handle what I already gots! :wink: )

User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Panther » Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:50 pm

IJ wrote:I mean, really--do you not think that most straight guys would find it awesome if their wives said they could have Ashley Greene or other partners on the side?? They'd love it!

It "sounds" like a great idea, but the "reality" won't live up to the "concept". Even IF I had a "free pass", I'd never actually act in any way that could even potentially jeopardize what I have with my family. And once kids are involved, it is about family regardless of what anyone thinks or if they act like it doesn't. Everyone fantasizes... Maybe it's about a cute person (sexual preference isn't important in this regard) and having a wild night of debauchery or maybe it's just seeing your "other half" (or "other one-third" in my case) in a different... ummm... outfit. Fantasies are healthy, no matter who's involved. Breaking someone's heart (even if they've told you to "go ahead") isn't... And even tho I know a few different couples/people who "live that life-style", there seems to always be that underlying "heart" issue. Even when they deny it, I can see it. It seems to manifest itself mainly in the form of one going with someone else and the other immediately LOOKING for someone else to go with. Unfortunately, it often times seems that the person who goes with someone new first doesn't really care whether their original partner goes with someone... which seems to come down to an arguably unhealthy case of one of them caring more about the relationship than the other. In the end, for me (YMMV...), I would never dream of chasing 5 seconds and even potentially hurting the feelings of the person I love more than anything. If I didn't love that person more than anything else, I probably wouldn't be with them... And if they didn't feel the same about me, I also probably wouldn't be with them either.

User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby IJ » Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:33 pm

I support your relationship style 100% :)
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby Panther » Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:20 pm

:mrgreen: :angel:
User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby cxt » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:17 pm


I'm not "dismissing" his findings as much as I'm questioning them.
As I mentioned its all speculation and his findings don't match up with what I know about primitive hunter gathers---or others peoples period observations about hunter-gatherers, "primitive" socities currently extent, behavior (with only one exception) of our nearest primate relatives, which tends to argue "hardwaired"........and without a time machine there is no way to really test his guesswork.

So its not so much "dismissing" as treating it with the value its worth.......and speculation is speculation........fun to talk about......but that and $1 won't even get you a cup of coffee.

Then you have the 2nd problem.......even if one accepts his premise then all you have is a "some"--as in teeny, tiny, minority of soceities---in very specific locations and in very specific circumstances that, might, maybe, have work it out........and even they didn't last.
So what benefit that it was to them......or even more removed, to us, seems oddly lacking.

There were some cultures that overcame the fairly universal taboo of eating each other. Ancient Egypt (among others)... the incest taboo with its royal family.
I could go on, but being able to show....even if one could in this case......that "some" cultures well able to make things "work" is largely irrelevent since nobody is saying that it "couldn't work ever." What they are saying is that for varous reasons its "probabaly not a good idea."

See what I mean, the former is a strawman

"The author begs to disagree"

He can "disagee" all he likes, the burdan of proof however is on him.
So I do not have to prove him wrong........he has to prove himself right. ;)
We can check back in 10-15 years and see if his idea has developed mainstream support or if it has become another Lysenkoism.

"I would need to see some real specifics or references to refute the lengthy account I just read"

And what exact "specific's" or proper "references" have you presented?
Not a slam......just a question.
I don't see why "I" need to post proper attribution to refute things that are unsourced/unsupported claims in the 1st place.
Again not a slam.........seriously. :)

Not saying you speak for everyone----you personally listed some of the things you find makes things rougher for folks being unable to "marry."
All I was pointing out that those things would not become easier if we adopted a more "open" view of "marriage." They would likley become even more difficult as it would add additional layers of complexity to already complex interpersonal relationships.

"do you not think that most stright guys would find it awesome if their wives said that they could have Ashley Greene on the side."

I think that if it also meant their wives could fool around as well.....then no, I don't think many guys would think "awesome".......I think most guys would freak out............depending of course on the exact nature of the relationship.

(and I think panther put it rather well)

And no, doesn't "shock" me.......just not sure I buy it.......most of the LBG folks I know are either in a committed relationship and would not cheat on their partners. Or are single with the advantages and disadvantages of being single.

