Monogomy vs. Promiscuity

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 11:08 AM GMT

    No, this is not another thread to demonize either side... and it is not meant to turn into a flame war.

    I pose a question.icon_razz.gif

    Some guys are completely monogamous; some are in open relationships; some are completely promiscuous.

    Do you think there may be something biological different about monogamous and promiscuous people? Example: A loser virgin, like meicon_redface.gificon_lol.gif, does not have as many hormones as my promiscuous counter-part.

    Do you think it is possible that our brains are hard-wired differently? Is it a part of our personalities--which have genetic components?

    What do you think?

    Rather than demonizing either side, I thought I’d be a nice change to try and understand those who are different... even those in the gay community. No ideology is needed... just your opinions on whether or not our sexual desires are hard-wired or hormonal or something else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 11:21 AM GMT
    I think its personality mostly.. but not always genetic personality.. sure, there will be those with lower hormones that are not driven by much or any sexual desire.. thats a natural given.. there will of course be those with a higher hormonal response and will be more sexually driven..

    However, I think for most of the population is comes down to personality.. personality being such a HUGE thing for a person and so much having an influence..

    lets take confidence, a confident person would I believe (although I have no scientific data to back this up) be more sexually available..
    A less confident person however, can be plagued with thoughts and doubts that will drive them to be less sexually available..

    A happy person, I'd believe to be again more sexually available.. but then there are those who use sex as a means to validate them selfs.. so that is a tricky situation to try and make a judgment call there.. however, I believe the happy person would have more for filling sexual encounters then the person who's drive is validation..

    Also, someones sexual confidence, hell that plays a big part, if you feel inexperianced you are less likely to seek out sexual encounters with others for fear or not "measuring up" so to speak..

    so many things you could go through trying to work it out, but I believe, personally, that the greater part of the population don't fall into a hormonal level that is out of the norm, I'd say that its down to the personality and what goes into making them who they are..

    Monogamy, I'm truly sick of seeing this excuse that they some how NEED to be sexually active with multiple people regardless of if they are in a relationship, or, that the NEED to be in a monogamous relationship, I am not against people doing either, hell, I've had open relationships before and I've had closed, both are different.. neither was more or less satisfying for what they where.. but I was not in them relationships under some stupid pretense of needing one or the other, I was in them because thats how I choose to have those relationships..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 1:51 PM GMT
    ........................................................................................rose Pictures, Images and Photos

    Both sound good on paper, both can lead to hating yourself come morning. Promiscuity is deadly today, dispute that if you wish. I never heard of monogomy killing any one.

    This question is a trap, but not really. If I say being a dirty slut is a choice, someone could say being gay is a choice and vice versa. I'll stay on safe middle ground, not because I am a coward, but because I think the answer is infact, multi tiered.

    When I think of a slu....errrr, a promiscuous person, I think of a number of possible reasons for that behavior too: values, mental stability, hormones/chemicals, and desire.

    I consider first, a lack of values formed during the person's upbringing. I think in matters of homosexuality, we forget about traditional/normal values that all little boys get in the presence of certain parental conventions. I know I'm in the land of gay and normalcy is over rated here (normalcy is over rated any where), but one cannot dispute theory/fact that certain parental conventions are better at producing a desired result than others.

    In the case of children: defined boundaries, clear and concise communication of the discipline and rewards for adherence to or deviation of those boundaries, and judicious implication of the prescribed discipline or rewards produces a more stable and responsible child, a child that has a pretty firm grasp on reality and his/her ability to choose actions and accept/expect the consequences of those actions. This way of being sounds more indicative of a monogomous person to me than a promiscuous person.

    Monogomous people choose a course of action that usually has a higher output of positive gains: love, companionship, security, growth, maturity, and a reduction of possible STI infection. A promiscuous life is way more superficial and targeted towards satiation of a person's temporary whims with no attention to long term satisfaction or personal welfare. Promiscuity is a chaotic lifestyle that hinges on what circumstances delve out for the individual. For example, a low rate of STI for some promiscuous people doesn't implicate much except, maybe luck.

    musical intermission

    After I consider the person's upbringing and mental stability, I ofcourse consider hormonal factors, but as I am not a doctor, I have to stick to the basics. I know that some people are more uninhibited than others and I think partly hormones are the cause of that. however, I think if anything is easier to control, it is the body's hormone levels. In the event that promescuity became a problem for a person, I think they'd be remiss for not contacting a doctor immediatly to learn if hormones have anything to do with it or can be controlled.

    Bottomline, if an individual wants something they will behave in according action to that desire.

    At the bear base, I am saying promiscuity and monogomous are both CHOICES not anything out of a person's control. I have stated that I think upbringing leads to a greater mental stability which leads to a higher incidence of monogomy, but many people, myself included, have overcome bad parental convetions. It's harder, but it comes down to the choice of educating onesself as an adult and adhering to the boundaries that education uncovers. In the cae of sex, the educational materials and oppurtunity are plentiful and the boundaries are pretty straight forward and easy to understand. As far as mental weaknesses like lack of control or immaturity, mental weaknesses are similiar to body improvement: with constant attention, they can too be shaped and strengthened. With all of the doctors today specializing in a plethora of studies, I shouldn't think hormonal levels should be that hard to control or determine if the levels cause a problem controlling one's sexual urges.

    It should be clear which lifestyle I favor, but I did try to appraoch the oppossing one fairly. If I failed, flame me accordingly. In conclusion, I think common sense can easily determine which lifestyle is best.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 2:02 PM GMT
    cjcscuba, being a virgin does not a loser make.

    The difference in people may be upbringing, area where they live, and how they view what the media tells you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 2:36 PM GMT
    cjscuba's question doesn't necessarily have an either/or answer. I think you can be both at different stages of your life. In your 20s the hormones are flowing, you are more energetic in all ways, and your peers are the same. That means monogamy won't be a priority among your dating pool.
    Later in life the hormones gradually subside, your energy is less, and you're more likely to meet guys in your peer group who are interested in commitment.
    And at any stage you might go through a relationship breakup which would put you back in the field.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    Humans are promiscuous by nature. Physiologically, we are not designed for one partner forever and ever, amen. The size of our testicles relative to our totaly body mass and the physical difference between size and musculature in men and women all indicate that we evolved to be promiscuous.

    Humans are, for the most part, monogamous by acculturation. Most cultures have some form of monogamous marriages. It is society that pushes both men and women (both of whom benefit from multiple partners).

    The two conflicting forces of biology and society battle it out in each individual with different results.

    Oh, and you are not a loser. But you are a jack ass for thinking so. icon_wink.gif