Monogamous or polyamorous?

[Stella_Omega]

STD's has little to do with morality and relationships as much as it does with stupidity. I think people are very sexually aware but many people have that attitude that it will not happen to them. Take for instance AIDS. We are all aware and worry yet how many still have unprotected sex? How many idiots still share needles?

All too damn true.

Actually, Poly-amorous relationships would not be the norm. Biology tell us this. Ask woman what the risk to her vagina is by numerous penises? When a penis is inserted it leaves dead skin tissue behind. In a monogamous relationship the woman builds immunity to the man. With many partners this does not happen and she can suffer illness. I forget the exact name. But the fact remains biologically we really are not designed for multiple partners.

Do you have a source for this?

The only legal issue is polygamy but feel free to fuck who you want or cheat on your mate or have an open marriage. Fidelity, monogamy and sexual orientation is a personal choice. Only you can decide what is right for you and fuck what society thinks.

I'm with you on two out of three here-- that ain't bad!

 

[LindsayRae]

This is just you being a fuckwaffle again since nobody referenced VeryBadMan's polygamy statement. Regardless if it was off point none of the above statements reference his remark regarding polygamy. But you are wrong because polygamy would be counted as a polyamorous relationship.

At least get your facts straight when taking cheap shots at people. You really do come off as a bitter person. I really wish VBM would take you off ignore so he can defend himself but he has decided you are not worth talking to or reading. Well he is a better man then me.

i never fucking said a "mean" thing towards VBM. You can go fuck yourself with a rusty knife.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

This is just you being a fuckwaffle again since nobody referenced VeryBadMan's polygamy statement. Regardless if it was off point none of the above statements reference his remark regarding polygamy. But you are wrong because polygamy would be counted as a polyamorous relationship.

At least get your facts straight when taking cheap shots at people. You really do come off as a bitter person. I really wish VBM would take you off ignore so he can defend himself but he has decided you are not worth talking to or reading. Well he is a better man then me.

Down boy, down !!! Thanks for coming to my rescue but completely unnecessary I assure you. If she bothers you place her on ignore like I have done a few. Trust me man nobody is worth aggrevating yourself over.

Polyamorous - pertaining to participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships as defined in a dictionary - Polygamy is the same except you marry them

Well yes and no. Polygamy has elements of a Poly-amorous relationship but are not inclusively the same. I only referred to polygamy because the OP stated about the legality of a poly-amorous relationship. I was merely stating it would only be illegal if you decided to marry the people you were involved with ending up with more than one wife or husband. Yet I agree with you my polygamy remark has nothing to do with anybody else remarks.

All too damn true. Do you have a source for this?

I'm with you on two out of three here-- that ain't bad!

Stella I do not recall the exact diseases and I am trying to find out what it is called so I can possibly discover a link on the net. It was 4 years ago when I heard about this and read an article so I do not recall. When I get back to Dubai I'll go next door and ask my neighbor who is one of the clinics doctors.

I do think considering the spread of STD's monogamy has a stronger argument than "free" love.

I'm all about having a good time but do it safely people. I included an article that I hope don't ruin your love lives but I hope it will make you fuckers use your head in your perverted behavior

HERE IS A CUT AND PASTE

Sexually Transmitted Disease Statistics & Trends in United States

In the USA, one in five Americans has a type of sexually transmitted disease (STD). Of those infected, 63 percent are in their teens and early twenties. As if this is not enough, each year 19 million Americans get infected for the first time. The upsurge of STD in the U.S. is blamed on the lack of information on the dangers of pre-marital sex, multiple sex partners, and unprotected sex.

Increase in Chlamydia

The top three STDs in the U.S. are Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydia. Monitoring of STD started in 1941 and focused on syphilis and gonorrhea. The rise in the incidence of Chlamydia prompted its inclusion in the surveillance of national statistics on STDs in the 1980s. Chlamydia is overtaking Syphilis and Gonorrhea with 1,030,911 cases reported in 2006

The national surveillance data on Chlamydia report a steady rise in the disease since 1996 and adolescent girls are vulnerable to this threat with serious repercussions on their reproductive health. The reported cases of infection revealed that the rate of women with the infection was three times higher than in males–515.8 for females and 173.0 for males. Perhaps this is because more females are screened than males.

