Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:07 pm
by TheCatt
Uh, all of them or just the woman?
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:10 pm
by Leisher
I laughed.
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:47 pm
by TheCatt
From that same book I'm reading.
Sometimes, she said, she wished he would “take more of the marauder approach”—her shoulders pinned to bed or wall, her nipples bitten hard, her thong pulled harshly aside, torn. But she told herself not to ask for this. “Because he would feel badly and because his gestures would be empty, a parody of what I want. The whole thing is that it should be instinctual. The idea that I would have to request it . . .” Her voice trailed off.
Yeah, sometimes you have to ask for shit, dumb ass.
*edit* - I've heard the # 30% before, but the book says about 30-60% of women have rape fantasies.
Edited By TheCatt on 1439899163
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:52 pm
by GORDON
"No means no. Always." Except when it doesn't.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:23 am
by TheCatt
The book seems to have a theme of "women are naturally less monogamous than men, or equally so." And that the patriarchy (church, wedding laws, etc) is the only thing enforcing women's commitment.
A couple of my wife's friends were virgins at marriage, we found out last night.
Me: Why would anyone do that?
Her: Because the church told them to.
Me: Damn the patriarchy.
So I role played in my head... what if my wife wanted to choose additional partners? Well, I would want to kill those people. So I guess the patriarchy is saving lives.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:08 am
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote:So I role played in my head... what if my wife wanted to choose additional partners? Well, I would want to kill those people. So I guess the patriarchy is saving lives.
Strictly speaking in terms of nature, that's factually correct.
Marriage, which is not a natural instinct, keeps the peace. (somewhat)
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:25 am
by TPRJones
The book seems to have a theme of "women are naturally less monogamous than men, or equally so."
Absolutely. In general women will tend to want to marry the stable reliable guy and then secretly screw the bad boy behind his back. Gets the best genes for the kids with the best provider available to raise them.
Of course it's a generalization, so that only goes so far in terms of describing any particular individuals. We can all choose to overcome our programming.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:42 am
by Malcolm
Marriage, which is not a natural instinct, keeps the peace. (somewhat)
Some anthropologist had a theory that marriage/monogamy was an institution started by men, for men, as a guarantee they were passing on their genes with the best possible odds for survival. As a side effect, it takes the potential conflict you might have fighting over females and transfers it into other scenarios which come about as a result, like the job you have to take to support the family or the insane in-law that comes to live with you.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:29 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:The book seems to have a theme of "women are naturally less monogamous than men, or equally so." And that the patriarchy (church, wedding laws, etc) is the only thing enforcing women's commitment.
This show came from a book?
+++
One of the big sociology theories is that a monogamous population = stability and growth.
It goes something like this:
(If) The rules of society encourage committed monogamy through marriage, giving them social pressure bonuses, perks, and even tax breaks.
then
The children of that union grow up in a stable household, giving them an advantage in their development.
and
Home ownership is encouraged to give the kids space to grow.
and
With home ownership comes a sense of community, which is another social pressure to keep your nose clean, and doing good for your neighbors, overall. Stable neighborhood = lower crime and a nicer place to live and raise the kids. It's another way to get people to give a shit.
So
The kids, in a good environment and community, have neighbors watching after them, are free to pursue higher goals, are less likely to become broken adults, and well, whatever. You get the point.
Anyway, there's a theory that monogamy helps keep a society stable. Everyone fucking everyone else at will can make for hard feelings and broken homes and depression and crimes of passion.... but at least there's lots of strange to be had which will keep you forever young. I'm not sure which way is better.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:38 am
by TheCatt
The show didn't come from a book, but this spurred the whole sex discussion thing, and i happened to be reading the book when you brought it up, so i just put it here.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:41 am
by GORDON
Ahh.
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:30 pm
by TPRJones
I have some problems with the presumptions in the argument.
The children of that union grow up in a stable household, giving them an advantage in their development.
This presumes that monogamous relationships are inherently stable. I would disagree. Some are, sure, but many others aren't. Depends entirely on the adults involved.
In some ways real single-parent households are generally more stable, if potentially lacking in resources. Again, though, it depends. Some single-parents aren't single, they're serial monogamists. That's a different - and less stable - story.
With home ownership comes a sense of community, which is another social pressure to keep your nose clean, and doing good for your neighbors, overall.
This is more dependent on geography than monogamy. Some neighborhoods are full of people that get to know each other. Some neighborhoods are full of people who never even talk to each other. I don't see how that is determined by monogamy, though.