Marriages - a male perspective

[jimmyjoejangles]

i love my wife and we're expecting our first child in two months.

nothing more natural if you ask me. pro creation is the name of the game, doesn't matter if the man gives the woman a ring or the man kills some animal with a rock and drags the carcass back to the cave, its a natural instinct to bond together.

[Vogue_Dirge]

When I hear the word furry, I think of this:

[Wrathborne]

I thought you said 'Funny' not 'furry'. lol.

[Xander Ashford]

This thread really reminds me of the Morpheus Duvall philosophy:

"Establishing a kingdom where beauty has absolute authority is a dream I must make a reality."

...BUT you see the primary issue with beauty is it is completely objective. What I find beautiful is not what you find beautiful.

Also, I think the original poster was trying to get a point unearthed that on a base level men don't want to tied down to one partner, and that biologically they have a want to sleep around. And that for the procreation of the human species a man should sleep with as many women as possible to spread his genetics on. It's sort of like animals in the wild: The males tend to get frisky with any female that is mature enough to bear young. I could be wrong though...He may have meant it differently.

As for marriage, I personally loathe the idea of it, and believe it has really become nothing but a means to financially attach yourself to another person. Marriage in itself is supposed to be a union between two people (Yes, I believe that homosexuals should be given this basic human freedom as I don't see marriage as being something completely rooted in religion) to express their love.

Too many people these days marry, and then divorce when things hit rocky patches. In all truth, I believe marriage should work how Darkmoon was referencing his siblings; live with a person and whatnot for a few years before you completely lock yourself down to this person. I think marriage should only be for people who have seriously thought about it, and know that this is the right person. People are too fickle about it, and say "Let's go to Vegas and get married!" It shouldn't work that way.

And how many times do you hear about younger men/women marrying older men/women because they know they'll die soon, and thus inherit most of the financials? It's not a daily occurence, but it definitly happens more than it should. I just don't believe marriage holds the same ties it held years ago. Plus, my jaded outlook on humanity really overshadows any faith I have for marriage actually being useful.

You don't really need to express your love for someone else through a word. Marriage pretty much just gives one spouse access to the other spouse's insurance.

I do respect those of you who are married and actually love and share experiences with your partner. It is very admirable when people use something in the manner it is supposed to be.

[Member_of_STARS]

I find Oscars opinions refreshing and I agree with most of what he has said. Monogamous relationships are not a norm in nature. On the very basic levels, the way we make sure our genes get passed on, is not by sticking to our regular partner, but to spread our (from male perspective) seed. Marriage is an artificial institution, and it is a religious one, as religion was the only set of "laws" which was powerful enough to actually make people act against their instincts.

If monogamous relationships were the norm, then couples shouldn't be working on maintaining them. This whole "I seek love and single partner" thing is the epitome of lying to yourself. At a certain point, vast majority does it only because they are fully commited, with other things being at stake.

Oscar is being blatantly honest, and speaks of things I've been wondering myself. There are a lot of things I disapprove of, yet I tolerate them anyway, because I am a social guy. I like his perspective, despite knowing full well how antisocial it is, and if lived fully by what one thinks is right/wrong, they will most likely distance themselves from people as a whole.

However, still, marriage is bullshit. And he is right, if you cheat, you are considered a scumbag, if you leave your kids, you are considered a scumbag. But it's more than likely that "marriage" as a concept had it's importance. Spead of STD-s being one issue which it adresses.

And now the guy is banned.

[Wrathborne]

However, still, marriage is bullshit. And he is right, if you cheat, you are considered a scumbag, if you leave your kids, you are considered a scumbag. And now the guy is banned.

That's because if you cheat you ARE a scumbag and if you leave your kids you ARE a scumbag. Get off your high horse, he wasn't banned because of his opinions on marriage and monogamy, he was banned for being an asshole.

[Member_of_STARS]

That's because if you cheat you ARE a scumbag and if you leave your kids you ARE a scumbag.

