x
Click to expand

fogglebeast

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:11/23/2011
Last Login:7/29/2015
Location:Heemscreeble
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3436
Highest Comment Rank:#1891
Comment Thumbs: 4110 total,  4743 ,  633
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 1% (1/100)
Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:419
FJ Points:3117

latest user's comments

#129 - I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, w…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -2
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
#121 - So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
User avatar #122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar #129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
#120 - (Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a …  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
User avatar #135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar #211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#109 - How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally m… 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#105 - The evidence is all around - take this content for example; it… 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#92 - "[S]ome animals have been documented... as being monogomo…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol 0
User avatar #113 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
The reason why i brought up other species that are monogomous is because im making a point that it is natural and not man made. like i said before, today is a tottatly different time, im almost hitting my head that you dont giet this concept...the website, ashley madison is part of an invention (internent) that was not available until recently and only partially within the lifetime of its average user...sites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more ikely to cheat. This is all part of the new world, im explaining monogomy as it pertained through our evolutionary pathway.

because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?

that would be conflicting to the idea that we are a male dominated society and have been...there are actual polygomous soceities in todays world (minority of poplulation) and even they dont hold up to what you are saying.

of the courses relating to this shitty argument, i have taken Human evo bio, anthropology, and a shitton of psychology and statistics courses (having talked about why people cheat in psych, monogomy in evolution, and enough statistics so that i think logically instead of assuming illogical ideas based on what i have learned). You are litterally wrong and im not even taking a strong stance on this because there is evidence that proves you are wrong and i have a long ass time in college learning about it.
User avatar #120 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
(Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a logical fallacy, which is funny since you mentioned that you think logically.)

Man-made things are natural. What else - supernatural? Different people like different types of relationships, and since monogamy is the default relationship in the modern western world, people are more likely to take part in them.

"[S]ites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more likely to cheat." - What does this prove? If I claim that people are naturally polygamous, and this site makes it easier to cheat, then that can be construed to be in my argument's favour, since people have access to a means to fulfill their natural tendencies.

"This is all part of the new world" - no it isn't; polygamy isn't this new thing that's only just popped up - it's been around since ancient times. There are a lot of links I could send but they say pretty much the same thing, so have this one: www.ilaam.net/brochures/brochure-13.html

"because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?" - I think you misread what I wrote. You claim that:
- Monogamy made humans cognitively superior (as humans are today)
- Therefore, modern humans must only exist after monogamy became mainstream

However, modern humans existed before monogamy was mainstream, meaning that your position doesn't make sense.

"[T]here are actual polygomous soceities in todays world" - we're making progress - here we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition.

Finally, just because you're taking a class that has to do with human biology doesn't mean that you know everything about it. This arrogance is blatant and does you no favours (I already mentioned how fallacious this last paragraph is).
User avatar #135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar #211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#72 - "NATURALLY humans are monogamous" - No, that's just …  [+] (7 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol 0
User avatar #79 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
*unhealthy people
User avatar #78 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
that is incorrect. some animals have been documented (hell google monogomous animals, its not a myth) as being monogomous especially ape species. This was litterally key to our cognitive development. that religious analogy made shit sense, monogomy is actually widely accepted as being one of the reasons why we as a species were able to achieve higher cognitive abilities (as were alot of apes).

Dude...that is because we live in a very very very different time...when we first evolved we ran/walked and went days without food, we have had a slow adaptation rate therefore the abundunce of food today overwhelmed lards and thats why there is unhealthy food. monogomy was definately beneficial to humans thus came naturally.

no it would not have, careing for a child is an investment of resources...for a person to just care for a child would not be enough gain from an altruistic perspective. the reason that a single male and female cared for a child was because that is how we evolved, there are other ape species who engaged in other methods (single malde dominant society for example)..HOWEVER, for the fact that we are the least seually dimorphic ape species gives evidence of les sexual competition among males (for example, chimpanzees have larger ball sacks because they would have more sex and needed more sperm to try to get females pregnats)...again, we are the LEAST sexually dimporphic. That would be true in different species, however that is not how our species evolved...we specifically evolved alongside monogomy.
User avatar #92 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"[S]ome animals have been documented... as being monogomous especially ape species" - but we're talking about humans specifically. If humans are monogamous tell me this - why is it common these days to have single parents, for partners to cheat (hell, this content's about a website specifically for that!), and for people to have had multiple partners throughout their lifetime?

"[T]his was literally key to our cognitive development." - But modern humans have been around since times where polygamy was common. Your argument doesn't add up; how could modern humans exist before monogamy was universally practised if monogamy was the key to the modern human brain?

"...gives evidence of less sexual competition amongst males" - that could also mean that they had polygamous relationships where the father of the children was unknown. That isn't proof of monogamy at all, just that there was less sexual competition (it's applicable with both monogamy and polygamy).
User avatar #113 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
The reason why i brought up other species that are monogomous is because im making a point that it is natural and not man made. like i said before, today is a tottatly different time, im almost hitting my head that you dont giet this concept...the website, ashley madison is part of an invention (internent) that was not available until recently and only partially within the lifetime of its average user...sites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more ikely to cheat. This is all part of the new world, im explaining monogomy as it pertained through our evolutionary pathway.

because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?

that would be conflicting to the idea that we are a male dominated society and have been...there are actual polygomous soceities in todays world (minority of poplulation) and even they dont hold up to what you are saying.

of the courses relating to this shitty argument, i have taken Human evo bio, anthropology, and a shitton of psychology and statistics courses (having talked about why people cheat in psych, monogomy in evolution, and enough statistics so that i think logically instead of assuming illogical ideas based on what i have learned). You are litterally wrong and im not even taking a strong stance on this because there is evidence that proves you are wrong and i have a long ass time in college learning about it.
User avatar #120 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
(Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a logical fallacy, which is funny since you mentioned that you think logically.)

Man-made things are natural. What else - supernatural? Different people like different types of relationships, and since monogamy is the default relationship in the modern western world, people are more likely to take part in them.

"[S]ites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more likely to cheat." - What does this prove? If I claim that people are naturally polygamous, and this site makes it easier to cheat, then that can be construed to be in my argument's favour, since people have access to a means to fulfill their natural tendencies.

"This is all part of the new world" - no it isn't; polygamy isn't this new thing that's only just popped up - it's been around since ancient times. There are a lot of links I could send but they say pretty much the same thing, so have this one: www.ilaam.net/brochures/brochure-13.html

"because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?" - I think you misread what I wrote. You claim that:
- Monogamy made humans cognitively superior (as humans are today)
- Therefore, modern humans must only exist after monogamy became mainstream

However, modern humans existed before monogamy was mainstream, meaning that your position doesn't make sense.

"[T]here are actual polygomous soceities in todays world" - we're making progress - here we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition.

Finally, just because you're taking a class that has to do with human biology doesn't mean that you know everything about it. This arrogance is blatant and does you no favours (I already mentioned how fallacious this last paragraph is).
User avatar #135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar #211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#67 - Well that's just incorrect - there were times in ancient histo…  [+] (9 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol 0
User avatar #68 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
heres where you are wrong >>>"naturally". according to biology,mammals, especially apes benefit greatly from a monogamous pairing. our brains need a longer time to develop (example, a deer can walk right out of the womb, whereas a human baby cant do anything basically)..being that a mammal takes longer to develop, a longer time for parental care is needed...human beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times. so yea NATURALLY humans are monogomous, but can be polygomous depending on culture. source : Human evolutionary biology course.
User avatar #72 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"NATURALLY humans are monogamous" - No, that's just false. Each person is different as an individual, so there will be those who are truly monogamous, but that doesn't mean that humans are therefore naturally monogamous. There are many humans that are religious - does that mean humans are naturally religious? Like religion, monogamy is a practice that humans have developed.

You're basically saying that 'because X is beneficial for humans, X is the natural course for humans'. However, exercise is beneficial, yet there is an abundance of unhealthy people.