It is alarming that females as young as 15 years old are being infected with Chlamydia. The highest rate of infection was among women aged 15-19 years old, followed by women in the 20 to 24 years old. The infection is also common in all races but more black women were affected than white females.

Chlamydia causes Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, which if left untreated, can cause scarring of the fallopian tubes, leading to infertility and ectopic pregnancies. A secondary infection again raises the risk of infertility double that of gonorrhea.

AIDS

AIDS is silently growing towards epidemic proportions. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 55,300 were infected in 2006 adding to the estimated number of 1,185,000 infected individuals in 2003. Those infected were in the 24-35 age groups and a large number are unaware that they are HIV positive.

Statistics report that there are 982,498 people diagnosed with AIDS in 2002 to 2006, and 545,805 has died since then; and there are more than a million living with AIDS. Also, more women are becoming infected with the incurable disease.

HPV

Human papillomavirus can be detected if venereal warts show up in the genitalia and anus. These are hard to treat and require expensive laser procedures. HPV also leads to cancer of the cervix, a deadly disease that is taking younger lives than AIDS. It is estimated that 38 percent of young women are HPV infected and again many are as young as 13 years old.

STD is on the rise as more young people are engaging in early sex. Adolescent girls are risking their health and future with unprotected sex. Since their reproductive organs are immature, they are more susceptible to STD than older females. Parents, schools, and the government are coordinating to provide effective sexual education across the states to save young lives from the irreversible effects of STD.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't mind waiting for that info, VBM.

But any time someone talks about how evolutionary biology proves we are meant to behave in one special way or another, I feel another braying laugh try to exit my throat...

 

[naughty_shygirl]

"I watch the news and see stories about so many people getting raped. Maybe that means we're all rapists?"

Not to conflate rape with polyamory, but it is a pretty disingenuous argument. It's not that we're necessarily wired for polyamory as a species; we're just wired to be selfish.

lol I so agree

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Polyamorous - pertaining to participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships as defined in a dictionary - Polygamy is the same except you marry them

This is just you being a fuckwaffle again since nobody referenced VeryBadMan's polygamy statement. Regardless if it was off point none of the above statements reference his remark regarding polygamy. But you are wrong because polygamy would be counted as a polyamorous relationship.

At least get your facts straight when taking cheap shots at people. You really do come off as a bitter person. I really wish VBM would take you off ignore so he can defend himself but he has decided you are not worth talking to or reading. Well he is a better man then me.

When I used the term polygamy, I was not referring to polygamy as it is defined in the dictionary; rather I was referring to how it is practiced in real life. The only place polygamy is widely practiced today in the United States is by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (FLDS), primarily in Utah, Arizona and Texas, (and yes I read the news and know the practice is not legal). Under FLDS practices, a man may have multiple wives, but it is considered a sin, (and therefore not permitted), for anyone to have sex outside of marriage.

In rural areas in Nepal where there are substantially more men that women, a form of polygamy called polyandry is practiced where the woman may have multiple husbands; however, also in that case, all marriage partners are committed to each other and no spouse, (male or female), may have sex outside of the marriage. While you can find individual variations and differing personal definitions of any relationship or marriage, the belief that polygamy, (and polyandry for that matter), is somehow a promiscuous relationship is false. As practiced in real life, both polygamy and polyandry are committed marriages, both sexually and emotionally.

You said, “At least get your facts straight when taking cheap shots at people”. I suggest that it is you that should get your facts straight before you post. A polyamorous relationship or marriage is nowhere close to being the same as polygamy.

Also a word of advice: While calling someone a “fuckwaffle” is permitted under the posting guidelines of Literotica, in real life, it is childish and immature. Looking up your posting history of no more than 2 months, I see that you originally started posting on the General Board, and apparently picked up some bad posting habits. Childish insults may be the norm for the General Board, but Fetish & Sexuality Central is not the General Board. Calling people names like “fuckwaffle” is not going to make you any friends here.

 

[Never]

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe humans are not really monogamous, maybe we are really polyamorous?

Humans represent a wide range of behaviors. There's no default because primate sexuality is diverse and humans also have strong cultural and psychological influence on their sexuality.

Suggesting that "humans are not really monogomous" is about like saying "humans are not really gay/asexual/straight/bisexual."

 

[bidaddy]

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe humans are not really monogamous, maybe we are really polyamorous? I read so many posts about couples who have been married for years and have stopped having sex with each other, yet one or both spouses look outside of the marriage for sex. Maybe that is what we are supposed to do; maybe we are supposed to have multiple sex partners simultaneously.

Gay couples are gaining their right to be married, (as they should), so why shouldn’t the rest of us make open-marriages socially acceptable and enjoy sex with whomever and where ever we wish?

My wife and i already do. we have never gave a damn about what other people have thought about our sex lives except those who are in our sex lives. We think that when government steps in and starts to tell how to fuck then we are no longer a free socity.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My wife and i already do. we have never gave a damn about what other people have thought about our sex lives except those who are in our sex lives. We think that when government steps in and starts to tell how to fuck then we are no longer a free socity.

There used to be hundreds and hundreds of laws on the books regarding "how to fuck." Thanks to the efforts of a lot of activists those laws have mostly been struck down.

The federal government is still trying to tell people how to marry, however.
I posted this elsewhere and I guess I should bring it here as well;

“... (S)upport of the President would be very welcomed. I hope he endorses my bill to repeal DOMA.” -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, June 23rd

Dear Stella,

According to the New York Times, Gov. Cuomo told his father, "(Passing same sex marriage) is at the heart of leadership and progressive government. I have to do this." Yet even after he and Republican donors and senators "did this," the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) means NY marriages provide no access to federal benefits and rights and no protection if couples marry and leave the state.

The time has long passed to repeal DOMA. While President Obama continues to "evolve" on marriage, we need him to support and lead on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Respect for Marriage Act, which repeals DOMA -- now.

Click here to tell President Obama to support the Respect for Marriage Act. Courage's Rick Jacobs will personally deliver signatures to the White House.

I have spent nearly 40 years fighting for full equality, not fractions. Our president ordered his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA cases in court. If the president cannot say the words, "I support marriage equality," he needs to say, "I support Sen. Feinstein's bill to repeal DOMA.” And then he needs to get on the phone to senators to get them on board, just as Cuomo did. Americans respect courage. When President Obama says, "repeal DOMA," he'll earn respect of the base and his opponents.

Do you want President Obama to move DOMA off the books? Sign with me.

We have a lot to celebrate this Pride Month, but we also have a lot left to do. Through your efforts, 27 Senators support DOMA repeal -- nearly halfway to the 60 we need. The President’s seal of approval -- and leadership -- can push this over the top. Gov. Cuomo gets it. We need our president to as well.

Click here to demand his seal of approval. It’s time.

Thanks for all you do,

Cleve Jones

Senior Adviser, Courage Campaign

 

[LindsayRae]

Also a word of advice: While calling someone a “fuckwaffle” is permitted under the posting guidelines of Literotica, in real life, it is childish and immature. Looking up your posting history of no more than 2 months, I see that you originally started posting on the General Board, and apparently picked up some bad posting habits. Childish insults may be the norm for the General Board, but Fetish & Sexuality Central is not the General Board. Calling people names like “fuckwaffle” is not going to make you any friends here.

I think you and I may have gotten off on the wrong foot, Nasty_Deeds, just as VBM and I had, but I hold no ill will for either of you. Perv's comment towards me was extremely childish, and very much in fashion with GB trolling. He and the Guilty-jail av boy seem more fitting for that board.

At any rate, none of my posts in this thread were a "target" towards you or VBM. I just wish retards would stop "targeting" me for their bullshit and making up shit that I supposidly did.

 

[teknight]

Actually, Poly-amorous relationships would not be the norm. Biology tell us this. Ask woman what the risk to her vagina is by numerous penises? When a penis is inserted it leaves dead skin tissue behind. In a monogamous relationship the woman builds immunity to the man. With many partners this does not happen and she can suffer illness. I forget the exact name. But the fact remains biologically we really are not designed for multiple partners.

What biology says is that the coronal ridge of the penis exists to scoop out other semen. Now, this goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in prehistory, to before the words homo sapiens had a physical counterpart to refer to and it doesn't say anything about mating habits (it is an evolutionary adaption akin to the knot on dogs- it's attempting to fulfill the same function- guaranteeing that the current fucker's gonna pass his genes on, as opposed to the previous fuckers). But it'd appear that evolution doesn't trust us to be monogamous. Then again, given that genes are selfish, why would they buy into the whole monogamy thing?

 

[KoPilot]

I read you post, no offense, but it makes no sense at all.

Since apparently you are that dense:

I was using "rape" and "rapists" as a situational analogy, and like I said, I was not conflating (or comparing, since you don't seem to know what "conflate" means) rape and polyamory/swinging. Just because you hear about something more than you hear about the opposite, does not mean that the opposite doesn't happen, or doesn't happen more often. My rape analogy was trying to explain that you hear about it more because it makes better news. Who's going to come online and complain about all the wonderful sex they get from their one and only partner? If it ain't broke, there's nothing to fix, and nothing to really write home about. It's the same reason you don't hear about all of the good deeds that go on in the world in lieu of terrible ones.

God, I can't believe I spent all that time clarifying something so simple.

 

[teknight]

Since apparently you are that dense:

I was using "rape" and "rapists" as a situational analogy, and like I said, I was not conflating (or comparing, since you don't seem to know what "conflate" means) rape and polyamory/swinging. Just because you hear about something more than you hear about the opposite, does not mean that the opposite doesn't happen, or doesn't happen more often. My rape analogy was trying to explain that you hear about it more because it makes better news. Who's going to come online and complain about all the wonderful sex they get from their one and only partner? If it ain't broke, there's nothing to fix, and nothing to really write home about. It's the same reason you don't hear about all of the good deeds that go on in the world in lieu of terrible ones.

God, I can't believe I spent all that time clarifying something so simple.

...prepare for ad hominem in 3,2,1....

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/m...ll-keep-us-together.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

the coronal ridge of the penis exists to scoop out other semen.

<Groan>

The purpose of the coronal ridge is to stimulate a woman's G-spot. Any man who has ever had intercourse with a woman knows that. The whole point of intercourse is to push semen through the cervix and fertilize the egg in the uterus, not to scoop semen out of the vagina. I read the research you quoted until I got to the part about the scientists who did this research using a rubber dick and a plastic pussy with a mixture of cornstarch and water. Yeah, that’s real scientific.

The supposed scientist who did this pseudo study, Professor Gordon Gallup said: "The human penis may enable males to substitute their semen for the semen of their competitors”. Does he not know how a woman gets pregnant? When a man reaches the point of ejaculation, he has a sudden urge to push deep, lodging the head of his penis against the woman’s cervix. (At least men who have a cock big enough to reach a woman’s cervix) With the head of his penis lodged against her cervix, he ejaculates through the cervix, fertilizing the egg inside the uterus. Once the egg is fertilized, the woman is pregnant, and stays pregnant no matter how much semen is scooped out.

But then I am not a brilliant scientist, I just have to muddle through life with common sense and experience.

When you read publications like The New Scientist, apply a little common sense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for the common sense, ND.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

What biology says is that the coronal ridge of the penis exists to scoop out other semen. Now, this goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in prehistory, to before the words homo sapiens had a physical counterpart to refer to and it doesn't say anything about mating habits (it is an evolutionary adaption akin to the knot on dogs- it's attempting to fulfill the same function- guaranteeing that the current fucker's gonna pass his genes on, as opposed to the previous fuckers). But it'd appear that evolution doesn't trust us to be monogamous. Then again, given that genes are selfish, why would they buy into the whole monogamy thing?

I'm not sure I buy that. In the wild it is the strong that breeds. The males fight for the right or the female chooses by choosing a mate with the best attribute. Generally if the male is replaced by a stronger male he kills the offspring that is not his. Well that is what I learned watching National Geographic and like shows.

Just from personal experience my mushroom acts as a plunger and pushes my splooge deeper. Any overflow is not from my mushroom scooping it out but from simply being displaced by plunging the whole shaft in her.

Instead of using fake body parts they should of used real people. Can't really argue primitive man with any real certainty since none of us was there.

 

[honestone]

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe humans are not really monogamous, maybe we are really polyamorous? I read so many posts about couples who have been married for years and have stopped having sex with each other, yet one or both spouses look outside of the marriage for sex. Maybe that is what we are supposed to do; maybe we are supposed to have multiple sex partners simultaneously.

Gay couples are gaining their right to be married, (as they should), so why shouldn’t the rest of us make open-marriages socially acceptable and enjoy sex with whomever and where ever we wish?

It appears to me that you are trying to set up agreement for yourself that it should be ok for you to have sex, without commitment, outside of your primary relationship. You have my agreement. That being said I would recommend that you discuss it with your other and if they agree too then you have a new agreement and are home free. With all agreements there has to be consensus between all parties or the agreement is violated.

The biology angle is BS and a cheap way of not taking responsibility for your wants and/or actions.

 

[Verinka]

Excuse me if I missed this being mentioned, but I wanted to throw in what health risks multiple partners pose for women. I figured the Mayo Clinic would be reputable enough. It's for cervical cancer and multiple partners, early sex and STD's increase your risk. Cervical cancer can be fatal, but the death rate in declining. It's what we have pap smears for. I remember when I first learned this.....I thought, gee, back in that sexual revolution I lived through in the late 60's when the pill came in, no one mentioned this!!!!

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=risk-factors

Risk factors
By Mayo Clinic staff


These factors may increase your risk of cervical cancer:

Many sexual partners. The greater your number of sexual partners — and the greater your partner's number of sexual partners — the greater your chance of acquiring HPV.
Early sexual activity. Having sex before age 18 increases your risk of HPV.
Other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). If you have other STIs — such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis or HIV/AIDS — the greater your chance is of also having HPV.
A weak immune system. Most women who are infected with HPV never develop cervical cancer. However, if you have an HPV infection and your immune system is weakened by another health condition, you may be more likely to develop cervical cancer.
Cigarette smoking. Smoking and HPV infection may work together to cause cervical cancer.


By the way, Stella, I always enjoy your posts!!

 

[teknight]

<Groan>

The purpose of the coronal ridge is to stimulate a woman's G-spot.

Not all women receive vaginal stimulation.
All you need is friction, and you can change your angle to hit the G-spot. You'd know that if you'd had sex with a woman, I guess. (see what I did there?)

The supposed scientist who did this pseudo study, Professor Gordon Gallup said: "The human penis may enable males to substitute their semen for the semen of their competitors”.

Ah, right. Pseudo study, 'cause Nasty' says so.
Ejaculation occurs in the vagina, not necessarily against the cervix. From there the semen travel through the cervical plug (assuming it's lax enough, when the woman's fertile) and onwards to the egg. Even in modern day humans impregnation can occur up to 12 hours after copulation.

But then I am not a brilliant scientist, I just have to muddle through life with common sense and experience.
When you read publications like The New Scientist, apply a little common sense.

