why is Monogomy glorified anyway?

[UndertheOcean]

Like its holy or something. What happened to the free love movement of the 60's , we should bring it back. And we should not confuse love with sex.

[Faygo Kid]

1. Yeah, well, it doesn't work that way.

The "free love movement" went nowhere. Sex is great, but trust and commitment count a little when they throw the dirt over you, too.

[otherlander]

5. But if sex doesn't neccesarilly mean love and commitment

why should love and commitment neccesarilly mean sex?

[WheelWalker]

13. They don't -

I don't date guys, and I don't date girls who do.

[crikkett]

83. having sex with another person makes you vulnerable

and the physical, emotional and sometimes political risks involved in multi-partner relationships makes the monogamous relationship with a single trusted partner very attractive and difficult to forego, no matter how much sex is involved.

[Chovexani]

2. Don't ask me.

As an avowed polyamorist, I always look at these things in a bemused sort of detachment.

It really reminds me just how radically different from mainstream thinking me and my circle of friends are.

[WheelWalker]

10. I agree,

the heart is too big to limit the expression of love. Open relationships are the preferred embodiment. However, when one agrees to exclusivity, pacta sund servanda. Nor is it acceptable conduct to interfere with the agreement of two others by interposing oneself into their singular relationship. It is a disrobing offense.

[Chovexani]

24. I often have confused people asking how one cheats in a poly relationship

Truth is, just because we have different definitions of commitment doesn't mean that we don't have them at all. The essence of cheating really boils down to breaking promises and betraying the trust of your partner. That's what's so horrible about it.

Before I understood there were options besides monogamy, I cheated and was cheated on, multiple times. I just had to come to terms with the fact that serial monogamy is not only not for me but is just plain psychologically and emotionally unhealthy for me also. I just can't process being in love with one person and only one person, because I've never been that way, ever. That doesn't mean I haven't been madly, passionately in love. Just that the feeling has never been limited to just one person.

The thing that really made me think less of Edwards was how he threw the mistress under the bus and swore that he never loved her. Love and sex are certainly two different things, but still...it seems that much worse that he would betray his wife like that, lie to her and lie to the world for someone that was just a fuck buddy. Especially if she really is the mother of his child. I try very hard not to cast stones and judge other people's relationships but...dude, that's just awful.

[crikkett]

86. What if J.E. just fell into her arms in a moment of weakness

and as far as she was concerned it was just a tribute thing to her hero?

I can see how he wouldn't love her and then say so.

I noticed that the last paragraph of this entry of yours seems to directly contradict everything you posted in this thread prior to it.

[Chovexani]

102. I'm sorry, but it really isn't contradictory.

The basis of any ethical relationship, whether it's a traditional monogamous hetero coupling, a group of friends with benefits, or a polyfidelitous quintet HAS to be honesty. Everyone involved has to know what is up at all times in order to be able to give informed consent to the situation. Otherwise it is NOT ethical, and it doesn't work. Relationships are messy, messy things, even in the most supposedly simple of setups, and honesty has to be the glue that holds them together.

One person in this scenario didn't have the information she needed, at least at first. I believe John loves his wife, unlike a lot of the stone-throwing brigade, but dishonest actions are not actions of love, no matter how one spins them. IOW he may have loved her but he done her wrong. And I don't think it's a contradiction to be able to separate love and sex, but at the same time value a relationship with someone who you've taken vows before family and community to love and cherish above a glorified fuck buddy. That's not even getting into the whole baby issue. He just seems really fucking cold, is what I'm saying. Dishonesty is not an act of love, period. Good people can fuck up royally--and really, none of this is any of our business, unless the rumors he wined and dined Hunter on campaign funds are true--but it IS a massive fuck up, and I wish people would not minimize that. The illness is another angle to this that no one really knows how it factors in. It may well be that Elizabeth, knowing she was sick, gave him permission to keep stepping out with Hunter so his needs would get met, once he fessed up (it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened when one partner is ill). Who the fuck knows, really? And again, it's none of our business. I just find these conversations really interesting beyond the actual story because they shine such a spotlight on how fucked up our cultural norms are, and how hypocrisy seems to be enshrined in our society.

At any rate, I find myself having far less sympathy for Edwards since he is one of the many cowardly so-called Democrats who dismiss marriage equality for same-sex couples on the basis of preserving "sanctity of (hetero) marriage". Apparently having the correct set of plumbing is more important than being honest and faithful. That's actually what pisses me off the most about this whole thing, aside from the fact that a kid might be involved.

[SarahB]

109. You're fabulous!

:thumbsup:

[tomg]

128. What a wonderful, intelligent and

perceptive view. You summed it up beautifully with "Relationships are messy, messy things, even in the most supposedly simple of setups, and honesty has to be the glue that holds them together." I am a het in a long monogamous relationship. Like you, I have little sympathy for anyone who opposes other consensual, committed, equality-based configurations in the interests of the "sanctity of ( hetero)marriage." Well said and humanely said.

[crikkett]

144. I got your point and don't think you're contradicting yourself anymore.

Thx for the explanation.

Now, you haven't convinced me that my first guess (he fell into a loveless affair for emotional relief with someone who was willing to put out) is wrong.

So he's joined the ranks of lying politicians. So he's slept around on his wife. These aren't judgments but facts. Am I minimalizing facts by reserving judgment?

-------------
Disclaimers

1: Now don't get me wrong: Having the plumbing is not more important than being honest and faithful, I am an advocate for same-sex marriage, and I stay out of other people's bedrooms which saves me the hassle of forming opinions about how and with whom anyone gets off.

2: While Edwards is not one of my heroes, I know full well that he's human, and really don't care beyond that because like you said, it's not my business.

On to the next distraction....

[Runcible Spoon]

167. I fucking LOVE YOU.

wish I lived nearer...it's really hard finding kindred spirits :cry:

[bemildred]

168. Yes, integrity is something you do when it's inconvenient.

Or it's not really integrity at all. But it's not like any of us is just born with that sort of ethical radar. And there is nothing controversial in liking any and all of the parties involved and yet still pointing out where work needs to be done.

[seabeyond]

25. in your circle of friends

is it ever one woman and multiple women. or is it always one man and multiple women? and depending on your answer i have some more questions. i am not doing it from a moralistic stand though. i like to understand people.

[WheelWalker]

26. I didn't hear

it as multiple, simultaneous partners, although as you point out, that would fit. I took it to mean that one might have more than a single, uncommitted partner. Furthermore, one might be committed in relationship with one, and still be polyamorous if that is what the relationship permits. A good question for clarification.