Or are you saying that 'because humans practise X, X is beneficial to humans'? I think there are a million examples of stupid, dangerous things people do that don't benefit them (or that even do harm).

"[H]uman beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times" - it would be more beneficial to have more guardians for the children, meaning that polygamy would be more beneficial in this situation. The parents of a particular child would also be unknown, meaning that there would be fewer cases of infanticide since the parents wouldn't want to accidentally kill their own young.
User avatar #79 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
*unhealthy people
User avatar #78 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
that is incorrect. some animals have been documented (hell google monogomous animals, its not a myth) as being monogomous especially ape species. This was litterally key to our cognitive development. that religious analogy made shit sense, monogomy is actually widely accepted as being one of the reasons why we as a species were able to achieve higher cognitive abilities (as were alot of apes).

Dude...that is because we live in a very very very different time...when we first evolved we ran/walked and went days without food, we have had a slow adaptation rate therefore the abundunce of food today overwhelmed lards and thats why there is unhealthy food. monogomy was definately beneficial to humans thus came naturally.

no it would not have, careing for a child is an investment of resources...for a person to just care for a child would not be enough gain from an altruistic perspective. the reason that a single male and female cared for a child was because that is how we evolved, there are other ape species who engaged in other methods (single malde dominant society for example)..HOWEVER, for the fact that we are the least seually dimorphic ape species gives evidence of les sexual competition among males (for example, chimpanzees have larger ball sacks because they would have more sex and needed more sperm to try to get females pregnats)...again, we are the LEAST sexually dimporphic. That would be true in different species, however that is not how our species evolved...we specifically evolved alongside monogomy.
User avatar #92 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"[S]ome animals have been documented... as being monogomous especially ape species" - but we're talking about humans specifically. If humans are monogamous tell me this - why is it common these days to have single parents, for partners to cheat (hell, this content's about a website specifically for that!), and for people to have had multiple partners throughout their lifetime?

"[T]his was literally key to our cognitive development." - But modern humans have been around since times where polygamy was common. Your argument doesn't add up; how could modern humans exist before monogamy was universally practised if monogamy was the key to the modern human brain?

"...gives evidence of less sexual competition amongst males" - that could also mean that they had polygamous relationships where the father of the children was unknown. That isn't proof of monogamy at all, just that there was less sexual competition (it's applicable with both monogamy and polygamy).
User avatar #113 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
The reason why i brought up other species that are monogomous is because im making a point that it is natural and not man made. like i said before, today is a tottatly different time, im almost hitting my head that you dont giet this concept...the website, ashley madison is part of an invention (internent) that was not available until recently and only partially within the lifetime of its average user...sites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more ikely to cheat. This is all part of the new world, im explaining monogomy as it pertained through our evolutionary pathway.

because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?

that would be conflicting to the idea that we are a male dominated society and have been...there are actual polygomous soceities in todays world (minority of poplulation) and even they dont hold up to what you are saying.

of the courses relating to this shitty argument, i have taken Human evo bio, anthropology, and a shitton of psychology and statistics courses (having talked about why people cheat in psych, monogomy in evolution, and enough statistics so that i think logically instead of assuming illogical ideas based on what i have learned). You are litterally wrong and im not even taking a strong stance on this because there is evidence that proves you are wrong and i have a long ass time in college learning about it.
User avatar #120 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
(Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a logical fallacy, which is funny since you mentioned that you think logically.)

Man-made things are natural. What else - supernatural? Different people like different types of relationships, and since monogamy is the default relationship in the modern western world, people are more likely to take part in them.

"[S]ites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more likely to cheat." - What does this prove? If I claim that people are naturally polygamous, and this site makes it easier to cheat, then that can be construed to be in my argument's favour, since people have access to a means to fulfill their natural tendencies.

"This is all part of the new world" - no it isn't; polygamy isn't this new thing that's only just popped up - it's been around since ancient times. There are a lot of links I could send but they say pretty much the same thing, so have this one: www.ilaam.net/brochures/brochure-13.html

"because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?" - I think you misread what I wrote. You claim that:
- Monogamy made humans cognitively superior (as humans are today)
- Therefore, modern humans must only exist after monogamy became mainstream

However, modern humans existed before monogamy was mainstream, meaning that your position doesn't make sense.

"[T]here are actual polygomous soceities in todays world" - we're making progress - here we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition.

Finally, just because you're taking a class that has to do with human biology doesn't mean that you know everything about it. This arrogance is blatant and does you no favours (I already mentioned how fallacious this last paragraph is).
User avatar #135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar #211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#59 - So is that why I've been receiving so many red thumbs? Does … 07/21/2015 on Lol -4
#51 - I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to …  [+] (1 new reply) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#54 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.
#48 - I'm not arguing about what humans as a species need - just w…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#50 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
But then we tread into the grounds of relationship communication and being informative to possible partners. Theres people who well know they arent in the end for monogamy and then they dont communicate that and they feel trapped and locked in. And think their partner is not gonna let them. There are even people who do scumbaggy stuff and do stuff behind a partners back. But alas my point is you should really communicate the fact of being poly to any future partner and really explain yourself so they can make a choice.
User avatar #51 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to say that they're only interested in a monogamous relationship if it means so much to them. Both of them would do well to get everything straight early on. I think it's selfish for partner A to deny partner B to form other relationships, but it would also be selfish of partner B to be secretive about it all and go behind the back of partner A. No matter the relationship preference, honesty is key.
#54 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.
#46 - Isn't everything natural? If aeroplanes aren't natural then wh…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/21/2015 on Lol -2
User avatar #47 - nudybooty (07/21/2015) [-]
They are unnatural you twat.
#41 - - Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
User avatar #42 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Of course and I can understand if only being with one person is not someone's cup of tea, the problem starts when a person like this still promises faithfullness.
#38 - I absolutely agree. The problem I was talking about is that mo…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#45 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Except we as a species don't need to have multiple partners anymore. Sure its fine if you want to be polygamous but why a majority of people are monogamous probably stands in that we dont need many partners to carry offspring anymore. We know nowadays we can safely have offspring with a single partner and that carrying on for generations. And that the male can focus on protecting the single female alot better. Basically theres benefits if we are talking about down to the base idea of our species being largely monogamous. Because we have evolved largely from the whole idea of producing as much offspring as we can. Instead we try to focus on just one partner and improving the quality of that relationship. But again everyones free to be what they want. For their own reasons i just dont like polygamy and i never will. Im happy having a single partner whom i choose to spend my life with and to focus all my care and attention on. But we all have our reasons for why we want monogamy or polygamy.
User avatar #48 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm not arguing about what humans as a species need - just what they want. There are benefits to both monogamy and polygamy, but I'm trying to state that it's all about a person's preference, and those who would be more comfortable in a polygamous relationship instead find themselves following societal norms and forming monogamous relationships. This causes problems, not only for them, but for the monogamous partner they've found themselves with.
#50 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
But then we tread into the grounds of relationship communication and being informative to possible partners. Theres people who well know they arent in the end for monogamy and then they dont communicate that and they feel trapped and locked in. And think their partner is not gonna let them. There are even people who do scumbaggy stuff and do stuff behind a partners back. But alas my point is you should really communicate the fact of being poly to any future partner and really explain yourself so they can make a choice.
User avatar #51 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to say that they're only interested in a monogamous relationship if it means so much to them. Both of them would do well to get everything straight early on. I think it's selfish for partner A to deny partner B to form other relationships, but it would also be selfish of partner B to be secretive about it all and go behind the back of partner A. No matter the relationship preference, honesty is key.
#54 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.
#36 - To answer your question - no. I wouldn't be bothered, and I'll…  [+] (9 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -6
User avatar #117 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
it affects people emotionally
ffs man, it's not all about physical pain
humans fall in love deeply, and they love that person and that person only
we don't want them fucking around and potentially falling for that other person and leaving us
along with stds and other bullshit. yeah. maybe it's ok for you, but most normal humans love one person and want them to themselves.
User avatar #121 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your action, you would suggest not to perform that action? I thought FunnyJunk was anti-SJW, but as soon as I bring up polygamy everyone turns their cloaks and claims that hurting feelings is bad.

