When You Love More Than One

Dr Sohail

My first reaction reading this articel was one of joy, kudos to the writer then reality set in when I thought of my teen daughter and how I would feel or react. Human beings respond to their socio economic conditions and these have been process over centuries and one of them is to protect their honor. Your idea in today's world can be entertained but has very little chance of being realized in the next 100 years. therefore my dear writer help us in understanding issues which are of some use in our life time.

Thanks

Arif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3685314/Young-women- have-more-sexual-partners-than-men.html


The reasons for more promiscuity among females than males ( 9 sexual partners for the 21 year old female, as compared to a paltry 7 ) in this study, is probably the result of mutiple factors :

Firstly, males, due to STEREOTYPING, are expected to be more promiscous and hence NOT encouraged by their parents and peers, to have sex, unlike females who are stereotyped/presumed as being 'passive', and hence in need of encouragement to engage in sex.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3796120.cms

Secondly, males are probably becoming more aware of legal and financial consequences in case their relationship goes wrong!

Hopefully, these latest findings will spare males from the onslaught of feminist inspired advertising, from domestic cleaning agents, to car insurance, to food, which all portray the male as the stupid ape, and the female as the one who provides a solution to his stupidity by using the product being advertised. This creates gender roles where women are the smart, cool, sophisticated and innocent gender, and men are the complacent, retarded, pathetic gender.

Lastly, the western females integrity needs appreciation, and is in keeping with the higher female-initiated divorce rates there too.

'In the age of promiscuity, women have more sexual partners than men. By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers - two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity - compared with a fifth of young men. Young women are also twice as likely to be unfaithful, with 50 per cent admitting they have cheated on a partner - half at least twice.'

Also read : Womensinfidelity.com


WAKE UP MALES! SPEAK UP!

As always very interesting piece. Thank you Dr Sohail Sahib. Over the independence day weekend I was at the beach with some family friends. An elderly friend who is almost 90 year old was telling me about the good old days. The discussion was about politicians, etc. She told me that when her father died (some 40 years ago) in the hospital his last words to her were: “daughter, I want you to know something, I am married to your mother for over 50 years, and I have never stepped outside of our marriage, and I had many opportunities to do so”. When the old bugger died, she tells her mother what dad said to her when he died, and the mother replied “daughter, I also never stepped outside of our marriage, and I had my chances too”.

I believe that fidelity is a sign of self-respect. When someone cheats, he/she is not cheating his/her partner, but cheating him/herself. I agree that we should not judge poly-philous or people with different sexual orientation than ours, but if one cannot be faithful (and I also mean physically or sexually, in addition to emotionally) to his/her partner, what guarantee is there that he/she will not cheat on his/her side-whore? One should be at least honest about it. If it is okay with both partners in a relationship, then who are we to judge. But if it only one sided dick waggling, then it is not a good thing.

And Richard Webster is a journalist, not a scientist of any kind, btw!

As I said, there are a lot of people who dislike Freud, Naqsh, but that does not take away from the fact that the vast majority of people who work in psychiatry or psychology still support a large number of his views.
I personally find his work on Anna O and some of his other cases misogynistic in interpretation, but I think he was one of the greatest geniuses of the last century, if not of the last millennium.

"When I studied the biographies of creative personalities, whether scientists or artists, poets or philosophers, reformers or revolutionaries, I discovered that many of them had a poly-philous personality. Whether it was Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung, Pablo Picasso or Ernest Hemingway, Mohammad Iqbal or Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Josh Maleehabadi or Mustafa Zaidi, Saadat Hasan Minto or Ahmad Faraz, Sara Shagufta or Ismat Chughtai, Karl Marx or Viladmir Lenin, Anais Nin or Henry Miller, Jean Paul Sartre or Simon de Bouvoir, they all loved more than one person at the same time. Sometimes those relationships were platonic, sometimes sensual and sometimes sexual."

and also Bernard Shah, Bertrand Russel, Albert Einstein

#3 Without being misogynistic in any way.... I just wondered if there was an etymological relationship between the "Khasi" people and the Urdu/Hindi pejorative.

This is all very well and good ... but to be fair all everyone wants to do is rut and spawn more useless b/tards.

Perhaps a little less love is more in order.. until we can get the population down by a few billion.

I may have differences with Naqshbandi, but, NB I must join him in clobbering 'fraud baba' Freud.

for in depth anaylsis read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Freud-Was-Wrong-Psychoanalysis/dp/0465091288/ ref=sip_rech_dp_3

rainbow -- first learn to write English properly, then address me!

You don't have to be a psychologist to read psychology literature you know. Some of us actually try to read widely outside our own scientific disciplines too...

On Freud's fraud:

An excerpt:
Freud on the couch
Sigmund Freud, born 150 years ago tomorrow, is now discredited as a scientist and vilified for intellectual dishonesty. But our correspondent argues that, despite his flaws, Freud was a genius whose influence on human self-awareness is still being felt today
Dr Anthony Daniels
Sigmund Freud was born 150 years old this week, and his stock has never been lower. Almost no intellectual or character fault has not been ascribed to him. It is now as fashionable to revile him as it once was to revere him; he is regarded as little better than a charlatan who would have been more accurately named Fraud than Freud.
His theories have been thoroughly exploded and his life’s work undermined to the point of complete destruction by conclusive historical and biographical research. And yet almost everyone suspects that, despite all that has been written against him, despite the myriad books debunking him, he remains a greater man than any of his critics. For if he were quite as negligible a figure as he is now accounted, why would it be necessary to throw so many stones at him for so long?

Of course, historical importance and intellectual merit are not quite the same thing. A man’s ideas may be utterly worthless yet highly influential, or brilliant but without significant echo. With Freud, it is not easy to say precisely what his achievement was; but a man who created, in Auden’s phrase, a climate of opinion the world over must have been out of the ordinary.

The charges against him are many and serious. Far from having been the lone pioneer of the unconscious mind that he claimed to have been, he was a continuer and follower of the ideas of other men, whose influence he dishonestly failed to acknowledge. In short, Freud was a mythomaniac of gigantic proportions who had no hesitation in rewriting the past.

He was intellectually dishonest. He was well aware that his patients were not cured in the way that his published case histories claimed that they were (he fell out with his much more scrupulous colleague and coauthor, Josef Breuer, over this), and that therefore the claims he made for his method were false; hence all his theorising about the structure of the mind was based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

He claimed to be a natural scientist but in fact had little appreciation of scientific method and acted more as the leader of a cult or new religion than as a disinterested searcher after truth.

Whenever a disciple, such as Jung or Adler, disagreed with him, he did not so much refute his ideas as seek to ruin him by excommunication from the “true church” of psychoanalysis, which was a reaction to criticism more appropriate to a theocrat than to a real scientist. Freud wanted uncritical admiration and agreement from his followers, or rather disciples, not honest criticism, which he believed (or pretended to believe ) was the consequence of an unresolved Oedipus complex.

The influence of his ideas, albeit in vulgarised and simplified versions, has been culturally baleful and even catastrophic.
rest can be read here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article713089.ece

#16 Naqsh, you have said this in the past and not answered this question. There are certainly people who don't agree with some of Freud's theories, but how do you get that he has been discredited?

You can run but you can't hide. Have you no energy?
See my post #5.

Re: # 16Naqshbandi...r u psychologists???if not then shut up.

Sex is a beautiful thing.All this terrorism etc is because of lack of sex,send blonds to taliban and they will forget about religion,make love as much u can.

Freud has been completely discredited by psychologists. He even falsified his data!
As for human sexuality--the more the merrier if you ask me!