[seabeyond]

30. polyamorous... wasnt in the dictionary, lol

i went with polygamy.

but interesting what you are saying. thanks for the clarification

[Chovexani]

31. It really depends on the setup.

The most basic definition of polyamory is loving and sustaining relationships with more than one person at the same time, in a completely open and ethical manner.

There are many, many ways to practice it and an almost infinite number of setups depending on the relationship. I'm in what's called a polyfidelitous triad, meaning my relationship consists of three people and we are committed to each other (none of us have outside partners). We would not be opposed to a fourth but we are not actively looking for one, so we are for all intents and purposes a closed deal.

Some relationships are "V"s, in that one person is involved with two people but their lovers are not involved with each other. Some form communities of extended friends and lovers that resembles nothing so much as a web.

"Open relationships" are not really poly though, which is where some of the confusion lies. Polyamory, contrary to popular belief, is not the same as swinging or free love; it's not just about the sex, it's about love and commitment, however the partners define that. People who form a relationship around the idea that it's okay to sleep with other people as long as they don't fall in love are not poly. Polyamory is not just about fucking people but building and sustaining relationships.

...and a big fat disclaimer in that I am only speaking for myself and not everyone who is poly, etc.

[Chovexani]

28. Actually it's fairly mixed.

I'm a woman in a triad with a man and another woman, I know a triad that is all women, and a mixed quad with a majority of guys.

But I am definitely queer identified, as are my partners (we're all bisexual), and so are the poly circles I run in. They tend to be a lot different than the straight poly scene, at least from what I've seen.

[WheelWalker]

32. Permutations extend ad infinitum.

I'm a straight guy in longterm, committed relationship with a lesbian. She is my Queen, and I her warrior monk. She knows me as "My Lord." I, her, as "My Lady." It is a very satisfying and fulfilling relationship for us both.

[Chovexani]

33. That sounds wonderful.

So much more dignified than my girlfriend and I calling our dude "harem boy" :evilgrin:

Love just isn't easy to put into boxes, and it's a shame we're always trying to do that as a society and as a species.

[WheelWalker]

36. It is wonderful,

it is dignified, and it gives expression to our love. We have, each of us, seen the other through mortal illness and come out the other side together still. Survivors, in more ways than one. Blessings.

[seabeyond]

35. i apprecaite it

i havent heard that term. works for me, but then, lol, really doesnt matter to you that it works for me.

thanks....

[GliderGuider]

65. I was in an open marriage in the 1970s, and in a triad recently

Neither ultimately worked out, but that was much more a problem with the individuals involved than the structure of the relationship -- as it is in traditional marriages that end in divorce.

As far back as I can remember I was astonished that people could think there was but a single style of relationship that was "right". It always seemed to me that simple human diversity would defeat that notion, not to mention the philosophical absurdity of trying to put such a fundamental human value as love into a socio-legal box with a lock on it. I've always thought that monogamous marriage was at least as much about social control and ensuring patrilineal inheritance rights as about enforcing a save haven for commitment. More often than not humans are able to fully express their love in a dyad, but that form is simply the default for many, not some universal mandate.

Of course, the core issue in a relationship is one of trust, honesty and commitment, regardless of how many people are involved in any given arrangement. Partners in any sort of relationship put it at risk if they violate their particular covenants -- covenants that may or may not include loving or having sex with people other than a primary partner.

My first marriage was open. It lasted 5 years, and it broke down when my wife violated our covenant of equality. A few years in she withdrew her consent to me participating in outside liaisons, while insisting on her own right to do so.

My second marriage was traditional and lasted 20 years. It broke down for a number of banal reasons which culminated in me having a long-term affair. In retrospect that action damaged both of us far more than if we had ended the marriage earlier. Hindsight is 20-20, of course.

My next partner and I both professed a strong belief in polyamory. We were a moderately open dyad for a few years, then we met another woman we both loved. We decided to formalize a polyfidelitous triad, and got handfasted in a lovely pagan ceremony. That blew up after a year when my original partner realized she was in over her head emotionally and psychologically, and began a campaign of "constructive dismissal". Polyamory is an attractive belief when you're not doing it, but the emotional complexity and the attendant difficulties can be much greater than people realize.

Now I'm back to a dyad, with an agreement that we're not looking for more participants but that the door is not locked on that possibility down the road. We're actively working on maintaining our covenants, and we're as happy as two clams at high tide.

So I've been all over the relationship map. The one thing I've learned in these years is that there is no single structure that will suit everyone all the time. The most important ingredients for long-term success in any relationship, no matter how many people are involved, seem to be self-awareness, honesty, openness, respect and humility.

It's hard work being human. :-)

[JeanGrey]

74. Let me hear back from you when you're old.

[HEyHEY]

3. Cause VD don't just sting no more

[WheelWalker]

4. Free Love, or even

an Open Relationship, never contemplated cheating on a commitment. I was there. Don't savage the past.

[otherlander]

6. I don't think there's anything wrong

with having an open relationship, or a three or four way relationship, or casual sex without a relationship, but if you've committed to a monogamous relationship, then, yeah, keeping your word is pretty damn important.

[Kitty Herder]

52. Absolutely. And if you can't keep your word, don't commit to a monogamous relationship.

It causes too much hurt to others. And not just the spouse who has been cheated on, but the kids, too. In a big way.

[defendandprotect]

136. Pre-commitment to something people really don't understand the power of at the time . . .

is about equal to pre-nuptial agreements --- they get tossed out because they are
unrealistic.

[helderheid]

91. Exactly how I feel

[baby_mouse]

125. THAT is the correct answer. NT.

[Whisp]

7. love is never free in a patriarchal society. nt

[crikkett]

88. ...or any other in existence on the planet. Love is give and take. n/t

[Warpy]

8. Men want to own their offspring and they do that by owning women

Women think that's a lousy deal, but they'll put up with it if they get to own the man in exchange, even as they're told from birth that men can't be expected to be faithful, blah blah blah.

It's why honor killings are of women, why "crime of passion" laws always assume it's a male discovering a philandering female and not the reverse, and why male sexual exploits are admired while female sexual experimentation is deplored.

The truth is that both sexes cheat and will always do so and at rates so high that the behavior should be considered a norm for both.

Monogany can work for some people, but in my experience, they rarely marry each other.

[Kitty Herder]

53. I agree for the most part.

But monogamy on the part of both partners is more common than you seem to think.

I live in the kind of small town where a person can't cheat without getting caught. Everyone knows who has been cheating and who hasn't and probably 80-90% of couples in this town don't cheat. Or if they do, they're veerrry good at hiding it.

[defendandprotect]

138. Pleasantville . . . ?

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. It is no less sexist to claim that women want kids, but they're too expensive on their own.

