I didn't miss the issue you were trying to discuss. I just didn't agree with your assertion that I replied to.
You wrote this
"In fact- the man who supports the woman, may not be the man that she goes to to father her children."
when I disagreed with that you defended by saying this
"She doesn't go to other men OPENLY... just like men in a relationship don't go to other women OPENLY. Its called "cheating" or "stepping out" or "an affair"...."
Oh lord-- why do I even try to explain? I was just trying to clarify what the damn ARTICLE was saying. They were saying that its something that is primally encoded in womens DNA just like the whole "spread the seed" thing is encoded in mens DNA.
It isn't that its MY assertion. Its that there is evidence that primally, women are just as biologically encoded as men to seek more then one partner. PRIMALLY!!!
Thats really all I was ever commenting on in the first place-- that its not just men who are encoded to seek out more then one partner- but that women are too. We always hear about how men are programmed to do that-- but many don't realize that women are as well.
Here will this help? ITS WHAT THE ARTICLES WERE SAYING!!!!!! lol.
Women may cheat on their men but I don't know many who go to another man to have their children with....... I know of no situation where a man is living with a woman who willingly goes out and has children with another man.
Of course not! I never said women willingly do this. And it would acctually be more accurate to say that women do not KNOWINGLY do this.
Like I said ,I was attempting to clarify.... I was trying to comment on what the damn ARTICLES said! Holy Hell this is effing frustrating.
Even in the article- they pretty much said women don't knowingly do this-- but that their behaviour may be affected by it. For example: Women who are having affairs often do not have sex with their husbands the same day as they do their affair partner. Women tell themselves many reasons why they will wait to have sex with their husband-- like it would be too disrespectful to their hubbys (yeah, not rational I know-- but they do it..), or that they don't want to tip off their hubbys in anyway.
Granted- those are probably the reasons they don't do it-- but primally, their genes encourage her to wait because it gives the sperm from the affair partner more time to implant. (ummm... you really didn't read those articles did you?) Even if they are not trying to conceive at all-- their primal codes may still sometimes have some affect on their behaviour.
My PERSONAL OPINION is that now, we do have the ability to make choices and that the assertions about what is biologically natural for men or women don't matter.
Its very possible that it may actually still AFFECT this kind of behaviour in some ways-- but that behavior like this should not be blamed on biological destiny.
I agree.... women do not knowingly go out and try to find someone with more status to father their children. But the primal DNA to do just that is still present and can have some affect on the choices some women do make.
I even mentioned that before in my posts as well.
Am I really not explaining myself well here?!
Step children are another case altogether. That's not a cheating situation. That usually arises when two people separate and go into another relationship where children already exist.
I know that. I was just responding to YOUR comment that no man would knowingly raise another mans progeny. That is inherently an inaccurate statement.
As for the "trading up" comment, how does that apply to the woman married to the rich CEO who is banging the pool boy while hubby's at work? not exactly trading up.
Well- theres always exceptions to everything! lol. Anyways, once again.. like I was trying to say before-- it was the articles I was trying to comment on.
THe assertions in the articles all do make sense from a primal point of view, But they don't make so much from a more modern viewpoint.
Primally, a man did need to spread his seed as often as possible and when the opportunity arrived. Primally, a woman needed the best genes and the highest status males to go to her children-- while at the same time, needed a steady stable man to provide for her and those children.
As it is-- we are not living in a primal society. Much has changed intellecually and socially. We have different societal rules and expectations. We have choices that we make and the ability to stick with them. Hell, at one time, there was no such thing as women CEO's (sometimes its a man who marries a rich woman CEO! lol)-- but now there are-- as well as professional women, smart women and rich women. WOmen who can support themselves and their children without a man to support them. At one time- that did not exist.
How many times to I have to try to explain that IMO I think those biological excuses are bogus??
I do, however, agree with the articles that we are inherently not programmed to be monogamous. And that its not just men who are programmed for multiple partners, but women as well.
But at the same time, I believe that we have the ability to make choices and to stand by them.
But it is possible-- very possible- that primal biological programming does affect people from time to time.
Even people who don't want children, may feel the biological stirrings to procreate-- but do not act on them.
I personally have made a choice to not have children for many reasons-- but my biological body wants them very much and prepares for them. I can even be suseptible to occasional yearnings for a child-- which happen more when I am ovulating. There is a drive to procreate that is programmed into all of us-- male and female. ITs a very basic and strong urge that must be present in order to assure the continuation of a species.
BUT!!! Those biological urges do not usually cause people to to behave in a way that overrides their thinking mind. My primal biological programming to have children has not caused me to behave in ways that would ultimately compromise my initial choice to not have children myself.
I do believe, however, that that programming makes itself known in subtle ways.
For example: Its even possible that the overwhelming attraction that I had for a former manager was partially influenced by those primal codes.
He had more status, authority and power then my husband--- a huge green light in the "Land of Primal Encoding". Its also possible that he has the right chemical makeup that my genes and I subconsciously interpretted as being a perfect combination with my own chemical makeup to produce strong, healthy children.
Remember- I don't want children. But my genes do. So something about him may have been part of what triggered the intense sexual attraction I felt for him.
(Or maybe I just thought he was a hottie.
But of course..like I said...we are not completely run by our genes. Theres just so much more to attraction , that its almost impossible to just whittle it down to the basics. But theres no denying that it most likely can affect our behaviour in some situations.
gorilla grunting? really?
I understand you're probably used to these guys agreeing with everything you say but that isn't me. When someone says something I disagree with then I'll let you know.
Yes- I still assert that it was gorilla grunting. Sorry.
Your first comment most definitely was. It didn't acknowledge the intricicies of the human creatures that we are- or acknowledge that there was some validity in what those articles were saying. It was a stereotypical guy-grunting response.
Maybe you meant it to be insightful and thoughtful-- but it sure didn't seem that way to me. I still don't think that you actually read those articles before commenting. It was a hurried gut-reaction-- not a thoughtful comment.
And obviously, you haven't been here long enough to know that many of the men here have disagreed with me-- very vigorously on many topics! Even those I developed a nice online friendship with, don't agree with me all the time. Not even close!!
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I have a problem when someone doesn't put any thought into their responses.
Thank you for putting more thought into your response that I'm addressing now. It was much more thoughtful and insightful. You obviously took some time to think it out-- though I am still a bit frustrated that I don't seem to be getting across what I was trying to convey.
Maybe I'm the one whos not very articulate and I need to work on that.
Damn-- this got way too long.... haha