A double standard - One mate forever? The OW vs the MM

[Sarabi]

Has anybody watched The Best Man? I think its from 1999...anyway.

There is a point not long after the start of the film when they are all gathered playing card games and talking about the impending wedding of one of the guys and one of them says "there is no way God wanted us to be with one woman forever. If he did...he wouldn't have given us all this sperm"...

Sorry guys but it is kind of true and when you think about it from a scientific point of view we are mammals and at the heart of it...surely we have mammalian/animal tendencies?

Plus there are more women in the world than men etc...

Law/order/marriage/religion/morals etc...ALL MAN MADE. I do not think they are wrong in any way at all...but certainly not necessarily natural.

 

However, I would love to have a relationship where I was someone's one and only and always assumed I would be faithful to that person

[Sarabi]

P.S. when talking about monogamy do you mean one just one person for life or being with one person at one point in time(whether the relationship lasts a few months, a few years or for many years)?

[beenburned]

Coco,

 

I'm confused. Is you been exclusive within your relationship not the same as being monogamous?

 

If you don't believe in the concept of monogamy, why bother at all to remain exclusive with your SO/H?

[KathyM]

From a biological perspective, no, it's not "natural" for human beings to be monogamous. That is not how humans were designed.

 

Even in the Bible, polygamy was acknowledged. And to think... now many of us live to be in our 70's and 80's, unlike then, when to achieve age 30 was a milestone. How much harder must it be now?

 

However, our society rules is what we are trying to adhere to. Is it a complete discrepancy? Yes. But it is what it is.

I wanted to respond to this. I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps someone else addressed it. Humans were created by God and expected by God to be monogamous. He has made that expectation very clear. He created only one woman for Adam, not more. His Ten Comandments stated Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Jesus also confirmed that expectation several times in the Bible--that a man and woman are to stay married and forsake all others. The Bible makes that very clear. Many of those who lived in ancient times lived much longer lives than we do now. It was not God's plan that we have multiple lovers. He makes it very clear that He is against fornication and adultery. Because some people in ancient times were polygamous does not mean that that was God's intent.

 

We were not created to be like animals, who live by their impulses and do whatever they feel like. We were created with a higher brain, a conscience, an ability to control our impulses. We were not created to be adulterers. If you believe in evolution, and that people just came about starting from a big bang, with no design, then you would also not believe that they were designed to be polygamous, since they had no designer.

[Sarabi]

To ask those married *man or woman* to remain faithful forever - is that truly realistic? What are your thoughts on fidelity?

 

Oh by the way...is there not a bit of the bible that says that if you see someone and you find them attractive or think about them in any way then you have already committed adultery in your heart? Even if you don't act on it...?

So...by this Bible definition of "adultery" surely there is absolutely nobody in the world who has not committed "adultery"..?

 

My thoughts on fidelity..? No amount of bible reading, church-going, vow repeating, marriage certificate signing, gold/platinum/promise/eternity/diamond ring wearing, name or marital status changing is going to make you semper fidelis

You have it in you. It might not be easy and you will face challenges but if you want to do it...you will do it.

If I get the chance, I would love to do it.

[cocorico]

Coco,

 

I'm confused. Is you been exclusive within your relationship not the same as being monogamous?

 

If you don't believe in the concept of monogamy, why bother at all to remain exclusive with your SO/H?

 

Monogamy is a societal stricture that requires one person to be sexually (and by implication, financially and emotionally) contracted to another exclusively, certified by the state and / or church, for the original purpose of raising offspring, passing on property, and socialising the young. I reject the premises of that entirely.

 

I have no problems with individual choices to engage exclusively (sexually or emotionally) of their own free choice within short-term or long- term Rs, just as I have no problems with individual choices to engage poly amorously with others of their own free choice, and I respect the right of wvery individual to make the choices that best suit them.

 

Monogamy seeks to prescribe - and I oppose that. Exclusivity is a valid choice, but to me it is simply one choice among many, equally valid, choices.

 

I hope that's clearer?

[ThatJustHappened]

Monogamy is a societal stricture that requires one person to be sexually (and by implication, financially and emotionally) contracted to another exclusively, certified by the state and / or church, for the original purpose of raising offspring, passing on property, and socialising the young. I reject the premises of that entirely.

 

I have no problems with individual choices to engage exclusively (sexually or emotionally) of their own free choice within short-term or long- term Rs, just as I have no problems with individual choices to engage poly amorously with others of their own free choice, and I respect the right of wvery individual to make the choices that best suit them.

 

Monogamy seeks to prescribe - and I oppose that. Exclusivity is a valid choice, but to me it is simply one choice among many, equally valid, choices.

 

I hope that's clearer?

 

But do you believe that if a person promises monogamy to another person, they should keep their promise? Or that they should just be looking out for themselves and not thinking about how they are hurting the person they made the promise to?

[cocorico]

actually, it doesn't...

 

true 'liberty' , as originally conceived by J.S. Mill had nothing to do with today's notion of liberty...it had everything to do with doing what a person likes so long as it doesn't harm others...

 

if someone doesn't believe in being faithful to one person...that's fine for them...but be honest about it. tell the person you are with that and let them decide if that is something they can live with or not.

 

there are lots of people who don't believe in monogamy, yet they do not use that an an excuse for hurtful behavior. Not believing in monogamy is not an excuse to lie, treat others poorly or act like a jackass. those behvaiors have very different origins, and have little to do with not believing in monogamy.

 

not believing in monogamy and honesty are not mutually exclusive things.

 

Not only did you misunderstand my post, but you have also fundamentally misunderstood JS Mill, Locke, Hume and the other classic Liberals. liberalism is founded on individual property rights, and since property = theft, it is very much about causing harm to others (through depleting the common wealth).

 

But to clarify the point I was making - nowhere did I state that I believe one ought to be dishonest to anyone. I said I rejected the notion of compelling people into atomised, privatised pairings sanctioned by state and / or church, and favoured the right of individuals to choose whatever form of R (whether exclusive, polymorphic or anything else) between consenting adult humans that they individually preferred.

[cocorico]

But do you believe that if a person promises monogamy to another person, they should keep their promise? Or that they should just be looking out for themselves and not thinking about how they are hurting the person they made the promise to?

 

That is entirely between them and their conscience, and not for me to judge.

[Pierre]

That is entirely between them and their conscience, and not for me to judge.

 

Evasive maneuver!

[TheOW]

I would call it evolution rather than "biblical" after-all we were all here before the bible

[Pierre]

I would call it evolution rather than "biblical" after-all we were all here before the bible

 

Yes, we evolve to crave both monogamy and variety. It is not one or the other.

 

In this regard humans are ambivalent.

[cocorico]

Evasive maneuver!

 

I prefer to decide individual cases on their own merits, and without all the information it is impossible to say. You may consider that evasive, I consider it a natural limitation of my approach.

 

My only "principle" in this regard is that people need to act authentically, according to their own values, otherwise their behaviour is ultimately not sustainable due to cognitive dissonance, conflict, etc.

[cocorico]

no offense, but who the ( expletive deleted) is stopping them? If someone wants to sleep with a different person every night, that is up to them. If you don't like the institution of marriage, then don't get married...problem solved. If you make the choice to get married so that you can use the institution to further your own ends, that's on you ( general you, not you specifically) . If you don't like the societal constraints that you feel marriage imposes on you, don't get married....but don't use the institution when it suits your needs them complain about it afterwards...

 

I have no idea how you got that from what I posted in that response. Perhaps you could explain?

[Realist3]

I'm going to ask a loaded question.

 

Marriage implies one man and one woman in sexual unison and forsaking all others forever.

 

When single, this is obviously not the case unless you remain celibate until marriage.

 

To ask those married *man or woman* to remain faithful forever - is that truly realistic?

 

Ok, ok- yes. Many people make this happen and believe in this completely.

 

Yet, I question if it's truly natural to do this. Nature versus nurture, so to speak.

 

What are your thoughts on fidelity?

 

I don't think it is natural. We are hardwired to procreate as many times as possible. We also know now that that also holds true for having different mates.

 

If it were not natural it wouldn't be so prevalent, and it has been this way throughout history.

 

We ourselves setup rules that go against our instincts and then get angry at people that can't follow up on those silly rules. Ridiculous.

[Pierre]

I don't think it is natural. We are hardwired to procreate as many times as possible. We also know now that that also holds true for having different mates.

 

If it were not natural it wouldn't be so prevalent, and it has been this way throughout history.

 

We ourselves setup rules that go against our instincts and then get angry at people that can't follow up on those silly rules. Ridiculous.

 

True to a certain extent.

 

Very few of those highly liberal folks against monogamy are truly willing to allow others to f**** their mate at all times. Sooner of later they want some sort of exclusivity. Just ask Coco, she is against monogamy, but has decided to be exclusive.

[Realist3]

People don't get "angry" when someone declares their intent to always have their R's be open ones at the onset of a R. They get "angry" when someone SAYS they are going to be faithful but then sneaks around and lies. HUGE difference.

 

Yes, I get that. People 'say' that because that is what is expected. It is a purely manfactured expectation by society. Some are good at keeping it, others not so much.

[Realist3]

True to a certain extent.

 

Very few of those highly liberal folks against monogamy are truly willing to allow others to f**** their mate at all times. Sooner of later they want some sort of exclusivity. Just ask Coco, she is against monogamy, but has decided to be exclusive.

 

Certainly there are limits. She made the decision for the present. It may last forever or it may not

[2sure]

Whatever two people entering a union agree to is perfect. And yes, all values need to be revisted as life and people change and grow.

Job changes, kids, lifestyles. All of those things can change us completely. And some changes are deal breakers initially, but after you have some history you might decide it isnt.

 

If you decide to change careers midestream - thats a great big thing. Your spouse may support that or not.

If you decide you DO want kids after all - thats something that can break a marriage for a partner that doesnt want kids.

If you decide you want to live with your parents...your spouse may not go.

If you decide to change religions drastically - your spouse may or may not support that.

 

Why would it be any different if you decided monogamy was not working for you?? Your spouse should be able to decide if they want to deal with it or not.

[MissBee]

You know, there are many people who have an open relationship. Nothing wrong there, as long as both are agreeable.

 

HOWEVER, there is a LOT of arguing going on by A advocates for some reason that monogomy is *outdated, not natural, restricting, removing choices* (pick one). I don't think that's the issue. It's the sneaking around and lying. There is NO sneaking and lying in an open R. No one is saying everyone has to have a certain KIND of R. It's about honesty. You know. NOT lying. NOT deceiving. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

Ditto.

 

I find the discussion of whether or not monogamy is natural, within the context of As, to be irrelevant.

 

Society is all about social contracts. Some we willingly agree to, others, more grudgingly, some we don't even think about as they are so blended within the fabric of our lives. Some seem natural, some are more conscious decisions that we can opt out of. Marriage and monogamy are ones we can choose to leave by the wayside. Many people do. So within the context of As and marriages...infidelity and betrayal comes from breaking whatever vows you made with your partner...whatever they may be. I know polyamorous people who are just as much embroiled in drama and hurt based on other couplings done deceitfully. Monogamy isn't the problem, lying/betraying/pretending/omitting/misrepresenting etc are. People in all kinds of Rs can engage in the latter.

[Turtles]

Ditto.

 

I find the discussion of whether or not monogamy is natural, within the context of As, to be irrelevant.

 

Society is all about social contracts. Some we willingly agree to, others, more grudgingly, some we don't even think about as they are so blended within the fabric of our lives. Some seem natural, some are more conscious decisions that we can opt out of. Marriage and monogamy are ones we can choose to leave by the wayside. Many people do. So within the context of As and marriages...infidelity and betrayal comes from breaking whatever vows you made with your partner...whatever they may be. I know polyamorous people who are just as much embroiled in drama and hurt based on other couplings done deceitfully. Monogamy isn't the problem, lying/betraying/pretending/omitting/misrepresenting etc are. People in all kinds of Rs can engage in the latter.

 

So true. Big difference between an open relationship (whether or not the participants are married) and a cheater. I like your view.

[MissBee]

Whatever two people entering a union agree to is perfect. And yes, all values need to be revisted as life and people change and grow.

Job changes, kids, lifestyles. All of those things can change us completely. And some changes are deal breakers initially, but after you have some history you might decide it isnt.

 

If you decide to change careers midestream - thats a great big thing. Your spouse may support that or not.

If you decide you DO want kids after all - thats something that can break a marriage for a partner that doesnt want kids.

If you decide you want to live with your parents...your spouse may not go.

If you decide to change religions drastically - your spouse may or may not support that.

 

Why would it be any different if you decided monogamy was not working for you?? Your spouse should be able to decide if they want to deal with it or not.

 

Exactly.

 

I really find the idea of being trapped to be curious and interesting. I understand people can feel trapped, even if they aren't, but I find the rhetoric that governments etc. are forcing people to live lives they don't want to...to be ridiculous.

 

Most marriages start like other relationships. You're inlove and happy and you want a life with this person, so you take that step. I think sometimes in A discussions people act like this is never true and everyone who is married was blindfolded, walking a plank, with a sword to their back LMAO . When in reality, many were a normal couple, in love, doing normal things, took that step etc. Then things changed...

 

As you said: when married, you form a union, and like any union, it's not all about you. Your choices of career, kids, moving, etc will affect another and you KNEW this going in. So if you all of a sudden realize you aren't monogamous or don't want kids or whatever the case is...it sucks of course for your partner who agreed to be with you thinking you wanted the same things...but you have every right and can indeed change your mind. But the problem is changing your mind in secret, while in a years long affair where the only one who knows things have changed is you and your OW). And for the cases where "everyone knows but the BS"...that's also ridiculous. As the last I checked, it didn't matter who else knows, one's marriage dissolution isn't a petition that is to be signed by an OW and the MM's family or friends! OW often say the A is none of the BS's business...likewise, the OW and her family and friends neither the MM's family and friends get a say in the marriage. They surely weren't the ones who vowed to be married! So their knowledge is irrelevant and doesn't make it okay if the only other person who matters, the second party in the union, is oblivious.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MissBee

[Spark1111]

Yes, I get that. People 'say' that because that is what is expected. It is a purely manfactured expectation by society. Some are good at keeping it, others not so much.

 

So what is the alternative? Do you believe shared values are important in relationships? should there be no rules?

 

realist, even you concur that two people are either all in, or all out. look at your recent break up with your AP when she distances herself.

 

If someday you could forge a commitment with her, what would your expectations be? wouldn't it be exclusivity to you?

[cocorico]

True to a certain extent.

 

Very few of those highly liberal folks against monogamy are truly willing to allow others to f**** their mate at all times. Sooner of later they want some sort of exclusivity. Just ask Coco, she is against monogamy, but has decided to be exclusive.

 

You are misrepresenting my stance. I am currently exclusive because I find myself to be so - I am attracted only to one person, and have no desire for anyone else. That functions as de facto exclusivity. It is different to "deciding to be exclusive" (as in, wanting to have sex with others, but choosing not to), since I am not in that position, and cannot say how I would respond if I were.

 

Plus, in the context of your post, it reads as if _I_ were " unwilling to allow others to **** [my] mate at all times", having "decided to be exclusive". That again is incorrect. My exclusivity refers only to my own behaviour, and has nothing to do with whether or not others are allowed sexual access to "my mate". That access would not be mine to determine - I do not own him,nor access to him. He is his own person and can make such decisions for himself. I am not his pimp, nor his jailer.

[Furious]

Strange how some people are against marriage and monogamy but end up married and monogamous.