Better own someone to pay the bills.

The truth is, that (quasi)monogamy evolved because natural selection rewarded the children who had two parents with a vested interest in their survival. A caveman has less motivation to bring home mastadon steaks to someone else's kid. A cavemom caring for a child couldn't effectively compete for resources (and provide protection) on her own.

If it non-monogamy were a norm, they wouldn't call it cheating.

[Warpy]

153. They call it cheating mostly because of the religious baggage

contributing to a lot of emotional baggage. Cheating is normal. Anything done by that large a segment of humanity is normal.

As for that cavemom, consider what paleolinguistics has found, that the word for "father" was derived from a root meaning ownership and that the older form for first degree male relative was "mother's brother." Maternal relatives were the ones with the stake in making sure the kids survived. Daddy is a relative newcomer.

[defendandprotect]

133. Primary reason . . . right there!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

143. You are touching on something that really bugs me about the defenses of Edwards.

In 1994, a Maryland judge was lenient on a man who caught his wife in an act of infidelity. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4D9163FF931A15753C1A962958260

"I seriously wonder how many men married five, four years would have the strength to walk away without inflicting some corporal punishment," the judge, Robert E. Cahill, said sympathetically.

The key word there is "men". Somehow, I think Judge Cahill would not be as understanding toward a betrayed wife. I suspect he'd think she ought to be more forgiving. After all, men have these irrepresible "urges" and all. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

157. Really?

The key word there is "men". Somehow, I think Judge Cahill would not be as understanding toward a betrayed wife.

The terms "rolling pin" and "frying pan" have become joke punchlines for exactly the situation you describe. Judge Cahill would not need to exercise any understanding because the cops would never arrest a wife who assaults her husband for infidelity.

One more bonus term: Lorena Bobbitt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

158. I've never seen "rolling pins" and "frying pans" being joking matters, except in cartoons.

I linked to an article describing a real case of a judge being lenient on a man, because he was a man who had been cuckolded. Note that there's no equivalent term for women who have been cheated on. And for every "Lorena Bobbitt" you bring up, there are probably at least a thousand "honor killings".

Edit to add: Lorena Bobbitt alleged that her husband had raped her and was abusive. That is not the same thing a being upset at his infidelity.

[AllentownJake]

9. Children

and the raising of them. We have this crazy idea in society that two parents (don't care if they are of the same sex) who love and respect each other make a better home.

To be honest I really don't know if this is true or not but thats what it boils down to.

[defendandprotect]

141. No -- that's the patriarchal "family" . . .

First . . .

Nothing wrong with children who grow up with only Mom taking care of them,
provided that there isn't a financial burden to bear.
While this is the most common scenario, evidently quite a number of Dads
have also filled the bill as single parent!

Second . . .

In female-centered societies, the male wouldn't necessarily be taken into
the female's home, but he could be ---
If there were children, they would be tended by the female's parents --
grandparents! Grandparents make the ideal parents!
Also that frees the couple from economic burdens, child care burdens ---
and presumably the relationship goes on until it fades out or proves to
be something long lasting. But I think it all has a better chance under
this system.

The "love" bond is universal --- for every human -- for blood relations --
but the "sexual" yearning is entirely different --- distinct --- and
shouldn't necessarily be considered the equivalent of, or more than the family/
blood bond. We love many people --- but "sex" is quite different -- and has
to be appreciated for its uniqueness, its difference from familial love.

[Zynx]

154. Given the errosion in the ability of one income to provide for a family

it is essential that there be both a mother and father present.

[defendandprotect]

163. ...or two mothers, or two fathers . . . or a mother and her sister . . .

whatever .... simply TWO incomes --- and that doesn't have to be based on "mother/father" . . .

At one time, females were unable to earn their own living -- barred from it ---
and, thereby, basically forced into marriage.

[Zynx]

164. In any case, there needs to be two incomes in most cases.

[defendandprotect]

165. two incomes . . . as I said . . . but not specifically "mother/father" . . .

[daleo]

11. We may have evolved for it

The most frequently observed monogamy is behavioral monogamy. The male helps to raise young and guard his mate. This increases his own fitness by raising the successful survivorship of his offspring. This case is most frequently seen where the OSR (operational sex ratio) is close to 1:1. Males who desert their mates will have a hard time finding other females because they will most likely already be taken. Even among so-called monogamous species, monogamy is often not strictly followed. Extra-pair copulations are extremely common. DNA fingerprinting has revealed that some offspring were not sired by their "father".

http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/animalbehavior/behavioralecology/section4.rhtml

[Kitty Herder]

54. Great reply! nt

[Runcible Spoon]

169. oh what a load of crap. if that were true, then it would be true cross culturally.

species don't evolve selectively like that among "races" or "subspecies". Since many if not most cultures of the world practiced polygamy in some form across most of the history of our evolution, your logic implies that Western Christian monogamists are somehow more "evolved" than a Tibetan woman married to two men. Furthermore, a Samoan could relocate in France and settle down into a monogamous relationship.

If you would take a minute to look at the overwhelming variety in how families are arranged across time and geography, you would be shocked. Biological parentage is not even a requisite for being the primary caregiver and emotionally closest parent to a child. Sometimes that main parent is an aunt or an uncle or a maternal grandmother.

All biology tells us is we should have sex and children. The form that sexual relationships take is a complex interplay between social needs, environmental conditions, politics, religion, and individual psychological preference.

But yeah, go ahead and link sparknotes to support an argument because it's a fantastic peer-reviewed source :eyes:

[Edweird]

12. Oppressive christofacist authoritarians have too much sway.

Sex is a "bad thing", unless you're a republican male with another man in a restroom or an underage boy, then it's "old news".

[defendandprotect]

139. You mean patriarchy and religous patriarchy have too much sway . . .

don't you . . . ?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

14. I think it's up to each individual couple. I prefer monogamy, but I have friends who prefer else

My idea of a relationship is no better or worse than theirs.

I'm just a monogamy type of guy.

I'm way too jealous to share.

He can look all he wants, but don't touch.

[ismnotwasm]

15. It's a choice

Perhaps, monogamy survived as an adaptive response for the survival of progeny. I don't know. I doubt it, but I won't get into that.

All major religions either pushed monogamy, or one man and as many wives as he could afford. Historically it's rare to see woman married to two or more men, but it did happen.

None of these religions are particularly fair to, or think much of, women.

"Free Love" in the '60's wasn't all it was cracked up to be from my understanding. Neither free in the best sense of the word, nor love.

At this point in time, if someone doesn't want to be monogamous, they shouldn't have to be. I choose to be, and in my case it's a true choice, and one that has payed off well. There is a deep comfort and security in long term relationships that work. Wouldn't trade it for the world, and I've tried other ways

But that's just me.

In SF, you find relationship "contracts" of various lengths. I've always liked that idea. So I don't glorify it, I see it as a way that works for a lot of people, my self included.

But for fucks sake it someone KNOWS they "can't" keep it zipped, don't lie about it, don't hurt people, just go out and love the one you're with. Shit.

[bemildred]

16. It has many real benefits.

You don't have to glorify it, or go on about how Jesus demands it of everyone, but it's shallow to pretend that everyone needs casual sex all the time. Sexual gratification is the easiest thing in the world. Sex with friends, people you really care about is even better. But there is no reason to indulge in all this thrashing around over it.

[SoCalDem]

17. Monogamy evolved to protect PROPERTY..

Men (the only ones who inherited property) needed to prove that the progeny they supported and eventually left eveything to, wrer really their own.. so they struck a deal with the women they married.. They would provide for them and their children, and all they had to do, was to only have sex with them.. Olden times women were pretty isolated and busy to be running around, especially since they spent most of their time pregnancy and or nursing children..and taking care of the home...

the dalliances that men continued to have, were probably not all that big of a deal for the wives, just so their children did not suffer, through loss of wealth from the illegitimate kids..

[WheelWalker]

42. That's a pretty Indo-European centric outlook, don't you think?

[Kitty Herder]

55. It is indeed.

Monogamy exist in almost every culture, sometimes alongside polygamy, often as the only accepted form of marriage. This is true of cultures with almost no concept of property.

[crikkett]

89. Yeah that's why Birds practice it. n/t

[GliderGuider]

92. Humans rarely grow feathers, though.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy

Monogamy is one of several mating systems observed in animals. The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 7 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy. The incidence of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in the animal kingdom. It is becoming clear that even animals that are socially monogamous engage in extra-pair copulations.

Of course human beings are mammals, not birds. The general 7% estimate might be a bit low for humans, but I'd be uncomfortable with any suggestion that it goes even as high as 15%.

[Zynx]

155. The animal kingdom is hardly some utopia.

[Annces]

18. I don't know

But I think everyone has a different answer. It seems society has a stranglehold on sex and it is associated with perversion. The sharks are really having a fest regarding Edwards. I think he was really stupid for thinking no one was watching him. I don't want to give an opinion on him, as it just seems like the days when people would make a verdict and then stone you to death. People are so violent in their opinions.

[arthritisR_US]

19. sex and love ARE 2 different things but if you take vows to be

joined with another then you should uphold those vows and if you find it untenable to do so then end the relationship honestly.

[LostInAnomie]

20. Men don't want to raise another guy's kids.

Women don't want a man to have to split up his resources and parental investment with other kids from other women.

[uppityperson]

56. From an animalistic passing on genes sense perhaps, but I know lots of happy ste-dads.

And lots of women who believe a parent should continue to provide some monetary support for their offspring even if those offspring are not living with them (both men and women). Taken from a puirely "must pass on genes" sense, perhaps, but most people I know aren't that way.

[SteelPenguin]

64. There's a tribe, I think in New Guinea

There the men help raise their sisters children. The reasoning is that you can never know whether you're the father of a baby in a pre-genetics testing environment, but you are 100% certain that you are related to your sister's child. They don't completely ignore their biological children, but most of their efforts go to raising their sisters children.

Just an anecdote.

[crikkett]

90. Yet another false generalization. nT

[baby_mouse]

124. Ah well, guess I'll just blow my BIL off next time he drops my nephews on me. NT

[seabeyond]

21. you want to do it. do it. someone wants to commit to monogamous

relationship, do it. want open, then do it.

but there is something wrong when in a society we embrace hurting each other. people we love. no one is stopping people from screwing every person they want to screw and more. but we act like an affair is no big deal. it hurts people. that is a big deal in my book.

i dont care what a person does in their person life, but hurting another is not something admirable

[sybylla]

72. Same here - it's a very selfish, hurtful act

And a very disappointing one for me.

To have been on the brink of losing the love of your life (as we've been told) and to have simultaneous thoughts of bedding another - I just can't make my brain work like that. I can't even imagine it in a "shit happens" kind of way. That's letting your SO down at a point in their life when they need your love and protection most.

How on earth can you ever get past that kind of hurt? How fucked up in your head do you have to be to do it to someone?

[seabeyond]

150. what i have seen on this board is how we would like to give infidility to all people

we do this with a lot of things in our society today. cause some things are harder, and people dont want ot have the character to do right, they lessen it by we are all capable. it is in all of us. no one can say they wont do it. this then makes it easier for people to make a poor choice. and i am not just talking about stepping out on a mate. we are all sinners is being used to be able to do whatever cause we arent perfect.

kinda like in 80's we recognized victim and then took it so far to the point we were hurting the very people we gave the victim title to.

[defendandprotect]

140. If you don't want to be hurt, don't risk you heart --- don't fall in love . . .

cause there are no guarantees in the love-game --- and monogamy is certainly no guarantee of

anything!

[seabeyond]

149. yes we all risk. i take personal responsibility seriously and just hasnt

been hard for me to not intentionally hurt people. it makes me sick. i dont like to feel sick. so in a lifetime i have just not chosen to hurt people. i am very selfish.

yes the risk is there.

always.

so

[jwirr]

22. Those of us involved in the free love movement soon learned that

you can get hurt just as bad single as you can married. As to monogamy - I know of this from two different cultures: Native American and Mormon. The Native American practice ended because missionaries and white communities dictated it should. Mormons were the subject of a US law. I personally prefer celibacy.

[WheelWalker]

29. I'm personally

too old to be having this discussion.

ON EDIT: See post #4 above.

[deaniac21]

23. It's really only glorified if you've promised someone that you'd

be that way because you love them.

[cobalt1999]

27. Because when you are truly in love, you don't want to have sex with anyone else.

When that happens, it is glorious. At least it is with me.

[WheelWalker]

37. When you are "truly" in love,

sex is irrelevant.

[cobalt1999]

38. True, but it can also be a fantastic bit of irrelevancy

:)

[seabeyond]

39. you probably dont glorify it either. it just is. i think maybe glorified isnt the proper

world for those of us that are happy, content and just living it. but i agree with you on why you dont fuck around. i know my hubby wouldnt feel good about it. he sees me as his. as i see him as all mine. we both like it that way.

not going to pretend otherwise

[WheelWalker]

40. We use to have a saying, didn't we?

Different strokes for ....... the key is honesty. Knowing the difference between right and wrong, and thinking and acting in accordance with our knowledge. That makes us human. And, incidentally, lovable and attractive.

