Happy Atheist Forum

www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/51-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

Quote
Whether or not the married or otherwise committed individuals stray for sex depends on the costs and benefits.
"There is plenty of evidence that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex," Lancaster said. "Having
less to lose, it's easier for them to do it."
Women, however, could lose "dad's" resources when it comes to raising their kids. "For women, the well-being of their
children is not improved by promiscuity," Lancaster told LiveScience .
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.
"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of
Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."
She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"

I've thought a lot about this.  I think it's both.  What I mean is, society has taught us that monogamy is expected in a committed relationship, so we expect it.  Because our partners expect it, if we stray from that, we know it would hurt them.  It is natural to not want to hurt people we love, so in a way it is natural to cling to monogamy.  But monogamy itself?  I'm not convinced of that.  I think if monogamy was natural, we wouldn't have so much infidelity. 

This may sound really bizarre, but the older I get, the less I worry about infidelity.  The idea that my husband might want to carry on with someone else makes me roll my eyes more than it makes me worry.  Is that weird?

I have discussed this topic with my girlfriend a  few times. Even before we started going out, I told her that hiding "wanting to sleep with someone else" in a relationship is pointless.
I told her if she is attracted to some one else and wants to sleep with them, just tell them first.
Marriage is just a piece of paper anyway. I love het very much and wsnt to spend my life with her. To deny her sexual needs when we only live once seems cruel. Also, we are already in a long distance relatioship. As long as she doesnt leave me, it wont bother me.

I think that the worry is that the passion of the sexual relationship will impel your partner to move on to the next relationship. 

Haha, I think my stance on this issue is more along the lines of "Just try and be rid of me, mfer.  Just try."  LOL

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 10, 2012, 11:32:33 PM
www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/51-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

Quote
Whether or not the married or otherwise committed individuals stray for sex depends on the costs and benefits.
"There is plenty of evidence that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex," Lancaster said. "Having
less to lose, it's easier for them to do it."
Women, however, could lose "dad's" resources when it comes to raising their kids. "For women, the well-being of their
children is not improved by promiscuity," Lancaster told LiveScience .
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.
"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of
Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."
She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"

I think monogamy is a difficult trick to carry off successfully and not merely because of men's insatiable horniness.It's just tough staying with one person through all the changes and challenges that life invariably throws up.

The real problem I have with monogamy is that no one human being belongs to another. The idea of only being with ONE person your entire life seems insane. No one person can satisfy you in every way.

I can understand having a long term partner or companion, but I might want to have sex wih other people for various reasons. Especially when i visit Japan.


There is no "happily ever after" irl. :<

I feel like society invented monogamy amongst humans as a way to control the masses.

Monogamy seems to be both evolutionary and societal in origin. It is a moral concept, and therefore we must place it under the construct of morality. Then we are back to the question of, "Where does morality come from?" Again, I would say it is formed from equal parts biology and culture. If we examine it strictly as a biological motivation, we can understand both monogamy and infidelity as described in the article. You might say it is a social agreement born out of evolution-based desires. It is beneficial to the continuation of species to have children raised under a cooperative effort, whether that cooperation comes from two persons who also happen to be closely bonded (which makes sense, you don't want to risk losing the resources provided from this arrangement), or from a larger social group as a combined effort. There are many tribal cultures who do not ascribe to monogamy, yet get along just fine. I wish I could name it, but there is a matriarchal culture where the woman decides on her mating partner - who may or may not be the father of her other children - and the raising of the children who result is attended to by the brothers of the woman, not her mate.

Of course, there is a little matter of an emotion called jealousy.  I don't think jealousy is entirely a product of nurture.  I do think it's at least a product of nature.  My brother and I were raised by the same parents under the same rules, education, and religious upbringing.  Now I'm the atheist that would be a little jealous if my wife had an affair (wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker, however) and my brother is the Christian in a polyamorous marriage.  He's been trying to find polyamorous Christians to talk to about his lifestyle.  I find it sorta funny.

Anyway, I do think at least some of the basis to society's ideas about monogamy is due to the jealousy emotion.  Since men have largely held the power in society historically, they got to protect their jealousy with religious laws while often subjecting women to having to swallow jealousy when their husband took on multiple wives.

BTW... I'm married, and know that in the right situation I would probably cheat... which is why I never put myself in those situations.  Despite my lack of religion, I've had my fun in my youth, and I personally find more value in the wonderful relationship I have with my wife.  So whatever I wrote above, understand it is colored by that lens.

Maybe it's just me, but I dont get jealous. I told mimi i'd be her partner for life, but she if she looks or desires another, it's okay, as long as she doesnt love them or want to leave me for that person.

I dont like the assumption that is made that only men are not monogamous.  Women  can do it as well. I dont have (wil not have) kids to tie me down. I am just as capable as any man.

Quote from: fester30 on February 11, 2012, 02:25:07 AM
Of course, there is a little matter of an emotion called jealousy.  I don't think jealousy is entirely a product of nurture.  I do think it's at least a product of nature.  My brother and I were raised by the same parents under the same rules, education, and religious upbringing.  Now I'm the atheist that would be a little jealous if my wife had an affair (wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker, however) and my brother is the Christian in a polyamorous marriage.  He's been trying to find polyamorous Christians to talk to about his lifestyle.  I find it sorta funny.

Anyway, I do think at least some of the basis to society's ideas about monogamy is due to the jealousy emotion.  Since men have largely held the power in society historically, they got to protect their jealousy with religious laws while often subjecting women to having to swallow jealousy when their husband took on multiple wives.

BTW... I'm married, and know that in the right situation I would probably cheat... which is why I never put myself in those situations.  Despite my lack of religion, I've had my fun in my youth, and I personally find more value in the wonderful relationship I have with my wife.  So whatever I wrote above, understand it is colored by that lens.

This reminds me of something said about polygamy: in most western countries, it is illegal. What isn't illegal is infidelity. So what does it say about us that a man cannot say to two women, or a woman to two men (or any combination thereof), "Look, I love you both. How about we all get married?" But if the man deceived the woman about having a relationship with another, that would not be illegal. Something to think on.  

I myself am not polyamorous and have no desire to be in that kind of relationship. What I find distasteful about the most common variations is their connection with religious oppression of women, especially young girls. But in its purest form . . . hmmm . . . not sure. Besides the above, I haven't given it a whole lot of thought.

I don't think humans are monogamous at all by nature.  First of all, as already pointed out, there's all that infidelity on both sides of the gender line.  And then there's the fact that monogamy seems a fairly recent innovation and still isn't universal, and that no other primates (that I know of) are monogamous.  Somewhere along the line, someone decided it would be a good deal for them and made a moral point of it and several societies at least give it tremendous lip service to this day.  As social engineering, monogamy is a real success story.  There may be some social benefit to it, but frankly I've never seen much sense in it unless I'm involved with someone for whom it's important.  Then, yes, I'll go along with it to make them happy even tho I don't get understand it's importance personally.

Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:19:59 AM
Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Or someone helping out, and I think a family with 3 or more adults would be even more convenient for child-raising than a family with 2 adults.

Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:19:59 AM
Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Why does it all fall on a woman raising a child alone? :(

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 11, 2012, 04:40:10 AM

Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:19:59 AM
Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Why does it all fall on a woman raising a child alone? :(

Because kids usually stay where they started, and that's with mom.  Men sometimes end up raising kids but the circumstances are generally unusual. 

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 11, 2012, 04:40:10 AM

Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:19:59 AM
Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Why does it all fall on a woman raising a child alone? :(

I was just hypothetically talking about a situation where people aren't monogomistic, hence possibly get together for a sexual experience and then move on. In this case the male may not ever know the female got pregnant and wouldn't know the child was his. The female can't avoid knowing that she is pregnant and that the child is hers. Presumably after birth the female will want to look after her baby.

An obvious reason old time and modern men would have concerns for the their wives fidelity is they could end up unknowingly raising another's child.  I'd guestimate one in five males are apparently unknowingly raising a child resulting from a spouses wandering. 

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

I agree with you 100% Ali.
Raising any child is about nuturing, love , and passing down your wisdom. Ultimately a person grows up and does whatever they decide is best for themselves.
It has nothing to do with actual genetics.
Instead of reproducing, people should adopt more...
(maybe then we'd get the population in check.)



Well, Stevil, many forms of birthcontol exist today  to prevent unwanted pregnacies. X_x 
Women dont  have to depend on men or "what if..." Anymore. Thank goodness.

Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 03:25:41 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

But until fairly recently, men had no real way of knowing whether or not they actually had passed on their genes.  Hence monogamy, I suppose.   ::)

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

It's not nice to be fooled.
I've known a man who loved the boy of the woman he sought for a wife.
They married, had two children, the fourth child belongs to a mysterious other.
I suppose he didn't know.

And then there's the guy with two daughters, had a vasectomy, his wife gives birth to a son seeded by a hated ex business partner.
I've no idea how they explain this to themselves, vasectomy failure, divine intervention, shut up and cuddle your brother 1/2 brother.

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 04:04:50 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 03:25:41 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

But until fairly recently, men had no real way of knowing whether or not they actually had passed on their genes.  Hence monogamy, I suppose.   ::)

Exactly. The males had to protect their wombs from other males. This situation has been codified in the majority of holy books ever since writing began, and culturally way before that.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 11, 2012, 04:12:52 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 03:20:25 PM
Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

It's not nice to be fooled.
I've known a man who loved the boy of the woman he sought for a wife.
They married, had two children, the fourth child belongs to a mysterious other.
I suppose he didn't know.

And then there's the guy with two daughters, had a vasectomy, his wife gives birth to a son seeded by a hated ex business partner.
I've no idea how they explain this to themselves, vasectomy failure, divine intervention, shut up and cuddle your brother 1/2 brother.

"Fooling" is only "necessary" when monogamy is expected.  If neither partner expects monogamy, then there is no need to pretend that man A is the father when you suspect it may really be man B.

Tank, it kind of grosses me out that the purpose of monogamy is to ensure that a man's children are genetically related to him.  Like my womb and my child are literally possessions that are owned by my husband.  I'm not even anti-monogamy, but the idea that that is why is disturbing.

SweetD, the problem I see with telling your partner that they can have sex with someone else as long as they don't love anyone but you is that a lot of times sex and emotion get all mixed up, and I don't think there is anyway that your partner can actually guarantee that they won't love anyone else but you particularly if she is sleeping with other people.

As I said, I'm not really anti-monogamy because it's a fairly pragmatic way to try to keep family units together.  I also find the idea of carrying on relationships (even just sexual relationships) with multiple people exhausting.  LOL  But I'm not totally sold that monogamy is the only way to make things work, and I don't really care what others do as long as everyone is honest about it.

My husband and I have a bit of an "understanding", but I don't like the term "Open-marriage" because it implies that we have a free-for-all arrangement or that we're both constantly trolling for sex outside of our marriage. We aren't.

We've both just said that, if the situation ever arises where either of us find ourselves in a position where we really want to have an encounter with a another person, we're allowed to. We just have to be honest about it and try our best not to let it emotionally impact our relationship. In our 6+ years together, there's only really been one "instance" (and it wasn't sex, it was kissing), but I feel better knowing that the reason we aren't having sex with other people is not because we're constantly under duress, it's because, generally, neither of us really want to. We like our sex life together very much and most other people can't compete with what we already have.  

So, instead of making everyone "forbidden fruit", I allow myself to flirt a little with a guy or girl if they seem interesting and most of the time I lose interest anyway. Maybe I'm the minority, but I really do still find my husband way more physically/intellectually/emotionally attractive than pretty much anyone else. I think the fact that I'm allowed to "look" only re-enforces this most of the time.  

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
Tank, it kind of grosses me out that the purpose of monogamy is to ensure that a man's children are genetically related to him.  Like my womb and my child are literally possessions that are owned by my husband.  I'm not even anti-monogamy, but the idea that that is why is disturbing.

It is very 'animalistic' where the male simply sees a female as a 'womb on legs' but from the most basic male reproductive viewpoint that's it, end of story. Humans have elaborate relationships because we are sophisticated social creatures so we need to find effective partners that will provide mutual support and cooperate in the raising of their children. That's not as simple as snifffing your potential mates urine to see if they are receptive!

Is monogomy an outcome of religion?

Here is a good article with regards to sexual behaviours in animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour)

Quote
Zoologists and biologists now have solid evidence that monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with extra-pair partners.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This includes previous examples such as swans. Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.[4][5][17][18] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 11, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
My husband and I have a bit of an "understanding", but I don't like the term "Open-marriage" because it implies that we have a free-for-all arrangement or that we're both constantly trolling for sex outside of our marriage. We aren't.

This is what Dan Savage calls "monogamish".  Sounds like a very sensible compromise between nature and culture.

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
Tank, it kind of grosses me out that the purpose of monogamy is to ensure that a man's children are genetically related to him.  Like my womb and my child are literally possessions that are owned by my husband.  I'm not even anti-monogamy, but the idea that that is why is disturbing.

Until very recently, possessions were exactly what women and children were in most cultures, and still are in many.  And even in the West in modern times I think women and children being possessions of men is still a very common mind-set -- after all, both still usually take the man's name and what other point is there to putting your name on something other than to claim ownership? 

Me, I would have gone for a non-possession oriented culture but then I'm female and, as noted in another thread, without superior muscles and size we weren't the winning team in olden times when it was being established who's interests called the shots.  What baffles me is the change over from polygyny to monogamy.  Polygyny seems more practical for everyone and while I wouldn't care to see it mandated, as monogamy is in the West, I don't see why it or polygamy shouldn't be an option.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 09:40:30 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 11, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
My husband and I have a bit of an "understanding", but I don't like the term "Open-marriage" because it implies that we have a free-for-all arrangement or that we're both constantly trolling for sex outside of our marriage. We aren't.

This is what Dan Savage calls "monogamish".  Sounds like a very sensible compromise between nature and culture.

I have always liked Dan Savage's take on (non)monogamy. I read his book "Commitment" a couple of years ago and it had some very good points.

To me, that monogamy may not be "natural" isn't an argument either for or against it. There are plenty of "natural" human behaviors that societies, through laws or social pressures/expectations, discourage individuals from. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad, depending on one's personal take on the behavior.

Quote from: Anne D. on February 12, 2012, 01:09:09 AM
To me, that monogamy may not be "natural" isn't an argument either for or against it. There are plenty of "natural" human behaviors that societies, through laws or social pressures/expectations, discourage individuals from. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad, depending on one's personal take on the behavior.

True, we humans have pretty much made it our life's work to defy nature.  I'm just far from sure we chose correctly when some of our cultures decided on monogamy.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 11, 2012, 10:53:38 PM

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 09:40:30 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 11, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
My husband and I have a bit of an "understanding", but I don't like the term "Open-marriage" because it implies that we have a free-for-all arrangement or that we're both constantly trolling for sex outside of our marriage. We aren't.

This is what Dan Savage calls "monogamish".  Sounds like a very sensible compromise between nature and culture.

I have always liked Dan Savage's take on (non)monogamy. I read his book "Commitment" a couple of years ago and it had some very good points.

Sounds cool .

Marriage always seemed benefical for the male. I never agreed the "taking his last name b.s"
It's like saying "sure, I will completely erase myself as a human being and become your posession."
bleh...

My wife kept her last name.

It does seem strange to me that they are expected to take on the last name of the husband.

Marriage ceremonies are very sexist, Father giving away of the bride, the groom and best man expected to give speech but not the wife and bride's maid.
The groom expected to say something nice about the bridesmaids and the best man expected to accept that compliment on the bride's maid's behalf.

The girls trying to desperately grab the bouquet.

Not sure what that has to do with monogamy, but hey.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 10:36:31 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 11, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
Tank, it kind of grosses me out that the purpose of monogamy is to ensure that a man's children are genetically related to him.  Like my womb and my child are literally possessions that are owned by my husband.  I'm not even anti-monogamy, but the idea that that is why is disturbing.

Until very recently, possessions were exactly what women and children were in most cultures, and still are in many.  And even in the West in modern times I think women and children being possessions of men is still a very common mind-set -- after all, both still usually take the man's name and what other point is there to putting your name on something other than to claim ownership? 

Me, I would have gone for a non-possession oriented culture but then I'm female and, as noted in another thread, without superior muscles and size we weren't the winning team in olden times when it was being established who's interests called the shots.  What baffles me is the change over from polygyny to monogamy.  Polygyny seems more practical for everyone and while I wouldn't care to see it mandated, as monogamy is in the West, I don't see why it or polygamy shouldn't be an option.

Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

Quote from: Tank on February 12, 2012, 09:13:18 AM
Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

I don't know that these problems are particular to multiple partners or are just human problems.  Plenty of monogamous couples are jealous and paranoid, and changing dynamics and disappointment has put an end to their share of couple relationships.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 12, 2012, 09:27:16 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 12, 2012, 09:13:18 AM
Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

I don't know that these problems are particular to multiple partners or are just human problems.  Plenty of monogamous couples are jealous and paranoid, and changing dynamics and disappointment has put an end to their share of couple relationships.

