Obviously Drue has stirred an issue you feel strongly about. Your opinion is certainly welcome but your attacking the author is not. The topic is on cheating in a marriage. Staying on point allows everyone to hear and exchange various views on the “subject matter” without bias to others who may see things differently.

Let it rest…

Peace and Love.

Montana

<Sounds like you are advocating successful Marriages>

I understand what your typing is a "figure of speech", but..

FYI there is no sound here, it's text on your monitor. ok?

I posted ideas and thoughts as in response to why I think
(not feel) I think many marriages fail.

Feelings are irrelevant in a discussion. Feelings are like
the wind, they change at anytime. People's feelings are theirs
not mine and nothing I can do about them, anymore than nothing
you can do about my feelings.

------------
I posted 4 or 5 reason's that are specific to why people
fail in marriage, understand?
Those 4 or 5 reason's are not my reason's, they are what others
have factually stated the main reason's many marriage's fail.

So it's odd and bizarre that many here on Redbook to talk
about me and not about > the ideas...get it?

I read and research knowledge and information because I like to.
I share it with others.
I will repeat I am not advocating marriage at all.

I am simply showing why marriage's fail, based on what others
have factually found out that is true and correct...do you get this?
yes or no?

Sometimes I have to speak like I am in a court of law because
so many people can't answer a question with a simple yes or
no and cannot stay on topic.

And no I do not respond to many posts because it's not worth
the time of day to bother with them.

If you read my posts they are usually very long and concise
and to the point about a topic or issue at hand.

<<<LowTech123 let me ask you a question Why are you here? >>
why not, I get bored and type away. My brain is active so I
get up early 5am? and type away.

<<Are you a moralist here to advocate?>>
Me a moralist? All of you are pushing/promoting your views
of your morals aren't you?

<<<Are you a client here to air his guilt?>>>
Nope, just someone who has evolved as a human being and as a man.
Been there done that with massage, tantra, sex workers, lesbians
strippers, etc.

<<Are you a woman who doesn't approve or has been hurt by her partner?>>
Nope, I'm amazed at what many have claimed me to be on this website.

FYI, I was reading Redbook years ago and it was the prostitutes
here that said half of their clients are married. I dindn't seek
this information, but was just suprised by it and how people
just ignored it.

Who's the MORALIST here on Redbook? Are not all the
women on Redbook pushing/promoting/telling their brand of morality?

I am and independent thinking person, why? Because
I don't use my words, not politically correct words on this
website and call women providers. Thank you but sex for money is prostitution. You can call it what you want I really don't care
but don't demonize me because I use the word prostitute.

Redbook is becoming a cult of sorts sucking up to sex workers
and prostitutes in it's own way. Want proof, just look
at the immature responses to my post's by men who have put
out tons of money paying for sex.
I see on some level the women on this website are intimitated
by me since I am a threat to their financial profits from
seling their brand of sex to the clients.

Do you have agreements with people? Yes you do.

Marriage is an agreement is it not?

You have agreements with your clients do you not on price?
Rules of your massage and what you offer? yes?

I brought to this thread why others have shown as to why many
people have not done well in their marriage in our society,
those ideas are not mine. I am merely brought them to this
forum.

There is so many people on Redbook claiming they can't control
their sexuality and agreements with others, very sad.

If you cannot abide by an agreement with another human being
in your life why would you expect a politician to abide
by an agreement with society?

Why did Tiger Woods fuck so many women while he is married?
Did he not have an agreement with his wife to be her exclusive fuck?
What were all those women thinking? Fucking a married man?
The women didn't give a fuck did they. Shows women are not
more moral than men are and are just as equally stupid.

If you don't expect yourself to abide by agreements why would
or why should a politician abide by agreements of any sort?

I think this Tiger Woods thing is similiar to the John F. Kennedy
thing where people said he fucked Marilyn Monroe and it was kept
away from the media.

You think about this next time a prostitute on Redbook
claims to be so moral or smart, why should any politician be
MORAL if you can't be MORAL.

Despite my image, I don't like getting dissed any more than the next person. But I can tell you that you get used to it. It's generally a healthy thing, because after the heat of the sting passes, it helps one realize that this place is not real.

Lowtech's post was nonsense, and aside from distorting what you said, it was pretty darn mild in the criticism department. You could have done a lot worse. Heck, I could insult you better with one hand tied behind my back. Blindfolded. Standing on one leg. Hey, that's not my leg.

Be the change
you wish to see

The institution, and the whole idea, of marriage is a complete joke if same-sex couples, who love each other and want to be officially recognized as married by all 50 States in the Union (AKA The US of A), are not allowed that basic human right. It's a matter of human dignity and human rights, IN MY OPINION.

And Oralio? I'm a big girl and I can take care of myself. I have a thick skin, and I was pushing LowTech back. He called me one, I called him one. You're familiar with this, yes?

Big love,
DreuCMT

Anyway, you wrote...
"I just don't think marriage works, as it seems in conflict with our natural instincts: like it or not, we are wild animals/mammals on this planet. And because we are wild animals/mammals, we crave variety,..."

I completely agree with you that we're animals. But the science doesn't support the claim that all animals crave variety.

It varies by species, with "pair-bonding" species at one end of the spectrum and so called "tournament" species at the other end.

- The pair-bonding species are monogamous; tournament species are polygamous.
- Pair-bonding males participate in child-rearing. Tournament males do not.
- Males and females of pair-bonding species look very similar. Tournament species males and females look vastly different.

The trouble is that humans are not exclusively a pair-bonding or exclusively a tournament species. We're somewhere in the middle, so you have people who cheat and people who don't. And you have long-term faithful couples as well as couples who cheat on each other.

All of this is determined by genes, which is to say we can't escape our biology. It drives everything, including behavior and social structures of groups we live in. And so it goes. Fascinating stuff, I think.

Hope to meet you one of these days. (And I agree with you about the lost art form, BTW.)

That's news to me. It's one thing to form a permanent "partnership" for purposes of raising offspring. But It's another thing to say that the paired animals never have sex nor attempt to have sex with any other animals. To my knowledge, sexual exclusivity is not supported by anything approaching conclusive evidence. In addition to that, experience has proven again and again that it's easy to prove that an animal performed a behavior, but it's nearly impossible to say that an animal NEVER performs a behavior, because observed behavior is only a small fraction of the species' total behavior in the wild.

Therefore, it might be reasonably concluded that some species bond for life, but not that they are sexually exclusive for life.

Be the change
you wish to see

I stated "marriage fails" because you stated
"marriage fails" and I specifically showed you
it's people that failed in the idea or concept of marriage.

I stated 4 or 5 ways "marriage fails" based on
what others have brought to public reality as to why
many marriages fail.

These ideas are not mind, I just brought them to the forum here.

Just as I was reading Redbook on day and saw that women
posted that 50% or more of their clients are married.
Again it wasn't my idea, it was someone else that posted this
as it is others that showed why many people fail in marriage.

Contracts in law with people is another topic which I can
discuss with you if you'd like.
Law evolves over time and is based on factual information
not feelings...feelings are like the wind.
Who is allowed to get married is based on law and laws of
human experience and how society as a whole evolves.

If you want to discuss human rights that's another issue.

I presented to you factually what others have shown
as to why people in their marriage, not why marriages fail.

People fail not marriage.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Perhaps we can discuss the book The Law by Frederic Bastiat?
Since your into "human rights".

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G710

Most human beings do not accept homosexuality on this planet
as normal. Did you know that? Why don't they?
As humans evolve so do laws.
But..facts are what bring about changes in laws
not your feelings.
Your feelings have zero do with changes in laws.
Factually there is no medical scientfic proof one is born
homosexual.
Fact is, most/majority don't care whom you fuck.
People really don't care who you fuck, they really don't.
Prostitution has become pretty acceptable by most.
But the fact is, there is no scientific medical proof
one is born homosexual.
I will repeat, most dont care if 2 men fuck away or 2 women fuck
away.
But laws are based on facts whether you like it or not
and expouse human rights.
The fact is, facts stand in the way of you wanting human
rights and same sex marriage.
If you want to debate same sex marriage then debate me on
the facts and what the majority of human beings know
and believe in as far as medical science, not people
you know that love each other.
Marriage laws did not come about because of love
they came about because of economic issues.

Do you have the "medical scientific proof" one is born heterosexual?

>>Fact is, most/majority don't care whom you fuck. <<

Wrong. Sorry, no cigar- Ever heard of Matthew Shepard?

>>Prostitution has become pretty acceptable by most. <<

Um, wrong again. Hilarious, though!

Male and female that reproduce are heretosexual
you dumbass.

The fact that some males fuck other males and other females
fuck other females = homosexual behavior.....dumbass.

There is no need to prove a heretosexuality...dumbass.

Everone is heretosexual

A gay man's sperm can impregnate a female whether she
claims she is born a lesbian or whatever.

Biologically male sperm is biologically attracted to
the female ...dumbass.

I can see you planting tomatoes and your tomatoes decide
to stop reproducing.....you will say 'oh they are gay tomatoes.

Or your animals on the food chain stop reproducing and
you will say oh those animals are gay.

Listen the your clueless.

Read this real slow = heretosexuals don't run around
saying "I"m heretosexual" because they don't need to, it's the
norm and normal.
You are trying to tell me and a entire species of humans
that they can't prove they are heretosexual, do you know how
stupid your are?

Dreu's point was that, for many people, the institution of marriage runs counter to some basic human instincts. Seems to me a semantic issue whether this is the institution failing for those people, or those people failing the institution. Unless you believe the institution is more important than the people involved in it.

You mention that marriage is an economic institution rather than an institution based on love. Historically that was more true than it is today -- back when wives had no rights to property of the marriage, no right to end the marriage, no right to refuse a husband's demands for sex. Those things are no longer true, not because of "fact", but because people saw them as fundamentally unfair. Notions of equality, both within and without the law, have "feelings" at their root. And it is those notions, those feelings, that underlie the push for marriage equality. As an economic institution, not based on love (in your world, not mine), there should be no reason to deny the right to make a marriage agreement to any two people who desire to agree to it. The assertion that there is no "medical scientific proof that anyone is born homosexual" has no bearing on the argument in those terms, even if it were true. (Terming it as "proof" is the weasel-word there -- there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is genetic.)

Do you have the "medical scientific proof" one is born heterosexual?

#1.
>>Fact is, most/majority don't care whom you fuck. <<

Wrong. Sorry, no cigar- Ever heard of Matthew Shepard?

#2.
>>Prostitution has become pretty acceptable by most. <<

Um, wrong again. Hilarious, though!

#3.
>>If you don't expect yourself to abide by agreements why would
or why should a politician abide by agreements of any sort? <<

This question is just RIDICULOUS, Politicians are being PAID to represent us. If someone has trouble keeping his/her commitments to the people they were hired to represent, then they are in the wrong line of work and should BAIL. THEY are hired to be "moral" in how they lead. We are paid to be beautiful, seductive & "immoral" (in the traditional sense). Very different.

#4.
>>You think about this next time a prostitute on Redbook
claims to be so moral or smart, why should any politician be
MORAL if you can't be MORAL.<<

Next time I claim to be so "moral or smart", I will keep this in mind. Thanks for the heads up!

#5.
>>Redbook is becoming a cult of sorts sucking up to sex workers
and prostitutes in it's own way. Want proof, just look
at the immature responses to my post's by men who have put
out tons of money paying for sex.<<

Don't YOU also *PAY* for your time with RB girls?

#6.
>>I see on some level the women on this website are intimitated
by me since I am a threat to their financial profits from
seling their brand of sex to the clients.<<

Oh, NO! Is it that obvious? Darnit, girls, we have to hide it more.. LowTech figured out how intimidated we are by him! The threat to our profits is REAL, girls- Low Tech is a TRUE threat to us "seling" our "brand of sex to the clients". Damn that Low Tech! What are we to DO!??

xo bd

P.S. Why there is a small version of this post above is a bizarre mystery.

A