I understand the logic behind calling someone a scumbag for abandoning their children. But if we would consider emotional detatchment and lack of attention a form of abandonment, we could call most parents in the West- scumbags. I say- you are a scumbag if you start a family without considering if you are actually ready to give up the freedoms and priviledges of being without responsibilities. And that's not even considering all of the other alternatives, which ultimately lead to the fathers/mothers leaving their families.

And cheating? How would that make me/you/other guy a scumbag? Have you been in a relationship? Have you been able to observe how a relationship starts, forms, ends? Have you tried to quit a relationship? There are so many factors involved with both of these issues, that labeling anyone a scumbag out of principle is retarded.

Get off your high horse, he wasn't banned because of his opinions on marriage and monogamy, he was banned for being an asshole.

Pipe down. If "being an asshole" was a requirement to get banned, this forum would lose a rather significant group.

[Darkmoon]

I find Oscars opinions refreshing and I agree with most of what he has said. Monogamous relationships are not a norm in nature. On the very basic levels, the way we make sure our genes get passed on, is not by sticking to our regular partner, but to spread our (from male perspective) seed. Marriage is an artificial institution, and it is a religious one, as religion was the only set of "laws" which was powerful enough to actually make people act against their instincts.

If monogamous relationships were the norm, then couples shouldn't be working on maintaining them. This whole "I seek love and single partner" thing is the epitome of lying to yourself. At a certain point, vast majority does it only because they are fully commited, with other things being at stake.

Oscar is being blatantly honest, and speaks of things I've been wondering myself. There are a lot of things I disapprove of, yet I tolerate them anyway, because I am a social guy. I like his perspective, despite knowing full well how antisocial it is, and if lived fully by what one thinks is right/wrong, they will most likely distance themselves from people as a whole.

However, still, marriage is bullshit. And he is right, if you cheat, you are considered a scumbag, if you leave your kids, you are considered a scumbag. But it's more than likely that "marriage" as a concept had it's importance. Spead of STD-s being one issue which it adresses.

And now the guy is banned.

If you cheat on your partner, you are a scumbag. You made a vow to stay with that person. If you abandon your kids, you are a scumbag. They're children, incapable of surviving in the world without help. They need adult carers, and having one of two vanish is a blow to them. If you don't want the responsibility of a wife and kids? Don't get married and use protected sex. Depsite Oskar's opinions it's perfectly viable to do so. Don't promise something you can't do, don't bring a life into the world if you're not willing to care for it.

I am biased - my father both abandoned me and cheated on my mother, so for obvious reasons I have strong feelings on this. But it's not societies opinion, since I rarely conform to social norms. This is me, thinking the dude is a useless sack of skin from what he did to me and my mother. I was very fortunate that soon after the whole shit storm, my mother found my step father.

Again - Monogamous, long term relationships existed before any organized religion did. I know your view that all religion is evil forever, I remember the last conversation we had and am not getting into that again, but please don't try blaming Christianity for something that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it did.

Biologically, we are designed for long term relationships. Possibly not life time relationships, but certainly not fuck it and run ones. Our children are incapable of defending themselves until they are adult, which takes 13+ years in our case. They're almost totally helpless for the first part of there life. Compare that to animal off spring, often capable of surviving on there own within weeks, or months. Many animals are mobile within hours of being born, compared to the months it takes a human child to learn to crawl, let alone stand and walk. That's the problem with big old brains.

For the best chance of a human child to survive, we're designed to work together as couples. A woman without a man would have been forced to hunt and gather herself, leaving a defenceless child without protection. A man who deserted his off spring was likely co consign them to death.

Monogamous relationships do exist in nature - when they give the best chance for survival. With humans? That's simply how it is. It's basic biology.

Oskar's been banned for racking up Infraction points for calling members skanks, bitches and such. Call him honest if you like - we call him rude.

[Member_of_STARS]

If you cheat on your partner, you are a scumbag. You made a vow to stay with that person.

