When You Love More Than One

Re: # 38
dear malikrashid..i am glad you appreciate the dynamics between human nature and the social and cultural conditioning...sincerely sohail

Dear Doctor
Laws of the modern state (family and property laws) are based on marriage/monogamy. Gay marriages could be registered and dealt according to the same monogamy rules. Family is actually a private enterprise like business and corporations. Adapting polygamous families as the basic unit of society might involve a major change. Until then, families based on monogamous marriage would continue and sex outside marriage would be common. Rules and morals directing the human sexual conduct since antiquity through medieval to the modern age do not seamlessly harmonize with nature. Thanks for a thoughtful and refreshing article.

Re: # 33

Dr Sahib

Thanks for the response

Regards

Arif

yes, drsohail, I support legalization of both.

Re: # 34
dear khurram, i am more in favour of loving relationships than relationships defined by religion or state. but if a society or state chooses to have polygamy then they should also have polyandry, so that men and women have equal rights and privileges. do you support polygamy and polyandry?
sincerely sohail

drsohail,
Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

Re: # 31
dear r786....thank you for your honest comments. you would be surprised how many men and women today are homosexuals, bisexuals and polyphilous (love more than one) but they are in closet leading secret lives. interestingly in open, liberal and secular communities they are coming out of the closet and sharing their truth publicly. we can try to send them back in the closet, punish them harshly or try to understand them. being a psychologist and psychotherapist i try to understand them and share my ideas in writing for others to reflect.. sincerely sohail

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dr Sohail

My first reaction reading this articel was one of joy, kudos to the writer then reality set in when I thought of my teen daughter and how I would feel or react. Human beings respond to their socio economic conditions and these have been process over centuries and one of them is to protect their honor. Your idea in today's world can be entertained but has very little chance of being realized in the next 100 years. therefore my dear writer help us in understanding issues which are of some use in our life time.

Thanks

Arif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3685314/Young-women- have-more-sexual-partners-than-men.html


The reasons for more promiscuity among females than males ( 9 sexual partners for the 21 year old female, as compared to a paltry 7 ) in this study, is probably the result of mutiple factors :

Firstly, males, due to STEREOTYPING, are expected to be more promiscous and hence NOT encouraged by their parents and peers, to have sex, unlike females who are stereotyped/presumed as being 'passive', and hence in need of encouragement to engage in sex.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3796120.cms

Secondly, males are probably becoming more aware of legal and financial consequences in case their relationship goes wrong!

Hopefully, these latest findings will spare males from the onslaught of feminist inspired advertising, from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, which all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender.

Lastly, the western females integrity needs appreciation, and is in keeping with the higher female-initiated divorce rates there too.

'In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men. By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers - two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity - compared with a fifth of young men. Young women are also twice as likely to be unfaithful, with 50 per cent admitting they have cheated on a partner - half at least twice.'

Also read : Womensinfidelity.com


WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

As always very interesting piece. Thank you Dr Sohail Sahib. Over the independence day weekend I was at the beach with some family friends. An elderly friend who is almost 90 year old was telling me about the good old days. The discussion was about politicians, etc. She told me that when her father died (some 40 years ago) in the hospital his last words to her were: “daughter, I want you to know something, I am married to your mother for over 50 years, and I have never stepped outside of our marriage, and I had many opportunities to do so”. When the old bugger died, she tells her mother what dad said to her when he died, and the mother replied “daughter, I also never stepped outside of our marriage, and I had my chances too”.

I believe that fidelity is a sign of self-respect. When someone cheats, he/she is not cheating his/her partner, but cheating him/herself. I agree that we should not judge poly-philous or people with different sexual orientation than ours, but if one cannot be faithful (and I also mean physically or sexually, in addition to emotionally) to his/her partner, what guarantee is there that he/she will not cheat on his/her side-whore? One should be at least honest about it. If it is okay with both partners in a relationship, then who are we to judge. But if it only one sided dick waggling, then it is not a good thing.

And Richard Webster is a journalist, not a scientist of any kind, btw!

As I said, there are a lot of people who dislike Freud, Naqsh, but that does not take away from the fact that the vast majority of people who work in psychiatry or psychology still support a large number of his views.
I personally find his work on Anna O and some of his other cases misogynistic in interpretation, but I think he was one of the greatest geniuses of the last century, if not of the last millennium.