[seabeyond]

43. i read your post above

and i wanted to tell you how much i like your story.

but this post is right on. yes. thanks

[WheelWalker]

44. Blessings.

[seabeyond]

45. backatcha

thanks. didnt know we were allowed to say that on du... bah hahahaha.

thank you. you are simply nice. that use to be more the norm on du way back when

[WheelWalker]

48. We are the people our parents warned us about.

[seabeyond]

49. i remember you

you are the one that said (i am so bad at quoting and remembering) ...

being human isnt an excuse, it is a responsibility

gosh

that is so kick ass in many ways. then i had to laugh that the village idiot was so clever. but then isnt that another of those insightful

[WheelWalker]

50. You've got it right,

in so many ways. Teach the children.

[cobalt1999]

41. The monogamy itself isn't glorious.

Finding and loving the person that makes the idea of sex with anyone else unappealing is glorious.

I'm glad you have it. :hi:

[seabeyond]

46. yes

makes it a hell of a lot easier too. i like to hear the happy stories.

[JeanGrey]

76. Er, No. It is never "irrelevant".

[JeanGrey]

75. Yes. It should be that way for everyone if they don't lie to

themselves.

[GliderGuider]

78. "Should be"?

According to who? You don't think that among 6.7 billion human beings there might be some room for honest diversity on this matter?

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. I think your experience is atypical. n/t

[JI7]

34. it's glorified often by those who don't always follow it

[RNdaSilva]

47. Become a Mormon and...

Has Mitt contemplated more than one wife?

A harem wouldn't be all that bad.

http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=12

[Mimosa]

51. Monogamy benefits women and children

I can usually tell who's male and who's female as well as discern their values and knowledge of sociology and history by topics like this or their replies.

The societies which are the most oppressive and masculinist are those in which polygamy is sanctioned. Repressive patriarchal systems are those which seek to gratify mens desires by allowing polygamy. Look at Saudi Arabia, pakistan or those nutty polygamous Warren Jeffries type sects in the US.

[uppityperson]

57. It doesn't have to be only those 2 choices.

Monagamy or polygamy, both with restrictive rules on women. I see other options which I can't imagine in most puritanical societies (like usa), but where no one owned rights to anyone else's sexuality, each was able of supporting self and doing what they wanted with whom (provided no one was harmed, which could get into a circular discussion, harm meaning more than heartbreak of breaking up or desireing someone and being denied). Have you ever read Sheri Tepper?

[Withywindle]

58. Even those women who don't want it?

I have to say, I understand intellectually that there are some people out there who truly want to make and keep a vow to only have sex with one person ever again until they die.

Good for them. Diff'rent strokes and all that.

I don't GET it on a gut level, though. The concept holds no appeal at all for this woman.

[girl gone mad]

61. It benefits men, too.

In a polygamous society, most men wouldn't be able to find mates and would never reproduce.

Society as a whole is also helped. I've got a few nerdy friends who don't ever get dates. That kind of sexual frustration on a large scale would be very bad for society. Alpha males would have to watch their backs and since the invention of gunpowder that hasn't been a very easy proposition.

[JeanGrey]

77. It benefits BOTH. A lesson Michael Douglas learned in

Fatal Attraction, No? This is sometimes also what happens you use people.

[seabeyond]

95. monogamy benefits my hubby. he knows how easy it would be for me to go out and play

around. him, not so many opportunities. he kinda likes that i made a vow to not screw around. his ego couldnt handle it and he is man enough to admit it. but then again, i wouldnt do so well sharing him either. prudes that we are. ergo, a mutually respected position

[Solon]

59. I don't think it should be, it should just be one of several ways that humans can "hook up" as it...

were. It should neither be looked down upon by those who don't choose to have relationships like this, nor should monogamous couples look down upon those who choose not to be monogamous. As long as the people involved are consenting adults with full knowledge and honesty between them, that's all that matters. Love comes in various forms, and shouldn't be stuck in a box of "approval" for others to admire.

[TransitJohn]

60. I'm with you.

If you look at it from an evolutionary biology standpoint, humans form a succession of semi-monogamous relationships over their breeding years. Lifetime monogamy is for the birds (usually).

[noel711]

62. Well, from an individual who lived thru the 'free love' movement....

that didn't work out real well, especially for us women.
To put it bluntly... we were used up at a fairly quick clip.
Not real pretty.

Bring it back? From what I see going on in my daughter's generation,
they're doing something similar, only it's called 'hooking up,'
but there's no dating require.. just find someone in class, or in
a bar, or in a gathering.. and 'get it on.'
And in my opinion, women are being used up at a fairly quick clip.
NOt real pretty.

Your quip about monogamy glorified 'like its holy'... hmmm.
It's all about economics.
As long as women are the sex that gets pregnant,
and bears the children, they will need economic support.
Its impossible to work a 40 hour week while you have to maintain
a home and the nurturance of dependant children. The feminist movement
attempted to resolve this, but because we live in a patriarchal
economic focused culture, those needs will never be resolved because
we do not have: full health care, economic parity, full free education,
full free day care for children, and stop this market driven, unregulated
capitalism.

Sexual monogamy through some form of legal serial marriage/committment
is one form of economic support so family - as we know it- can survive.
What it boils down to: most men will not support the progeny of other
men, and to ensure ones DNA will survive into the future, they will
legally bind women (and their offspring) to themselves as an insurance policy.


Oh, and there are still alternatives:
one of them, polygamy, is still viable out west.
But if you remember from the reports earlier this year,
that too didn't work out too well for the women.
Very young women were being used up at a fairly quick clip.
NOt real pretty.

And, unless you are young, beautiful, and rich, polyamory is a joke.
Sex is about the survival of the species. And its the young and
beautiful who get the most shots at mating.
Who wants to sleep, and bear children with, someone aged, senile,
not attractive, and in poverty? Unless you are Donald Trump or
Hugh Hefner, it's not gonna happen. And even in that
scenario, I cringe.

[JeanGrey]

79. My best friend and I were saying similar things the other day.

Both having been there in the 60's and 70's and now we look back and realize, it just wasn't that great and hasn't turned out that great for women, has it? Now men have their cake and eat it too, and women just accept it (at least a lot of them do).

As my brother in law told my sister he threw away after thirty years "I'll get married again. There are a lot of desperate women out there".

He is such a pig, but probably right.

[LanternWaste]

63. However for many people...

"And we should not confuse love with sex."

However for many people, sex is a physical expression of love. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

I myself would certainly be displeased to see some movement attempting to force a morality down our throats...