A vow made for who knows what reasons, when circumstances were fitting. Relationships change, as do people. The reasons to cheat may vary, and in some cases may be signs of desperation fighting with a sense of commitment/responsibility. You don't stay with someone because you made a vow. That's basing a relationship on nothing more than principles and it will eat away at your own emotional health. Cheating, for many, would be rediscovering their selfworth, a necessary pause before going back to "your responsibility". Relationships are difficult to maintain fun and positive for both sides. That's why close to half of marriages end up in a divorce, and I don't even want to think about how many relationships end up in flames.

And it's not because someone was a scumbag. It's easy to judge, I know.

If you abandon your kids, you are a scumbag. They're children, incapable of surviving in the world without help. They need adult carers, and having one of two vanish is a blow to them. If you don't want the responsibility of a wife and kids? Don't get married and use protected sex. Depsite Oskar's opinions it's perfectly viable to do so. Don't promise something you can't do, don't bring a life into the world if you're not willing to care for it.

That's why we have families, social institutions, various forms of safety nets. They don't all work, of course, but society is slowly pushing back to being actually closer to (human) nature. Not everyone has their life planned out, and not everyone gets a child at the right time. Circumstances change all the time, especially in our world. Of course it's terrible to leave a child, completely. But you are actually saying right now that once a child is conceived, even your own personal happiness is a distant secondary. This principle does not support us getting kids at our fertile age.

Again, I guess it's easy to judge if things are fine for you.

My father left us when I was 7. Today, his actions make sense to me. And I am not as quick to lable him a scumbag. I am not going to have a child and live by principles with which I somehow "get back at my father".

Again - Monogamous, long term relationships existed before any organized religion did. I know your view that all religion is evil forever, I remember the last conversation we had and am not getting into that again, but please don't try blaming Christianity for something that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it did.

Who said anything about Christianity? I mentioned religion, as those were probably one of the first sets of "official" laws. Religion is stupid, yes, but some guidelines it enforced, were beneficial to us.

Biologically, we are designed for long term relationships. Possibly not life time relationships, but certainly not fuck it and run ones. Our children are incapable of defending themselves until they are adult, which takes 13+ years in our case. They're almost totally helpless for the first part of there life. Compare that to animal off spring, often capable of surviving on there own within weeks, or months. Many animals are mobile within hours of being born, compared to the months it takes a human child to learn to crawl, let alone stand and walk. That's the problem with big old brains.

No, and here is why.

For the best chance of a human child to survive, we're designed to work together as couples. A woman without a man would have been forced to hunt and gather herself, leaving a defenceless child without protection. A man who deserted his off spring was likely co consign them to death.

Because we are "designed" (and I am not using this in the same context you are) to work as social groups, not couples. The chances of our offspring do not increase because we raise them while being in couples. The chances increase because they are raised in social groups. Which is why monogamous and polygamous relationships have varied during the past, but the fact that we have always been in forms of "societies", has not.

Monogamous relationships do exist in nature - when they give the best chance for survival. With humans? That's simply how it is. It's basic biology.

Monogamous relationships do exist in nature, but completely monogamous sexual relationships almost do not.

Oskar's been banned for racking up Infraction points for calling members skanks, bitches and such. Call him honest if you like - we call him rude.

I've seen much ruder people than him on these boards. Calling names, of course, is unwarranted. But being an asshole is an accepted trend here. And he was just overly defensive.

[Darkmoon]

I learned my lesson trying to argue with you last time, so I'm not even going to bother. Most of what I said got ignored anyway. Not dumb enough to bother. But I will address this point.

I've seen much ruder people than him on these boards. Calling names, of course, is unwarranted. But being an asshole is an accepted trend here. And he was just overly defensive.

Yes, we have rude members, and we usually punish them for it. Oskar managed to wrack up enough points in a single day to get banned, however. If you'd like to point out many other members that happened to...

