Monogamy

[anon]

But I do feel that people who pursue non-monogamous relationships either don't know themselves well enough, don't trust themselves well enough, and/or don't see a person beyond her/his public persona well enough to look for anything else.

What's your basis for this view, Liz?

My own thoughts, I suppose, anon--and my experiences with people around me--and, by non-monogamous relationships, I mean, going from one relationship to another rather than having more than one intimate relationship at the same time. That's a kind of serial monogamy, with or without marriage. Having more than one intimate relationship at the same time is a psychological thing I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about.

If a person goes through serial monogamy, breaking one affair off, then starting another, couldn't that indicate not being able to decide what it is you want in a relationship? I may be naive, but I think it does. If you know yourself, you should know what you want. But a lot of people don't know what is really basic in/to themselves. Or they think they know, but change their minds after a while. People who don't trust themselves may know what they want, but they have a niggling fear that maybe they don't know themselves or maybe they don't really know their partners well enough take on anything other than a temporary commitment. The last part of my statement is a toughie--I might only have written it because I like things to come in threes. Sometimes these people are in love with the thought of being in love and of being 'loved' by someone else. They can't see beyond that--and they project it into not only their own public persona; but, also, into their partner's persona. I was like that when the first man who appeared serious (in that he asked me to marry him) said he wanted to marry me. This was on our first date! We didn't have an intimate relationship--in any way--including talking about what was important to our 'selfness.' We never shared each other. And yet, that kind of sharing was and is basic to me.

That 'sharing of selfness' is the basis of monogamy, imm. It's what "marries" a couple.

Looking back over you initial comment, I realize I missed the importance of the word "pursue", as in "people who pursue non-monogamous relationships". So I'm more on board with your thoughts than I was at first. I still have reservations though. I mean, what's so special about a monogomous relationship with one person, anyway? You can talk about "sharing of selfness", but "successful" monogomous relationships involve a turning inward, away from meaningful active participation in the broader world. And that active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person. Monogomous relationship could be seen as essentially selfish - a hoarding and controlling of intimacy.

[James L Walker]

While I do think marriage was initially a religious institution...

I think the enslavement of women by men is probably the true origin of marriage. Men likely abducted women and then kept them, for their usefulness. Kind of like the transformation from hunting and gathering to agriculture - it's a way to guarantee access to the things you want. Following that, equalizing of the power balance ("the institution of marriage") was a way of sublimating the baser aspects of the relationship.

I disagree. I think marriage is a institution of women initiated by them onto men because marriage is a important institutional relationship concept when it concerns the protection of offspring.

Women always have the most to benefit from the institution of marriage more so than men do. In marriage men have the most to risk and lose whereas women have the most to gain.

[_________]

I'm almost positive a herd of wildebeest do not have marriages, but they protect their offspring quite well.

[incorrect]

While I do think marriage was initially a religious institution...

I think the enslavement of women by men is probably the true origin of marriage. Men likely abducted women and then kept them, for their usefulness. Kind of like the transformation from hunting and gathering to agriculture - it's a way to guarantee access to the things you want. Following that, equalizing of the power balance ("the institution of marriage") was a way of sublimating the baser aspects of the relationship.

I disagree. I think marriage is a institution of women initiated by them onto men because marriage is a important institutional relationship concept when it concerns the protection of offspring.

Women always have the most to benefit from the institution of marriage more so than men do. In marriage men have the most to risk and lose whereas women have the most to gain.

i think men have stake in this...

my rationale
1. i'd be polygamist if i could and have it be socially acceptable (more babies)
2. so would other men, namely more powerful ones than me
3. someone else would win in the war for multiple wives

the invention of monogomy in some ways gives me more men better odds of producing offspring

monogomy is progressive (yes i just compared women as a whole to a resource for men to use)

[_________]

Most men would be the alpha male in the lion pride if they could.

That said, a free love institution would potentially produce more offspring for more partners than monogamy would.

[Trajicomic]

a institution of women initiated by them onto men

Women are realists, not idealists. Women are not idealistic enough to dream-up the institution of Marriage via Religion. It clearly was created by Man, also indicated by the gender of 'God', as male. Women buy into religion, by the millions and billions, yes. But I sincerely doubt women are 'responsible' for it.

In fact, men probably created religion...in fact Man did create religion, to control the populace, society, and masses. The masses need their "useful fictions" to believe in. And that is what religions and religioners provide for them, the "useful fictions".

What would people do if they didn't fully put stock in the fact that becoming a corporate wage slave, and buying the newest model Prius, gives meaning and fulfillment in life??? They'd probably go crazy and suicide, that's what. People enjoy superficiality and frivolous things.


Those who don't are the "philosophers". They are those who have "woken up" from the materialistic and consumerist dream, or nightmare, depending on how you look at it.

[Trajicomic]

Proof?