"When I studied the biographies of creative personalities, whether scientists or artists, poets or philosophers, reformers or revolutionaries, I discovered that many of them had a poly-philous personality. Whether it was Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, Pablo Picasso or Ernest Hemingway, Mohammad Iqbal or Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Josh Maleehabadi or Mustafa Zaidi, Saadat Hasan Minto or Ahmad Faraz, Sara Shagufta or Ismat Chughtai, Karl Marx or Viladmir Lenin, Anais Nin or Henry Miller, Jean Paul Sartre or Simon de Bouvoir, they all loved more than one person at the same time. Sometimes those relationships were platonic, sometimes sensual and sometimes sexual."

and also Bernard Shah, Bertrand Russel, Albert Einstein

#3 Without being misogynistic in any way.... I just wondered if there was an etymological relationship between the "Khasi" people and the Urdu/Hindi pejorative.

This is all very well and good ... but to be fair all everyone wants to do is rut and spawn more useless b/tards.

Perhaps a little less love is more in order.. until we can get the population down by a few billion.

I may have differences with Naqshbandi, but, NB I must join him in clobbering 'fraud baba' Freud.

for in depth anaylsis read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Freud-Was-Wrong-Psychoanalysis/dp/0465091288/ ref=sip_rech_dp_3

rainbow -- first learn to write English properly, then address me!

You don't have to be a psychologist to read psychology literature you know. Some of us actually try to read widely outside our own scientific disciplines too...

On Freud's fraud:

An excerpt:
Freud on the couch
Sigmund Freud, born 150 years ago tomorrow, is now discredited as a scientist and vilified for intellectual dishonesty. But our correspondent argues that, despite his flaws, Freud was a genius whose influence on human self-awareness is still being felt today
Dr Anthony Daniels
Sigmund Freud was born 150 years old this week, and his stock has never been lower. Almost no intellectual or character fault has not been ascribed to him. It is now as fashionable to revile him as it once was to revere him; he is regarded as little better than a charlatan who would have been more accurately named Fraud than Freud.
His theories have been thoroughly exploded and his life’s work undermined to the point of complete destruction by conclusive historical and biographical research. And yet almost everyone suspects that, despite all that has been written against him, despite the myriad books debunking him, he remains a greater man than any of his critics. For if he were quite as negligible a figure as he is now accounted, why would it be necessary to throw so many stones at him for so long?

Of course, historical importance and intellectual merit are not quite the same thing. A man’s ideas may be utterly worthless yet highly influential, or brilliant but without significant echo. With Freud, it is not easy to say precisely what his achievement was; but a man who created, in Auden’s phrase, a climate of opinion the world over must have been out of the ordinary.

The charges against him are many and serious. Far from having been the lone pioneer of the unconscious mind that he claimed to have been, he was a continuer and follower of the ideas of other men, whose influence he dishonestly failed to acknowledge. In short, Freud was a mythomaniac of gigantic proportions who had no hesitation in rewriting the past.

He was intellectually dishonest. He was well aware that his patients were not cured in the way that his published case histories claimed that they were (he fell out with his much more scrupulous colleague and coauthor, Josef Breuer, over this), and that therefore the claims he made for his method were false; hence all his theorising about the structure of the mind was based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

He claimed to be a natural scientist but in fact had little appreciation of scientific method and acted more as the leader of a cult or new religion than as a disinterested searcher after truth.

Whenever a disciple, such as Jung or Adler, disagreed with him, he did not so much refute his ideas as seek to ruin him by excommunication from the “true church” of psychoanalysis, which was a reaction to criticism more appropriate to a theocrat than to a real scientist. Freud wanted uncritical admiration and agreement from his followers, or rather disciples, not honest criticism, which he believed (or pretended to believe ) was the consequence of an unresolved Oedipus complex.

The influence of his ideas, albeit in vulgarised and simplified versions, has been culturally baleful and even catastrophic.
rest can be read here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article713089.ece

#16 Naqsh, you have said this in the past and not answered this question. There are certainly people who don't agree with some of Freud's theories, but how do you get that he has been discredited?

You can run but you can't hide. Have you no energy?
See my post #5.

Re: # 16Naqshbandi...r u psychologists???if not then shut up.

Sex is a beautiful thing.All this terrorism etc is because of lack of sex,send blonds to taliban and they will forget about religion,make love as much u can.