Seriously, it's hypocritical as hell. Then again, you're just a single person - do you believe that:

- If doing X would upset someone, you shouldn't do X?

If so, you are consistent. If you don't agree with that statement, then you must explain why it makes a difference when it comes to relationships. If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again? Do try to be logically consistent.
User avatar #122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar #129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
User avatar #39 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
In my wiev, sex is a really high level of affection and all I could wiev the other girl is as competition. When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner. That's at least how I view it, but from what I've seen women are more territorial, I just feel like that if someone wants a polygamous relationship I shouldn't find that out by catching my SO with someone else.
User avatar #41 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
- Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all people.
- If partner A loved partner B passionately but wanted a one-night-stand with someone else (out of lust, no more), then it wouldn't mean they loved partner B any less. Partner B may disapprove, but for the same selfish reasons a clingy partner may dislike their partner going on a night out with some other attractive friends. Who is partner B to deny great pleasure to the one they love?
- "When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner" - I agree absolutely. If they consent to a monogamous relationship then they have a duty to it. However, my point is that agreeing to such a thing by default is not the right way to go for everyone.
User avatar #42 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Of course and I can understand if only being with one person is not someone's cup of tea, the problem starts when a person like this still promises faithfullness.
#22 - A long post but a good one. And I think we overall ag… 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
#19 - But since the divorce rate is so high, my evidence is actually…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -3
User avatar #107 - emiyashirou (07/21/2015) [-]
Here's a single sentence that destroys the majority of your arguments: Correlation does not imply causation
User avatar #109 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.
#17 - Humans are, as you said, in the middle, leading them to being …  [+] (8 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -3
#210 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Mate, the West is monogamous by law.
Only Middle-East / Africa (basically Muslim countries) accept polygamy.
They also live in huts and wear sandals 24/7 and fuck goats and have the education level of a jelly fish.

Reading all your posts in this thread, it seems that you like to cheat on your partner, and don't love her enough to give a shit if she does something likewise to you; because you're too focused on fucking-around elsewhere.
If this is the scenario? Why keep it up? Convenience?
Just leave them and go focus on your new catch.

Evolution points to heterosexual monogamous relationships.
Homosexuality ended with the Roman empire, Polygamy still lives because of Arabs 1500yo religion, written by a farmer who married one of his cousins (forced upon by his parents).
User avatar #214 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at that point they were the pinnacle of civilisation, so your first argument is invalid.

I'm not actually polygamous myself, no - I just think it's worth defending. If my partner would want to have other flings then who would I be to deny them that freedom to be happy? I also don't allow emotions to dictate actions, which everyone here seems to be fine with for some reason.
#218 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
User avatar #220 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:

- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.

What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.

With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.

My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they do cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
#18 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your 'evidence' amounts to nothing but a biased personal observation and isn't even worth contending with. I don't care if you don't believe humans have monogamous instincts, your beliefs have no bearing on the science. I'm done with this conversation, but I'll leave you with this: Yes, humans are literally, the median, in the middle of the other groups - but we are to the right of the mean, on the same side of it as the orangutans and gorillas. That is why it can be said that we 'lean' towards monogamy.
User avatar #19 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
But since the divorce rate is so high, my evidence is actually very valid. It seems that you're denying it without a thought since it conflicts with your own views (which aren't scientific merely because you posted a science-y picture, by the way).

I know you said you were done, and I respect your decision, but in the future you need to be able to logically support your arguments as well as being able to tear down your opponent's. Stating that my evidence can be simply cast aside without a proper rebuttal isn't very well argued.
User avatar #107 - emiyashirou (07/21/2015) [-]
Here's a single sentence that destroys the majority of your arguments: Correlation does not imply causation
User avatar #109 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.
#15 - "And how many people do you know who are okay with their …  [+] (23 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -3
#148 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Having an inclination and acting on it are two different things. Admitting to having an inclination is one thing, pushing to have your significant other accept you acting on it, especially if they do not also share that or similar inclinations to act on themself, is entirely another.
User avatar #213 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
But it goes both ways - why should their desires to restrict your actions trump your freedom? Your partner should love you allow you happiness whenever they can.
User avatar #33 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
If my guy sleeps with another woman it affects me. Because he's MY partner, and I don't want several partners, I want one that is good for me and when I find said partner fucking some bitch it means he's not attached to me and that holds the potential of losing him. Also... STDs.
Now tell me, would you be cool with finding the person you love and are really attached to banging some other guy (technically a rival)?
User avatar #36 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
To answer your question - no. I wouldn't be bothered, and I'll explain why.

- First of all, it doesn't affect me. If STDs are involved then yes, but if not then all is well. How would it affect me, anyway? Their relationship won't physically harm me.
- Also, it would be tremendously selfish of me to deny them pleasure. I wouldn't demand that I was the only one my partner could ever converse with, play badminton with, et cetera, so why restrict them from sex? If they're sacrificing time with me for it then my interests then become threatened, but if not I don't see being so selfish as a virtuous thing.
- Just because your partner would be having sex with someone else doesn't mean that they aren't attached to you. You can listen to a song but it doesn't make you like your favourite song any less.

I just think people get too selfish about the issue, honestly. Do you not think it's selfish to restrict a partner in such ways for your own gain?
User avatar #117 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
it affects people emotionally
ffs man, it's not all about physical pain
humans fall in love deeply, and they love that person and that person only
we don't want them fucking around and potentially falling for that other person and leaving us
along with stds and other bullshit. yeah. maybe it's ok for you, but most normal humans love one person and want them to themselves.
User avatar #121 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your action, you would suggest not to perform that action? I thought FunnyJunk was anti-SJW, but as soon as I bring up polygamy everyone turns their cloaks and claims that hurting feelings is bad.

Seriously, it's hypocritical as hell. Then again, you're just a single person - do you believe that:

- If doing X would upset someone, you shouldn't do X?

If so, you are consistent. If you don't agree with that statement, then you must explain why it makes a difference when it comes to relationships. If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again? Do try to be logically consistent.
User avatar #122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar #129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
User avatar #39 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
In my wiev, sex is a really high level of affection and all I could wiev the other girl is as competition. When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner. That's at least how I view it, but from what I've seen women are more territorial, I just feel like that if someone wants a polygamous relationship I shouldn't find that out by catching my SO with someone else.
User avatar #41 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
- Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all people.
- If partner A loved partner B passionately but wanted a one-night-stand with someone else (out of lust, no more), then it wouldn't mean they loved partner B any less. Partner B may disapprove, but for the same selfish reasons a clingy partner may dislike their partner going on a night out with some other attractive friends. Who is partner B to deny great pleasure to the one they love?
- "When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner" - I agree absolutely. If they consent to a monogamous relationship then they have a duty to it. However, my point is that agreeing to such a thing by default is not the right way to go for everyone.
User avatar #42 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Of course and I can understand if only being with one person is not someone's cup of tea, the problem starts when a person like this still promises faithfullness.
#16 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your stance is that people should overcome some basic instincts in favor of others. This will still cause conflict, and the biology points towards our monogamous instincts being stronger than our polygamous ones, so the conflict will likely be greater. Our minds are complex. Just because our litany of desires often contrast with one another and "don't make sense" doesn't mean the evolutionary psychology doesn't make sense. Your last line also shows that you either didn't read or didn't understand the scientific portion of my post.
User avatar #17 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
Humans are, as you said, in the middle, leading them to being able to swing either way. The picture doesn't tell you that humans are monogamous - it doesn't even take into account the complexity of the human mind.

And you imply that I believe that all humans have "basic instincts" to be monogamous, which I do not. I think that humans do overcome basic polygamous instincts which is why we've ended up in a society that has monogamy as the norm. The sheer number of people who've married more than once is evidence that humans aren't wired to be monogamous. And speaking of overcoming basic instincts, religious societies do that all the time by practising celibacy, by fasting - all sorts of things like that, so it isn't out of the question to suggest that humans are capable of overcoming their basic instincts.
#210 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Mate, the West is monogamous by law.
Only Middle-East / Africa (basically Muslim countries) accept polygamy.
They also live in huts and wear sandals 24/7 and fuck goats and have the education level of a jelly fish.