We had no sign his behaviour would improve. He kept ignoring the rules, arguing with us about being punished and making often sexist comments. He was not banned for opinions, as odd as they are, because half of us have odd opinions. I don't see Canvas being banned for being a furry, for example, despite most of the rest of us not sharing that one. I don't see myself being banned, despite the fact that my opinion on criminal justice is, to most, horribly brutal.

End of story. Feel free to take it up with Dot if you think he should be allowed back.

[Member_of_STARS]

I learned my lesson trying to argue with you last time, so I'm not even going to bother. Most of what I said got ignored anyway. Not dumb enough to bother.

Considering the other part of your post, I find this highly ironic. ;)
But I'm ok with it.

Yes, we have rude members, and we usually punish them for it. Oskar managed to wrack up enough points in a single day to get banned, however. If you'd like to point out many other members that happened to...

You have some ridiculously rude members who troll, provoke and talk in a seriously derogatory manner. And I have done this plenty of times myself. Yet I have never been punished for it, with certain exceptions.

We had no sign his behaviour would improve. He kept ignoring the rules, arguing with us about being punished and making often sexist comments. He was not banned for opinions, as odd as they are, because half of us have odd opinions. I don't see Canvas being banned for being a furry, for example, despite most of the rest of us not sharing that one. I don't see myself being banned, despite the fact that my opinion on criminal justice is, to most, horribly brutal.

I just tracked back and checked a few of his threads, and I can't say he's being purposefully rude, unless the opposition was stubborn or unless people ganged up and called him mental. Yeah, he was agressive, but then again, so have been we at times. I see a lot of action and reaction on both sides. And I see a lot of unnecessary fueling the fire and agressive talk being carried over from topic to topic. His subjects are extremely touchy and bordering good taste. But only because we have shielded ourselves from actually discussing it. I admit, he is an interesting persona. I see those rarely.

End of story. Feel free to take it up with Dot if you think he should be allowed back.

No point. He will open a few topics discussing sensitive subjects. He may have a good discussion with people who are open to various interesting topics of discussion, but sooner or later, sensitive people will budge in, an agressive argument begins, he will become defensive and react agressively and warnings will begin to fly. I see both sides, but I also think both sides were wrong.

[Trent]

The problem here is, one side is this member and the other side is the majority of the THIA forums. How would Darkmoon behave in this situation? Not easy. Oscar knew very well the consequences this would eventually lead to, yet he continued. Remember that we are at a forums, people get touchy, but there are rules here.

But hey, was fun while it lasted.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Like Darkmoon said, pick it up with Dot if you have an issue with it. I personally don't want members on the site who talk about women as if they are a sub-human species and playthings for men and that women bring on rape themselves, and who are talking about "children's sexuality". I'm not sorry he's gone. We don't talk about piracy for potential legal issues it could cause the site, and I'm sure discussing illegal paedo material isn't much better. >.>

[Darkmoon]

The problem here is, one side is this member and the other side is the majority of the THIA forums. How would Darkmoon behave in this situation? Not easy. Oscar knew very well the consequences this would eventually lead to, yet he continued. Remember that we are at a forums, people get touchy, but there are rules here.

But hey, was fun while it lasted.

I've behaved relatively well in similar situations a few times, the notable exception being an argument on here a few months back. Where I finally lost my temper I said some unpleasant things, although I did avoid insulting anyone in particular, and did apologise the next day. Not my finest moment, but quite a soothing one.

Remember, I'm a religious dude. On the internet I may as well slaughter cats and snap rare beta discs. It's totally not cool to have faith these days.

Honestly, I'm not very clear on what we should have done. The guy insulted enough people to be banned in a single day. And that was before we decided whether several of his topics were sufficiently sexist in nature to warrant action. We've sure as hell banned people who've done the same as he has before...

But it's nice to know the staff reputation as total totalitarian evil doers who suppress all view points no there own is alive and well.

[Zombie Fred]

I'm not sorry he's gone but this was not the place to talk about such things related to what he expressed about children and I'm glad (for the time being?) this topic of discussion wont happen again.