I agree, with the caviat that in a polyamourous relationship the dynamic of multiple partners living with each other appears to amplify problems. But I'm no expert in these areas.

In my opinion, I believe it is a mixture between society and human nature. Society views polygamy as a negative thing, and seems to throughout history. Of course society is largely dominated by religion, so the Adam and Eve concept I would assume greatly contributed to the succession of monogamy in populations where christianity is the majority. However as an atheist, I find it more easy to commit and maintain a monogamous relationship than it would be to maintain polygamy because like stated before, jealousy. A relationship built on monogamy can be destroyed by infidelity. But I also believe all of our standpoints are diluted by modern society because we ultimately have to reform. So basically, are we built for monogamy, in the long run, i don't think so. But to remain monogamous seems to be much easier than anything else.

I'm no where near a bible reader/expert...but didn't Adam supposedly mess around with Lilith?

Quote from: Xiilent on February 12, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
In my opinion, I believe it is a mixture between society and human nature. Society views polygamy as a negative thing, and seems to throughout history.

Even during all those centuries when it was the norm, just about everywhere on the planet?  Granted most of them practiced polygyny, but there were a few polyandrists around so polygamy still applies.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 12, 2012, 04:02:31 PM
I'm no where near a bible reader/expert...but didn't Adam supposedly mess around with Lilith?

I am no expert either, but I believe that Lilith was his first wife, and had left him before Eve was created. She is not mentioned by name in Genesis, and I believe the story of Lilith arose to explain the descrepency between the two verses that describe the creation of man and woman. Sorry, I can't tell you which particular verses. I am also not sure of whether the story of Lilith comes from one of the Hebrew texts or an Apocryphal book, but the Jews believed in Lilith before christianity came about.

I have also read somewhere that the Lilith story was created to demonize an older deity. Religion does that well.

My stance on monogamy vs polygamy is do whatever works best for all people involved. If that happens to be polygamy then hey so what it isn't bothering me.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 11, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
I allow myself to flirt a little with a guy or girl if they seem interesting and most of the time I lose interest anyway. Maybe I'm the minority, but I really do still find my husband way more physically/intellectually/emotionally attractive than pretty much anyone else. I think the fact that I'm allowed to "look" only re-enforces this most of the time.  

+1, Finally!!!


love is to be proved daily
when it exists there is no bullshit, one-to-one, exclusivity and trust. All consuming they arrive to be, contacts, as they progress from the one/first night to the first week-third month term to the 6 month-3 year term and possible they decline or rupture on the way

It should hold, it ought to hold the test, especially if you invest emotionally in a ridiculous declaration on paper such as "marriage". if it doesnt, it wasnt supposed to, and its not worth it. OUR HISTORY is a bullshit argument if you cannot find elements of it in the present. Children need devotion to them directly and not from us in an anguish being with the History you currently do not love.

the butterflies of love/insipration/lust and resignation onto the others' soul have a profile of flight time:
it is generated, it can last or it can break, it can heal up from an accident and it can die and be extinguished. forgiving after consuming/involving/loving affairs? rubbish! lamenting at the ruins of broken trust, and pretending its a fiesta
if the affair was not a totalgive then Why the robot fuckin? other psychological mix up, something off-balance.

when unsure about love, or indeed no love, then experimenting, then robot just sex. orgies, switches, anything...
yet sex creates (should create)emotion- attachment. so something a miss, no?

open marriage ( in a young age)= lamenting at the ruins of broken trust, and pretending its a fiesta

So my take, for all its worth: serial monogamy, as in  searching, until maximum compatibility meets my luck.

I believe we have a periodic engagement capacity. wrong or imperfect match choices reveal a period eg. every relation lasts no more than 3 or 5 or 7 years. maybe one lasted 3 months and another 5 years and so on variable lengths? the best compatibility, closest match, complimentary alignment, opens the range span

that is lucky, and you do get to find the right one, the shining fucking prince on the horse, and the (happily)ever-after tale, or rather the easy-die off-with-trusted-company ending

romance can perish i suppose after decades? I dont know and hope to find out this time round. i guess if love and respect do exist, helping substitutes and perks to spice things to motion will be normally employed.

Fuck society, follow your hearts, or seek help if you cannot

Do what works for you is my motto, but I find it tough to find like minded people irl. :<
A lot tend to conform to society's standards.

I think people just find it scary/intimidating to have to invent their own rules. Monogamy is easy because it's black and white: hold a sexual/romantic interest in one person. Period. It might not be how our brains and human nature actually works, but it sure looks easy on paper. That makes it an easier ideal to hang on to, defend, and expect from your partner. Everyone knows what it means.

But anything that is non-monogamous, well, it's complicated. When it comes to relationships, "complications" can enrich them or completely destroy them. (I'm sure there are some marriages that have been destroyed by non-monogamy, but I'm also sure that there have been some marriages that have been destroyed by having children). I wouldn't argue that the most-fulfilled life or relationship is one that completely avoids any extra work or challenges, but I can see why people might want to avoid some issues and monogamy offers a socially-sanctioned way of doing that.

I can understand why one might like monogamy, but there should be a statistic. How many cheat or lead secret lives because they feel ashamed or too guilted to tell their lover.
Seems pretty fucked up IMO.

I believe in total honesty.

According to the site Infidelity Facts (http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html) (and I can't believe they have a site just for this, tho I don't know why they shouldn't because there's a site for everything), 53% of women in any relationship admit to infidelity, and 57% of men in any relationship admit to infidelity.  The key word for me is "admit", I suspect if we could read minds that percentage would soar for both sexes.

I don't know, to me monogamy is unnatural, impractical and nearly impossible to bring off.  Tho I can see problems with non-monogamy (aside from the jealousy that others have mentioned, there's the feeling of not being "special" to someone, or of not getting your fair share of the goodies in a relationship) I can't see any that is specific to non-monogamy.  I just don't understand the social benefits to paying lip service to this ideal.

Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 12:09:32 AM
I think monogamy is a difficult trick to carry off successfully and not merely because of men's insatiable horniness.

Simple. When warm and fuzzy goes away, break up and find someone new. Keep it to one at a time and problem solved.  :D

Quote from: Asmodean on February 13, 2012, 06:55:28 AM

Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 12:09:32 AM
I think monogamy is a difficult trick to carry off successfully and not merely because of men's insatiable horniness.

Simple. When warm and fuzzy goes away, break up and find someone new. Keep it to one at a time and problem solved.  :D

exactly, otherwise defined as   serial monogamy

the institution of marriage as it stands and the monogamic commitment irrespective of the dynamic courses that may or may not run in parallel between the 2 involved is, entirely a patriarchical invention that secures the male in his feeling of overwhelmed inadequacy.

A full "capacity and realisation" woman swallows men like small cheese tacos, and that was evidently obvious in the caves, were god is actually godess, titfull and child-bearing.

So , sperm competition, territory claim and possessive jealousy were first a male "thing"

I am against marriage, and a good sport, horny enough to look and fantasize. potentially go with every and any woman (or else if the case be) but experienced enough to hold on to the partner of proven choice. Whatever you are, be it fully. And live it as if it will end. because it does end

as Camus said

The fact that everything is allowed does not cancel the fact that some things are best avoided

There seems to be an awful lot of generalizations about marriage being made by people who are admittedly not married.  I find that to be curious.  Social construct or not, marriage is what you make of it, and I'd say most couple's reasons for choosing to get married are different, especially among those who are not religious and might not have that pressure on them.  Marriage gets a bad rap from people like Newt Gingrich and Kim Kardashian.

Marriage is more than just a piece of paper-it's a legally binding contract between two people.  If I burned my marriage license tomorrow, I'd still be married.  If marriage were just a piece of paper, there'd be no fights over whether or not same sex couples should be entitled to it or not.  There'd also be lots of destitute divorce lawyers, too.

Monogamy is not about "belonging" to another person.  There are plenty of practical reasons to remain monogamous-less risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and studies show overall longer life spans for married people.  Plus, screening sexual partners just for the purpose of a casual relationship is kind of tiresome.  Where's the incentive for a one night stand to tell you that they have herpes if they aren't in a middle of an outbreak?  Fuck man, but dating sucks, too.  For every thrilling moment that makes your heart leap out of your chest, there's an awkward moment, too.  The primping and preening and hiding of weird habits and shaving of various body areas and holding in farts, and hiding the fact that you have a foot fetish, etc...  Does anyone really enjoy that?  The quicker that shit is over with, the quicker you can get down to peeing with the door open, abandoning unnecessarily complicated grooming habits and getting down to business.

There were absolutely no references to ownership and obedience in our vows-we wrote them ourselves.  I said exactly "I cannot promise to obey you, but I promise to love and honor you with all my heart" and I meant that.  When I took my husband's last name, I didn't erase myself as a human being.  I'm still me, exactly the same as I was before.  As it turns out, his last name was just a lot more easy to pronounce and aesthetically pleasing than mine, and a name change is free when you get married.  Having a common last name identifies us as two members of the same team, and I'm cool with that.  Also, his last name is so common I don't worry about being found by people on the internet unless I want them to find me.  And now my initials are MAD instead of MAM, so I feel like I'm giving people a fair warning of what they are about to get into.  ;D

More seriously, I married for practical reasons.  If I ever get hurt or something terrible happens to me, my husband is the one who knows what I would want done, and I trust him to do that.  If we weren't married, he'd have no rights, and neither would I if something happened to him.  That, and there are tax benefits of course.  It's so much easier to apply for certain types of loans, etc... if you are married and applying jointly.  

We were together for 8 years before we got married-it just made sense to make it legal and enjoy the fringe benefits.  For 3 years we had an open relationship and I think we both kind of got that out of our systems when we realized that no one else will ever understand our weird quirks and desires like we understand each others.  We both dated other people, and found them to be lacking.  Neither one of us has illusions about monogamy being natural-we know it isn't.  But the sex I have with my husband was always infinitely better than the sex I had with people I didn't know all that well.

Does he meet ALL of my needs?  Well, no.  And that's not what being married is about, either.  Of course no one person will be able to do that, but that's why we make friends who share our interests.  Spending 100% of your time with one person would get boring even if you weren't married to them.

In the end, marriage is awesome-with the right person.  And it still might not be for everyone.  But it only has to be a prison if you make it one.  Like most things in life, marriage isn't just black and white.

Cracking post philosoraptor!

Quote from: Tank on February 13, 2012, 09:04:01 AM
Cracking post philosoraptor!

Yes yes she always was very clever but what is the story with those Lego people?

Thank you, Tank.

Those are Lego Sartre and de Beauvoir.  It appealed to my inner raptor child.

For context, as I'm not sure if it was clear in my posts, I am married. I was also referring more to sexual monogamy as opposed to emotional monogamy. I think there is a very big difference. I care very much if my husband falls in love with someone else or wants to live a day-to-day life with someone else. That would be "deal-breaker" material for me. But if he wants to have a discreet fling. Meh. Not so much.

I'm married as well.  And for the record, I actually enjoy being married very much.  Hubby is the best friend I have ever had or could ever want.  I don't mind being monogamous with him.  :D

I know that you can fill out civil.union or hospital papers to see your spouse if anything were to happen.
I've gone through the goverment red tape several times in my life.
Marriage really isnt that much different than a paper.
You can feel bonded to someone just by sticking by them.

I do like Asmo's post.
Feelings fade. I think.in the end people only get married/stayed married because they are lonely.  And fyi: I don't even pay attention to celebs failed marriages. I take experience from real people in my life; my parents, friends' parents, etc.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 13, 2012, 04:27:54 PM
Feelings fade. I think.in the end people only get married/stayed married because they are lonely.  And fyi: I don't even pay attention to celebs failed marriages. I take experience from real people in my life; my parents, friends' parents, etc.

Maybe some people.  I don't think that's always true.  I mean, yes, it's true that the honeymoon feelings fade.    I don't get butterflies when I talk to the husband anymore, nor do I feel the need to be around him 24/7, or shag his brains out everytime I see him.  That stuff fades, in my experience.  But I think that it's possible to have other stuff that keeps you together after that fades, if you're lucky and chose well.  Like I said, my husband is, hands down, my best friend in the whole world.  He's my companion, and my partner in most of the things that matter to me.  After nine years together, he can still make me laugh until I cry, and make me think thinks I haven't thought of.  And in my very worst moments, he's the one person in the world that I can count on to always stand next to me and hold my hand and keep me from completely losing myself.  That's the kind of stuff that you don't get if you bounce from person to person, that comes with time, and in my opinion, butterflies are a very poor substitute.  I'd rather keep my life long friend.

Speaking for myself, I believe in serial monogamy. When I'm with someone, I'm with them and only them. And I expect the same from them. If they want to be with someone else, I deserve a heads up BEFORE they act on it. Then I can decide if I'm ok with it. I know too many people who have been deeply hurt by their partner cheating. I will not do that to another person. And I deserve the same. I know a lot of people who feel the same. We don't necessarily believe that there's one and only one person for us for our entire lives. But when we're with someone, we respect that partnership.

Now, if someone wants an open relationship, and both partners agree, then that's not cheating. And that's totally ok. What's wrong with cheating is the lying aspect. So, as to monogamy, I think there are many views on it, and the point, to me, is to not harm your partner(s). So, be clear your expectations, and have the respect to be open with your partner. In other words, I think some humans are inclined to monogamy and some are not. The key is to be honest with your partner(s) about which way you roll.

I agree ^
Honesty is key.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 13, 2012, 04:27:54 PM
I know that you can fill out civil.union or hospital papers to see your spouse if anything were to happen.
I've gone through the goverment red tape several times in my life

I don't even know where to start with this, but no.  No no no.

You can't get a civil union with someone if they're already in a coma.  And if that person's family wanted to keep their partner out and away, they absolutely could.  Families cause problems even when people are married-remember Terry Schiavo?  If her parents could create that much trouble for the husband, imagine what a family could do if the couple in question was committed, but didn't have a civil union?  That aside, a civil union is just another version of "separate but equal" and it's just as bigoted and offensive when you get down to it.  So what happens if you live and get married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, but your spouse is in a horrible accident in a state that doesn't recognize it?  It means that you don't have those rights.  It means that your spouse could die before you could jump through whatever red tape it is you're alluding to that would allow you to see them, and how awful would that be?  It means that you could know your partner wants to be cremated and scattered over the ocean, but his or her family could still bury them wherever they want to, regardless of their wishes.  Unless you have POA for that person or they have a will/living will, their family can do whatever they want in a circumstance where that other person is not capable of deciding for themselves, even if that goes against their wishes.

So again, no.  Much more than a piece of paper, whether you are emotionally bonded to that person or not.  You can believe otherwise if you want, but that doesn't change the way it actually is and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to all the same sex couples that have fought to have their relationships recognized.  I get it-you're against marriage.  But you're also not married, so to keep throwing around these disparaging comments about marriage and the people who get married when you have no actual experience to back it up is kind of offensive.  This being on the heels of the racially insensitive infestation remarks (which you've conveniently ignored), I don't think I really want to engage with you any further.

This thread wasn't supposed to be about marriage vs civil unions and civil rights, etc.. and I don't want to derail it and further, so that's pretty much what I have to say, unless someone wants to bump/start a thread just about that specific topic.  My earlier post wasn't directed at Ali or DeterminedJuliet, more so a general statement, so if you guys thought I was commenting at you, I apologize for not being more clear.

I do agree that there are still some very real legal and social benefits to marriages.

And I do think that you can stay actively in-love with one person your whole life (with peaks and valleys of intensity, of course).
My husband still gives me butterflies. Not every day, but definitely a couple of times a week.  :)

Quote from: philosoraptor
Much more than a piece of paper, whether you are emotionally bonded to that person or not.  You can believe otherwise if you want, but that doesn't change the way it actually is and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to all the same sex couples that have fought to have their relationships recognized.  I get it-you're against marriage.  But you're also not married, so to keep throwing around these disparaging comments about marriage and the people who get married when you have no actual experience to back it up is kind of offensive.  

when you have no actual experience ?

what is the actual experience of being married?
Is it not in essence a commited monogamy with legal binding contract?
Is marriage not already equivalent to a civil union certificate as far as legal, property, tax and inheritance goes?
so specifically not to do with legal monetary issues,

THE NEED TO DECLARE AND BROADCAST YOUR PAIR-BONDING
IN A PSYCHOSEXUAL CONTEXT TO THE SURROUNDING SOCIETY
IS DIVISIVE AND BIGOT-FORMING

and purely of patriarchical inadequacy anguish origin

I have performed several rituals of marriage and divorce in which I was god, priest, groom and church.
I am commited and focused to my partner.
Nothing Lasts For Ever, but things ever emegre as they vanish

in british tax forms it has
"married, in civil union, or living AS married with partner" = you tick the box and get the tax

Actions are described as monogamy
Marriage describes something rather ugly which we rename, redefine, and incorporate into our romance unknowingly.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fallthingsordinary.se%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F569__seal-of-approval.jpg%3F1256695294&hash=9c7cbe52308fc7236e085ff8273b470449589966)

Quote from: pytheas on February 19, 2012, 07:36:40 AM

Quote from: philosoraptor
Much more than a piece of paper, whether you are emotionally bonded to that person or not.  You can believe otherwise if you want, but that doesn't change the way it actually is and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to all the same sex couples that have fought to have their relationships recognized.  I get it-you're against marriage.  But you're also not married, so to keep throwing around these disparaging comments about marriage and the people who get married when you have no actual experience to back it up is kind of offensive.  

when you have no actual experience ?

what is the actual experience of being married?
Is it not in essence a commited monogamy with legal binding contract?
Is marriage not already equivalent to a civil union certificate as far as legal, property, tax and inheritance goes?
so specifically not to do with legal monetary issues,

THE NEED TO DECLARE AND BROADCAST YOUR PAIR-BONDING
IN A PSYCHOSEXUAL CONTEXT TO THE SURROUNDING SOCIETY
IS DIVISIVE AND BIGOT-FORMING

and purely of patriarchical inadequacy anguish origin

I have performed several rituals of marriage and divorce in which I was god, priest, groom and church.
I am commited and focused to my partner.
Nothing Lasts For Ever, but things ever emegre as they vanish

in british tax forms it has
"married, in civil union, or living AS married with partner" = you tick the box and get the tax

Actions are described as monogamy
Marriage describes something rather ugly which we rename, redefine, and incorporate into our romance unknowingly.

I would say that marriage is "DIVISIVE AND BIGOT FORMING" only insofar as people want to keep it to themselves and not allow others to do it.  Personally, I am perfectly happy to let any consenting adults form any relationships and/or marriages they want.

As for the rest of it, I really don't care whether other adults get married or not.  If it's not for you, don't get married, what do I care?  I admit that I found the ritual of marriage satisfying personally, but it doesn't matter to me if anyone else chooses it, as long as all adults have equal opportunity under the law to choose it.  What I don't get it is why some people are so anti-marriage.  I don't condemn the form your relationship takes, I don't understand why you condemn mine.

Great post, Phyteas!!  :)

You even got Asmo's Seal of approval. XDD

People take marriage so seriously without even bothering to research its origins. They think "oh, getting married makes everything better" Why? I think just sticking by the one you love is good enough.
And please do not get me started on idiots who want to waste THOUSANDS on a giant wedding. So utterly pointless.

As I will have been married to my wife for 32 years at the end of March I have to say I couldn't give two hoots what other people think about marriage. I like the situation, so does my wife and if other's don't that's their choice. If you don't like the idea of marriage that's fine but please cut out the disparaging remarks about other people's choices; they're none of your business.

I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I agree with most of this. But marriage isn't just a scrap of paper, it's a state of mind. The paper is just an overt indication that at the moment carries some legal weight.

My youngest daughter got married and the whole day was marvellous. A public affirmation of her commitment to her partner in her style. My eldest daughter has had a child with her partner and didn't get married. It's horses for courses.

QuoteAnd please do not get me started on idiots who want to waste THOUSANDS on a giant wedding. So utterly pointless.

dont come to greece
or cyprus

Quote from: MariaEvri on February 19, 2012, 04:47:47 PM

QuoteAnd please do not get me started on idiots who want to waste THOUSANDS on a giant wedding. So utterly pointless.

dont come to greece
or cyprus

That big greek wedding stuff is true??

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 05:02:40 PM

Quote from: MariaEvri on February 19, 2012, 04:47:47 PM

QuoteAnd please do not get me started on idiots who want to waste THOUSANDS on a giant wedding. So utterly pointless.

dont come to greece
or cyprus

That big greek wedding stuff is true??

Bloody right it is! We happened to be in a hotel on Cyprus when there was a wedding there. It was amazing!

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I doubt this is a problem caused married people specifically, just general narrow-mindedness.
I'm married and I have never asked my single friends "So, when are you going to tie the knot?" Because A) it's none of my business and B) I don't want to imply that they have to do everything that I do.

I also never ask people "when" they are having kids, "when" they're going to move in with someone, etc. marriage still means something to a lot of people and I don't think that's an inherently horrible thing (we are social creatures who like having traditions). It's just a matter of how much you re-enforce the privilege behind it. Saying that I'm a bigot because I've chosen to get married would be a bit much, I think.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 19, 2012, 06:09:30 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I doubt this is a problem caused married people specifically, just general narrow-mindedness.
I'm married and I have never asked my single friends "So, when are you going to tie the knot?" Because A) it's none of my business and B) I don't want to imply that they have to do everything that I do.

I also never ask people "when" they are having kids, "when" they're going to move in with someone, etc. marriage still means something to a lot of people and I don't think that's an inherently horrible thing (we are social creatures who like having traditions). It's just a matter of how much you re-enforce the privilege behind it. Saying that I'm a bigot because I've chosen to get married would be a bit much, I think.

Totally agree.

I also think it's funny that people bitch about "feeling judged" for not getting married while turning around and talking about how stupid and sexist and what not marriage is.  Pot, have you met kettle?

Quote from: Ali on February 19, 2012, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 19, 2012, 06:09:30 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I doubt this is a problem caused married people specifically, just general narrow-mindedness.
I'm married and I have never asked my single friends "So, when are you going to tie the knot?" Because A) it's none of my business and B) I don't want to imply that they have to do everything that I do.

I also never ask people "when" they are having kids, "when" they're going to move in with someone, etc. marriage still means something to a lot of people and I don't think that's an inherently horrible thing (we are social creatures who like having traditions). It's just a matter of how much you re-enforce the privilege behind it. Saying that I'm a bigot because I've chosen to get married would be a bit much, I think.

Totally agree.

I also think it's funny that people bitch about "feeling judged" for not getting married while turning around and talking about how stupid and sexist and what not marriage is.  Pot, have you met kettle?

I've had both kinds of experiences: I've had non-married people talk me into the dirt for submitting to an evil, archaic system. And I've had other married people smugly treat me like "one of them". Both situations made me feel very uncomfortable and neither evaluation felt like "me". 

But it's kind of like being a mother; if you stay home with your child, you're a subjugated domestic with no identity or goals. If you decide to work, you're a selfish, ambitious, neglectful creature who lets other people raise her kids and will live to regret it. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
It's taken me a while, but there's something really useful in being able to say "fuck it" when people try to impose some kind of external value on your very personal life-choices.

As humans, I think one of the best things we can do is let other people identify themselves how they want to and just let everything else go. 

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 19, 2012, 06:39:36 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 19, 2012, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 19, 2012, 06:09:30 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I doubt this is a problem caused married people specifically, just general narrow-mindedness.
I'm married and I have never asked my single friends "So, when are you going to tie the knot?" Because A) it's none of my business and B) I don't want to imply that they have to do everything that I do.

I also never ask people "when" they are having kids, "when" they're going to move in with someone, etc. marriage still means something to a lot of people and I don't think that's an inherently horrible thing (we are social creatures who like having traditions). It's just a matter of how much you re-enforce the privilege behind it. Saying that I'm a bigot because I've chosen to get married would be a bit much, I think.

Totally agree.

I also think it's funny that people bitch about "feeling judged" for not getting married while turning around and talking about how stupid and sexist and what not marriage is.  Pot, have you met kettle?

I've had both kinds of experiences: I've had non-married people talk me into the dirt for submitting to an evil, archaic system. And I've had other married people smugly treat me like "one of them". Both situations made me feel very uncomfortable and neither evaluation felt like "me". 

But it's kind of like being a mother; if you stay home with your child, you're a subjugated domestic with no identity or goals. If you decide to work, you're a selfish, ambitious, neglectful creature who lets other people raise her kids and will live to regret it. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
It's taken me a while, but there's something really useful in being able to say "fuck it" when people try to impose some kind of external value on your very personal life-choices.

As humans, I think one of the best things we can do is let other people identify themselves how they want to and just let everything else go. 

Wise.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 19, 2012, 06:09:30 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 19, 2012, 04:17:12 PM
I'm not intending to bash marriage, but a lot of people put pressure on you. Especially women in Asian culture. You are a leper if you aren't married before 30.
I dont care what people do honestly, but people gave broken up long term relationships because one person doesn't want to be married.
I think people need to stop acting lke its a special thing that completes a person. And married people tend to look down on "aw poor you" not married couples. I really fucking dislike the judging. Like I am not in a perfect, loving relationship unless  I have a scrap of paper.

All I want is for society to stop acting like everyone needs marriage, or else your love "doesnt matter."

I doubt this is a problem caused married people specifically, just general narrow-mindedness.
I'm married and I have never asked my single friends "So, when are you going to tie the knot?" Because A) it's none of my business and B) I don't want to imply that they have to do everything that I do.

I also never ask people "when" they are having kids, "when" they're going to move in with someone, etc. marriage still means something to a lot of people and I don't think that's an inherently horrible thing (we are social creatures who like having traditions). It's just a matter of how much you re-enforce the privilege behind it. Saying that I'm a bigot because I've chosen to get married would be a bit much, I think.

Well, more people should be like you, DJ ^__^

QuoteIs monogamy unnatural?
Or, as Dr Chris Ryan's talk at the Sydney Opera House was entitled: 'If you want fidelity, get a dog'.  He reviews the enjoyment of sex, evidence from prehistory, and even the charming behaviour of bonobos, to suggest that conventional monogamy is but a blip in human history. And, basically, doesn't work.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/is-monogamy-unnatural3f/3818274

Quote from: pytheas on February 19, 2012, 07:36:40 AM

Quote from: philosoraptor
Much more than a piece of paper, whether you are emotionally bonded to that person or not.  You can believe otherwise if you want, but that doesn't change the way it actually is and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to all the same sex couples that have fought to have their relationships recognized.  I get it-you're against marriage.  But you're also not married, so to keep throwing around these disparaging comments about marriage and the people who get married when you have no actual experience to back it up is kind of offensive.  

when you have no actual experience ?

what is the actual experience of being married?
Is it not in essence a commited monogamy with legal binding contract?
Is marriage not already equivalent to a civil union certificate as far as legal, property, tax and inheritance goes?
so specifically not to do with legal monetary issues,

THE NEED TO DECLARE AND BROADCAST YOUR PAIR-BONDING
IN A PSYCHOSEXUAL CONTEXT TO THE SURROUNDING SOCIETY
IS DIVISIVE AND BIGOT-FORMING

and purely of patriarchical inadequacy anguish origin

I have performed several rituals of marriage and divorce in which I was god, priest, groom and church.
I am commited and focused to my partner.
Nothing Lasts For Ever, but things ever emegre as they vanish

in british tax forms it has
"married, in civil union, or living AS married with partner" = you tick the box and get the tax

Actions are described as monogamy
Marriage describes something rather ugly which we rename, redefine, and incorporate into our romance unknowingly.

What is the actual experience of being married?  It's different for every couple.  And yes, I absolutely do resent someone tossing around nasty, hateful comments about marriage and the people who choose to get married when they themselves are not married and claim they're tired of being judged by people.  Ali pretty much summed it up: pot, meet kettle. 

Whatever the law is in Britain, most US states require a couple to actually be married to get the tax benefit-in some states, common law marriage is recognized if a couple cohabits for a certain period of time.  If it were as simple as checking off a box to get a tax break, I imagine everyone would be doing it.

In the same breath you condemn marriage as bigoted, but say you've performed several marriage ceremonies?  Well, call me crazy, but by your own logic I guess that makes you a bigot.  And a hypocrite. Considering how patently obvious I've made it that I care very much about everyone having equal rights, I resent the implication that my choice to get married makes me a bigot.  Are a civil union and a marriage legally equivalent?  Well sure, I guess.  But as I've already stated, I see this as just another version of the separate but equal bullshit that went on in the US between blacks and whites.  Now it's gays and straights.  It wasn't okay then, and it's not okay now.  Just because some married people are assholes who want to withhold the rights they enjoy from others doesn't mean that all married people are like this.  The argument you've made is just as nasty and hateful as Christians who claim that all atheists must be immoral.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 20, 2012, 06:29:51 AM

QuoteIs monogamy unnatural?
Or, as Dr Chris Ryan's talk at the Sydney Opera House was entitled: 'If you want fidelity, get a dog'.  He reviews the enjoyment of sex, evidence from prehistory, and even the charming behaviour of bonobos, to suggest that conventional monogamy is but a blip in human history. And, basically, doesn't work.

I would agree with that, and it's just my misfortune to have been born during the blip period and generally expected to do something I'm neither physically nor psychologically inclined to -- often enough by people who haven't been even remotely involved in any of my relationships.  I suppose I should have mentioned before that my relationship with my girlfriend (the longest and most serious one of my life) is technically non-monogamous while being monogamous by default for some years.

Having said that, I think that if anyone wants to be monogamous and takes a shot at it, then more power to them.  To me, the issue is not about abolishing or condemning monogamy (however unnatural it may be!) but being more honest about human sexuality and accepting of its variations. 

I've seen monogamous relationships that succeeded and others that failed.  I've seen polyamorous relationships that succeeded, and others that failed.  I suspect that any blanket statement regarding human sexuality in terms of specific practices being "natural" or "unnatural" is doomed to fall apart upon closer examination.

Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 07:31:12 AM
I've seen monogamous relationships that succeeded and others that failed.  I've seen polyamorous relationships that succeeded, and others that failed.  I suspect that any blanket statement regarding human sexuality in terms of specific practices being "natural" or "unnatural" is doomed to fall apart upon closer examination.

As you say the spectrum of possible human relationships is so wide that a 'normal' relationship is really only what society expects it to be.

Quote from: statichaos on February 20, 2012, 07:31:12 AM
I've seen monogamous relationships that succeeded and others that failed.  I've seen polyamorous relationships that succeeded, and others that failed.  I suspect that any blanket statement regarding human sexuality in terms of specific practices being "natural" or "unnatural" is doomed to fall apart upon closer examination.

I have to disagree with regard to "natural" sexuality, that seems to me very easy to determine, but then I think you are refering to relationships more than sexuality which is a different thing -- more a matter of social norms and personality than sexual nature.

Quote from: philosoraptorWhat is the actual experience of being married?  It's different for every couple.
In the same breath you condemn marriage as bigoted, but say you've performed several marriage ceremonies?  at I care very much about everyone having equal rights, I resent the implication that my choice to get married makes me a bigot.

Read me  carefully so that we may have a meaningful exchange

I am not against the coupling of two individuals, on the contrary it is one of the objectives in living I agree upon.

I am very much for equal rights too, but also increased sense of responsibility, and SELF-AUTHORITY

There are broadly 2 levels in a join, marriage, civil union or whatever the label:

1) The sentimental one   2) The legal one

The STATE (and not the church) is to provide authority and protection for level 2
The persons involved, the individuals,  I say, should provide authority and self-protection for  level 1

There are plenty of examples of fixed marriages, trap marriages, arranged marriages, sponsored marriages that need NOT be

Love, passion and true inter-personal connection shuns, shyies away from "officiality"

I have no doubt that  many of you are happily joined in a "marriage".
All I am saying is that your match, and no-one's match can be or should be  attributed to the contract you chose to perform.
Each wedding anniversary should have the power of a renewal contract, and justify yearly marital celebrations (or none at all)

Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 08:39:47 AM

Quote from: philosoraptorWhat is the actual experience of being married?  It's different for every couple.
In the same breath you condemn marriage as bigoted, but say you've performed several marriage ceremonies?  at I care very much about everyone having equal rights, I resent the implication that my choice to get married makes me a bigot.

Read me  carefully so that we may have a meaningful exchange

Not wishing to appear adversarial but there is an onus on you (on anybody) to convey their thoughts accurately. If somebody has not understood what you have written then the first thing you should consider is how what you wrote was incomplete or ambiguous. Saying "Read me  carefully so that we may have a meaningful exchange" could come over as rather rude and patronising, as though you are talking down to somebody you consider beneath you and/or stupid. I don't think that was your intent.

Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 08:39:47 AM
I have no doubt that  many of you are happily joined in a "marriage".
All I am saying is that your match, and no-one's match can be or should be  attributed to the contract you chose to perform.
Each wedding anniversary should have the power of a renewal contract, and justify yearly marital celebrations (or none at all)

This makes sense to me and clarifies your position admirably.

From wiki:
History of marriage by culture
Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[16] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[17] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[18]

I need the Authority of the Heavens ( oops no,  ok the state) to give me the right to fuck MY wife, which I OWN in body and soul, to USE as I like and be done with her in a closet, when I am through.

Your personal story of happiness, is just that: PERSONAL

The multitude of living tragedies are more than that: INSTITUTIONALISED


paz a los hombres
guerra a los institutiones

Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 09:10:07 AM
From wiki:
History of marriage by culture
Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[16] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[17] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[18]

I need the Authority of the Heavens ( oops no,  ok the state) to give me the right to fuck MY wife, which I OWN in body and soul, to USE as I like and be done with her in a closet, when I am through.

Your personal story of happiness, is just that: PERSONAL

The multitude of living tragedies are more than that: INSTITUTIONALISED


paz a los hombres
guerra a los institutiones

This conveys no useful information.

Although it does not seem to be the case that humans are naturally driven to monogamy, many seem to prefer it for various reasons, at least in a serial sense if not permanently. Lots of you have already listed the reasons. :) Here's my perspective. I've been with my girlfriend for over seven years. She's the love of my life and my best friend. I've never felt more comfortable with anyone than I do with her. In the time we've been together... we've lived together, and we've lived apart. For family, financial and a few personal reasons, we're currently in a long distance relationship, in two different towns. We see each other as often as possible. She adores my daughter, and she makes me laugh like nobody else does or can. I do my best to show my similar appreciation for her! I'd be happy to marry her, and I believe she'd be happy to marry me. Both of us are under the age of 30. I assume within the next few years, we may get married... but it's not on the immediate horizon, as far as I know. ;)

We're both OK with that. We're committed to one another emotionally, above all else. In terms of monogamy especially in a long distance relationship, we're absolutely fine with 'monogamish' should something happen, as Dan Savage puts it. And it hasn't happened yet, we seem to be fine with just each other! :) We simply have the understanding that if something comes up unexpectedly that's of a physical nature with someone else, it wouldn't be the end of what we've got. Something of an emotional nature, on the other hand, would be an issue. I also would be very, very surprised if that occurred -- we've each got friends we're close with of both genders, but neither of us feels inclined to 'be romantic' with anyone else. She's it for me, anyhow. The day I realized I would want to marry her was the same day I realized I was in love with my best friend.

I've seen some bad marriages, and some good ones... but I still love the idea of marriage. Not the wedding itself per se, although that's sweet and wonderful -- but the marriage. The being a team with your best friend on so many levels, even if you fight, drive each other nuts, and need some time to yourself. It's all part of it. And I feel profoundly grateful that I live in a country where marriage for EVERYONE regardless of sexuality has been fully legal, nationally, for several years now. I sincerely hope the option's soon made available to anyone else who wants it, too.

By the way, I was delighted to read everyone's take here on their own marriages, relationships, and partnerships. And I don't judge anyone for wanting to be single, or partnered without the actual marriage. You know what works for you and your life, and I couldn't pretend to know that. I just want the option open to anyone who does want it. :)

Quote from: Amicale on February 20, 2012, 09:23:36 AM

I've seen some bad marriages, and some good ones... but I still love the idea of marriage. Not the wedding itself per se, although that's sweet and wonderful -- but the marriage. The being a team with your best friend on so many levels, even if you fight, drive each other nuts, and need some time to yourself. It's all part of it. And I feel profoundly grateful that I live in a country where marriage for EVERYONE regardless of sexuality has been fully legal, nationally, for several years now. I sincerely hope the option's soon made available to anyone else who wants it, too.

Stick with those thoughts, and you'll do fine in your marriage when and if it happens.  And I envy you living in a nation where all are allowed to marry the person of their choosing so long as it's legally consensual.  When marriage equality is finally enacted in my state, I'll be thrilled that my wife and I are no longer part of a straights-only club.

Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Only you can answer that, as far as I am concerned.  If your answer is "there isn't only one right for me" then that's your answer.  It's no one else's business but yours and your partners'.

I would like to say though, that even though I am married and monogamous, I don't believe that one person can or should be expected to fulfill all of my needs or all of my partner's needs.  The idea of putting that on someone sounds suffocating for both of us.  That's why friends and family and separate interests are so important to me - for both of us.  I encourage him to have friendships and interests that have nothing to do with me, and I cultivate the same, because while he's my best friend, I certainly don't want him to be my only friend, nor do I desire to be his only friend.   I can't be everything that he needs, and I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Ali on February 20, 2012, 04:08:10 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Only you can answer that, as far as I am concerned.  If your answer is "there isn't only one right for me" then that's your answer.  It's no one else's business but yours and your partners'.

I would like to say though, that even though I am married and monogamous, I don't believe that one person can or should be expected to fulfill all of my needs or all of my partner's needs.  The idea of putting that on someone sounds suffocating for both of us.  That's why friends and family and separate interests are so important to me - for both of us.  I encourage him to have friendships and interests that have nothing to do with me, and I cultivate the same, because while he's my best friend, I certainly don't want him to be my only friend, nor do I desire to be his only friend.   I can't be everything that he needs, and I'm fine with that.

Awesome post, Ali. :) Same goes for me and my girlfriend -- we each have friends and interests that we get involved with totally seperately from one another. It lends a real sense of balance to life, and it helps each of us so that when it comes to our relationship, we end up having more to give one another.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to this extraordinary proposition in order to have an enduring marriage. In fact it is safer to assume that there is nobody out there who is "right"for you if by "right" you mean your perfect partner.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Philosoraptor bites sometimes, it's in her nature I think.
If Philo takes a chunk out of you accept your error, slink away and perhaps live to tell your grand children of your error.
Old woman avatar doesn't equal old person.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 20, 2012, 04:59:50 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Philosoraptor bites sometimes, it's in her nature I think.
If Philo takes a chunk out of you accept your error, slink away and perhaps live to tell your grand children of your error.
Old woman avatar doesn't equal old person.

You mean you AREN'T currently wearing a large hat with a beautiful blue bow on it??  :o

Quote from: Amicale on February 20, 2012, 05:48:16 PM

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 20, 2012, 04:59:50 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Philosoraptor bites sometimes, it's in her nature I think.
If Philo takes a chunk out of you accept your error, slink away and perhaps live to tell your grand children of your error.
Old woman avatar doesn't equal old person.

You mean you AREN'T currently wearing a large hat with a beautiful blue bow on it??  :o

I don't know what TMP is talking about. I'm really a statue.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 20, 2012, 05:49:07 PM

Quote from: Amicale on February 20, 2012, 05:48:16 PM

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 20, 2012, 04:59:50 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Pytheas has explained what this topic is about quite well. No one is against marriage. I am certainly all for equal rights.
So there is no.need to get so upset Philosoraptor. I think some of you were born into a different time maybe  where marriage is expected at an early age.
Me, persnally, I don't see the point as feelings eventually fade or change.

There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

Philosoraptor bites sometimes, it's in her nature I think.
If Philo takes a chunk out of you accept your error, slink away and perhaps live to tell your grand children of your error.
Old woman avatar doesn't equal old person.

You mean you AREN'T currently wearing a large hat with a beautiful blue bow on it??  :o

I don't know what TMP is talking about. I'm really a statue.

And I'm really a hyper orange cat. I KNOW!

*purrs, stretches, licks a paw and meanders off before she derails the thread further*

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgal.patheticcockroach.com%2Fvar%2Falbums%2Fhumor%2Fthread-hijacking%2Fthread_hijack_sorry_cat.jpg%3Fm%3D1297371748&hash=d8ad21621a67e69687ba4312811099029cfeb0cd)

Quote from: Amicale on February 20, 2012, 05:51:28 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgal.patheticcockroach.com%2Fvar%2Falbums%2Fhumor%2Fthread-hijacking%2Fthread_hijack_sorry_cat.jpg%3Fm%3D1297371748&hash=d8ad21621a67e69687ba4312811099029cfeb0cd)

Yeah, off to the awwww thread where you belong!

Quote from: AmicaleI've been with my girlfriend for over seven years. She's the love of my life and my best friend. I've never felt more comfortable with anyone than I do with her.

And that's pretty much the best of a relationship as far as I'm concerned -- sex can be enjoyed with just about anybody, but being completely comfortable with someone is a rare thing.  I've known my girlfriend for nearly 30 years and we've been close friends almost that entire time, friends-with-benefits for about 20 years.  During that time there've been involvements and romances with other people which interrupted the "with benefits" part of our friendship but never the friendship itself, largely because we're more comfortable and "at home" with each other than with anyone else either of us has ever known. 

In the past few years, we've been it for each other as far as either emotional or sexual relationships were concerned, and since it looks likely to stay this way she recently suggested that we might as well go ahead and call each other girlfriends in the fullest sense since that's what it's developed into.  It took me awhile to get used to the idea but I have to admit I like it.  Since same-sex marriages are now being allowed in CA again (for who knows how long), maybe some day we'll go that route, but I doubt we'll ever close the relationship.  Monogamous relationships with other people in both our lives have come and gone, but the non-monogamous relationship we have with each other is still standing, it's what works for us. 

And as far as the law is concerned, I really don't see any reason except for religious ones for marriage to be restricted to couples.  Perhaps fundies were right in seeing legalizing same-sex marriage as a slippery slope to allowing other forms of marriage between and among consenting adults, but is this really something to fear?  I haven't heard any arguement against legalized non-monogamy that either doesn't also apply to monogamous couples, or seem to be anything more than the idea of non-monogamy simply being outside many peoples comfort zone.  And that's fine, nobody's saying "non-monogamy for all", but some of us are questioning the need for the "monogamy for all" rule.

Quote from: pytheas on February 20, 2012, 08:39:47 AM

Quote from: philosoraptorWhat is the actual experience of being married?  It's different for every couple.
In the same breath you condemn marriage as bigoted, but say you've performed several marriage ceremonies?  at I care very much about everyone having equal rights, I resent the implication that my choice to get married makes me a bigot.

Read me  carefully so that we may have a meaningful exchange

I am not against the coupling of two individuals, on the contrary it is one of the objectives in living I agree upon.

I am very much for equal rights too, but also increased sense of responsibility, and SELF-AUTHORITY

There are broadly 2 levels in a join, marriage, civil union or whatever the label:

1) The sentimental one   2) The legal one

The STATE (and not the church) is to provide authority and protection for level 2
The persons involved, the individuals,  I say, should provide authority and self-protection for  level 1

There are plenty of examples of fixed marriages, trap marriages, arranged marriages, sponsored marriages that need NOT be

Love, passion and true inter-personal connection shuns, shyies away from "officiality"

I have no doubt that  many of you are happily joined in a "marriage".
All I am saying is that your match, and no-one's match can be or should be  attributed to the contract you chose to perform.
Each wedding anniversary should have the power of a renewal contract, and justify yearly marital celebrations (or none at all)

Tank already said it, but the onus is on you to make sure you articulate yourself clearly.  I gather that English is not your first language, which perhaps is part of the problem, but your posts kind of read like Virginia Woolfe discovers the internet.  You jump from thought to thought, and half the information is nonsensical or irrelevant.  Typing in all caps is the internet equivalent of shouting at someone.  When you type something like this:

"THE NEED TO DECLARE AND BROADCAST YOUR PAIR-BONDING
IN A PSYCHOSEXUAL CONTEXT TO THE SURROUNDING SOCIETY
IS DIVISIVE AND BIGOT-FORMING"

It reads as though you are not only shouting at me, but specifically singling me out and calling me a bigot.  Based on other people's responses to your post, I don't think I'm the only person who read your initial post as an over the top attack on marriage and married people.  If I am reading your second posting correctly, I don't think you and I are actually in disagreement, which makes your first post seem all the more strange.  I'm an existentialist-responsibility and self-authority are at the core of what I believe.  I don't think anywhere, in any of my posts, did I imply that I believe everyone should get married or that married couples are superior to unmarried couples, etc...  or anything else to imply that I think people should just go along with what society expects of them.  Marriage can be as sacred or as profane as you make it, even without religion involved.

Also, I'm not an old fuddy duddy anymore than you're a pink pony, sweetdeath.  If you Google Madalyn Murray O'Hair, it'll probably make more sense to you.  Even if I was 60 or 80 or 100, what the fuck difference does it make in regards to what I said?  Your comments here and elsewhere make you seem like you've got a lot of hate and prejudice: blacks and Hispanics are considered "infestations", married people are silly bigots, and then this comment from the masculine/feminine thread: "I think hetero people just WANT Gay couples to be a stereotype, so they can pick them.out easier. *eye roll*".  I've read an awful lot about what you think about people who aren't like you, and here's what I think: I think you either have a serious chip on your shoulder, or you do a poor job of articulating yourself, possibly both.  But you make an awful lot of statements that look/sound like inflammatory, blanket generalizations.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.  Example:

"People who diss marriage are probably just angry because they're so pathetic, they couldn't find anyone to marry them if they wanted to."

versus

"I think some unmarried people might talk down on marriage because they are afraid they won't ever experience that level of commitment with another person, and they want to hide that insecurity and pain from other people."

Both of those statements express similar sentiments, but one of them reads quite a bit more offensively than the other.  And for the record, I don't believe that particular sentiment, I'm just using it to make my point.  That first statement, on top of being nasty, is a blanket generalization.  The second is more of an observation that doesn't necessarily assert that all people in that particular group think/behave the same way, but that some of them might.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 20, 2012, 04:59:50 PM
Philosoraptor bites sometimes, it's in her nature I think.
If Philo takes a chunk out of you accept your error, slink away and perhaps live to tell your grand children of your error.

That's an understatement and a half.

Philo has a right to her opinions. That doesn't bother me in any way.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
Philo has a right to her opinions. That doesn't bother me in any way.

Well it should, because she's spot on with her observations about your gross generalisation and overt prejudices. Your racist comments were very unpleasant. Your ageism is silly as you'll be old one day.  If you can't accept reasoned and reasonable criticism you'll never 'grow' as a person. You'll just get more and more insular and isolated. I wouldn't want that to happen. (hugs)

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

the answer could be you shouldn't because we cannot recognise the absolute "right" in functional exclusivity

however we do get along with the "appropriate" one, the "compatible" one

and of them for each of us, in the billions that exist, a small group of our very own village people lurk unoticed and dispersed on the planet

to keep learning
to keep searching
and to keep
loving
on higher succesive planes if we can at our bestest

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 20, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
There are billions of people on earth. Why exactly should I believe only one is 'right' for me?

These days, marriage is a contract that doesn't end until legal action is taken to end it.  It does not necessary imply forever.  I know our vows didn't say anything about till death even if we plan to try to stay together than long.

If a couple plans to stay together for a while then legal marriage comes along with other legal things that make it a good option.  But I also don't think society really cares much about who is married anymore (other than the conservatives who protest too much about the 'sanctity' of marriage which statistically their own people have single handedly destroyed if it was ever there to begin with)

For your viewing enjoyment.  Tim Minchin...if I didnt have you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynIKjRwqDI

Quote from: philosoraptor
articulate yourself clearly.  
"THE NEED TO DECLARE AND BROADCAST YOUR PAIR-BONDING
IN A PSYCHOSEXUAL CONTEXT TO THE SURROUNDING SOCIETY
IS DIVISIVE AND BIGOT-FORMING"
It reads as though you are not only shouting at me, but specifically singling me out and calling me a bigot.

we declare our goods at customs, police auhtority institution
broadcasts occur from media that trendset, "inform" with intent, from institutions with agentas
psychosexual context of pair bonding is the plane of sentiment, mental connection and spiritual meaning in connection, as opposed to legalities, law-binding contracts and finacial arrangements
surrounding society is the personal society we get to interact, enjoy or be oppresed in

the institutional act conveing more than legalities, assuming more importance in sentiment than a law about dog littering, the institutional act that is linked and represents in our minds, unfortunately, marriage

divides constructing moral hardware and commandments, creating support and sustainment for possessiveness and jealousy

and is bigot forming as it nurtures and develops attitudes of sick fellow-human abuse within partnerships, in susceptible individuals


james bond prefers "married" women, as in another part of the world of institutionalised marriage, if she was not a virgin or sipmly didnt evidently bleed for the hungry eyes of the gossiping mob to feast on, she can be banished or put to death

our personal story of reflecting or not grasping monogamy, great or not so bright,  is linked to society's more crude authoritative tries to reform us
through
institutional marriage

happily married?
pray to O FORTUNA
and work to keep it that way

any additional emotional investment is faulty

I didn't know James bond preferred married women. <3 :)

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 21, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
I didn't know James bond preferred married women. <3 :)

casino royal, the craig bond turns to the english woman that holds the money in the car and says youre not my type, - too young? - no single, I prefer married women

Quote from: pytheas on February 21, 2012, 07:45:06 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 21, 2012, 07:10:49 PM
I didn't know James bond preferred married women. <3 :)

casino royal, the craig bond turns to the english woman that holds the money in the car and says youre not my type, - too young? - no single, I prefer married women

I can respect that. :)