Monogamy - does it make sense in sl?

No worries In these modern times, you can do the carrying too if and when you want



Agreed.

From one wasp's nest to another. Just send them to your cottage home. LOL

I see that while I have been away you have been talking about the lump of ugly fat at the end of the penis which is called. . .

Pep ( . . . a man.)

That is precisely the sociobiological explanation -- or one of them, the other being that women want a steady mate to help raise the little ones.

I feel that in these matters, it's silly to try to tease apart instinct from culture. Neither exists in a vacuum. There is no answer to the question, "What is the natural human condition, apart from culture?" We had culture long before we were human.

Or perhaps there's a genetic predisposition?

Note that a genetic predisposition doesn't mean there's no hope that things could be different. I'm sure there are plenty of things where culture overrides genetic predisposition. Faithful marriages would be a case in point. According to most sociobiologists, the expected outcome would be a marriage where both partners cheat. He cheats, liberally, because that distributes his genes more. She cheats, selectively, to produce offspring with better genes (i.e., cheating with higher-status males).

That reminds me about the story of the girl who got an abortion, because she didn't think it was hers.

This turns out not to be true, since it's a big issue in other species, where property is not an issue. In the non-promiscuous ape species, whenever a male takes up with a new mate or mates, he kills all the juveniles from previous fathers. He's not protecting his property. He's simply not wasting his energy providing for juveniles who aren't carrying his genes.

However, I'm sure that you're correct that the social structure in human cultures reflects the mens' goals far more than the womens'. A great example of this is that a man who plays around isn't treated the same way as a woman who does. Yet the evolutionary pressures for doing so aren't so different.

I find it interesting that several bird species that scientists had thought were very faithfully monogamistic turn out not to be, based on DNA evidence. Evidently, the birds were so good at being covert, they fooled the human watchers as well as their mates.

My son's more the Mario Batali type -- red hair, budda shape, orange crocks, and "let's enjoy this" attitude. He's quite a bit taller than Mario, though. Lots of ladies find him very sexy.

Not entirely true.. normally a woman can only bear one man's offspring at a time. Men can sire children all over the place at overlapping times. Thus men sleeping around is a lot more likely to keep the reproductive rate up than women doing so... It is might be a little less so given contraception, but even so.

a mushroom? It always looks like one to me.

hey, as long as he cleans his own plates ...

tell him I'm into balsamics that are "blanc" from California. Mint and balsamic drizzled over lamb.

That is sooo Rugby.

I tried to have two girlfriends at one time once in SL. They knew about each other, we were all okay wth it. I wanted to kill myself after about three days. Talk about irritating. And I can only imagine how annoying it would have been to try to keep them secret from each other.

Now my SL girl is my RL girl, and we're both sticking with it. I like it much better.

*sigh*

See what's become of ye. I leave the thread for half a day and it devolves into weenie jokes. The horror, the horror.

Hey Jig, do your men tend to look like this by any chance?

OOoo...cool game! Errrr...I made the guy's head explode in about 4 clicks. Not sure if that's a good or bad score.

There's got to be an idea for a new SL bed in there. One that has some type of animation that ejects (kind of like a security orb) the partner (of the owner of the bed) out after the pose ball sexxies are over.

/me goes off to ponder that one and consult a few animation designers

LOL. He meant the thing attached on the OTHER end of it.

LOL yeah...for some reason.. I kinda imagine Jig pressing a button like Dr. Evil does, ejecting the spent male into the fiery pit she euphemistically calls a "guest house"...and you can hear him distantly wailing..."Ahhhhhhhhh someone help me... I'm still alive...but I'm... very badly burned....!!!"

I'm not (And LOVE cuddling)

I once made a decoy pose ball that orbited people who tried to use it when the owner wasn't around.

In one place it's a lovely spot by a lake with ducks and stuff and they even have a deck of their own. And sliding doors. They also have really nice beds and bedsheets. The place I have by the sea is also really neat and there they just have to be careful coming down the stairs which are very old (1790) and a little problematic. It's also haunted which might be an issue. But I dont tell them that (I just told you but you dont know where it is). Anyway, if they scream at all it's coz I have stepped on their toes or poked them. Men like that sort of thing. My ghost is a young woman who steals jewellery (we share it out when the guests all leave)

I'll be very gentle with you Smith, I promise. I will hoggle and poggle you rather than cuddle you

Frankly, at 3 in the morning, they're not as good-looking!

BUT it DOES look like a mushroom! get up close to it and take a realy hard look. Even the skin is mushroomy. Softish and puckery. Try pinching the end - you get some interesting results.

Not necessarily for me.

Even in RL I ask myself:

"Who am I?", "Am I?" and: "If yes, how many I am?"

This brings me often to the conclusion, that I am a dividual.

Not an in/dividual.

As a result I am polygam with myself. A group.

(Feel free to make jokes about possible group activities of all sorts)

Same in SL. The main avatar has different versions of himself.

Not to mention the alternatives.

If I would add an official partner in SL it would only increase the basic polygamism of myself.

If I stay unpartnered it would be still polygamism, seen from that angle.

I think, monogamy is an illusion. In all meanings. I am too many to be monogam.

If I think flat and use only the usual metrics like 1 + 1 = 2, then it is even not impossible to meet a person who is on the same ontological theory-trip, which would make even 1 + 1 = 2, instead of many, obsolete. We would be more than 2 then. Not visual, but ontological, *if* we are dividuals instead of in/dividuals.

Also I think, beside all this, that a couple, a married couple, is never alone in their bedroom.

They have company of minimum 2 more. There are ever 2 invisible divorce-lawyers standing at the foot-end of the bed, waiting on their chance. This is kind of polygamism too, if one like to see it as this.

ETA: it is 6:13 AM here in Austria. We, ahm, I mean, I woke up too early

I am not really awake. It is possible that this made my theory slightly inconsistent, stupid, or totaly BS, hahaha

But we, I mean: *I* don't care

If it was wrong, then another piece of the polygam structure will be responsible for that. I, personally, go now activating the coffee-machine. The others of the polygang are still sleeping.

You're the one brings 'em home...