[TexasObserver]

66. As a species, humans have needed pair bonding for survival.

Unlike many species, the male is also needed help raise the offspring, or the offspring never make it to adulthood. If humans did not seek pair bonding naturally, we would likely not be here at all. We are thin skinned animals lacking a protective exoskeleton, lacking nails and teeth useful in fighting, and we're weak for our size.

Our brain and our ability to work cooperatively are what make us the most dangerous animal on the planet.

We could have neither of those without the consistent pair bonding of mates that has occurred throughout history. We may have urges to mate everything we see, but our survival needs trump that.

[GliderGuider]

67. We need cooperative groups to survive.

A group of two is just the easiest to maintain, logistically, emotionally and psychologically. As a result we evolved in that direction. It doesn't mean it's the only organization that works, though, even on a personal level.

[TexasObserver]

68. We evolved pair bonding because it works best.

If it didn't work best, we would have something else as dominant.

We pair bond because it has proven to work best.

[Marrah_G]

69. Because historically Polygamy is bad for society and very bad for women.

Now I do have friends who are polyamourous. In fact my best friend is part of an 4 person group who have varied relationships with each other. The dynamics are complicated but it works really well for them. Previous attempts did not work out well.

It is a rare thing for a polyamorous to work over an extended period of time. It takes an immense amount of trust and commitment.

Now open marriages are completely different branch. People who are married yet have sex with people outside the marriage. I tried this once, but I found myself falling head over heels in love with the man and his wife did not treat him very well, so I started to have a hard time not saying anything to him about it. I thought it best to leave the situation.

[Romulox]

70. Women need assistance raising offspring; men don't want to raise another's.

Monogamy is therefore the optimal overall reproductive strategy for both men and women and thus for the species overall.

[Romulox]

Sorry, dupe. nt

[Romulox]

71. Sorry, dupe. nt

[dionysus]

73. lol, another turtured attempt to defend sleazebag john eh?

:wtf:

[JeanGrey]

80. Yeah are you surprised?

[dionysus]

82. sadly no... it wouldn't be *quite* as bad if Elizabeth was healthy, but damn...

i don't know how anyone could defend it...

[paparush]

81. This Nation's sick, Puritan, conservative Christian Roots run Deep.

We a nation of hypocrites. Half of marriages end in divorce. Supermarket magazine covers scream SEX. Half of TV is sEx.

But, god forbid if people actually DO IT. Tsk Tsk. The great SATAN is among us!

//end of wandering rant

///just had two fillings redone

[Mimosa]

103. Paparush: 'We a nation of hypocrites':speak for yourself and John Edwards LOL

Paparush, sorry about your teeth. Take your vicodin. ;)

Who's this 'we' you mean, Kimo Sabe? The corporate media puts slop and garbage all around me, I don't have to jump in a wallow, do I?

I have no problem with sex. I've had my good times. I'm married but also don't have children to whom I OWE the stability of a family, for their good. From my feminist POV, children are owed a family. Just because Edwards is a sleaze doesn't mean this should become the standard. I don't have accept the lowest standards because doing so will benefit some darned politician!


But wasn't Senator Edwards presenting himself and his wife as paragons of commitment? He's just another ambitious hypocrite IMO. I don't feel that way about Obama.

[cynatnite]

84. Monogomy works best for me and my SO...

may not work for everyone. It's a personal choice.

[Mimosa]

104. Elizabeth Edwards didn't choose the cheater: she said she was furious.

My opinion is that couples make their 'choices' but children are owed stability which doesn't come from Dad impregnating an 'outside' woman. In our society the rich can afford to screw around, but when poor and middle class copy them the children get hurt from financial and emotional strains.

I think Hillary Clinton would agree with me since she cares about children first. And also since her peeps had been working on the Edwards scandal and went to the Enquirer. In fact this is Hillary's revenge on Elizabeth Edwards because Mrs. Edwards boasted she was a much happier woman than Hillary.

[Lisa0825]

85. As a practical matter, single moms have high poverty rates.

Having a stable family unit (whatever the makeup of it is, gender-wise) is better for raising children.

Now, I am about to be 40 and will probably not have children, so I no longer see the point of marriage. But if I am emotionally invested in someone, I would still prefer monogamy. My preference is "serial monogamy." If a time comes that the relationship isn't working, move on.

I can separate the act of sex from the ideal of love. But sometimes you can have both, and that is a great combination. When love is involved, I prefer monogamy.

[TexasObserver]

87. I am a man. I have always preferred monogamist relationships, as have many men I know.

During periods between monogamist relationships is when men and women are both most likely to be inclined to hit and run sex. Even then, however, most are looking for that pair bonding.

Obviously, the male-female pair bonding is the one I'm talking about, although I certainly think the homosexual male-male and female-female bondings are also genetically and evolutionarily mandated, they are just not as prevalent as the male-female bonding.

[JVS]

93. People like to think that someone loves them forever.

It's rarely the case.

[DevonRex]

94. How many women can 1 man impregnate in a month? A year?

Over a lifetime?

That is why monogamy is a good thing.

[madeline_con]

96. For one thing, it decreases the spread of STDs. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

97. LMAO. DU is so funny. One of its heroes gets caught fucking around on his cancer-struck wife, and

suddenly people are wondering, hey, maybe MARRIAGE is the problem here! No wonder politicians get so narcissistic and feel so invincible. They're surrounded by people who think everyone else ought to conform to the politician's behavior.

[TexasObserver]

99. word

[AuntPatsy]

107. Interesting analysis of "those" people....hmmm

[baby_mouse]

122. Why "suddenly" ?

Just because the subject's been touched on in the national spotlight (which it shouldn't have been, IMO), doesn't mean people on this site didn't have opinions on the subject of marriage beforehand.

You'll find with most non-monogamists that though they oppose marriage they would frown on infidelity from the point of view that it was going back on an agreement. Argument for non-monogamy or even argument against marriage as a concept wouldn't exonerate Edwards and you'd find few non-monogamists or polyamorists who'd say what he did was okay.

The difference between non-monogamy and infidelity is the negotiation beforehand. I think a number of people in this thread could take considerable offense at your implied dismissal of their relationships.

[Occam Bandage]

134. Heh. Polyamory.

A rather quick-and-useful way of saying "I am an emotional wreck with little innate self-confidence, and am currently incapable of forming a bond of mutual trust." And before you cue the "you have NO IDEA" reply: yes, yes I do, and I'm not about to break confidentiality, so stuff it.

Regardless, that's beside the point. Sure, there are a small group of people who think monogamy is bad. They sure get a lot of loud supporters once an Awesome DU Hero gets caught breaking it. It's damn common any time a popular politican crosses a line: among the faithful, there'll always be a rush to listen to the tiny pocket of folks who say that it's the line's fault.

[baby_mouse]

162. ...alternatively:

"My experience of X is universal whilst the experience of all others in the same matter is unique and can be viewed only through the lens of their status as an emotional wreck with little innate self-confidence and whilst being incapable of forming a bond of mutual trust."

Which, and I say this as an ex-polyamorist (a fellow ex-polyamorist?), *I* would never say, not being privy to the emotional wreckedness or otherwise of of which set I have admittedly viewed only a small and apparently (to me) well-balanced cross-section (a few of the British ones). I will capitulate instantly on this matter upon the production of statistics of any kind.

there'll always be a rush to listen to the tiny pocket of folks who say that it's the line's fault.

I had addressed this, in fact. I'm uncertain what you intended?

[seabeyond]

151. exactly. i am being told by defender that i too am at risk of fucking on my mate

no i am not i say

uh hu. they insist i hold the badge of infedility along with all that have cheated. never say never. well i do say never. then i am told i am saintly or whatever. no..... i just would never schose to hurt mate, and especially in that way. 47 yr living i know my track record. AND it isnt even hard

[MedleyMisty]

98. I can't imagine sex without love

My genes and those of my husband lead us to feel most comfortable and right with monogamy.

If yours don't, then cool. But why assume that we're religious or authoritarian or are sexually repressed just because we really do not feel the need to have sex with other people?

I read the Children's Bible when I was five and saw all sorts of logical inconsistencies, and the next year in school I learned about geological epochs and the dinosaurs and all that and that was the end of religion for me. An invisible dude in the sky has nothing to do with my preference for monogamy.

My husband did go to Catholic school K-8, but he also never believed.

We're definitely not authoritarian - we're both in the deep lower left corner of the political compass. Our relationship is pretty equal, although my husband does do most of the cooking and housework. We don't wear rings and I didn't change my last name.

I think that we both have a pretty healthy sexual attitude - it's not like we're "OMG missionary only with the lights off and only for procreation!" Neither one of us want kids, and the other stuff is probably too much information for a public board.

And while I personally think that cheating on someone who thinks that you're being monogamous is pretty icky morally, I have no problem with multiple partners if you're honest and open about it and it's all consensual. It's definitely not my choice, but I don't feel the need for other people to make the same choices I do in order to have my choices validated.

Our genes and nurturing just produced a natural desire for monogamy. Deal with it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Most peoples' glands reward them most for being (mostly) monogamous.

It is in the advantages of a gene to be carried by someone who will devote their efforts to raising their offspring, and so our genes are wired so that monogamy makes us happy, in general.

Note, however, that that doesn't say anything about the ethics of monogamy or otherwise - just because your genes want you to do something is no reason you should. Nothing wrong with fire and the wheel...

[libodem]

101. Anybody remember

that movie 'Someone like You' with Hugh Jackman and Ashley Judd? They had the theory about the cows and the bull. After the bull mated with one of the cows he wanted nothing to do with her ever again. He was on to the next conquest. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to relate the theory to males in general. I think it has something to do with the gene pool. You know, making the most combinations possible. My two cents worth.

[ecstatic]

105. Please get clipped and at least be honest

with the women you are seeing. Tell them the truth about your "views."

[Fla Dem]

106. Interesting this sentiment is from a male. Ok for men to have

multiple partners...worshipped as studs. But if it was a female, then they are whores, skanks, homewreckers etc. Double standard.

[baby_mouse]

123. The vast majority of the socio-politically aware non-monogamists *I* have known

were analytically minded feminists. Few of the male non-monogamists I met were anywhere near as evangelical on the subject.

[SarahB]

131. Don't be too sure about that. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. Monogamy is better for offspring. n/t

[Deja Q]

110. Because respect for one's self, others, not inciting heartbreak, and lastly, not spreading disease

Maybe that's why 'free love' ended. The 'free clinics' couldn't keep up with killing 'free bacteria'.

[lunatica]

111. Hey if women were given all the rights and privileges men have

And if we could get equal pay for equal work, and the playing field were dead level for the highest positions in corporations and they didn't have to historically rely on men to survive (I'm talking historically) then maybe monogomy wouldn't be practiced.

Just saying...

[TexasObserver]

114. and maybe if we all hopped on one foot we'd stop being bi-peds

We are bi-peds, and pair bondings are our natural state, as animals. That doesn't change with more women in the workplace at higher salaries.

We are who we are because our evolution has found that the most useful form of this species. We pair bond because that has worked best. That isn't going to change, no matter what happens in the political issues that you mention. The drive and need for monogamy are built into us. We're animals. Thinking beings, but animals, and most of what we do is because we're animals reacting viscerally.

[lunatica]

117. The family unit is an evolutionary survival instinct

Not monogamy. The survival of the species relies on the nuclear structure of the extended family because infants are dependent for so long and need to be taken care of in order to survive. That has nothing to do with sex. We survive because we hang together not because one man and one woman have exlusive sex. That's for the wolves, and the Meerkats.

In antiquity is was probably better for men to have sex with many women in order for humanity to survive. And it would be to the advantage to humanity to diverify the gene pool by having women procreate with different men. The family unit group would be able to survive if the offspring weren't all identical genetically.

So go jump on your one leg all you want. You're explanation is empty of all rationale.

[TexasObserver]

119. that's one view ...

Thanks for playing.

[lunatica]

120. Your ignorance must be bliss n/t

[TexasObserver]

121. If ignorance is bliss, you must be delirious.

It's clear that you have your version of our development, and there's no point discussing these issues because of it. I'd just as soon try to convince a Bible thumper her belief in the virgin birth was lacking. People whose beliefs are built around their hopes and dreams are not good subjects for extended discussions.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. Your views

are very hetero-centric. Just saying. The subject is monogomy, not heterosexual relationiships....not the same thing.

[TexasObserver]

148. Correct. And I addressed that in other posts in this thread.

I believe pair bonding is an evolutionarily preferred method of survival, and it's true of male-male and female-female relationships, too. I also believe such homosexual relationships are genetically mandated because it serves an evolutionary purpose. I believe both heterosexuality and homosexuality are both normal and genetic. Just as red hair is a trait found in a small portion of humans, so is homosexuality. Both are normal, but not dominant, human traits.

The worst thing that can be said about homosexuality is to claim that it is unnatural. It is natural, and our history as humans proves that. It's not the dominant condition, but neither is red hair. Neither are blue eyes. Neither is white skin.

There are gays who do not seek monogamy, but most do.

Certainly in the history of humankind, there are times and subcultures where polygamy or other forms work. Usually, the practice traces back to a limited number of breeding males in a clan or group, usually from warfare or other losses. However, the pair bond is the overwhelming choice of humans.

If some individuals find living in a triad works for them, more power to them. I don't care what others do, but accepting it and thinking it is the evolutionary design for humans are not the same.

[sendero]

115. I don't' think it's monogamy..

.. that's glorified, its fidelity.

There is nothing wrong with screwing around, but once you commit then that's it.

[Zuiderelle]

116. What happened to progressives championing civil rights? Why do they turn out to be hypocrites.

Since we're still beating this dead horse and the 20+ threads I've already hidden with Edwards in the subject doesn't seem to stop the flood of people who want to hear their voices heard about this issue and complain about how people keep talking about it.

Why does he not support gay marriage? Why does he believe it should be only between a man and a woman, when he clearly thinks it should be between a man and a woman and another woman.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. According to John himself...

his Southern Baptist values prevent him from supporting marriage equality. Because he values the institution of marriage so very deeply. He says gay folk are not worthy under his religion. He says that his religion is 'part of' him and he can not make it disappear. Unless, I presume, there is a chance to fuck a stranger. What he means is gay folks should follow his religion for him, as he is too rich and powerful to bother with such things as morality...but to prove that he is a big Christian, he stands in the way of good honest couples seeking equal treatment.
He spent half the primary talking about how holy he is, and how sinful gays are, and how marriage is for one man and one woman. And that other woman, and that gal on the Night desk at the Four Seasons NY...and whom ever else John wants. All about John. All the time.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. Monogamy Isn't What's Glorified, Trust Is.

If monogamy is what was glorified than single people everywhere who are just 'dating' would be shunned, yet they're not. Who are shunned are those who enter into a trust and BETRAY that trust. Pretty straightforward really.

[DustyJoe]

126. 60's were great !

Found my love in 1966 she was 14, married her in 1968 and just had our 40th anniversary. So, 60's rock, monogomy rocks, nuff said, worked fer me.

[Matariki]

127. A perspective apart from morality

Maintaining an intimate relationship with another person requires a significant commitment of time. I have friends in polyamorous relationships and damn, I never get to see them anymore because they have to spend the bulk of their time tending to multiple partners.

Besides neglecting their non-amorous relationships, they also don't do a whole lot else but 'date'. All their creative projects, community projects, reading, etc - not much time for those things anymore.

Having a steady monogamous relationship also frees your time from constantly being on the prowl for sex and all the social ritual that goes with that.

I think it sounds more fun in theory, but in practice I think it quickly gets tiring and unfulfilling at the deeper levels of life. Of course, 'your millage may vary'. I also know a very, very rare few who have made it work very well.

[BuelahWitch]

129. Didn't the AIDS virus have something to do with the end of the "free love" era?

No one has mentioned that yet...

[anonymous171]

130. Perhaps it has something to do with raisng children?

I dunno.

[alarimer]

132. Because if you make a promise to someone, you keep it.

Otherwise, you suck. John Edwards is a fucking piece of shit. So is Bill Clinton.

[defendandprotect]

135. I think the question should really be . . . "why marriage" . . because

isn't that where the "monogamy" supposedly comes in --- ??

We are very reluctant to have relationships stand on their own ---
letting them last until the fire burns out --- if ever ---
letting people make their own rules, or not ---

I agree that it is males who want to make "babies" ---
this seems to be a stronger instinct in males than females ---
Some males even stick around for four years to help with the care -- some longer.
BUT it is patriarchy which creates/demands a male LINE . . .
and which requires monogamy, even if myth!

Patriarchy=male line=marriage=monogamy --

Marriage also used to ensure more births, evidently --
because the idea of female "refusal" to engage in sex was often denied in the past.

I don't know that what happened in the '60 defined free love --
or that anyone has satisfactorily defined it, ever ---
What are its requirements?

This is another large subject . . .

And we should not confuse love with sex.

"Love is a second-hand emotion" --- or sex is a second hand emotion?

[flvegan]

137. This thread went poorly.

Well, it did.

[UndertheOcean]

142. 142 replies , gulp ....

[Apollo11]

145. Senator Edwards -- is that you?

:eyes:

[UndertheOcean]

152. No , I'm not that good looking ...

[Zynx]

156. I've never seen anything better than long standing marriages of people who love eachother.

The free-wielding sex lives that many people practice do not match up at all. Those are hollow and empty materialist ways of life and many choose not to engage in those behaviors as a result.

[iamthebandfanman]

159. it has more to do with respect

than anything.

if you arent in love with someone and havent made commitments to be faithful... then i suppose respect isnt an issue so there is a definitely seperation between love and sex...

[RidinMyDonkey]

160. Of course we should not confuse love with sex

I personally cannot have sex with someone I'm not in love with. I've tried it, and it just lead to being depressed. Being in a monogamous relationship is the only way I can even enjoy sex. However, I don't glorify it, nor do I think any less of people who are polyamorists. It's just a choice for me, like which flavor of ice cream I'm going to pick out at the grocery store.

That said, I wasn't even close to being born yet while the free love movement was around. So I'm speculating on this part. The first problem I see with polyamorists and polygamists are the way women are treated in comparison to men. If a woman partakes in an open relationship and has intimate relations with several partners, she's automatically labeled a whore, but a man will be worshiped for it. The second being, HIV and the assortment of other sexually transmitted diseases. Having multiple partners isn't something I'd want for this reason alone. It's hard enough to trust one person to tell you their accurate sexual history, there's no way I'd be able to trust several. If just one of them goes outside the arranged group for sex the results could be horrible. I guess I'm just not that trusting.

[DailyGrind51]

161. We discovered that not even love comes free!

[Skittles]

170. don't get married, don't get engaged and then go for it

BUT DON'T BE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE

[DailyGrind51]

172. Thank you!

[IndianaGreen]

171. Engels: Monogamy is the subjugation of the one sex by the other;

Frederick Engels

Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

This Athenian family became in time the accepted model for domestic relations, not only among the Ionians, but to an increasing extent among all the Greeks of the mainland and colonies also. But, in spite of locks and guards, Greek women found plenty of opportunity for deceiving their husbands. The men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with hetairai; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede.

This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions – on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. The Greeks themselves put the matter quite frankly: the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own. Otherwise, marriage was a burden, a duty which had to be performed, whether one liked it or not, to gods, state, and one’s ancestors. In Athens the law exacted from the man not only marriage but also the performance of a minimum of so-called conjugal duties.

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others. It is the cellular form of civilized society, in which the nature of the oppositions and contradictions fully active in that society can be already studied.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm