Who Says You Cant Buy Love?

#52 by tahmed32 on May 18, 2003 8:58am PT

``Or whether they simply take it for granted that sex will take place on the first night, regardless of how unpleasant it proves for the woman.``

Now you feel that women would want to feel comfortable and wait.. ever wondered if they would not want to wait??

What gives you the impression that women are poor goats being led to a sacrifice and somehow their impending doom has to be made platable by by givng some time out.

If possible ask around you will get quite a different picture.

All,

There is the concept of ``sequential/serial monogamy`` which translates to having one relationship after another. Is it that different from polygamy?

And, how would you situate women who have children with two or more partners? Where does that fit it to men+hunters, women+gatherers/nesters?

And please, be secular about this.

Hamid Sahib,
re: 83

There is something to be said for mutual agreements in monogamy as the main principle in relationships...sure, there are a lot of gorgeous people out there, but ultimately how would one sort out more than one relationship and the other part is about building a relationship of trust, commitment, childbearing, finances, etc. Somewhere along the line, no matter how ``open`` a relationship may be, someone invariably gets hurt.

SR,
Any comments on our nearest kin, chimps? :)

SR #84 you make some very sound observations.

#77 by sameerJB [“…Are we discussing sex or intercourse? … The evolution of sex as we know it now is not the result of biological evolution … it is rather socially evolved…”]

This distinction you draw between sex on the one hand and intercourse on the other, seems rather arbitrary and may be based on over-reaching assumptions. The tacit assumption you seem to make is that we humans have so far transcended our animal nature that we are capable of operating above and beyond our biological make up. Though this is a very popular delusion and is held across all ethnic and cultural boundaries, I am afraid it reeks of self-aggrandizement. Notwithstanding our technological prowess and the paper-thin social veneer of culture and civilization that we so pompously flaunt about, we are mere animals at our core. It is rather presumptuous of us to claim that impulses evolved over hundreds of millions of years have been tamed and superceded by the cultural experiment of the last two dozen centuries.

We are complex biochemical machines not ethereal spirits housed in vessels of clay. The whole nature vs. nurture concept is over zealously exaggerated. Likewise the distinction between psychological vs. physiological is far less pronounced than popularly believed. Every day modern neuropsychiatry is finding out, more and more, that these lines are questionable and this chagrins the establishment sociologists to no end.

…SR

hamidm: I think in near future cheating by asian women is likely to go past cheating of men. For every 20 men there are 17 women in Korea, 18 in china and 18-19 in Pakistan and India. Women will have more opportunity to cheat than men - multiple orgasms notwithstanding.

Pankaj:
According to Will and Durant, the polygamy was norm in hunter gatherer societies because the survival of optimum number for hunter gathering group was more important than individual property. Not only polygamy, incest was most accessible and common form of sex. Monogamy is related to earlier settlements and protection of posessions individually. However biologists point to long childhood dependent period and infer that man besides a woman staying longer for better survival of his offsprings as compared to other mammals. Moreover, the population of the world remained extremely small during hunter gatherer period. According to one estimate subcontinent population was 150 thousand some 20,000 years ago. With such a small population spread out in small groups of hunters gatherers, the polygamy had its limitations. It would be rare for a man to have exclusive posession of even 10 women. The polygamy in those times meant free for all sex - an orgy like environment. Poor born sinners never got as much sex as birds and insects.

#74 by FarzanaVersey on May 20, 2003 4:25am PT
Kudos to `bindaas` Mumbai..people at chowk take it to be more `licentious` than it actually is...haha

``Has it struck the eminent members of the legal panel that such an independent woman might not want the stifling status of a wife?

Farzana Versey, Bandra, Mumbai ``

Maybe this very fear of being strangulated by the status of marriage will keep women think twice now ..before entering into a defacto type relationship..
Arrey....shadi mein aur aise rehne me phir fark hi kya reh gaya..
Kisi shadi-shuda ke defacto banney se to achcha hai ke shadi hi kar lo kisi never married bachelor sey.....they will probably think like this after this `weird` law.....

Waise..I also don`t agree with anything like legalising a defacto relationship...par kya karein... our India is becoming ultra modern..

...... regardless of what the reason is - biological, sociological or spiritual - most men, given half a chance, would jump at the opportunity to have sex outside of marriage .........god, there are so many beautiful women out there ............ astaghfirullah, this is not to say that they don`t love their wives, or don`t value the institution of marriage or are perverts and reprobates - it is just the nature of the beast .......... however, most men don`t do it simply because they don`t get the opportunity, are afraid of getting caught, have some silly moral hangups because of exposure to bad religion, or are simply too lazy to go out there and live out their fantasies ............ let us not get into the discussion over whether it is right or wrong - it simply is .......... through the ages men have been ``cheating`` on their wives, some like clinton get caught and silly politicians try to impeach them, others obtain divine sanction for their pleasures and nobody questions them .......... sarah really didn`t care for hagar, but old man abraham didn`t give a flip and did what a prophet had to do ............... unfortunately things are not as simple today, with pretentious middle class morality and silly community property laws making it quite difficult for a man to live like his forefathers .......

Gosh, so how is this new age theory about the relationship between multiple orgasms and polygamy coming along? How naive of me to `religiously` believe the sexual selection theories of biologists and ecologists. Surely, this multiple orgasm thingy was present in medieval times too when polygamy was widely practiced. Or is this multiple orgasm stuff an invention of recently ``emancipated women``. I am confused...

PS What SR says is closest to scientific knowledge at present on sexual selection. But I am sure all those nerdy biologists, Dawkins included, missed on this multiple orgasm factor... afterall, you can not expect those male nerds to know about multiple orgasms. A dharna outside UGC is imminent over funds for the research to explain the mystery... any volunteers?

nazarhayatkhan #71 on fantasizing on female relatives: you forgot aunts. as in Rushdie`s aunt. Rushdie wrote down somewhere about how he had sexual fantasies as a teenager about his aunt. The aunt, now a respected elderly lady, was said to have gone into a state of shock on learning about this, saying ``ham to pyaar say is badmaash ko sari umar ``beta, beta`` kehtay rahay...``
I reported this important factoid once before on chowk incidentally, but thought it relevant to the discussion. :-)

hamidm/sr/farzana: the natural ``sexual institution`` has in practice in virtually every society throughout recorded history been what I will call ``monocheatogamy``. This is a state of monogamy tampered by cheating on the part of some.

Polyandry exists in rare situations: among some people in Nepal where a woman would marry several brothers. But even here it was de facto monogamy since the gurkha brothers would be off in the someone`s army most of the time and only one brother would be home. While Farzana quite correctly notes that women can have multiple orgasms while the male cannot, and this would imply polyandry as the ``natural sexual institution``, the fact is that this fact alone has not proved enough to promote polyandry. Sorry Farzana, you will have to simply teach your guy to pace himself a little better.

Polygamy is not as common as men like to think. Perhaps one in a thousand men has enough resources in traditional society to afford two households, and perhaps one in ten million gets to be raja and live the male dream of having a harem.

As for cheating in a monogamous relationship, it is not a ``boys will be boys`` situation as hamidm says. What hamidm did not stop to think about is that for every male involved in an extramarital affair there is one female. As such, Farzana is right in taking hamidm to task on this (hamidm, WHEN will you learn to think beyond stereotypes??).

Hope this sufficiently annoys, confuses, thrills this spicy discussion that I write on as my dear wife thinks I am still wasting my time discussion stupid politics on chowk.

Digression: Ii think Ron Jeremy is a big stud and should be awarded Bharat Ratna for portraying KamaSutra on scene.

Are we discussing sex or intercourse? Both can be different things except for common goal of orgasm. While intercourse discussion must include instincts, procreation, ova and sperms, the sex discussion does not necessarily include them. The evolution of sex as we know it now is not the result of biological evolution as much as intercourse is; it is rather socially evolved.

Even in intercouse thereare 10,000 ways to keep the ovum and sperm apart. Man developed ways for it much before modern birth control techniques. Ever heard of dry orgasm for men? Ask Pankaj. He knows all about yogic and tantric developments for enjoying sex with zero chance of pregnancy without any modern birth control devices.

Islam forbids out of marriage intercourse and drinking cheap California wines. Sex and whiskies are altogether different matters due to later post-Islamic developments. Actually full blown sex can avoid breaking the virginity barrier. A girl can have all the fun and still remain virgin and no virgin births.

All virgins and willing to remain virgin while having all the fun, please contact Pankaj or Sameer and beware of guys with missionary positioning mindset......-;))

Farzana #73 [``...Polygamy often is learned behaviour, which is why men who are monogamous rarely admit to it...``]

Truth, if I may humbly suggest, could be quite the contrary. Monogamy is clearly the ``learned behavior`` here. Both polygamy and polyandry are far more ``natural`` than is socially correct to admit in today`s Victorian inspired neo-con world.

...SR

Digression # 2 - a view from a friend who would not like to be quoted even in psudonym . . . may be relevant here? Will the women in Pakistan choose to comment please?

``Problem: a small but powerful portion of any society always tends to have the energy, the resources and some captivating ideas to make the majority follow...and what tends to really change things is new forms of social organisation based either on new technologies or on peer group pressure or both.

So, Zee TV is more dangerous to Pakistan than Agni or Prithvi..The latter (and Kashmir) unites Pakistan in a common cause, while the former will engineer aspirations which shall cause rifts between the mullahs and the army, the civil society and the feudal lords. But Pakistan cannot really break up without land reforms in Sindh and Punjab, and a movement which shall demand that. Kashmir is a way to keep their attention away from land reforms.

Things will, however, change when they find that the per capita income of India has raced ahead (it only has just begun) and when the women find that Indian beauties get to be seen more across the world in swimsuits. What the heck, they will say in Clifton..Our boobs and babes are as good, but ze mullahs stand in ze way.

The vanity of women will be a more powerful instrument of change than the sanity of men.``

Farzana, Tehmed32, Saminasha

This is a very honest, frank and interesting discussion on this delicate subject. I have not even discussed these issues with my wife so cleary. Maybe one is too busy with kids, servants, home affairs; and such a discussion will take away all the pleasure out of sex. (with some women friends, I have certainly discussed)

Just a few open thoughts:

Sex is all in the head.

Woman are as much polygamous genetically as men. But they can exercise a far greater control over their libido.

Orgasm or number of orgasms has nothing to do with a polygamous attitude.

Man`s peeking out is far simpler physical phenomenon than the subtle gradual orgasmic build up.

A man may not require any element of love and attraction to reach the stage of ejaculation.

But a woman certainly requires an element of physical attraction, love and emotion to reach towards an orgasm.

Everyone fantasizes. It is part of human sexual behaviour. (brother-in-law, sister-in-law, neighbour, begum sahib, maid servant, you name it)
The question is whether fantasizing is moral or immoral?