Reading all your posts in this thread, it seems that you like to cheat on your partner, and don't love her enough to give a shit if she does something likewise to you; because you're too focused on fucking-around elsewhere.
If this is the scenario? Why keep it up? Convenience?
Just leave them and go focus on your new catch.

Evolution points to heterosexual monogamous relationships.
Homosexuality ended with the Roman empire, Polygamy still lives because of Arabs 1500yo religion, written by a farmer who married one of his cousins (forced upon by his parents).
User avatar #214 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at that point they were the pinnacle of civilisation, so your first argument is invalid.

I'm not actually polygamous myself, no - I just think it's worth defending. If my partner would want to have other flings then who would I be to deny them that freedom to be happy? I also don't allow emotions to dictate actions, which everyone here seems to be fine with for some reason.
#218 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
User avatar #220 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:

- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.

What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.

With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.

My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they do cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
#18 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your 'evidence' amounts to nothing but a biased personal observation and isn't even worth contending with. I don't care if you don't believe humans have monogamous instincts, your beliefs have no bearing on the science. I'm done with this conversation, but I'll leave you with this: Yes, humans are literally, the median, in the middle of the other groups - but we are to the right of the mean, on the same side of it as the orangutans and gorillas. That is why it can be said that we 'lean' towards monogamy.
User avatar #19 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
But since the divorce rate is so high, my evidence is actually very valid. It seems that you're denying it without a thought since it conflicts with your own views (which aren't scientific merely because you posted a science-y picture, by the way).

I know you said you were done, and I respect your decision, but in the future you need to be able to logically support your arguments as well as being able to tear down your opponent's. Stating that my evidence can be simply cast aside without a proper rebuttal isn't very well argued.
User avatar #107 - emiyashirou (07/21/2015) [-]
Here's a single sentence that destroys the majority of your arguments: Correlation does not imply causation
User avatar #109 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.
#13 - It's self-evident - how many people do you know who are attrac…  [+] (27 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -14
#37 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
no, it's how the human body and hormones work, being human is an exercise in self control, if you think going around fucking everyone is ok then you should go back to the jungles of africa and finish evolving, men also use your reasoning to justify rape as well, what separated the beasts from the people is who actually acts on it.
fyi, i'm the type that will only date one person for life, i see open relations as a display of pure lust, there's no love involved and if the word love is used it's a lie to get what they want, there's also no security there, you can trust them if you're a naive little kid but when they walk out and leave your ass for good you'll realize you fucked up.
User avatar #30 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Finding someone attractive and wanting a relationship with them is two different things. I can look at a guy and think "fuck, he looks hot" but that doesn't mean I want to date him because despite being hot he can still be an asshole.
#14 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
And how many people do you know who are okay with their significant others sleeping around? My guess would be few if any. We are hardwired to be hurt when our partner sleeps around, and we are also (most of us anyway) hardwired for empathy, so that we try not to sleep around even if we want to. There are obviously competing evolutionary forces at play. Bonobos and Chimps are polygamous, while Gorillas and Orangutans are monogamous. Interestingly, the place on the monogamy-polygamy spectrum of these species directly correlates with the sizes of their testicles in relation to their bodies. The bigger the relative testicle size, the more polygamous. This is more than just a correlation-therefore-causation proof. It makes sense that animals who are naturally polygamous would compete for fitness with their sperm rather than through fighting. Where do humans fit in? We are the median, in between both groups, however our testicles are numerically closer to the gorillas and orangutans. This points to humans leaning towards monogamy not just culturally, but biologically.
User avatar #15 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"And how many people do you know who are okay with their significant others sleeping around? " - Exactly! People are attracted to more than one other (and wouldn't mind having a relationship with that person), yet get upset if their partner would admit the same thing. However, in many cases a person wouldn't mind having a relationship with someone who is in another relationship to start with - so how does that make sense logically?

Well, it doesn't - my stance is that people should stop getting upset by things that don't hurt them. In a situation where partner A goes on a business trip and partner B spends that week with another temporary partner, what's the harm? Partner A would likely object to partner B's temporary new partnership even though it won't affect them in the slightest whilst they're away. What's the difference between them and those folks who condemn gay partnerships even if it doesn't affect anyone except the gay people actually in the relationship?

And to make it clear, I suppose I'd best say that I agree that many people will like monogamy, but that doesn't make humans a monogamous species, just like a lot of humans being religious doesn't make humans a religious species.
#148 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Having an inclination and acting on it are two different things. Admitting to having an inclination is one thing, pushing to have your significant other accept you acting on it, especially if they do not also share that or similar inclinations to act on themself, is entirely another.
User avatar #213 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
But it goes both ways - why should their desires to restrict your actions trump your freedom? Your partner should love you allow you happiness whenever they can.
User avatar #33 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
If my guy sleeps with another woman it affects me. Because he's MY partner, and I don't want several partners, I want one that is good for me and when I find said partner fucking some bitch it means he's not attached to me and that holds the potential of losing him. Also... STDs.
Now tell me, would you be cool with finding the person you love and are really attached to banging some other guy (technically a rival)?
User avatar #36 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
To answer your question - no. I wouldn't be bothered, and I'll explain why.

- First of all, it doesn't affect me. If STDs are involved then yes, but if not then all is well. How would it affect me, anyway? Their relationship won't physically harm me.
- Also, it would be tremendously selfish of me to deny them pleasure. I wouldn't demand that I was the only one my partner could ever converse with, play badminton with, et cetera, so why restrict them from sex? If they're sacrificing time with me for it then my interests then become threatened, but if not I don't see being so selfish as a virtuous thing.
- Just because your partner would be having sex with someone else doesn't mean that they aren't attached to you. You can listen to a song but it doesn't make you like your favourite song any less.

I just think people get too selfish about the issue, honestly. Do you not think it's selfish to restrict a partner in such ways for your own gain?
User avatar #117 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
it affects people emotionally
ffs man, it's not all about physical pain
humans fall in love deeply, and they love that person and that person only
we don't want them fucking around and potentially falling for that other person and leaving us
along with stds and other bullshit. yeah. maybe it's ok for you, but most normal humans love one person and want them to themselves.
User avatar #121 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your action, you would suggest not to perform that action? I thought FunnyJunk was anti-SJW, but as soon as I bring up polygamy everyone turns their cloaks and claims that hurting feelings is bad.

Seriously, it's hypocritical as hell. Then again, you're just a single person - do you believe that:

- If doing X would upset someone, you shouldn't do X?

If so, you are consistent. If you don't agree with that statement, then you must explain why it makes a difference when it comes to relationships. If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again? Do try to be logically consistent.
User avatar #122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar #129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
User avatar #39 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
In my wiev, sex is a really high level of affection and all I could wiev the other girl is as competition. When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner. That's at least how I view it, but from what I've seen women are more territorial, I just feel like that if someone wants a polygamous relationship I shouldn't find that out by catching my SO with someone else.
User avatar #41 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
- Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all people.
- If partner A loved partner B passionately but wanted a one-night-stand with someone else (out of lust, no more), then it wouldn't mean they loved partner B any less. Partner B may disapprove, but for the same selfish reasons a clingy partner may dislike their partner going on a night out with some other attractive friends. Who is partner B to deny great pleasure to the one they love?
- "When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner" - I agree absolutely. If they consent to a monogamous relationship then they have a duty to it. However, my point is that agreeing to such a thing by default is not the right way to go for everyone.
User avatar #42 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Of course and I can understand if only being with one person is not someone's cup of tea, the problem starts when a person like this still promises faithfullness.
#16 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your stance is that people should overcome some basic instincts in favor of others. This will still cause conflict, and the biology points towards our monogamous instincts being stronger than our polygamous ones, so the conflict will likely be greater. Our minds are complex. Just because our litany of desires often contrast with one another and "don't make sense" doesn't mean the evolutionary psychology doesn't make sense. Your last line also shows that you either didn't read or didn't understand the scientific portion of my post.
User avatar #17 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
Humans are, as you said, in the middle, leading them to being able to swing either way. The picture doesn't tell you that humans are monogamous - it doesn't even take into account the complexity of the human mind.