Look at how weddings require a man to buy the woman a "rock", a huge diamond. What's up with that?

I'd tell you, but I don't want to spoil the surprise.

[lizbethrose]

Anon said,

Looking back over you initial comment, I realize I missed the importance of the word "pursue", as in "people who pursue non-monogamous relationships". So I'm more on board with your thoughts than I was at first. I still have reservations though. I mean, what's so special about a monogomous relationship with one person, anyway? You can talk about "sharing of selfness", but "successful" monogomous relationships involve a turning inward, away from meaningful active participation in the broader world. And that active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person. Monogomous relationship could be seen as essentially selfish - a hoarding and controlling of intimacy.

Does a successful monogamous relationship really involve a turning inward? How so? Does a successful monogamous relationship not pit two people with shared, combined goals against whatever(?) in the broader world? My husband and I certainly found that to be true when we fought City Hall and won. We're still very much involved in our lives and the life of our community. I don't understand what you mean.

When you say, "... active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person..." are you saying that votes can be bought with sex? I suppose they can, but not in my life-style--nor would I say in my husband's. Is any vote so important?

Yes, monogamous relationships can be seen as essentially selfish. I'm not able to share my 'selfness' indiscriminately'--not if it's my true selfness. It's just too hard to do, even the first time. But is a monogamous relationship 'hoarding and controlling of intimacy?' or is it, rather, a cherishing--a keeping safe--of another's shared self-ness?

[anon]

Anon said,

Looking back over you initial comment, I realize I missed the importance of the word "pursue", as in "people who pursue non-monogamous relationships". So I'm more on board with your thoughts than I was at first. I still have reservations though. I mean, what's so special about a monogomous relationship with one person, anyway? You can talk about "sharing of selfness", but "successful" monogomous relationships involve a turning inward, away from meaningful active participation in the broader world. And that active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person. Monogomous relationship could be seen as essentially selfish - a hoarding and controlling of intimacy.

Does a successful monogamous relationship really involve a turning inward? How so? Does a successful monogamous relationship not pit two people with shared, combined goals against whatever(?) in the broader world? My husband and I certainly found that to be true when we fought City Hall and won. We're still very much involved in our lives and the life of our community. I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that the time you spend with your spouse is time you didn't spend with someone else. I mean that sex with only your spouse means not having sex with anyone else. I mean it in a very literal sense.

When you say, "... active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person..." are you saying that votes can be bought with sex? I suppose they can, but not in my life-style--nor would I say in my husband's. Is any vote so important?

Votes? Huh? If you're making a joke I don't get it.

Yes, monogamous relationships can be seen as essentially selfish. I'm not able to share my 'selfness' indiscriminately'--not if it's my true selfness. It's just too hard to do, even the first time. But is a monogamous relationship 'hoarding and controlling of intimacy?' or is it, rather, a cherishing--a keeping safe--of another's shared self-ness?

What do you mean by "true selfness"?

[Tab]

Look at how weddings require a man to buy the woman a "rock", a huge diamond. What's up with that?

I seem to remember that the diamond ring thing began after it became uncustomary for men to legally have to pay monetary compensation for a broken vow of engagement, or whatever the antiquated legalese was for the situation.

[Trajicomic]

I seem to remember that the diamond ring thing began after it became uncustomary for men to legally have to pay monetary compensation for a broken vow of engagement, or whatever the antiquated legalese was for the situation.

Go on.

[Stoic Guardian]

Look at how weddings require a man to buy the woman a "rock", a huge diamond. What's up with that?

I seem to remember that the diamond ring thing began after it became uncustomary for men to legally have to pay monetary compensation for a broken vow of engagement, or whatever the antiquated legalese was for the situation.

http://boredplace.com/bored-pictures/lucky-man-marries-thai-twins-simultaneosly

Antiquated? It seemed too work out well for this guy *monogomy not included*.

[Tab]

Er... Relevance..?

But I hope they'll all be very happy with one-another.

[lizbethrose]

Anon said,

Looking back over you initial comment, I realize I missed the importance of the word "pursue", as in "people who pursue non-monogamous relationships". So I'm more on board with your thoughts than I was at first. I still have reservations though. I mean, what's so special about a monogomous relationship with one person, anyway? You can talk about "sharing of selfness", but "successful" monogomous relationships involve a turning inward, away from meaningful active participation in the broader world. And that active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person. Monogomous relationship could be seen as essentially selfish - a hoarding and controlling of intimacy.

Does a successful monogamous relationship really involve a turning inward? How so? Does a successful monogamous relationship not pit two people with shared, combined goals against whatever(?) in the broader world? My husband and I certainly found that to be true when we fought City Hall and won. We're still very much involved in our lives and the life of our community. I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that the time you spend with your spouse is time you didn't spend with someone else. I mean that sex with only your spouse means not having sex with anyone else. I mean it in a very literal sense.