Freud has been completely discredited by psychologists. He even falsified his data!
As for human sexuality--the more the merrier if you ask me!

"I think time has come for all of us to have a new look at the mysteries of love and try to understand the minority of homo-sexual, bi-sexual and poly-philous people rather than judging them as they experience and express their love differently than the majority of traditional people. Let us celebrate the magic of love as it has different forms and colors like the colors and forms of a rainbow."


sohail sb Psychologist Can say whatevr they imagine theorise .They never can prove it is REAL .Just observing behaviour and assigning some DSM diagnosis by a bunch of PhDs do not hold much in court of Law . In The usa atleast and specially more in some staes than others .Lest some fool gets divorced down his throat for infedility polygamy or get shot by 'extra' lovers spouse :)

Dr. Sahib, I think there is a simpler, much simpler reason why SOME people have more than one lovers.

They don't really love any of those lovers -- they only love their own self.

There is another, even simpler reason why only SOME people actually indulge in such behavior (as distinct from mere fantasizing).

That's because such people can get away with it because of their particular circumstances in life (usually attributes that empower them more than the average joker -- for example, like the high profile individuals you list).

Dear Sohail sahib what would you say about social morality in the context of alternate value systems?

Consider

http://www.lovemore.com/

Please comment

...SR

WAKEY SHAKEY! SPEAKY SQUEAKY!

Re: # 8

Regards, I just wanted to add : I could hardly consider a loving father of two Girls, to not be biased. And oh! Let us not digress from the main focus of the argument : that females are more promiscous than men ( a fact that Androphobic psychologists like Sohail cannot even swallow yet! )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3685314/Young-women- have-more-sexual-partners-than-men.html


The reasons for more promiscuity among females than males ( 9 sexual partners for the 21 year old female, as compared to a paltry 7 ) in this study, is probably the result of mutiple factors :

Firstly, males, due to STEREOTYPING, are expected to be more promiscous and hence NOT encouraged by their parents and peers, to have sex, unlike females who are stereotyped/presumed as being 'passive', and hence in need of encouragement to engage in sex.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3796120.cms

Secondly, males are probably becoming more aware of legal and financial consequences in case their relationship goes wrong!

Hopefully, these latest findings will spare males from the onslaught of feminist inspired advertising, from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, which all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender.

Lastly, the western females integrity needs appreciation, and is in keeping with the higher female-initiated divorce rates there too.

'In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men. By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers - two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity - compared with a fifth of young men. Young women are also twice as likely to be unfaithful, with 50 per cent admitting they have cheated on a partner - half at least twice.'

Also read : Womensinfidelity.com


WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

Re: # 8

Regards, Thanks for giving me your CV! No doubt it is impressive to many, but does not intimidate some like myself.

I do not think that there is any change in your views. Nor is there an iota of change in mine ( which, incidently, is NOT against feminism, in case your angry mind dint notice ). Except, maybe, that older men MAY have a more pronounced bias towards Androphobia.

#7parthaab

I can hardly afford to be androphobic. As I said in my last post, I had a very very difficult divorce, could'nt see my children for several years, taken to court easily some 40-50 times over 15 years and even to jail by my ex-wife, a PhD in physics and well placed in society. It may surprise you but I still got custody of my daughters of 4 and 2 years then, because despite all set backs I continued to offer her a balanced deal. My sweet revenge is that today I got all the love my daughters can give to a father and they are leading professionals and mothers in life. My ex_wife admits herself that after all it was good for the children that I raised them.

This is why I suggest that to survive and come on top of stereotypes, slogans, don't do a jihad against everything feminin. Just imagine, slight hormonal change at the time of your conception and you were a woman. Would you have fought men with the same zeal as you're fighting women today?

Re: # 6

Regards, I think it is useless arguing with androphobics. Especially the ones taken in by female propaganda. Can you please identify your own gender?

#3 Parth,

There is no stereotype here. If there is one, it is you repeat calls for waking up males.

Nature does not require presence of males in all animals. There are many animals, even mammals and reptiles who give birth by parthenogenesis (children as clones of female with same genetic structure). Just Google 'Parthenogenesis'.

However if environment is changing fast, it is safer to have more variety of genes which requires male contribution. Besides sex tries to make a good text from two texts which may have some syntax errors, to make sense in changing environment. If everything is fine and individual fits fine in his environment, you don't need death, you don't need sex and you don't need.. MALES. (said a philosopher of last century- Schopenhauer and also says a biologist of 21st century- P.H. Gouyon)

Parth, you are really fighting a battle lost against females. It is better to get over it now. Only option you're left with is ... death or sex.