And you imply that I believe that all humans have "basic instincts" to be monogamous, which I do not. I think that humans do overcome basic polygamous instincts which is why we've ended up in a society that has monogamy as the norm. The sheer number of people who've married more than once is evidence that humans aren't wired to be monogamous. And speaking of overcoming basic instincts, religious societies do that all the time by practising celibacy, by fasting - all sorts of things like that, so it isn't out of the question to suggest that humans are capable of overcoming their basic instincts.
#210 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Mate, the West is monogamous by law.
Only Middle-East / Africa (basically Muslim countries) accept polygamy.
They also live in huts and wear sandals 24/7 and fuck goats and have the education level of a jelly fish.

Reading all your posts in this thread, it seems that you like to cheat on your partner, and don't love her enough to give a shit if she does something likewise to you; because you're too focused on fucking-around elsewhere.
If this is the scenario? Why keep it up? Convenience?
Just leave them and go focus on your new catch.

Evolution points to heterosexual monogamous relationships.
Homosexuality ended with the Roman empire, Polygamy still lives because of Arabs 1500yo religion, written by a farmer who married one of his cousins (forced upon by his parents).
User avatar #214 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at that point they were the pinnacle of civilisation, so your first argument is invalid.

I'm not actually polygamous myself, no - I just think it's worth defending. If my partner would want to have other flings then who would I be to deny them that freedom to be happy? I also don't allow emotions to dictate actions, which everyone here seems to be fine with for some reason.
#218 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
User avatar #220 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:

- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.

What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.

With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.

My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they do cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
#18 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your 'evidence' amounts to nothing but a biased personal observation and isn't even worth contending with. I don't care if you don't believe humans have monogamous instincts, your beliefs have no bearing on the science. I'm done with this conversation, but I'll leave you with this: Yes, humans are literally, the median, in the middle of the other groups - but we are to the right of the mean, on the same side of it as the orangutans and gorillas. That is why it can be said that we 'lean' towards monogamy.
User avatar #19 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
But since the divorce rate is so high, my evidence is actually very valid. It seems that you're denying it without a thought since it conflicts with your own views (which aren't scientific merely because you posted a science-y picture, by the way).

I know you said you were done, and I respect your decision, but in the future you need to be able to logically support your arguments as well as being able to tear down your opponent's. Stating that my evidence can be simply cast aside without a proper rebuttal isn't very well argued.
User avatar #107 - emiyashirou (07/21/2015) [-]
Here's a single sentence that destroys the majority of your arguments: Correlation does not imply causation
User avatar #109 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.
#12 - - Being traditional does not justify it, and though it may que…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -3
#20 - eizujeil (07/21/2015) [-]
Traditions are just that, traditions, they do not hold one sided arguments so yes i agree some issues may have exist because of it, although I cant honestly think of what issue it could have caused.

Your second point is agreeable, i was simply stating that it is a significant catalyst for crimes of passion.

I personally disagree with your third statement, its like saying you cant eat cake all the time you need to try from the other groups too, personally i just want cake, but to each there own, however, you cant go around eating everything and go calling it all cake, monogamy is just that, you chose one over all. Funnily enough when the roman empire enforced monogamy it didnt exclude lovers ( www.polygamy.com/history-of-polygamy.html )

Perhaps im defining it a bit too loosely, female genital mutilation should not be respected as its creation was based on tyrannical dominance, saying that "i dont see the logic behind monogamy and find it stupid" is a personal statement, and thats cool as long as you dont preach. Entering a monogamous relationship knowing full well what it entails and then proceeding to break its constitutes, that is being disrespectful.

Its only the default because it is the majority make it the default, and that differs depending on demographics as well, if you live in a democracy its more widespread as more people are held to their customs, in Saudi Arabia you wont see many polygamous relationships unless you start to climb the social ladder.

I will agree that there is a perceived stance, but it is definitely not enforced, also, the sacrifice of opportunities is called opportunity cost, what you give up for something else, however, using opportunity analysis we determine that the benefit of a monogamous relationship (lets say that no one cheats or anything) is the better development of emotional attachment and the furthering of trust, perhaps even the journey to achieve co-bonding bliss, the loss is the inability to see the potential relationships in others and so on and so forth.

My stance is that you do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others, including future consequences. And anyone breaking their own constitutions is just weak, if you are having doubts, address them, dont ignore it all and hurt your partner down the track. Sorry for the long post, but here's also some extra research on the matter, dunno how good of a source it is but whatever. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/divorce-questions-adultery_n_1471111.html
User avatar #22 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
A long post but a good one.

And I think we overall agree about the free choices people have when it comes to relationships - As I said, there's no problem with two people consenting to a relationship (of any kind), and if two people commit to a monogamous relationship then breaking that commitment is their fault. I suppose the main issue I have is with people who commit to a monogamous relationship when they're much better suited to a polygamous one (people who cheat, primarily). This is their own fault, but I can't help but think that a lot of these cheating issues could be solved by making polygamy more accepted within society.

Also, thanks for the links. Some interesting points are raised in the articles - I'll have a full read of them after I've sent this.
#8 - I think the big issue here is that people are told that monoga…  [+] (60 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -29
#98 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
"Just let me walk right through here and make a claim withiut any evidence" reddit tier post.
User avatar #105 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
The evidence is all around - take this content for example; it's about a website made specifically so that partners can cheat.

But there's more - a lot of the world practises polygyny due to culture. Examples include within Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, et cetera. Plus, even in western societies the divorce rate is rather high, and that's because humans simply aren't wired to stay with just one partner for their entire lives.

Here's a link I was sent earlier - it's quite interesting: www.polygamy.com/history-of-polygamy.html
User avatar #66 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
LMAO did you just say humans are polygamous naturally? humans have our brain capacity and high cognition BECAUSE of the benefits of monogamy.
User avatar #67 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
Well that's just incorrect - there were times in ancient history where polygamy was normal and they were still modern humans as we are today. Humans are indeed naturally polygamist - it's just that culture and what-not steered humans away from certain tendencies.
User avatar #68 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
heres where you are wrong >>>"naturally". according to biology,mammals, especially apes benefit greatly from a monogamous pairing. our brains need a longer time to develop (example, a deer can walk right out of the womb, whereas a human baby cant do anything basically)..being that a mammal takes longer to develop, a longer time for parental care is needed...human beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times. so yea NATURALLY humans are monogomous, but can be polygomous depending on culture. source : Human evolutionary biology course.
User avatar #72 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"NATURALLY humans are monogamous" - No, that's just false. Each person is different as an individual, so there will be those who are truly monogamous, but that doesn't mean that humans are therefore naturally monogamous. There are many humans that are religious - does that mean humans are naturally religious? Like religion, monogamy is a practice that humans have developed.

You're basically saying that 'because X is beneficial for humans, X is the natural course for humans'. However, exercise is beneficial, yet there is an abundance of unhealthy people.

Or are you saying that 'because humans practise X, X is beneficial to humans'? I think there are a million examples of stupid, dangerous things people do that don't benefit them (or that even do harm).

"[H]uman beings benefited from monogomy by having 2 caretakers watching/collecting food/ etc at the same or different times" - it would be more beneficial to have more guardians for the children, meaning that polygamy would be more beneficial in this situation. The parents of a particular child would also be unknown, meaning that there would be fewer cases of infanticide since the parents wouldn't want to accidentally kill their own young.
User avatar #79 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
*unhealthy people
User avatar #78 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
that is incorrect. some animals have been documented (hell google monogomous animals, its not a myth) as being monogomous especially ape species. This was litterally key to our cognitive development. that religious analogy made shit sense, monogomy is actually widely accepted as being one of the reasons why we as a species were able to achieve higher cognitive abilities (as were alot of apes).

