Cause some people want more than sex?
That would seem like a problem easily solved - don't marry a prostitute.
When you feel more affection for your partner
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
Cause some people want more than sex?
That would seem like a problem easily solved - don't marry a prostitute.
I agree I would not let my wife work as a prostitute . A wife is beyond sex, as I said before a wife is a mother , a maid , cook and a mistress , all that bound relationship. You come home into your domain of peace and happiness.
I believe in getting married a person have to have a fear of God , I believe a woman should not be to greedy, and not be to invidious. If a guy is looking for a wife in a bar , then he is taking a high risk.
Then you can choose if you want to stay with her or not.
People make such decisions all the time. A woman marries a man telling him she wants to settle down and have kids, then decides to give up on that and join the military, or work as a volunteer in Africa, or join a traveling band. Will they stay together? Up to them.
Sure. And that might be OK to some people and not others. Their decision.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Prostitutes are religious too.
The last guy I was with said he didn't care how I earned money as long as I brought nothing home but the money. Only kidding.
Why get married? Some people want to have children and marriage gives a society order. It determines who is responsible for whom. Some people like the idea of a well organized society. In the US education education taught strong families and essential to a strong democracy. In China Confucius had a very strong influence for centuries and he taught the importance of strong families to a strong China. In many cultures being married was a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. Throughout all cultures marriage is expected to make a person behave more responsibly, and in the US employers favored married men over unmarried men, and over women who should be supported by a man and a home caring for the family. She was not just a housewife, but the honored mother, and good woman behind the successful man, and a very powerful cultural force. Merit hiring has broken down the traditional system of maintaining social order with family order. I think we should discuss the pros and cons of this change.
To get this on subject, I am quite sure how we think of what I just said, effects our sexual pleasure.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
It's legal in Nevada, although only in the rural counties, not in Reno or Las Vegas. They work a normal week, get paid vacations and holidays, get a medical checkup every month, and examine every customer for strange symptoms and conditions. A lot of college girls do it, it pays better than most of the jobs they can get.
In the USA prostitution has a very bad cachet. Most wives would hit the ceiling if their husbands wanted to do that. They'd probably be angrier about that than if he just picked up some chick in a bar.
Very few women want to do that. Remember, women and men have quite different innate attitudes about sex. A woman feels almost exactly the same way about having sex with a strange man as a man feels about having sex with a strange man.
Even the women who do it don't like it. They just learn to put up with it the way you learn to put up with any job that pays well.
It's rapidly becoming one of America's eccentricities. Marriage is fading away in the rest of the Western countries. In many European countries, the majority of children live with unmarried parents, yet those parents stay together longer than American married parents. The institution is fading away in Australia and NZ too.
It's also becoming uncommon among older people in the U.S. If a widow and a widower marry, their Social Security benefits will be reduced.
If we care for somebody we tolerate many things . And tolerance is part of what is called love . If she does not care for him she probably will not please him in having sex . And as a result that marriage will end up in divorce.
Doing anything just for money makes a person a prostitute. There was a time when when lawyers practiced law because of a love of justice, and doctors became doctors because of the love of the healing arts, teachers were teachers to defend democracy in the classroom, and the thrill of opening a world of opportunity to children. Factory workers may work for nothing but the money, but not if the factory uses the Deming model of management. Even a factory worker can work for intrinsic values like a sense of belonging and pride and making a contribution. Such values go with family values and our culture needs to refocus on values.
Marriage is a commitment, and family is about more than self. Oh I know most people will disagree with me, because our culture is so changed, but in the past when we educated for human dignity and values, to keep our republic strong, we were all held together with shared values. Our experience of ourselves and life was different. Back then I argued we evolved from animals and tried to raise awareness of that part of our nature that is animal. Today, I find myself trying to raise awareness of our human difference! Yes, we can be as animals, but it is our human potential to have the dignity and values of humans. It is human nature to form groups and the family is our primary group.
What we do effects everyone we know, and if a woman wants to be a prostitute it is not just herself she needs to think about, but all living family members. Same goes with a decision to use drugs and or any other life choices we make. Some of our life choices will make people in our family feel very good and some of our life choices will leave them feeling very bad. I do not like seeing what is happening now that everyone thinks life revolves around them, and they no longer think of their families and the groups they may belong too.