(unscientific and small small sample I'll admit)

People are people........that is the triumph and the tears of being human.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Postby IJ » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:06 am

Short version:

You're dismissing work you haven't read and proposing alternative theories without a single outside source and a few anecdotes (eg, what gay couples do, something I am vastly more knowledgeable about in terms of both numbers and probably freeness of discussion--see below), and that doesn't hold up. I suggest you read the book before you dismiss it, and back up your claims with something other than a tenuous analogy with incest.

Long version:

I'm not sure I follow. You haven't read the book or the evidence on which the conclusion is based. You think he can't "speculate" about what happened in prehistory, because no one knows what actually happened, and besides it contradicts what you "know" about hunter gatherers (so do we know about the past or not? what source?). That sounds pretty dismissive to me, if you think that qualifies as informed discussion okie dokie.

As far as this only occurring in a limited number of cultures, you need to provide evidence. He reviews a bunch of societies TODAY that are thought to have been relatively unchanged and thus reflect the broader human experience in the past, and describes their nonmonogamy. You haven't provided any data to refute this. As for this practice not lasting, his (rather, their) whole point is that things changed with the advent of agriculture. Let's imagine all tigers live in zoos in the future. He's not saying they all automatically could hunt and live in the wild, he's saying that they live in a situation that isn't reflective of the one they evolved for and thus is causing problems. That doesn't mean release em all to the wild. It might mean larger enclosures with more exercise or feeding live game. Get me?

I do not accept your analogy with incest. Incest is biologically dangerous and things fall apart quickly with inbreeding. Incest taboos are extremely common; Egypt is the exception that proves the rule. I'm not aware of any large ape parallels for incest. In contrast, promiscuity is not biologically threatening to the species, and clear evidence suggests we are designed for it. For example, male female size ratios, the relative size of human genitals, the frequency of nonprocreative sex (documented for fun and bonding in humans and our closest relatives, and the biology of our gametes strongly suggests an evolutionary pressure for "sperm competition." (That means, multiple guy's sperm fighting over eggs inside a female--promiscuity). The monogamous gibbons (our closest monogamous relative, the only monogamous ape) lack many of these features. You do not need a large penis, frequent mating including off cycle, lots of semen, a scooping glans, the ability to ejaculate multiple times, vulnerable dangly testicles that store excess sperm, etc to impregnate your monogamous mate. Those things did not evolve for monogamy. Factorama. Further, nonmonogamy is extremely common in a variety of modern cultures despite promotion of single mate lifestyles and it's common in these premodern cultures I've mentioned over and over. Hardly a strawman. I've been presenting the book's information over and over. What else do you want? I mean, sure the burden of proof is on the authors, so GO READ THEIR BOOK ALREADY. They're not coming to "Tough Issues" to spoon feed you--and what else more can I do?

As for problems in marriage, you believe that things would get more difficult with more layers of complexity to already complex interpersonal relationships. Ok. I disagree. I've already explained why--we seem to be wired for nonmonogamy, it works great in other cultures, and in our culture, many marriages and long term pairings end of the cooling of passion, or the desire for additional mates at least now and then. I have several close coupled friends who are straight and married, and they ALL have issues with mismatched libido, or for some, they did until kids got them busier. That doesn't mean they're divorcing, but... this is common. I have several gay friends in LTRs in the same boat. I know a bunch of gay couples, on the other hand, who sought open relationships. Actually, to tally, of the LTR'd gays I know... one mate of two pairs confided they thought they'd like it, another figured his passionate life was over and warned against it, I haven't discussed it with 3, and 7 are successfully doing or did it. Some, like 20 years. I don't know of any longer lasting ones than that. Couples appear quite commonly on gay dating sites looking for thirds, to be completely honest--admittedly these are promiscuous places to meet someone. I would add that even the classier ones that forbid suggestive pictures and focus on hobbies and interests have "In a committed relationship, but..." as a drop down option for the box on relationship status. The "rules" vary widely and it's worth pointing out this applies to males only, lesbians being scarcer, me knowing none well, believe it or not, me never going to lesbian sites, and I think, men in general being wired for more partners than women.

In any case, I think the large majority of guys would love having a pass to have other mates, and yes, many would be jealous if their spouse asked for the same. How much of that is merely culture and how much is nature, and how much might be easily overcome if we didn't have a nonmonogamy taboo for couples, is up for discussion. I would never propose this being better for all people, but it's time to let up on the idea that couples or individuals that choose it are bad people or weird or not natural or whatever.
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston


Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests