Please Read the "The Monogamy Myth"

[michelangelo]

They're not Devil's Advocating.

 

It's more about stirring up the mud and trying to get folks to believe that murky is clarity.

[Mr Spock]

Or just keeping it real, homeboy.

[crisp]

So if she happenes to not like them or dare to feel differently, she should pack her bags and leave?

 

Funny crowd you are.

 

Some subjects aren't to be smugged, and then, other people have 0 to nothing respect for anything. Some say it out loud, others let it show from time to time. It's most probably not a problem of belief or respect but one of curtesy, since I think we're here to also help each other, beside the "fun" of posting. Unless the soul propose is mocking or insulting everyone. Still under the "fun" category.

 

LAdyjane, you cannot be serious when asking Gues Girl to be impartial. Everything is subjective, why whouldn't posting about this particula subject be also? At least she's saying it out loud! Or she should learn better and keep her mouth shut when speaking to certain members?

[Mr Spock]

By the same token should anyone with a different opinion from what you consider the moral norm be expected to just let others hit them on the head with the boring post hammer until we "repent"?

and see the light? Cross over from the dark side?

 

Or allow other people to make random generalizations as to who and what I am and the pattern of my life because my square peg doesn't fit into their round hole, so to speak?

[crisp]

We all have and make large use of the freedome of opinion. No one has to reinforce their own private believes down on anyone's throat.

 

Yet, disagreement is in order. Whether they base it on morals, religious values or life experince, this does not make them any different. Having someone base their reaction on their "God says so" doesn't make it ridiculous or unimportant.

 

 

It seemed to me that some things, including some types of behaviours are either tolareted or taken for granted. That was my post a bit more about. I mean this place is whatever you make it. It just doesn't seem too fair...

[Ladyjane14]

Originally posted by crisp

LAdyjane, you cannot be serious when asking Gues Girl to be impartial. Everything is subjective, why whouldn't posting about this particula subject be also? At least she's saying it out loud! Or she should learn better and keep her mouth shut when speaking to certain members?

 

It's an open forum. The spirit of it is to address particular subjects, not to "demonize" individuals. What would be the point of ANY discussion if EVERYONE is of the same opinion?

 

You may not always agree with other posters, but some of them do make the discussion LIVELY.

[crisp]

Well, if you didn't read my post entirely, I was talking about something other than steam. I think the "I've been called far worse by better wives" routine is a bit old, but hey, some things are never out of fashion.

 

As I said, it's all about what you want this place to be. That being said, I'll just go back to the thread about meeting ugly girls !

[immoralist]

The thing you have to consider is how they challenge you to think, and to turn a problem over and look at it from every angle.

 

Thanks, Ladyjane14. That's what I try to do. I try to challenge without being cruel, and I never ever want to bore. Occasionally, I even try to help. Thanks for getting it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder who's penis is bigger, mine or Immoralists?

 

As for you Spock, there's only one way to find out. On the count of three drop trou: one..., two..., three...

 

I won!!!

[whichwayisup]

I wonder who's penis is bigger, mine or Immoralists?

 

OK well spock IF yours is bigger than Immoralists, I'm heading for the hills...Screamin' cuz ain't ya a girl??? LOL!

[Ladyjane14]

Well, that was just......bizarre.

 

So now, back to our regularly scheduled thread:

 

The Monogamy Myth <------ discuss

 

...or.... if you like, here's another title: Why Lying, Cheating Bastards Who Agree to Monogamy Can't Keep It in Their Pants?

 

:lmao: :lmao:

[Owl]

I vote that Spock should start the thread "Why Idiots Shouldn't Marry".

[mental_traveller]

Originally posted by Ladyjane14

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in monagamy can't always work up the fortitude to stick to their convictions.

 

Why marry, or stay in a marriage, when you feel that monogamy is NOT for you?

 

For the same reason that people lie in general. It takes less initial effort to lie than to be honest, and lying will often get results when honesty will not - until you get caught, of course. If you say up front "Hi, I have no intention of ever being faithful to you, by the way would you like to fall for me and have passionate sex whever I bother to call you up?" then most people will say no. If you say "Oh darling, I love you, you are so special, the only one for me, let's spend the rest of our lives together", then that is much more likely to push someone's buttons and get them interested.

 

So, non-monogamous people lie because it's an easier and more successful way of getting what they want - sex, a "sugar daddy" or provider, or a faithful wife to take care of the home and bring up the kids, or whatever. To an unprincipled person, it's much better to have the faithful wife at home to look after you, AND have a mistress or two for some wild sex, than to have just one or the other.

 

Then there's the other category - people who *think* they can be monogamous, but can't. When in love, people don't think about how strong their commitment will be in 10 years when they are older, fatter, less attractive, when marriage has become more routine. They don't imagine the feeling of getting swept off their feet by a novel, more enthusiastic, often more attractive or charismatic suitor. They don't consider whether they have the discipline and moral fibre to resist such temptation. Mostly they just think "Oh, finally I've found Mr/Miss Right, let's get married!" Basically they are hopelessly naive, idealistic, and generally clueless about their own nature and human nature in general. Finally, when they finally *do* realise this truth, they then have the same dilemma as the liar - doing the "right thing" takes a lot more effort, and costs a lot more, than taking the easy way out and being dishonest. Divorce is painful, time-consuming, and expensive; having a quick screw with a co-worker takes between 5 minutes and a few hours, and is generally fun at the time. If a woman is insecure about herself and feels neglected, and has a choice between boosting her self-esteem with an affair, or risking her husband's wrath followed by 1-2 years of marriage counselling, she may well find the affair to be the easier option. Since a lot of people are lazy and/or unprincipled, they will take the easy way out and cheat in an unhappy marriage rather than leave.

[michelangelo]

Mental Traveler,

 

Boy did you nail it.

 

Good summary.

[emopunk]

Interesting theory... just as psychology in general is an interesting theory. I have a question... what is love? Classically, it is the emotional and physical bond formed between two people. Modernly, it is equated more with intense, fleeting desire... an emotion far from the pervasiveness of love.

 

Posit: Monogamy is considered the ultimate expression of love, because of the expressed choice to single one man/woman to share in all that you are. Love is considered a pure, unadulterated emotion; the pinnacle of human emotional development. Therefore, monogamy and love are intricately and directly connected due to their representation of each other.

 

Query: If monogamy is the ultimate representation of the ultimate emotion, and one is flawed, is it logical that the other side of the equation would then be inherently flawed as well?

 

Soln: If you reduce it to mathematical representation, the variable l (love) is directly related to m (monogamy), so it follows that l=m is true (whatever effects one, the other will be directly effected in equal measure.) Now if we simplify the equation, we get l/m=0 or m/l=0. From this, we can infer that lm does not equal 0, because if it does, there is no equation.

 

Explanation: If love is not part of the equation/relationship, it can't be true. If monogamy is not part of the equation/relationship, it can't be true.

 

Extrapolation: So if you have two individuals, a+b, who love each other, then it can be stated that the sum of a+b directly affects l. So you get (a+b)l=m, simplified to ((a+b)l)/m=0. This means that if monogamy is not present, then the entire equation is invalid, since you can't divide by zero. So for two people to stay in love, monogamy must be present. Conversely, for monogamy to exist, two people who love each other must be present.

 

... All of that to say that the entire foundation of love is based on the singular devotion (monogamy, both physically and mentally) of two people to each other.

[katie79]

true.

Desire to have intercourse with others is natural and normal.

However, marriage is also natural and normal

If we fall in love hard enough, our feelings and commitment are so intense to that person that we are willingly vowing to be faithful to them and only them for the rest of our lives. When we fall in love, that is natural to want to do that.

 

It's just that now, people get married to have a family, economic reasons, to conquer loniliness, to appear *normal* to society (b/c marriage is quite common) etc. If marriage were natural, probably about 30% of the population would be married. They would be good marriages too. I think most people get married b/c society percieves it as a regular part of becoming an established adult in society.

[uberfrau]

Posit: Monogamy is considered the ultimate expression of love, because of the expressed choice to single one man/woman to share in all that you are. Love is considered a pure, unadulterated emotion; the pinnacle of human emotional development. Therefore, monogamy and love are intricately and directly connected due to their representation of each other

 

I completely disagree with your posit; therefore, I reject everything you have deduced from that posit.

 

Who considers monogamy an ultimate expression of love? White people? native americans? Homosexual men (who are notoriously non-mongamous)Teenagers? 'who' is the who?

 

Love exists without sex. I love my child MORE than ANYTHING else in the world, even more than my husband.

 

Sexless married couples exists-in france they are called 'blanc' marriages. There are celibate marriages where the spouses don't sleep with each other or anyone else. And then there are marriages where the parties are ****ing each other, the neighbor and his dog!

 

I agree that in many instances, non-mongamy can DIMINISH love, but in many others, it does not.

 

Mongamy was men's idea, that is one sided mongamy. Women had to be mongamous (under threat of public stoning) so that husband knew his property was passed to HIS kids, not the stableboys. However, husband could freely do the chambermaid.

 

in the feudal era, only nobles were allowed the legal right to marry. Why? because they had all the property. Serfs weren't allowed to get married-there was no point because they didn't have property.

 

Mongamy is tied up with PROPERTY ownwerhsip, not LOVE.

 

Learn your history!

[Grinning Maniac]

Mongamy was men's idea, that is one sided mongamy. Women had to be mongamous (under threat of public stoning) so that husband knew his property was passed to HIS kids, not the stableboys. However, husband could freely do the chambermaid.

 

in the feudal era, only nobles were allowed the legal right to marry. Why? because they had all the property. Serfs weren't allowed to get married-there was no point because they didn't have property.

 

Mongamy is tied up with PROPERTY ownwerhsip, not LOVE. Learn your history!

 

What in the world are you blathering on about? All of these historical facts you took the time to lay out are completely IRRELEVANT. How does ANY of that influence at all how we handle relationships in the 21st Century? You're rejecting current-day monogamy based on the form that monogamy took in the PAST? That has to be the most idiotic thing that I've ever heard. Does that actually make sense to you? You're bitching and complaining about things that DON'T EVEN HAPPEN ANYMORE.

 

- Women aren't stoned for sleeping around.

- Anyone can get married, regardless of status or class.

- Monogamy *currently* has nothing to do with property ownership.

 

and most importantly...

 

The responsibilities of current-day monogamy are EQUALLY divided between BOTH partners. Not just men. Not just women. BOTH partners expect loyalty and trustworthiness out of the person they've decided to share their life with, unless another agreement has been made. There's no way to get around that. All the misdirection and justification changes nothing. You can blame it on history, you can blame it on religion, you can blame it on *men*. But all of it is crap, and I think you just dont want to admit it. The bottom line is that *normally*, a person will inevitably feel HURT when someone whom they trust DECIEVES THEM. You can dance around all day with this:

 

"Oh but it's natural! Human beings are supposed to sleep around after promising to someone else that they won't! You should just expect it!"

 

But it means absolutely nothing to a logical person.

 

If someone makes a promise to me...and then goes back on it, guess what? I will feel betrayed. That's just how the human mind works. Especially with this crazy thing we call love. Human beings are inherantly just a little jealous in nature. If you feel infidelity is natural and should be accpeted, how can you possibly ignore the animal jealously that is just as natural in us? This is farce. If you claim to love someone, then you don't do things that you KNOW will hurt them. The desire to not cause them pain should outweigh the thrill of a quick screw in someone's backseat. Got it? It's pretty simple. Uberfrau you come off as a 40 year old bar wench with some sort of inner hatred for men (your posts all tend to have this "the masculine agenda" bend to them). But if you have the desire to sleep around...just admit it. Good for you. You're a swinger. Groovy. Spread your legs all you want. We get it...and we don't care. Obviously some of us think it's a good idea to be honest and faithful to our partner for the duration of a relationship. You don't. That's wonderful for you, and I wish you the best of luck with it. But bringing up all this historical nonsense in an attempt to justify things is silly. What are you trying to prove?

 

Swingers need to date other swingers, and leave people who want monogamy alone. Neither group is right or wrong. It's a choice we ALL make. Responsible people make their choices and live with them. They don't bring down others because of them.

 

-GM

[uberfrau]

Monogamy-The Sacred Cow (immoralist?)

 

The past always nips the heels of the present. Monogamy is still tied to property ownership or some other financial condition. As an example, take a look at posts here about women whose husbands knock up another woman, who keeps the baby. The posters correctly note that a downside of staying with the husband is that the betrayed wife will share in the financial burden of raising that child in that hubby's resources will be diverted to that child. And so, the moral of the story is that if hubby had behaved monogamously such loss of property (birth of the child) would not have happened. Monogamy, even today, is indeed tied to property ownership. It is is in other ways as well.

 

FYI, I am 29, been married for 7 years, and have a 3 year old.

 

I take a critical stance towards monogamy, so therefore i'm a swinger-now THAT is illogical.

 

the reality of the situation is that 70% of men and 40% of women "cheat'. I've always wondered what the studies meant by 'cheat'. Anyway, it's high enough that it's not unreasonable to assume that you and/or partner will at one point in time be unfaithful. ANd if you are willing to get married, you must be willing to accept that possbility and NOT leave-remember, for better or for worse.

 

It strikes me as dishonest that so many people here at LS CLAIM to view marriage as this sacred object, but yet are willing to throw it away over an indiscretion, which may not even be SEXUAL in nature.

[Mr Spock]

I dunno. From my own unique perspective I wish people wouldn't cheat on each other either. For god's sakes, pick some genitals and stick with them. If you tire of them, find new ones.

[tanbark813]

Ok, how is this post still going? I think we can all agree that either you believe in monogamy or you don't. Either one is fine as a choice in and of itself. Whatever you happen to believe in, more power to you.

 

The main problem arises when a person who believes in monogamy gets with a person who doesn't, but the person who doesn't says they do. Then they cheat, the s*** hits the fan, and we get all these posts we see everyday on this board.

 

If people would just be upfront about what they really, truly believe and think, we could all save each other a lot of headaches.

[emopunk]

It's kind of funny, uberfrau. I never equated love with sex, now did I? So what exactly influences your point of view on the subject?

[emopunk]

Although, come to think of it, I find myself yet again agreeing with tanbark. The debate on whether or not monogamy is natural or not is entirely, I repeat... ENTIRELY subjective. Oh you can claim objectivity based on studies, history, whatever you like... but the reality of the situation is that humans are not objective about emotion. They can't be. Emotion is, just as is reality, based on perspective. No matter your statements, you bring your own biases and beliefs into it.

 

I could throw every mathematical equation that exists about love into this. I could throw 200 years of psychology into this. I could toss in 3000 years of philosophy. Or I could use all of recorded history... To what avail? Absolutely none. People will have, as they always have, differeing beliefs. Which is why I agree with tanbark.

 

Find your own kind and stick with them, and deal with whatever may come to pass. Just don't try to convert others. Conflict always arises out of that.

[derekj513]

Women wanna mess around whether they admit it or not. They may not act on these thoughts or impulses, but the urge is there. That alone suggests that monogamy is not natural.

 

I'm not sure guys are much better with it. I for one can say I've never cheated on someone I promised to be exclusive with. But I have had the urges to do so- no matter how much I love the person, my dick gets hard when I see another beautiful woman.

 

It is instinct, it is there. I don't care what anyone here says: humans are animals. Yes we can reason. But if monogamy comes naturally, why do you have to think about it and make an effort to stay monogamous? If it's natural, you shouldn't have to reason and make a concentrated effort not to cheat.

 

If monogamy were natural, you'd have to make an effort to go out and cheat. You'd have to say to yourself, "Let's do this Derek. Let's cheat. I know I don't want to, but I'm going to make myself do it anyway."

 

You can love someone with every ounce of your being, but you will always take note of other attractive people and think about screwing them...Unless you're blind I suppose.

 

You can try to deny that you have the urges, but who are you kidding. Oh, and your almighty God can read your mind. He know's what you're thinking despite your proclaiming something different out loud to the world.

[katie79]

maybe derek has a point.

 

i guess commitment and monogamy help civiliz humans and

keep them separate from apes.

 

otherwise, if humans did all their desires, this would be a world filled with jealousy, violence, and hatred.

 

If caveman saw cavewoman banging another male species, caveman would probably slaughter this other male species that dare touch his "territory". Same thing vice-versa. Only women would get catty.

 

Mankind needs commitment.

[Mr Spock]

Watch out for those hating jealous apes, Dr Goodall.

 

Funny how monagamy is subjective yet such poop is flung at those who aren't.