I grew up thinking of everyone in my family and when I became a Toastmistress, it became important to me to act like Toastmistress. Now in a science forum it is important to attempt the scientific standard. If we were chimps, and left one troop to join another one, usually in search of a female, it would be important to conform to the new group, and failure to do so would result in being driven away. Our modern notion of unconditional love seems to have lead to a problem of people believing they can do anything they please and everyone else is suppose to love them unconditionally. That is unrealistic.
= "When do you feel more affection for your partner?"
Answer = As the time goes by.
Definitively after, it is like a brand new relationship
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
In the past people were not so mobile. In fact in pre-industrial times the average human never traveled more than twenty miles from his birthplace.
With the spread of industrial technology in the late 19th century, and especially in the early 20th, people in the more prosperous countries began to travel more widely and more often, but it was primarily for socialization and recreation. Most men worked for the same company for their entire lives, and most families remained intact because women didn't have many options.
WWII accustomed millions of men to foreign travel, and when they came home they were sent to college on the G.I. Bill. As a result of the mobility and the education, they began to lose the homing instinct of their parents and it became common for men to change jobs once or twice, which often involved moving to a different city. Today the average American family uproots itself every five years. Not to mention the impact of women's rights: they are no longer trapped in dismal marriages and menial jobs (if any) and are free to make their own way and their own mistakes.
But another vector is also in play now. Travel has become so affordable, and traditional institutions such as governments and churches (even the most tyrannical) have so much less hold on their subjects, that people now vote with their feet and migrate to countries where they expect to build a more prosperous future for their families.
As a result of all this, the "shared values" you speak of are dissipating. As I've noted before, the United States is now just about 25% Latino, and in Paris more people attend Muslim religious services than Catholic.
It's even slowly reshaping the South. Mississippi has more Afro-American members in its state legislature than any other state, even California or New York!
We are animals. Apes, to be specific. Our forebrain is enormously larger, in comparison to our primitive hindbrain and midbrain, than other animals, even more than twice as large as a chimpanzee, our closest relative. This gives us abilities they don't have, notably the ability, on a large scale, to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. But we still have many universal mammalian traits.
This becomes starkly obvious if you consider the other choices! There are only five other kingdoms of living organisms on this planet: plants, fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea (a newly discovered kingdom of single-cell organisms that has barely been studied since they live at the bottom of the ocean). We are clearly not plants, or any of those four other things!
As I've pointed out before, the pack-social instinct is hardly unique to humans. Wolves, elephants, dolphins... it's widespread throughout the mammalian species.
The difference is that, since the Agricultural Revolution, we have overcome our instinct to form small packs of people who have depended on and cared for each other since birth, and grown it into the ability to form larger packs that include total strangers. The reason is that we have learned that larger communities are more productive, due to economies of scale and division of labor. So making peace with strangers makes life better for everyone.
Under our direction, dogs have learned this too. Wolf packs seldom have more than ten members; otherwise there'd always be two fighting for dominance. But feral dog packs number in the dozens, and given the choice most dogs would rather join one of our gigantic multi-species packs, making friends with cats and parrots and letting the obviously more capable humans be in charge, because it is simply a sweeter life than scavenging trash dumps.
As I've also pointed out before, you (and millions of others) are seeing the down-side of the wrenching transformation of society from the Industrial Era to the Information Age (or whatever you want to call it, there's no official name yet). Read Dickens to realize the lots of people felt the same way about the Industrial Revolution, which also brought a mountain of problems. But that transformation eventually ended and the world is a much better place now that 95% of us are no longer doomed to back-breaking 100-hour-per-week "jobs" in the food production and distribution "industry."
150 years from now people will look back and laugh at us for not understanding how nice it will be to work only ten hours a week without having to commute, and have a "virtual family" of people who chose each other and stay in touch 24/7 through full-size holograms.
"Oh that sounds terrible!" I can hear you saying. Well please remember that my grandfather turned down an offer from the phone company to install a free telephone in his pharmacy 100 years ago, because "People will never be comfortable doing business with someone they can't see."
Well weren't you lucky. My parents were horrible and I hated them until they day they died. Fortunately the one thing they did right was to make sure I was well-educated. When I was accepted to one of the best universities in the country they let me go, even though it meant moving 500 miles away from them.
The most important components of the scientific method can be neatly combined in one sentence: The natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior is not tampered with by creatures and forces from an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, and therefore can be predicted by theories derived logically from observation of its present and past behavior.
Before a hypothesis becomes a theory, it must be tested. If the tests are successful, then it must be peer-reviewed by outsiders.
There are a couple of other facets to the scientific method that seem to be called into play rather frequently on SciForums.
- The Rule of Laplace (known to American TV viewers as "Sagan's Law"). Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
- Occam's Razor. Always test the simplest possible solution first, because if it turns out to be wrong you still have plenty of time and other resources to test the more complicated solutions.
If you're talking about Pan troglodytes, the "true" chimpanzee, it's more likely that you would be killed. They make our species look like pacifists. If you mean Pan paniscus, the bonobo chimpanzee, they are the free-lovin' hippies of the jungle who spend half their time in orgies.
Yes, we do seem to have a habit of applying homilies in such a way that we are the beneficiaries, rather than the ones who have to do the work.
Maybe in this thread we should be talking about bonobo chimpanzee. They do spend much time touching each other, and this seems to contribute to their congenial behavior. They are also female dominated and the females eat together and protect each other. They unite to insure the males behave, unlike the other chimps that are male dominated and commonly use aggression to get what they want. The other chimp females tend to forage separately and do not unite as the bonobo do. In this thread what is important, is the touching does keep everyone mellow, and all chimps at least groom each other with positive benefits.
Agreed. However, that commitment may not be the same for everyone. Two people might agree to share everything; raising kids, working, cleaning etc. Two people might agree that one will work while the other raises kids, or one will work while the other pursues education or whatever. Likewise they might decide to be sexually exclusive or not. The important part is that they both are up front with what they want and what they expect, and that they honor their commitments to each other.
Definitely agreed there. Thus someone who does not want to be married to a prostitute shouldn't marry one, and once married, both parties should talk about radial changes of vocation that affect the family (like becoming a prostitute, or joining the military, or joining a traveling band.)
Agreed, but I don't think most people think that.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
When we are on opposite sides of the planet and I don't have to think about sex.
"When do you feel more affection for your partner?"
Answer = As the time goes by.
Excellent answer! :bravo:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No, and I've corrected you on that before. Humans are a pack-social species and we are born with the instinct to protect the other members of our pack, both adults and children. This has nothing to do with civilization. We're hard-wired for it. So are wolves, elephants, dolphins, and many other species. "People" have been doing this for millions of years, long before they evolved into Homo sapiens.
Again, you're ignoring hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory, with your narrow focus restricted to the past ten thousand years since the invention of civilization.
Paleolithic children also needed to be cared for 24/7, and their parents had other work to do, just as modern parents do. Once again, this goes to the very nature of a pack-social species. All the members of the pack took care of all of the children. If their parents were off doing something else, the other members of the pack made sure that they were fed and their other needs were met. Life is still like this in countries that are not as far into modernity as we are, both rural and urban.
When I was growing up in the 1950s (I never actually completed that process) life was not much different. All the kids in the neighborhood got together to play, and we'd roam around. Nobody was "in charge" of us but everybody kept their eye on us. Whichever yard we happened to be playing in, the adults who lived there made sure we were okay. If one of the kids was naughty, there was an unwritten, unspoken compact among all the adults that they all had permission to discipline each other's kids.
Today parents have become so fussy about what their children eat, how they play, what kinds of activities they're allowed to engage in, the type of language they use (and even which language), that many of them are not comfortable letting the neighbors look out for them.
Geeze, we went scampering across the desert where there were no adults, no houses, no nothing. I suppose if one of us had gotten hurt, one of the others would have run over to the nearest house and fetched a grownup. But oddly enough, that never happened. We weren't as coddled as today's children so we were quite a bit smarter about taking care of ourselves. We had to be: we didn't have cellphones!
Have you read the "Earth's Children" series of six novels by Jean Auel, starting with Clan of the Cave Bear? It's a story about a woman in the Paleolithic Era who has a series of adventures and crises, with both other modern humans and Neanderthals (also horses and the first dog). Auel researched the subject very thoroughly (even spent a winter in a cave in Alaska) and her depiction of life in the Early Stone Age is accurate and well-detailed. You seem to be uncertain of how people lived before the Industrial Era, much less in the Stone Age. This will not only show you, but make you feel like you're there, so you'll understand how they felt about it. [Disclaimer: the first book was written 30 years ago and science has marched on since then. Back then it was assumed that the Neanderthal brain has no speech center, so they had to "talk" with hand signals. This is a major element of the story, a cause of the hostility between Neanderthals and our species. Recent research shows that they did have a speech center, so they may have had an oral language.]