Dude...that is because we live in a very very very different time...when we first evolved we ran/walked and went days without food, we have had a slow adaptation rate therefore the abundunce of food today overwhelmed lards and thats why there is unhealthy food. monogomy was definately beneficial to humans thus came naturally.

no it would not have, careing for a child is an investment of resources...for a person to just care for a child would not be enough gain from an altruistic perspective. the reason that a single male and female cared for a child was because that is how we evolved, there are other ape species who engaged in other methods (single malde dominant society for example)..HOWEVER, for the fact that we are the least seually dimorphic ape species gives evidence of les sexual competition among males (for example, chimpanzees have larger ball sacks because they would have more sex and needed more sperm to try to get females pregnats)...again, we are the LEAST sexually dimporphic. That would be true in different species, however that is not how our species evolved...we specifically evolved alongside monogomy.
User avatar #92 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"[S]ome animals have been documented... as being monogomous especially ape species" - but we're talking about humans specifically. If humans are monogamous tell me this - why is it common these days to have single parents, for partners to cheat (hell, this content's about a website specifically for that!), and for people to have had multiple partners throughout their lifetime?

"[T]his was literally key to our cognitive development." - But modern humans have been around since times where polygamy was common. Your argument doesn't add up; how could modern humans exist before monogamy was universally practised if monogamy was the key to the modern human brain?

"...gives evidence of less sexual competition amongst males" - that could also mean that they had polygamous relationships where the father of the children was unknown. That isn't proof of monogamy at all, just that there was less sexual competition (it's applicable with both monogamy and polygamy).
User avatar #113 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
The reason why i brought up other species that are monogomous is because im making a point that it is natural and not man made. like i said before, today is a tottatly different time, im almost hitting my head that you dont giet this concept...the website, ashley madison is part of an invention (internent) that was not available until recently and only partially within the lifetime of its average user...sites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more ikely to cheat. This is all part of the new world, im explaining monogomy as it pertained through our evolutionary pathway.

because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?

that would be conflicting to the idea that we are a male dominated society and have been...there are actual polygomous soceities in todays world (minority of poplulation) and even they dont hold up to what you are saying.

of the courses relating to this shitty argument, i have taken Human evo bio, anthropology, and a shitton of psychology and statistics courses (having talked about why people cheat in psych, monogomy in evolution, and enough statistics so that i think logically instead of assuming illogical ideas based on what i have learned). You are litterally wrong and im not even taking a strong stance on this because there is evidence that proves you are wrong and i have a long ass time in college learning about it.
User avatar #120 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
(Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a logical fallacy, which is funny since you mentioned that you think logically.)

Man-made things are natural. What else - supernatural? Different people like different types of relationships, and since monogamy is the default relationship in the modern western world, people are more likely to take part in them.

"[S]ites like these make cheating easier among things that will make people more likely to cheat." - What does this prove? If I claim that people are naturally polygamous, and this site makes it easier to cheat, then that can be construed to be in my argument's favour, since people have access to a means to fulfill their natural tendencies.

"This is all part of the new world" - no it isn't; polygamy isn't this new thing that's only just popped up - it's been around since ancient times. There are a lot of links I could send but they say pretty much the same thing, so have this one: www.ilaam.net/brochures/brochure-13.html

"because it was a precuroser to the brain...do you know how evolution works?" - I think you misread what I wrote. You claim that:
- Monogamy made humans cognitively superior (as humans are today)
- Therefore, modern humans must only exist after monogamy became mainstream

However, modern humans existed before monogamy was mainstream, meaning that your position doesn't make sense.

"[T]here are actual polygomous soceities in todays world" - we're making progress - here we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition.

Finally, just because you're taking a class that has to do with human biology doesn't mean that you know everything about it. This arrogance is blatant and does you no favours (I already mentioned how fallacious this last paragraph is).
User avatar #135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar #211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#60 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
I wish you luck with the unpopular opinion. No one wants to believe polyamorous is natural (not quite polygamy since that means many wives to some). I am not polyamorous simply because I can get jealous, which is my own personal problem but still..I know my limits.

People also don't like to hear they are serial monogamous. I'd like to hear of one story where two people who never found anyone else ever mate worthy found each other and stayed together for the rest of their lives, literally never finding anyone else mateworthy....ever. That's real monogamy. Instead, they find one person....then it doesn't work, so they find another.....and that doesn't work so they try again....until they settle or pine forever for a mate long gone.

The accepted culture is serial monogamous. Back in my great grandparents age it was real monogamy, which usually didn't fair well with anyone (brothel houses but not allowed to divorce.....yeesh). True monogamy does not work. We still pine for others (the one that got away!) Or flirt with a coworker (but nothing will ever come of it.....until something happens, of course).

But we are all perfect on the internet....and this stuff only happens to our stupid and annoying exes, those cheating whores! -sarcasm-
#58 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
Are you trying to justify cheating as natural human behavior?

Even if cheating was natural human behavior, then I'd go as far as to say the humans that overcome that natural-ness are better than those that give in.

Polygamy is fine as long as everyone involved is a properly consenting adult. But agreeing to be in a monogamous relationship is perfectly fine as well. Don't attempt to force your value system onto a situation in which it is irrelevant.
User avatar #59 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
So is that why I've been receiving so many red thumbs? Does everyone think I'm justifying cheating? Well I'm not.

"...agreeing to be in a monogamous relationship is perfectly fine..." - Yes, but my point is that since monogamy is encouraged so much, it has people growing up thinking it's the only way to have a relationship. Because of this, those naturally inclined to be polygamous (and no, not everyone is) end up in monogamous relationships which is bad for them and for their monogamous partner. Whilst in that relationship, they'll feel the desire to be with other people, but since they don't see that as an open option they sneak around instead.

Alternatively, if society was okay with polygamy, then polygamists wouldn't end up in monogamous relationships. Everyone would be happy.
User avatar #43 - nudybooty (07/21/2015) [-]
The second we made aeroplanes humans being natural _______, died out. Nothing we do is natural but on the other hand no it's not natural, a good chunk of people want 1 person in their whole lives. Very few things humans do is natural.
User avatar #46 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
Isn't everything natural? If aeroplanes aren't natural then what are they - supernatural?
User avatar #47 - nudybooty (07/21/2015) [-]
They are unnatural you twat.
User avatar #35 - lwlarcopolio (07/21/2015) [-]
There is such a thing as open relationships. You can be polygamous if you want, but make sure your partner is aware and ok with it. If you do it behind their back, you're a fucking douchebag that doesn't deserve anyone.
User avatar #38 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I absolutely agree. The problem I was talking about is that monogamy is the 'default setting' these days, and people think that it's appropriate to be monogamous. Therefore, someone who may be better suited to a polygamous/open relationship will likely end up in a monogamous relationship and find it difficult to maintain.
#45 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Except we as a species don't need to have multiple partners anymore. Sure its fine if you want to be polygamous but why a majority of people are monogamous probably stands in that we dont need many partners to carry offspring anymore. We know nowadays we can safely have offspring with a single partner and that carrying on for generations. And that the male can focus on protecting the single female alot better. Basically theres benefits if we are talking about down to the base idea of our species being largely monogamous. Because we have evolved largely from the whole idea of producing as much offspring as we can. Instead we try to focus on just one partner and improving the quality of that relationship. But again everyones free to be what they want. For their own reasons i just dont like polygamy and i never will. Im happy having a single partner whom i choose to spend my life with and to focus all my care and attention on. But we all have our reasons for why we want monogamy or polygamy.
User avatar #48 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm not arguing about what humans as a species need - just what they want. There are benefits to both monogamy and polygamy, but I'm trying to state that it's all about a person's preference, and those who would be more comfortable in a polygamous relationship instead find themselves following societal norms and forming monogamous relationships. This causes problems, not only for them, but for the monogamous partner they've found themselves with.
#50 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
But then we tread into the grounds of relationship communication and being informative to possible partners. Theres people who well know they arent in the end for monogamy and then they dont communicate that and they feel trapped and locked in. And think their partner is not gonna let them. There are even people who do scumbaggy stuff and do stuff behind a partners back. But alas my point is you should really communicate the fact of being poly to any future partner and really explain yourself so they can make a choice.
User avatar #51 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I agree. I also think it would be beneficial for a partner to say that they're only interested in a monogamous relationship if it means so much to them. Both of them would do well to get everything straight early on. I think it's selfish for partner A to deny partner B to form other relationships, but it would also be selfish of partner B to be secretive about it all and go behind the back of partner A. No matter the relationship preference, honesty is key.
#54 - hueduebue (07/21/2015) [-]
Exactly this is probably what also cases these issues and debates all the time. Its the fact people seem not to understand the concept of communicating and being honest. And explaining what they want/need/etc. Because if all humans were honest and never kept secrets. We'd probably just have alot of better relationships. Less hurt and all that but human nature tends to be hard to fight and improve so people keep to not communicating and being secretive about personal things.
#10 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
According to whom are we naturally polygamous?
User avatar #21 - fuzzyballs (07/21/2015) [-]
well, the size of your testicles are a hint
gorillas only have one male that's allowed to mate, so the size of their penis and testicles don't matter
pigs on the other hand will just mate with any pig in heat, and the one with the biggest testicles, the one who can create the most sperm has the highest chance of having offspring

