Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 11:30 PM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
(29-08-2015 06:29 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I honestly don't think that Josh Duggar cheated on his wife further than in his imagination with a bot.

They didn't meet on Ashley Madison, though.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trend...-Club.html

If nothing else, it shows that he was willing to follow through on his fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 11:59 PM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
(29-08-2015 11:30 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 06:29 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I honestly don't think that Josh Duggar cheated on his wife further than in his imagination with a bot.

They didn't meet on Ashley Madison, though.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trend...-Club.html

If nothing else, it shows that he was willing to follow through on his fantasy.

True. I'm not defending that piece of work by any means. He admits to his own failure.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
30-08-2015, 01:06 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
This reminds me of historical accounts I've read of the "Scarlett letter." Today, shaming people comes in the form of social media and Fox News.

If you don't want to be married, get a divorce. Better yet, don't marry at all. Clearly it's not working for millions of people so maybe it's time society stops pressuring people to get married.

Ashley Madison is just a symptom of a greater problem IMO.

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deidre32's post
30-08-2015, 01:50 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
What is the criteria the list is based on? Is it a member's list? A 'Credit Card User' list? Just Men? 'Premium Accounts'? Curious, as thinking whatever particular list it is would have huge impact on analyzing any associated numbers...(for instance, if CC-User list, sure - it's going to be 90% men).

Also, MGTOW (or a sabbatical at the very least..).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2015, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 30-08-2015 08:13 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
The research data on human sexuality are fairly clear on the topic: 50% of people, slightly higher for men and slightly lower for women, don't seem to be suited to monogamy. Our social concepts on the subject are rooted in the premise that it's the way it "should" be for 100% of people, and I think it's a recipe for disaster. If people were encouraged to be more honest about their own nature, and not shamed for failure to conform to the "should" notions, I think we'd have a much healthier and happier society. Marriage is not for everyone--roughly half of the population. But it is a successful strategy that can lead to deep happiness for the other half, and we tend to ignore that fact as well, when we consider the half that doesn't fit.

It's yet another way our religious preconceptions harm society. It's especially ironic, since the history of our notion of marriage as an ideal is rooted in the wealthier classes of Roman society, which became more widely applied to the common people via the Catholic church over time. A more secular view, which focuses on data rather than presupposition, would drastically reduce the number of divorces by not pressuring people into a situation to which they are inherently not suited, and would prevent people who are monogamous (or mostly so; like all things in biology, it's not a binary solution-set, but a graduated scale) from being hurt by trying to be monogamous with a partner who was never suited to it, but only trying to fit the preconceived "should" mold based on the social programming.

(Edited to repair a grammatical error.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
30-08-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
(30-08-2015 07:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The research data on human sexuality is fairly clear on the topic: 50% of people, slightly higher for men and slightly lower for women, don't seem to be suited to monogamy. Our social concepts on the subject are rooted in the premise that it's the way it "should" be for 100% of people, and I think it's a recipe for disaster. If people were encouraged to be more honest about their own nature, and not shamed for failure to conform to the "should" notions, I think we'd have a much healthier and happier society. Marriage is not for everyone--roughly half of the population. But it is a successful strategy that can lead to deep happiness for the other half, and we tend to ignore that fact as well, when we consider the half that doesn't fit.

It's yet another way our religious preconceptions harm society. It's especially ironic, since the history of our notion of marriage as an ideal is rooted in the wealthier classes of Roman society, which became more widely applied to the common people via the Catholic church over time. A more secular view, which focuses on data rather than presupposition, would drastically reduce the number of divorces by not pressuring people into a situation to which they are inherently not suited, and would prevent people who are monogamous (or mostly so; like all things in biology, it's not a binary solution-set, but a graduated scale) from being hurt by trying to be monogamous with a partner who was never suited to it, but only trying to fit the preconceived "should" mold based on the social programming.

