A legitimate blog?! NO WAI

lol that the article argues "nature isn't necessarily good", citing natural disasters.

Cheaters will always look for another way to justify what they've done, such as the popular "wanting what you can't have" deal. We want to know what we're missing out on due to human curiosity (among other things )

I've always been a firm believer in the admittedly chaotic fuckstorm we call the monogamous relationship structure. I think the article is one such that is trying to say "look at this idea, it's new and goes against what we know, therefore it must be insightful".

My bottom line: if we can choose one way, we can choose the other, therefore our 'nature' is not that we are not monogamous, but our nature is that we have the capacity to choose.

Wras brings up awesome truths. I know plenty of people (my parents and grandparents included) who have never once cheated on each other and have remained faithful. Of course, I won't deny that both of them have had the feeling of "oh hey that would be fun", but they're with someone. Someone that makes them feel great, complete, and whole, and there is no reason to leave them. I mean hell, my grandparents have been together 55 years. I think that alone is a testament to the fact that we have a choice, and that staying together or being polyamorous is part of that choice.

I myself can see myself cheating on someone...but I can't see myself being in love with two people. Not if my significant other is right there with me. For myself personally, it's more about being true to who I am, and who I look for in a person. And I do naturally tend to look for one person. Not many to fill the gaps in my life.

As a final note: I also want to say that I believe this may be a cultural thing. Many societies are just fine with multiple wives and concubines. That's okay; that's how they do things. But then again, I really don't think most of those women are there out of "love". More out of the duty of "make babies plz."

I just watched 'Whatever works' which involved a married couple breaking up, one of them finds out he's gay, the other (woman obviously) ends up in a relationship with two guys, they all sleep together and they all 'make it work'.

I mean, it's not that it can't work, but it's like an "exception that proves the rule" kind of deal. Not that there's a rule on happiness, but if it were me in a situation where I felt I was truly in love with two people, I would simply make a choice to find what worked out best for the three of us. Maybe that's a three-way relationship, maybe it means I have to remove myself from the other one.

But I definitely agree that it's a cultural thing, which is why I brought up the chaotic fuckstorm. It's what our culture has, and questioning it is all well and good, but often when people ask 'why', they don't stop to ask why they're asking why. (That's mostly in response to the article though; to me it seems stating we're not monogamous by nature is more trouble-starting than the question is worth, given the lack of 'support)

n.b. will be edited when I can be bothered to read the journal articles disguised as replies.

Hold on a second there. How can you be sure your parents and grandparents were never unfaithful? Did they tell you that? Or did you follow them around when they were alone? What I'm trying to say is, you can't know the truth if you've never heard the lies and the other side of the story.

It's possible they did, but I highly doubt it. My parents (and grandparents too, look at that) had a very big thing that got in the way; a kid. Of course, that doesn't stop them from cheating, of course not, but the fact that they were 18 and had to support a child and weren't even married yet but they had the guts and tenacity to keep going and try anyway, says a lot about their character to me. Of course, they are just one example out of billions, though it's the one example I know best.

I also know an example of a friend who was with his girl for three ears and despite loving her so much, cheated on her. Why? Why did he want to fuck up such a good relationship? I think it all just boils down to that everyone is different, has different needs, and different ways to go about things.

tl;dr : Yeah, they could have, always, but even if they didn't there are tons of cases out there, and they are but just one in the many. ;)

People are different, some aren't capable/not willing of strong relationship. Imo if someone is a big fan of monogamy he/she should warn the partner (Yo I'm gonna cheat on you so you know) and not try to hide it. Cheating and keeping it a secret is disgusting.

I guess this is really just a matter of words. In the end, why would cheating be called "being unfaithful" if it is being disloyal? Being unfaithful should mean that you have no faith in the loyalty of you partner. So yeah. Everything comes down to faith and loyalty.

I agree with the dude though. Monogamy is not natural. If it were, some kind of ridiculous rule of evolution would tie us to our 'soulmate'.

That's the problem I have with this blog:

NVIT's last paragraph. If you're an atheist, like a lot of us folk, then there is no spiritual connection. And the idea of monogamy is based on nothing but your own choice and since choice is the thing that separates us from the pure instinct of animals, it can't be a natural thing.

My other big problem with this blog is the awful amount of thought put into it.

More thought has been put into the replies, imo. GTFO with your flawed logic.

Such is the goal of a discussion in that the original topic presupposes more thought should be circulated throughout the replies; hence it's a discussion, not simply a replying spam-fest.

I was meaning relative to other blogs, not in relation to the comments.

If the idea was a dicussion why not the main board?

She decided (and I agree) it would be better suited to the blogs because it's easier to moderate and there's less likelihood of being spammed. Pyre can delete the comments here and editing a blog, I think, is easier than editing the first post of a topic since a lot of people will just read the thread title and reply without looking at the content.

depends on who's saying it.

the majority is always right regardless of the popular opinion.

justifying is our nature.

Hopefully I'm not *too* late on this one. Just discovered this blog.

Regarding the original questions:
That's probably true in some cases. I think that in the majority of cases, that's not true. I think if you wanted to cheat, it would be easy to find someone else to cheat with, but maybe that's just a product of my personality. There's no such thing as an "opportunity" to cheat - the people create the "opportunity."

In the context of English-speaking countries, that's possible. A form of rebellion, essentially? The thing about rebellion is that most people eventually grow up.

This question boils down to nature v. nurture though -- do you think that someone can have that kind of love for more than one person and if they do, is it because that's just their nature or because it was "put into them" by an external source? That's a really hard question to answer, especially in general terms.

No. There's no excuse for not simply ending it when they realize that it's not right. Even if they think they love multiple people, that's something that should be brought up at the first indication. Anything else is gross negligence at best and outright spiteful at worst.

Regarding RЯ, universal truth isn't measured in mass appeal. It's even a possibility that universal truth isn't measured in human terms at all.

When we talk about truth, truth derives authority from somewhere. There are a number of different sources of authority that have presented themselves throughout history: Religion (both deity and institution have claimed themselves to be the authority at some point), science which tests evidence, leaders of nations, etc. You're basically saying that authority comes from numbers; might makes right. The secret is that authority is only wielded by what you consider and allow to have authority.

Your statement is also a bit confusing. If the majority holds a certain opinion, isn't that the popular opinion by default? Sure, those numbers could do whatever they wanted to you and whoever agrees with you, but that still wouldn't make them right. Nor am I right about my life view. It's more complex than that.