When You Love More Than One

Re: # 38
dear malikrashid..i am glad you appreciate the dynamics between human nature and the social and cultural conditioning...sincerely sohail

Dear Doctor
Laws of the modern state (family and property laws) are based on marriage/monogamy. Gay marriages could be registered and dealt according to the same monogamy rules. Family is actually a private enterprise like business and corporations. Adapting polygamous families as the basic unit of society might involve a major change. Until then, families based on monogamous marriage would continue and sex outside marriage would be common. Rules and morals directing the human sexual conduct since antiquity through medieval to the modern age do not seamlessly harmonize with nature. Thanks for a thoughtful and refreshing article.

Re: # 33

Dr Sahib

Thanks for the response

Regards

Arif

yes, drsohail, I support legalization of both.

Re: # 34
dear khurram, i am more in favour of loving relationships than relationships defined by religion or state. but if a society or state chooses to have polygamy then they should also have polyandry, so that men and women have equal rights and privileges. do you support polygamy and polyandry?
sincerely sohail

drsohail,
Do you think polygamy should be legalized?

Re: # 31
dear r786....thank you for your honest comments. you would be surprised how many men and women today are homosexuals, bisexuals and polyphilous (love more than one) but they are in closet leading secret lives. interestingly in open, liberal and secular communities they are coming out of the closet and sharing their truth publicly. we can try to send them back in the closet, punish them harshly or try to understand them. being a psychologist and psychotherapist i try to understand them and share my ideas in writing for others to reflect.. sincerely sohail

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

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.