That was superfluous. You're definitely neither a scientist, nor brilliant.
Your biased, singular personal experience doesn't hold a candle to evolution, which is the experience of the entire species.

I'm not sure I buy that. In the wild it is the strong that breeds. The males fight for the right or the female chooses by choosing a mate with the best attribute. Generally if the male is replaced by a stronger male he kills the offspring that is not his. Well that is what I learned watching National Geographic and like shows.

Generally females go in heat at a predisposed time. Males fight for them and get to impregnate 'em. But how does the stronger male know for a fact it's not his offspring? They can't tell...they don't have DNA tests in the jungle.

In the wild males kill offspring to make the females fertile again- a nursing mother is generally not fertile and not receptive to a male's sexual advances.

Instead of using fake body parts they should have used real people. Can't really argue primitive man with any real certainty since none of us was there.

Why is that?
How does adding more noise to the experiment benefit the study?

And are you saying that simulations are worthless? I wouldn't have expected that from a pilot.

We can draw analogies from other animals (you know, the ones you see on TV, that you've based your "the strongest male" breeds claim on.

Here: a book that shows how various animals scoop out and get rid of rivals' sperm.


The coronal ridge thing may well go back very far into prehistory, before primates.

I'm being malevolent, though I shouldn't be. You've not studied how to do studies (and you hold that against me. Fallacious side tracking, btw), whereas I have. The purpose of the study was to test what impact the ridge might have as opposed to a ridgeless penis. They found it scooped out the goop, significantly more goop than a ridgeless penis. Does it look...irrelevant to real life? Maybe. But that's not germaneto the study- it's been found that, in the absence of other factors (real life humans fucking- It'd be a bitch to get that experiment approved!), a ridge scoops out more semen than otherwise. Does that explain the whole act of copulation, and evolution as a whole? Newp. But it does tell us something about the ridge...and there are a lot of ridged penises out there...

 

[teknight]

The biology angle is BS and a cheap way of not taking responsibility for your wants and/or actions.

*whines: But I can't help my nature!!!*

Well said.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Not all women receive vaginal stimulation. All you need is friction, and you can change your angle to hit the G-spot

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but have you ever had actual intercourse with a woman? You sound like you are trying to explain how to fly an airplane without ever having been in an airplane.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

It appears to me that you are trying to set up agreement for yourself that it should be ok for you to have sex, without commitment, outside of your primary relationship. You have my agreement. That being said I would recommend that you discuss it with your other and if they agree too then you have a new agreement and are home free. With all agreements there has to be consensus between all parties or the agreement is violated.

Actually I am not married, nor currently in a serious relationship. I started the thread to stimulate conversation.

 

[teknight]

Fuck it.

 

[Nasty_Deeds]

Excuse me if I missed this being mentioned, but I wanted to throw in what health risks multiple partners pose for women. I figured the Mayo Clinic would be reputable enough. It's for cervical cancer and multiple partners, early sex and STD's increase your risk. Cervical cancer can be fatal, but the death rate in declining. It's what we have pap smears for. I remember when I first learned this.....I thought, gee, back in that sexual revolution I lived through in the late 60's when the pill came in, no one mentioned this!!!!

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=risk-factors

Risk factors
By Mayo Clinic staff


These factors may increase your risk of cervical cancer:

Many sexual partners. The greater your number of sexual partners — and the greater your partner's number of sexual partners — the greater your chance of acquiring HPV.
Early sexual activity. Having sex before age 18 increases your risk of HPV.
Other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). If you have other STIs — such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis or HIV/AIDS — the greater your chance is of also having HPV.
A weak immune system. Most women who are infected with HPV never develop cervical cancer. However, if you have an HPV infection and your immune system is weakened by another health condition, you may be more likely to develop cervical cancer.
Cigarette smoking. Smoking and HPV infection may work together to cause cervical cancer.

I hear what you are saying, but isolating people has never been a long-term solution for preventing contagious diseases. Vaccines and raising awareness about communicable diseases has always been the best way to prevent the spread of disease.