and since the human testicles aren't tiny or huge, it can be deduced that women have not always been faithful

YOU'VE JUST BEEN SCHOOLED, SON!
User avatar #13 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
It's self-evident - how many people do you know who are attracted to only one other person? I'd guess zero, or very few. This being the case, it seems odd that people limit themselves to two-person relationships when they obviously find others attractive and would enjoy having a relationship with them, too.
#37 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
no, it's how the human body and hormones work, being human is an exercise in self control, if you think going around fucking everyone is ok then you should go back to the jungles of africa and finish evolving, men also use your reasoning to justify rape as well, what separated the beasts from the people is who actually acts on it.
fyi, i'm the type that will only date one person for life, i see open relations as a display of pure lust, there's no love involved and if the word love is used it's a lie to get what they want, there's also no security there, you can trust them if you're a naive little kid but when they walk out and leave your ass for good you'll realize you fucked up.
User avatar #30 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Finding someone attractive and wanting a relationship with them is two different things. I can look at a guy and think "fuck, he looks hot" but that doesn't mean I want to date him because despite being hot he can still be an asshole.
#14 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
And how many people do you know who are okay with their significant others sleeping around? My guess would be few if any. We are hardwired to be hurt when our partner sleeps around, and we are also (most of us anyway) hardwired for empathy, so that we try not to sleep around even if we want to. There are obviously competing evolutionary forces at play. Bonobos and Chimps are polygamous, while Gorillas and Orangutans are monogamous. Interestingly, the place on the monogamy-polygamy spectrum of these species directly correlates with the sizes of their testicles in relation to their bodies. The bigger the relative testicle size, the more polygamous. This is more than just a correlation-therefore-causation proof. It makes sense that animals who are naturally polygamous would compete for fitness with their sperm rather than through fighting. Where do humans fit in? We are the median, in between both groups, however our testicles are numerically closer to the gorillas and orangutans. This points to humans leaning towards monogamy not just culturally, but biologically.
User avatar #15 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
"And how many people do you know who are okay with their significant others sleeping around? " - Exactly! People are attracted to more than one other (and wouldn't mind having a relationship with that person), yet get upset if their partner would admit the same thing. However, in many cases a person wouldn't mind having a relationship with someone who is in another relationship to start with - so how does that make sense logically?

Well, it doesn't - my stance is that people should stop getting upset by things that don't hurt them. In a situation where partner A goes on a business trip and partner B spends that week with another temporary partner, what's the harm? Partner A would likely object to partner B's temporary new partnership even though it won't affect them in the slightest whilst they're away. What's the difference between them and those folks who condemn gay partnerships even if it doesn't affect anyone except the gay people actually in the relationship?

And to make it clear, I suppose I'd best say that I agree that many people will like monogamy, but that doesn't make humans a monogamous species, just like a lot of humans being religious doesn't make humans a religious species.
#148 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Having an inclination and acting on it are two different things. Admitting to having an inclination is one thing, pushing to have your significant other accept you acting on it, especially if they do not also share that or similar inclinations to act on themself, is entirely another.
User avatar #213 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
But it goes both ways - why should their desires to restrict your actions trump your freedom? Your partner should love you allow you happiness whenever they can.
User avatar #33 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
If my guy sleeps with another woman it affects me. Because he's MY partner, and I don't want several partners, I want one that is good for me and when I find said partner fucking some bitch it means he's not attached to me and that holds the potential of losing him. Also... STDs.
Now tell me, would you be cool with finding the person you love and are really attached to banging some other guy (technically a rival)?
User avatar #36 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
To answer your question - no. I wouldn't be bothered, and I'll explain why.

- First of all, it doesn't affect me. If STDs are involved then yes, but if not then all is well. How would it affect me, anyway? Their relationship won't physically harm me.
- Also, it would be tremendously selfish of me to deny them pleasure. I wouldn't demand that I was the only one my partner could ever converse with, play badminton with, et cetera, so why restrict them from sex? If they're sacrificing time with me for it then my interests then become threatened, but if not I don't see being so selfish as a virtuous thing.
- Just because your partner would be having sex with someone else doesn't mean that they aren't attached to you. You can listen to a song but it doesn't make you like your favourite song any less.

I just think people get too selfish about the issue, honestly. Do you not think it's selfish to restrict a partner in such ways for your own gain?
User avatar #117 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
it affects people emotionally
ffs man, it's not all about physical pain
humans fall in love deeply, and they love that person and that person only
we don't want them fucking around and potentially falling for that other person and leaving us
along with stds and other bullshit. yeah. maybe it's ok for you, but most normal humans love one person and want them to themselves.
User avatar #121 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your action, you would suggest not to perform that action? I thought FunnyJunk was anti-SJW, but as soon as I bring up polygamy everyone turns their cloaks and claims that hurting feelings is bad.

Seriously, it's hypocritical as hell. Then again, you're just a single person - do you believe that:

- If doing X would upset someone, you shouldn't do X?

If so, you are consistent. If you don't agree with that statement, then you must explain why it makes a difference when it comes to relationships. If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again? Do try to be logically consistent.
User avatar #122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar #129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar #136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar #212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
User avatar #39 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
In my wiev, sex is a really high level of affection and all I could wiev the other girl is as competition. When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner. That's at least how I view it, but from what I've seen women are more territorial, I just feel like that if someone wants a polygamous relationship I shouldn't find that out by catching my SO with someone else.
User avatar #41 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
- Sex can be a really high level of affection, but not for all people.
- If partner A loved partner B passionately but wanted a one-night-stand with someone else (out of lust, no more), then it wouldn't mean they loved partner B any less. Partner B may disapprove, but for the same selfish reasons a clingy partner may dislike their partner going on a night out with some other attractive friends. Who is partner B to deny great pleasure to the one they love?
- "When joining a monogamous relationship your technically make a promise that you will ONLY show that kind of affection to your partner" - I agree absolutely. If they consent to a monogamous relationship then they have a duty to it. However, my point is that agreeing to such a thing by default is not the right way to go for everyone.
User avatar #42 - syntheticdoll (07/21/2015) [-]
Of course and I can understand if only being with one person is not someone's cup of tea, the problem starts when a person like this still promises faithfullness.
#16 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your stance is that people should overcome some basic instincts in favor of others. This will still cause conflict, and the biology points towards our monogamous instincts being stronger than our polygamous ones, so the conflict will likely be greater. Our minds are complex. Just because our litany of desires often contrast with one another and "don't make sense" doesn't mean the evolutionary psychology doesn't make sense. Your last line also shows that you either didn't read or didn't understand the scientific portion of my post.
User avatar #17 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
Humans are, as you said, in the middle, leading them to being able to swing either way. The picture doesn't tell you that humans are monogamous - it doesn't even take into account the complexity of the human mind.

And you imply that I believe that all humans have "basic instincts" to be monogamous, which I do not. I think that humans do overcome basic polygamous instincts which is why we've ended up in a society that has monogamy as the norm. The sheer number of people who've married more than once is evidence that humans aren't wired to be monogamous. And speaking of overcoming basic instincts, religious societies do that all the time by practising celibacy, by fasting - all sorts of things like that, so it isn't out of the question to suggest that humans are capable of overcoming their basic instincts.
#210 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
Mate, the West is monogamous by law.
Only Middle-East / Africa (basically Muslim countries) accept polygamy.
They also live in huts and wear sandals 24/7 and fuck goats and have the education level of a jelly fish.

Reading all your posts in this thread, it seems that you like to cheat on your partner, and don't love her enough to give a shit if she does something likewise to you; because you're too focused on fucking-around elsewhere.
If this is the scenario? Why keep it up? Convenience?
Just leave them and go focus on your new catch.

Evolution points to heterosexual monogamous relationships.
Homosexuality ended with the Roman empire, Polygamy still lives because of Arabs 1500yo religion, written by a farmer who married one of his cousins (forced upon by his parents).
User avatar #214 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at that point they were the pinnacle of civilisation, so your first argument is invalid.

I'm not actually polygamous myself, no - I just think it's worth defending. If my partner would want to have other flings then who would I be to deny them that freedom to be happy? I also don't allow emotions to dictate actions, which everyone here seems to be fine with for some reason.
#218 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
User avatar #220 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:

- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.

What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.

With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.

My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they do cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
#18 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Your 'evidence' amounts to nothing but a biased personal observation and isn't even worth contending with. I don't care if you don't believe humans have monogamous instincts, your beliefs have no bearing on the science. I'm done with this conversation, but I'll leave you with this: Yes, humans are literally, the median, in the middle of the other groups - but we are to the right of the mean, on the same side of it as the orangutans and gorillas. That is why it can be said that we 'lean' towards monogamy.
User avatar #19 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
But since the divorce rate is so high, my evidence is actually very valid. It seems that you're denying it without a thought since it conflicts with your own views (which aren't scientific merely because you posted a science-y picture, by the way).

I know you said you were done, and I respect your decision, but in the future you need to be able to logically support your arguments as well as being able to tear down your opponent's. Stating that my evidence can be simply cast aside without a proper rebuttal isn't very well argued.
User avatar #107 - emiyashirou (07/21/2015) [-]
Here's a single sentence that destroys the majority of your arguments: Correlation does not imply causation
User avatar #109 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally monogamous then why do we see a trend in humans having multiple partners throughout their lives, with many cheating on their partners? Not a single person has answered this question today. Just because you don't like the idea of polygamy doesn't mean that it just goes away.
#9 - eizujeil (07/21/2015) [-]
Monogamous relationships are a long standing tradition, and its creation has quelled quite a few issues in societies, through its constructs you reduce violence brought about by jealousy. Crimes of passion are a dime a dozen in comparison to other crimes, and although we were 'originally' a polygamous species, we always chose a favorite, and now that we don't live in an era where lions may maim you to death as you attempt to hunt gazelle in the highlands, some things become redundant. Traits and cultures evolve and we must respect that, if you don't, then you are a minority to its cultural ethos.


And by entering a monogamous relationship, you both agree to its conditions, so yeah, it is forbidden to lay with another, since that breaks the constitution that you agreed to with your partner. That being said, there are more forms of marriage, so if you ain't into that then find someone who thinks like you and go about your way.
User avatar #12 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
- Being traditional does not justify it, and though it may quell some issues it also creates others.
- Reducing violence brought about by jealousy is not to say that monogamy is good, but rather that jealousy (and the violence that would follow) is bad. A ban on say, kitchen knives would prevent violence caused by kitchen knives, but that wouldn't mean the ban would be good in of itself, as kitchen knives can be fine in the right hands.
- Choosing a favourite doesn't mean that one ought limit themselves to it - if one has a favourite song does that person listen exclusively to that one, ignoring all other music?
- "Traits and cultures evolve and we must respect that" - I must disagree. A tradition/culture does not automatically deserve respect.; there are cultures and traditions (now and of the past) that are simply horrible.

I suppose my stance is that monogamy shouldn't be the default - when two people enter a relationship it is taken for granted that they'll sacrifice all other relationship opportunities (for no logical reason). If two people agree to it then power to them, but with the amount of people who have multiple relationships throughout their lives it seems as though this 'default' we have doesn't represent modern (western) human interests, and causes heartbreaks when people selfishly expect their partners to limit themselves to only their relationship.
#20 - eizujeil (07/21/2015) [-]
Traditions are just that, traditions, they do not hold one sided arguments so yes i agree some issues may have exist because of it, although I cant honestly think of what issue it could have caused.

Your second point is agreeable, i was simply stating that it is a significant catalyst for crimes of passion.

I personally disagree with your third statement, its like saying you cant eat cake all the time you need to try from the other groups too, personally i just want cake, but to each there own, however, you cant go around eating everything and go calling it all cake, monogamy is just that, you chose one over all. Funnily enough when the roman empire enforced monogamy it didnt exclude lovers ( www.polygamy.com/history-of-polygamy.html )

Perhaps im defining it a bit too loosely, female genital mutilation should not be respected as its creation was based on tyrannical dominance, saying that "i dont see the logic behind monogamy and find it stupid" is a personal statement, and thats cool as long as you dont preach. Entering a monogamous relationship knowing full well what it entails and then proceeding to break its constitutes, that is being disrespectful.

Its only the default because it is the majority make it the default, and that differs depending on demographics as well, if you live in a democracy its more widespread as more people are held to their customs, in Saudi Arabia you wont see many polygamous relationships unless you start to climb the social ladder.

I will agree that there is a perceived stance, but it is definitely not enforced, also, the sacrifice of opportunities is called opportunity cost, what you give up for something else, however, using opportunity analysis we determine that the benefit of a monogamous relationship (lets say that no one cheats or anything) is the better development of emotional attachment and the furthering of trust, perhaps even the journey to achieve co-bonding bliss, the loss is the inability to see the potential relationships in others and so on and so forth.

My stance is that you do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect others, including future consequences. And anyone breaking their own constitutions is just weak, if you are having doubts, address them, dont ignore it all and hurt your partner down the track. Sorry for the long post, but here's also some extra research on the matter, dunno how good of a source it is but whatever. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/divorce-questions-adultery_n_1471111.html
User avatar #22 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
A long post but a good one.

And I think we overall agree about the free choices people have when it comes to relationships - As I said, there's no problem with two people consenting to a relationship (of any kind), and if two people commit to a monogamous relationship then breaking that commitment is their fault. I suppose the main issue I have is with people who commit to a monogamous relationship when they're much better suited to a polygamous one (people who cheat, primarily). This is their own fault, but I can't help but think that a lot of these cheating issues could be solved by making polygamy more accepted within society.

Also, thanks for the links. Some interesting points are raised in the articles - I'll have a full read of them after I've sent this.
#25 - "3: You become attractive..." Pfft - sugges… 07/17/2015 on Vampire Rebirth +2
#51 - I think no maternal/paternal leave pay is one of the things Am…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/16/2015 on For the peeps -5
User avatar #102 - ruebezahl (07/16/2015) [-]
So according to you: benefits society = selfish

Do you not realize that "benefits society" is actually the exact opposite of "selfish", or was that just some sarcasm/irony/cynism that I am not getting?
#127 - Made me think of this' flavour text. 07/16/2015 on Vicory doesnt look all that... +1

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2200
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4 - Falkor (07/09/2015) [-]
User avatar #3 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/23/2014) [-]
**** you
User avatar #1 - brndlrt (11/05/2013) [-]
lolwtfbbqryan molests little children.
#2 to #1 - anon (11/05/2013) [-]
Yes it's true, i saw him.
 Friends (0)