Is monogamy naive?

[zubin]

what ever dude! age zarfiate javabo nadari nago harfi ke baz arad pashimani! kheili loosi!

Baba, I believe in khoshbakhti. Nemeeshe ba chand nafar khoshbakht shod. Oon deege be ghole khodet badbakhtiye!!!

its obvious that any man(or woman, to be fair) who abuses the other in a relationship has made it a continual habit ... why should a person take a break from an abusive partner & after a few months get back with the maniac? the relationship should come to an end ASAP. NO BREAKS!

yes, its true that the women/man might still have feelings for the abusive person, because youll still love them even if they act like a jerk. Ok, so the man/woman flips out once and goes crazy - everyones human, so we'll give the person a second chance. But once he/she makes it a habit of abusing the partner, then thats crossing the line. Any man/woman has basic human rights - they shouldnt be tortured etc, either mentally, physically, especially by the one who is supposed to be their partner.

but there's a very big difference between mental/emotional torture and physical torture. Also, no one is a true "maniac"... every human is a human, and this makes a partner vulnerable to him/her. It makes the partner see the beautiful side of that person, and even love them rationally. Human beings also have the capability of learning and changing.

But perhaps I agree that this in itself does not justify having a different relationship and/or cheating. I feel a bit refuted here... though I still believe there are exceptions

[SuperWoman]

I feel a bit refuted here...


so you werent just the devil's advocate....heheh...sorry. i'm just on my break trying to have fun...i'll give more intuitive answers....

[maryam9]

but there's a very big difference between mental/emotional torture and physical torture. Also, no one is a true "maniac"... every human is a human, and this makes a partner vulnerable to him/her. It makes the partner see the beautiful side of that person, and even love them rationally. Human beings also have the capability of learning and changing.[/B]

But perhaps I agree that this in itself does not justify having a different relationship and/or cheating. I feel a bit refuted here... though I still believe there are exceptions

im not concerned with the type of torture. Im saying: anyone who *deliberately* tortures their lover IS crazy and needs professional help.

Please clarify the section which i have underlined in the above paragraph. I hope you're not saying that abuse brings two people closer

[zubin]

I feel a bit refuted here...


so you werent just the devil's advocate....heheh...sorry. i'm just on my break trying to have fun...i'll give more intuitive answers....

Well I proposed arguments as a devil's advocate, and may have been refuted to a certain extent. It doesn't mean I actually believed in those arguments.

im not concerned with the type of torture. Im saying: anyone who *deliberately* tortures their lover IS crazy and needs professional help.

Please clarify the section which i have underlined in the above paragraph. I hope you're not saying that abuse brings two people closer

Not even close. I said everyone's a human being with a good & beautiful side, and whether abusive of not, the good side of a person can always be seen by a lover, and this gives them hope.

The only way to say the person is completely unworthy of love is justifying the argument with illusory concepts, like "maniac" and "deliberately". There is only about a .0001% of human beings who are remotely capable of being true maniacs and deliberately abusing another person... not feeling physiologically compelled to act a way they don't want to act, but actually wanting to act that way.

[abadani69]

I wanna have 4 wives, mage chi e?Sonate rasool ro nemishe zad zamin

[zubin]

abadan az moghei ke moderator neesti kheyli khub moderate meekoni!

[maryam9]

I wanna have 4 wives, mage chi e?Sonate rasool ro nemishe zad zamin

because back in the day, Muhammad brought that law to essentially protect the women, because society was mis-treating women (i.e. people were building a wall around the baby to kill it if a woman gave birth to a baby girl rather than a baby boy, they were beating women etc)

Muhammad brought that law because having more than 1 wife enabled the man to protect women.

but times have changed since way back then - those things no longer happen, so that law is obsolete for the 21st century. Society now accepts men and women equally now

i know your original post was said in a jokey way

[maryam9]

Not even close. I said everyone's a human being with a good & beautiful side, and whether abusive of not, the good side of a person can always be seen by a lover, and this gives them hope.

The only way to say the person is completely unworthy of love is justifying the argument with illusory concepts, like "maniac" and "deliberately". There is only about a .0001% of human beings who are remotely capable of being true maniacs and deliberately abusing another person... not feeling physiologically compelled to act a way they don't want to act, but actually wanting to act that way.

1. GOOD! (i misunderstood you)

2. im not saying we should judge whether one person is worthy or love or not. Yes, everyone needs love (tom jones song "its not unusual to be loved by anyone", lol) BUT anyone who deliberately hurts their partner is proof that they are not mature for a relationship and that theres something wrong 'upstairs' coz they are taking enjoyment out of it.
With regards to the boldened sentence (see above) its obvious and u can sense when someone does something on purpose (thats called "sudism" in farsi") with the intention of harrassing* another. etc. You dont have to have a confirmed medically diagnosed condition such as being a "maniac" in order to deliberately hurt your lover.

*i may not be using the scientifically correct words, but u know what i mean

[indian_blues]

because back in the day, Muhammad brought that law to essentially protect the women, because society was mis-treating women (i.e. people were building a wall around the baby to kill it if a woman gave birth to a baby girl rather than a baby boy, they were beating women etc)

Muhammad brought that law because having more than 1 wife enabled the man to protect women.

but times have changed since way back then - those things no longer happen, so that law is obsolete for the 21st century. Society now accepts men and women equally now

1) people do abuse this law.
2) did the law changed with the time?

-----------------------

Monogamy isn't naive. Period.

[zubin]

1. GOOD! (i misunderstood you)

2. im not saying we should judge whether one person is worthy or love or not. Yes, everyone needs love (tom jones song "its not unusual to be loved by anyone", lol) BUT anyone who deliberately hurts their partner is proof that they are not mature for a relationship and that theres something wrong 'upstairs' coz they are taking enjoyment out of it.
With regards to the boldened sentence (see above) its obvious and u can sense when someone does something on purpose (thats called "sudism" in farsi") with the intention of harrassing* another. etc. You dont have to have a confirmed medically diagnosed condition such as being a "maniac" in order to deliberately hurt your lover.

*i may not be using the scientifically correct words, but u know what i mean

Great, we're in agreement.

Just a note, I'm not using the terms scientifically either. I don't believe in intentionality when it comes to a person doing harm to another. I've worked pedantically on this question in psychology and its one of my areas of expertise. But who cares about that...

the logic and evidence is centered on the concept of functionalism: people have goals through their behaviors. But hurting someone is not their goal. Their goal is always something else, like mental harmony. They just know no better way of achieving that goal. Take ANY example. To me, this negates the idea of 'intentionality' in these situations. There are extremely rare exceptions to this rule.

We could get into this more, its a very significant topic. It relates to how we view people and particularly immoral or criminal behavior...

[indian_blues]

Ramin i think u r echoing ur psychology lessons overhere **sorry for offtopic**

[zubin]

I'm not the only here giving psych lesson. But perhaps I didn't explain its relevance.

I don't think people intend to abuse their partners, but they do it anyway. In general, this fact poses a complication for finding solutions. Its certainly not the victim's fault that he/she is victim to abuse and alone as a result. But we can't do away with the abuser completely either...

[zubin]

There's another related question to this thread I thought I should ask... especially since everyone's so articulate and smart.

What are your opinions about whether people prefer multiple partners or not. Even if they shouldn't act on their preference, do you think they generally have that preference?

[maryam9]

I'm not the only here giving psych lesson. But perhaps I didn't explain its relevance.

I don't think people intend to abuse their partners, but they do it anyway. In general, this fact poses a complication for finding solutions. Its certainly not the victim's fault that he/she is victim to abuse and alone as a result. But we can't do away with the abuser completely either...

whats your profession? i.e. you said u specialise in some areas of endocrinology (??)
im interested in psychology, so feel free to go into as much depth as u want to (as long as its relevant, and explain any jargon)

before moving onto the next question, i want to get your opinion/views on this:

i still strongly think that when a lover abuses their partner, it is intentional. This is because naturally, you always care for your partner.You do everything in your strife to make sure they have the best- if anyone else shows any sign of potentially harming them (e.g. mugger on street) then good luck to the outsider, coz youll defend them, etc. So, basically its an instinct to protect your partner, whether youre a man protecting the woman or vice versa.

But how can you say that people dont intend to abuse their partner?

After the age of 5, people know the difference between right and wrong, so your conscience is what guides your actions. You can still see the facial expression of an abused partner whilst the abusive act is being carried out, so shouldnt that stop you from doing the abusive act towards another?

For example, yes, they might not intend on abusing the other, but they can still sense the feelings of their partner (e.g. facial expression, tone of partners voice after abusive event, etc). For example, possessive husband doesnt allow woman to go out of house/dress up. He might think he's protecting the wife, but deep down he knows he is abusing his partner.

Remember the farsi saying:
"bishin, befarmaid, betarmag - hamashoon yey maan-ee daran"

am i making any sense?
These are my opinions

I'll answer your 2nd question later, im so hungry right now!

[zubin]

whats your profession? i.e. you said u specialise in some areas of endocrinology (??)

I can't say my profession is a specific one. If I had to compromise reality a bit with short titles, I would say that I'm a philosopher of science and a social entrepreneur.

before moving onto the next question, i want to get your opinion/views on this:

i still strongly think that when a lover abuses their partner, it is intentional. This is because naturally, you always care for your partner.You do everything in your strife to make sure they have the best- if anyone else shows any sign of potentially harming them (e.g. mugger on street) then good luck to the outsider, coz youll defend them, etc. So, basically its an instinct to protect your partner, whether youre a man protecting the woman or vice versa.

Yeah but what I'm saying is that the abuser doesn't see his actions as "abuse", so he doesn't "intentionally abuse", he intentionally does something else. Just like you said, he sees himself as, eg, protecting. His action is intentional, but intentional protection not intentional abuse, because he doesn't see him/herself as abusing. It is even possible that he sees himself as the victim of abuse and simply defending himself. Since he doesn't see that he is "abusing", how can he be intentionally abusing?

After the age of 5, people know the difference between right and wrong, so your conscience is what guides your actions. You can still see the facial expression of an abused partner whilst the abusive act is being carried out, so shouldnt that stop you from doing the abusive act towards another?

Even if people can see the difference between right and wrong, self-reflection of right and wrong may be more difficult. What I'm saying is that when the abuser sees the face of their partner, they have either justified it to themself as a good thing, and not abuse, or they don't realize what they're doing is wrong because they don't have good enough self-reflective power.

For example, yes, they might not intend on abusing the other, but they can still sense the feelings of their partner (e.g. facial expression, tone of partners voice after abusive event, etc). For example, possessive husband doesnt allow woman to go out of house/dress up. He might think he's protecting the wife, but deep down he knows he is abusing his partner.

My point is that deep down inside he doesn't know he is abusing his partner. This argument that you're bringing is pretty strong sounding, but to me its clearly untrue because of the definition of what knowledge is. I don't think its knowledge until it comes explicitly and unequivocally into one's mind. There is instead a gut feeling that is actually countered by explicit beliefs that negate it. What the person "knows" is that he thinks his gut feeling is wrong and what he's doing right. This actually corresponds with the classical definition of knowledge where Socrates would question people and say, "comon now, you say you know X, so why can't you explain it then?" He would say that its not knowledge if the person can't explicitly explain it and I agree to a large extent.

Remember the farsi saying:
"bishin, befarmaid, betarmag - hamashoon yey maan-ee daran"

I like the philosophy of many Iranian phrases. What does this one mean?

am i making any sense?
These are my opinions

Yes ofcourse you're making sense. Those are pretty strong arguments. But perhaps they are intuitive answers. I gave my reasons why I think they're wrong upon examination. I'm sure my response isn't gold either though. There's much more to be clarified however, but I think this is a starting point.