Many of us, including me, have gone through difficult separations, divorces etc. Social and religious norms are always skewed as they consider man and woman as two different entities. But all of us are both man and woman to a certain degree. There are no differences between genetic structure of a male and female.All males and females have exactly same organs (mammals, genitalia..) despite mullah and padre. Their sizes differ because environment required so. It is only hormones driven by environment- and not God which decide whether you'll behave more as man or as a woman. In the name of religion, social stability, men ruled the roost. With some exceptions, that is still the case. But in a totally pacified environment, let's call it Hindu just to tease our muslim friends, You'd have been A WOMAN and NOT A MAN.

Posted by tahir on Thursday June 18, 2009 09:39 am

Dr. So Hail ran away as expected.....

http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/72416/30139

Re: # 3

Regards, Yours is an EXTREMELY STEREOTYPED viewpoint. A child is born with HALF his genes obtained from either of his OR HER parent. if indeed males were 'useless' in this genetic struggle, as the ANDROPHOBICS have tried to 'PROVE' over the centuries, then why should nature give the child HALF the genes from the FATHER?

WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

Dr Sohail,
I think you're taking it too far when you say- "In my opinion those people who have low self-esteem and feel insecure and have not resolved sibling rivalry issues in their childhood have more tendency to feel jealous."

One good example may be the famous couple Jean-Paul Sartre & Simone de Beauvoir. Sartre went on to write of his adventures to her without any inhibition which can be certainly attributed to his extrovert personality and as you may say ' high esteem' of himself. But Simone was no less a person who knew clearly and made no bones of her feelings while writing ' La Condition feminine'. Was she clearly jealous or expressing a social assymetry? To me it was her own experience of 'jealousy'.

There are enough evolutionary reasons to understand why some animals have multiple partners, stay with one or have none. Genetically males are mostly useless entity and females can ensure continuity ( -parthenogenesis) or with a limited sexual participation (no amorous menifestation) of males if environment was highly stable. This is infact the case also as among Khasis and other tribes in centre or NW India.

Only reason, the males seem to be around are for ensuring quick adaptability by varying genetic material to environment which may be changing. In some cases, though environment is stabilized, still habit fossilization is there.

Where polygamy is an accepted norm, man's role may be reduced to serve multiple females. However it does not mean that sex ratio may become skewed, say for muslims 1 to 4 with time as not many males are required. It is precisely the 'jealousy' by females of their inability to pass on their genes to next generation which will push them to have more males as children. This is how they have a better shot at larger descendance as each of the boys will hopefully have many wives etc... So it always ended up stabilizing at around 50:50.

While a young person is very jealous, an older person like you, dear doctor (or myself), we can afford to justify our penchant of philandering by labelling jealousy as a sign of low life. After all you may have already passed on your genes and feel secure and generous even if you lose a partner or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3685314/Young-women- have-more-sexual-partners-than-men.html


The reasons for more promiscuity among females than males ( 9 sexual partners for the 21 year old female, as compared to a paltry 7 ) in this study, is probably the result of mutiple factors :

Firstly, males, due to STEREOTYPING, are expected to be more promiscous and hence NOT encouraged by their parents and peers, to have sex, unlike females who are stereotyped/presumed as being 'passive', and hence in need of encouragement to engage in sex.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3796120.cms

Secondly, males are probably becoming more aware of legal and financial consequences in case their relationship goes wrong!

Hopefully, these latest findings will spare males from the onslaught of feminist inspired advertising, from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, which all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender.

Lastly, the western females integrity needs appreciation, and is in keeping with the higher female-initiated divorce rates there too.

'In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men. By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers - two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity - compared with a fifth of young men. Young women are also twice as likely to be unfaithful, with 50 per cent admitting they have cheated on a partner - half at least twice.'

Also read : Womensinfidelity.com


WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

Very impressive and interesting article,I love studying human psychology and sociology;I did not know that AHMAD FARAZ and Sigmund Freud , Karl Marx or Viladmir Lenin,my favourite personalites, loved more than one person at the same time.

http://pukhtunkhwatimes.blogspot.com/

http://thepathans.blogspot.com/