We need an equivalent to the Christians' "amen!" Big Grin

Be true to yourself. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deidre32's post
30-08-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
(30-08-2015 08:07 AM)Deidre32 Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 07:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The research data on human sexuality is fairly clear on the topic: 50% of people, slightly higher for men and slightly lower for women, don't seem to be suited to monogamy. Our social concepts on the subject are rooted in the premise that it's the way it "should" be for 100% of people, and I think it's a recipe for disaster. If people were encouraged to be more honest about their own nature, and not shamed for failure to conform to the "should" notions, I think we'd have a much healthier and happier society. Marriage is not for everyone--roughly half of the population. But it is a successful strategy that can lead to deep happiness for the other half, and we tend to ignore that fact as well, when we consider the half that doesn't fit.

It's yet another way our religious preconceptions harm society. It's especially ironic, since the history of our notion of marriage as an ideal is rooted in the wealthier classes of Roman society, which became more widely applied to the common people via the Catholic church over time. A more secular view, which focuses on data rather than presupposition, would drastically reduce the number of divorces by not pressuring people into a situation to which they are inherently not suited, and would prevent people who are monogamous (or mostly so; like all things in biology, it's not a binary solution-set, but a graduated scale) from being hurt by trying to be monogamous with a partner who was never suited to it, but only trying to fit the preconceived "should" mold based on the social programming.

We need an equivalent to the Christians' "amen!" Big Grin

That would be RAmen

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Octapulse's post
30-08-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
[Image: th?id=JN.MtHTvur0y2QgjDPdEC3ohQ&...;amp;h=300]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
01-09-2015, 06:03 AM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
We all know that many people in this world are stupid and many of them are pressured into this lifestyle of getting married and having kids and everything without them being able to handle it.

I don't think marriage is to blame. Society, religion and a lack of education are to blame. Intelligent, self-aware adults don't need to re-consider how they view sex and monogamy.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
08-09-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Ashley Madison Hack and Monagamy
I think it's because how people view a love relationship and marriage. That "rush" one feels when in love (AFAIK "limerence" is the proper term) lasts about 18-36 months, enough for a couple to hook up, have a child and raise that child to the point where it no longer burdens the mother, reducing her survival chance - or that's how it worked in the wild, that was what benefitted the species' survival the most. Thing is, biologically we didn't change too much in the last 20'000 years and our brains still work that way.

When memetical selection and evolution became almost as important as genetic and foraging was replaced by agriculture, it became important to lengthen the time a couple stays together so the father can imprint his memes on the children and provide for them - hence, marriage and long-term family (long-term with the low average lifespan before the industrial revolution still meant only about 10-15 years). Unions were kept together often by religious dogma and necessity, and limerence wasn't something actively sought after.

But now, since people live in wealth, starvation is no longer an issue, society began to fetishize limerence and promote it as the new drug-of-the-day (almost all Hollywood movies show a couple falling in love instead of working on keeping a relationship going or ending one) and nobody tells people that it won't last forever and it's not supposed to. And when that rush is over, many believe that their partner isn't "The One". So they seek someone else for whom they feel that same "rush" again, and play the same game over and over, instead of realizing that the ecstatic feeling isn't supposed to last and that to have an enduring marriage and raise children, they should find someone they can live their entire life with and build up intimacy and trust instead of relying on limerence to find them the perfect mate without effort. I think it's important to educate people on limerence not lasting forever and that those old "perfect" couples that share "true" love are those who have learned that lesson. I don't see any of that education happening today.

Ashley Madison isn't the illness - it's the symptom. While this scandal is of course embarassing or even career-breaking to those victims who are involved in it - since they are victims of this lack of education after all - it's an opportunity for society as a whole to realize the problem with the way we display love in our memes and to correct them to reflect the way our brains work.

I'm not saying it's wrong or even morally inferior for one to choose limerence and shorter relationships - if one does so knowingly, responsibly and without the expectation for it to last forever. However, many enter into a rushed marriage under the influence of stomach-butterflies, maybe even have a child, and then the rush ends and they remain in an unhappy marriage, neither of which benefits a child.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Naridar's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: