Old School vs New School

[jen1447]

I agree with both of you. I guess what I was trying to figure out was, if thinking infidelity is wrong is old school, why engage in it. If you truly feel that having a sex or relationship outside your marriage is OK, why not give your partner that option too.

 

It was just a thought that came up in another thread, but also a theme I see quite a bit. Marriage is outdated, monagomy is outdated, blah, blah, blah

 

If we have come so far in our understanding of sexuality and relationships, why hasn't honesty become part of that "enlightenment"

 

I think in large part bc taking risks and being 'bad' is often part of the appeal of cheating.

[Friskyone4u]

I think in large part bc taking risks and being 'bad' is often part of the appeal of cheating.

 

Very true. The "illicit" excitement is what makes it so "thrilling" and is why the boring old BS can never compete with that. it also explains why the BS can never understand how the OM/OW was so appealing to WS. We always hear "she was fat and older than me", or"he was old, bald, not her type". the "tinglies" of the naughty make all of that not important.

[HereNorThere]

You mean "old school" like when King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite?

 

You mean "old school" like when Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves and impregnated one?

 

You mean "old school" when John F. Kennedy junior was messing around Marilyn Monroe or his intern Mimi Alford - with little regard for what the public thought?

 

Maybe you mean "old school" when Pentecostal televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was caught cheating on his wife with a New Orleans prostitute named Debra Murphree?

 

Times haven't become more corrupt, they've become more televised. Statistically, the world is actually a much nicer place than it's ever been. I love this idea that everyone has of the "good ole days" but they are completely a myth. For as long as we've been chunking spears, we've been trespassing our fellow man.

 

And quit comparing open marriages to cheating because they aren't the same thing. And open marriages have always existed. The difference was that if your wife didn't like the idea back then, you popped her one upside the head and she never mentioned it again.

[gettingstronger]

I did not compare open marriages to cheating- my question was- if what you want is more variety in your sexual partners or sex life- why not also give your spouse that option-

 

I am trying to understand the notion that I am behind the times sexually and socially because I am firmly against infidelity- I don't see it as a lifestyle choice, I don't see it as being sexually enlightened, I don't consider myself a prude because I do not approve- I see other alternatives to wanting more and all of them include honesty and choice for all involved-

 

It is interesting- after dday, I read an email from our OW which included a link to articles about marriage and monogamy- basically calling them outdated concepts (yeah, makes me sick my husband bought in to that BS-he is better than that)- funny thing- none of them really addressed honesty to the BS-just a bunch of junk science to soothe the cheaters ego-

[HereNorThere]

Well if simply an invention of man, then how do explain all the animals that mate for life? Then if just a concept made by man, wouldn't the opposite be true. I tend to have more respect for the self aware then those driven by primitive reipetile carnal drive playing enlightened.

 

Up until very recent times, we could only observe these animals to determine whether or not they mate for life. Now that DNA testing is more advanced and affordable, scientists are rethinking this position. A lot of those "mating for life" animals are actually just like humans, mostly monogamous. It was once thought that penguins mated for life until we started testing them and found out there there's a certain percentage of penguin cuckolds, just like humans.

 

I'm all for monogamy and think it's the best mating strategy for homosapiens, especially ones with children, but very, very few species mate for life, if any. Our closest living relatives, the bonobos, are straight up SLUTS. Literally, oral sex is a hand shake for them and the same goes for upwards of 80% of our closest genetic relatives.

[HereNorThere]

I am trying to understand the notion that I am behind the times sexually and socially because I am firmly against infidelity- I don't see it as a lifestyle choice, I don't see it as being sexually enlightened, I don't consider myself a prude because I do not approve- I see other alternatives to wanting more and all of them include honesty and choice for all involved-

-

 

Because people are jealous, hypocritical, insecure and hold others to different standard than they hold themselves.

[truncated]

Well if simply an invention of man, then how do explain all the animals that mate for life? Then if just a concept made by man, wouldn't the opposite be true. I tend to have more respect for the self aware then those driven by primitive reipetile carnal drive playing enlightened.

 

Interestingly enough, it is often the creatures that are more long lived, social and intelligent that are monogamous and have extremely tight family/ pair bonds. They stay together in family groups, and will often raise their young over a period of years.

 

 

 

This is especially true of birds such as crows, parrots, albatross, ravens, some birds of prey, etc.

 

From what I understand, beavers are like that too.

 

 

Of course, there who always be some who bring up the example of apes and how they are promiscuous just justify being non monogamous. Mind you, many apes such as chimpanzees, are quite violent and will cannibalize others of their kind. Should we do that too?

 

I suppose when it comes down to it, the real issues isn't someone being non-monogamous. It's the dishonesty that people have a problem with, and in my opinion, rightly so.

[TrustedthenBusted]

Listen, there are no schools.

 

I think married people all generally want the same thing. In an ideal world, we'd receive all the benefits of marriage, with none of the restrictions.

 

Men would get all the benefits of having a wife/mother, but would still be able to sleep around, watch as much sports as they wanted, and fill the garage with toys regardless of income or other financial responsibility. Valentine's Day would be replaced with " Yellow Tail Fishing Day" and all vehicles would either be 4x4 diesels, or Corvettes.

 

Women would have a man around the house to take care of the heavy lifting and bathroom re-tiling, protect from home invasions, provide the occasional back rubs, while still being allowed to buy 417 pairs of overpriced shoes, bang the hot pool boy, and hire a nanny to do all the cooking, cleaning, and diaper changing.

 

If we could have it all, with no consequences, shame or guilt.....we'd all take it. That's human nature.

 

And the selfish people actually follow through, while the more selfless among us accept the restrictions as a reasonable exchange for the benefits.

 

So, if there is a "New School" then it's full of selfish turds.

[gettingstronger]

Because people are jealous, hypocritical, insecure and hold others to different standard than they hold themselves.

 

 

 

So agree here! When I asked my husband if he was so behind the non-monogamy thing, why not include me in that thinking so I could also partake-his answer- the thought of me with someone else made him sick-so yes, all of those words above describe him at that time- as well as a few others-

[HereNorThere]

 

Of course, there who always be some who bring up the example of apes and how they are promiscuous just justify being non monogamous. Mind you, many apes such as chimpanzees, are quite violent and will cannibalize others of their kind. Should we do that too?

 

 

We do. Cannalbism is quite prevalent throughout history and we are a VERY violent species that are constantly killing each other or at war. Where you been at?

[2.50 a gallon]

I disagree with monogamy being the new kid on the block

As an anthropology student I leaned that one of the important evolutionary steps leading toward humans, was when we began having sex face to face. That started to bring in love, we began to care for our partners.

Going back to Australopithecus, millions of years ago, we were not the strongest or the fastest, no longer able to use the trees as safety, we needed to develop family and tribal ties.

An alpha male could not survive by himself. When hunting we needed all the help we could get. The more hunters the more likely the success. And the same with tribal safety, one more set of eyes and ears at night, could alert the whole tribe.

The tribe that practiced what we now call monogamy was more likely to be the stronger tribe and therefore more likely survive. My college professors taught us that love and the formation of the family unit, were just as important to our survival was walking on two feet.

[drifter777]

Something in another thread caught my eye-

The OP was saying many of us are old school in our ideas of marriage, etc..

She was in her 30's

Which in turn had another poster comment on affairs being old school

 

It made me think- are affairs old school?

In these days were we are much more accepting of sexuality and relationships- if one craves attention outside of marriage why not discuss an open relationship, poly or even swinging-

With men and women being more partners in a marriage than ever before with women entering the workforce and men being more involved with their kids- why the secrets- why not tell your spouse you are having (or wanting) to have sex or a relationship with someone else-why not give them that option?

 

So, if we are higher evolved or think we are- why wouldn't that higher state of being involve some honesty?

 

I put this here instead of GRD because I did discuss this tonight with my husband and do know why this did not happen in our case, but I will hold that for a bit as to not taint others answers

 

Thoughts-

Old school - new school - bullsh*t. Us human's have been committing to a monogamous relationship for centuries. Nothing has changed from a psychological standpoint. Attitudes on sex have changed dramatically - at least in public - but everything going on behind closed doors today has been going on forever. It's the societal acceptance that has changed.

 

Cheating is cheating and it violates the heart of the "agreement" that couples make when committing to each other. Men promise to protect and provide for only this one woman and their children. Women promise that all of the children are his. That is the core of marriage and, over the centuries, hasn't changed one bit. Sex with someone other than your spouse is cheating on the contract you made with that spouse. Doesn't matter which school you want to count yourself in...

[HereNorThere]

I disagree with monogamy being the new kid on the block

As an anthropology student I leaned that one of the important evolutionary steps leading toward humans, was when we began having sex face to face. That started to bring in love, we began to care for our partners.

Going back to Australopithecus, millions of years ago, we were not the strongest or the fastest, no longer able to use the trees as safety, we needed to develop family and tribal ties.

An alpha male could not survive by himself. When hunting we needed all the help we could get. The more hunters the more likely the success. And the same with tribal safety, one more set of eyes and ears at night, could alert the whole tribe.

The tribe that practiced what we now call monogamy was more likely to be the stronger tribe and therefore more likely survive. My college professors taught us that love and the formation of the family unit, were just as important to our survival was walking on two feet.

 

I think "new kid on the block" is probably relative to which time scale you are referring to. If we're referring to the origins of life on the planet, millions of years is relatively recent compared to billions of years ago.

[oldshirt]

Well if simply an invention of man, then how do explain all the animals that mate for life? Then if just a concept made by man, wouldn't the opposite be true. I tend to have more respect for the self aware then those driven by primitive reipetile carnal drive playing enlightened.

 

You picked a bad example.

 

Of the thousands and thousands of species of animals in the world, only a tiny, tiny fraction mate for life.

 

Animal comparisons actually support nonmonogamy as the natural order way more than they do monogamy.

[TX-SC]

There is nothing old school about monogamy and nothing new school about open relationships. Having multiple partners was very common in the 60s during the "free love" movement. It has also been common in other times and cultures such as in the ancient Greek and Roman cultures among others. The reality is that open relationships do solve the issue of monotony in a relationship, but they do so at the expense of true investment in the marriage. If I have a lover or two on the side, I am less invested in my wife. That's a simple reality that poly people fail to acknowledge. Although jealousy can be a horrible emotion, it has its good side too. It helps to protect your bond when used in moderation.

 

Let's not beat around the bush here. If a woman is not faithful to a man, then gets pregnant, why would he invest in that child, knowing it may not be his? Monogamy developed over the course of time to provide a better foundation for raising young.

[preraph]

Why get married if you don't want commitment? And if you have kids, you have to think about am I okay if my daughter decides to be polyamorous and have kids by different men. Just don't get married and have kids if that's the lifestyle you want. I have no problem with people who choose to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact other people negatively.

[fireflywy]

Read this thread again, and all I really ever want to find and be with is someone "me fashioned." Lol.

 

Someone that isn't caught up in the whole "sex is everything and will be had at any cost, at any time", someone who sees a relationship as something more then just a primal act designed for survival or scientifically sterile reproduction, and someone who believes that there is more to existence than "you only live once" and "if it feels good, do it."

 

I just want to grow old with someone while we stay young at heart, and do so with singular fidelity and commitment, pushing away temptations, weathering storms because we believe in eachother, and where our hearts and desires only point to one place on the compass; each other.

 

Is that world slipping away? Did it ever exist as the majority rule instead of the increasing exception?

 

Depressing sometimes.