I guess that's because I really don't want to spend time with anyone else--why should I? So I don't 'have sex' with anyone but my spouse--so what? First of all, I learned, through my experimentation period, that I can't 'have sex' without love. That's incomprehensible to me. Sex is an expression of love--it's the actual blending of two bodies--two people--two minds. How can that be done without love? Yes, sex is pleasurable, but it's more pleasurable, to me, if it goes beyond simple pleasure. Pleasure that doesn't go beyond simple pleasure, is selfish, imm.

Lizbeth wrote:

When you say, "... active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person..." are you saying that votes can be bought with sex? I suppose they can, but not in my life-style--nor would I say in my husband's. Is any vote so important?

anon:

Votes? Huh? If you're making a joke I don't get it.

Then I guess I didn't 'get it' when you said,

And that active participation could, in theory, involve sexual intimacy with more than one person.

What are you talking about--sexual intimacy meaning coitus or sexual intimacy meaning the dual sharing of a desire to be a blending--a conjoining of two people that means as much as it means to conjoined twins who cannot function if they're separated?

Wrote Lizbeth;

Yes, monogamous relationships can be seen as essentially selfish, but it depends on what you mean by 'controlling and hoarding.' I'm not able to share my 'selfness' indiscriminately'--not if it's my true selfness. It's just too hard to do, even the first time. But is a monogamous relationship 'hoarding and controlling of intimacy?' or is it, rather, a cherishing--a keeping safe--of another's shared self-ness?

[quote anon wrote:

What do you mean by "true selfness"?

I've done my best to explain it. ^^

I hope this makes sense and all my quotes are in the correct places. Otherwise, suffer! My husband and I have spent the last 3 days cooking a complete Thanksgiving meal--except for the turkey. It's 1:15 Thankgiving am and I'm tired.

Have a lovely Thanksgiving, everyone. Eat butter now and save the pork fat for Christmas and New Years Day--Hoppin' John day.

So my em-pha-sis may not have been on the right sy-lab-le and my caramels may have been at the top instead of the bottom. Meh!

[Kriswest]

Once in awhile after a heated discussion I have asked my husband to go find another woman and leave me alone, his reply: Now why would I do that to some poor innocent woman.

[Calrid]

Once in awhile after a heated discussion I have asked my husband to go find another woman and leave me alone, his reply: Now why would I do that to some poor innocent woman.

Assumes he would be naive enough to think that, he, with his discernment would chose an innocent woman, but I can see the merit in the phrase, he clearly does not suggest that you are innocent by implication though: I'd deny him sex for a month.

[Kriswest]

Nahh, when he says something like that it makes me laugh and whatever anger there was between us is gone. That is one way he tells me he loves me. Its a marriage language between two people that truly know each other and can safely be themselves.

[Calrid]

:lol: Nahh, when he says something like that it makes me laugh and whatever anger there was between us is gone. That is one way he tells me he loves me. Its a marriage language between two people that truly know each other and can safely be themselves.

You sound blessed.

[Kriswest]

Hmm, perhaps but I do think it was more of a destiny thing. See we met on a blind date. When I laid eyes on him I knew him immediately. I had had dreams about him shaven bearded, happy angry etc. I knew him from only my dreams throughout childhood(I was 18 when we finally met). He always chased after redheads. I was raised in Arizona , he was raised in Oregon. When we met that night we fought as only two people who trust each other could fight. Our lives together was more meant to be than a blessing. Really ,trouble has followed us all over this country but,,, we still love and laugh because we know each other and trust each other as the closest of friends , two people becoming one.

[Calrid]

Hmm, perhaps but I do think it was more of a destiny thing. See we met on a blind date. When I laid eyes on him I knew him immediately. I had had dreams about him shaven bearded, happy angry etc. I knew him from only my dreams throughout childhood(I was 18 when we finally met). He always chased after redheads. I was raised in Arizona , he was raised in Oregon. When we met that night we fought as only two people who trust each other could fight. Our lives together was more meant to be than a blessing. Really ,trouble has followed us all over this country but,,, we still love and laugh because we know each other and trust each other as the closest of friends , two people becoming one.

It sounds like a poem, and in regard to that it sounds like serendipity; congratulations, if only everyone was so lucky.

I'm a cynic about many things, but love, well I am a romantic.

[Kriswest]

Luck is the right word, but it still takes love patience a sense of humor and alot of work. Ours is not unique i think many people find the one but they just don't realize it. Like I said we fight , we are opposites in many ways,, oh heck in most ways. we are both very stubborn though ,we both have tempers, and we both love to laugh. Perhaps most people think their opposite won't work? What is a coin without both halves? If you look for someone who is like you then you are two halves of the same side of a coin, you cannot make one coin. Does that make sense?

[Calrid]

Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Kriswest]

Good then monogamy will be impossible if you think to only look for your side of the coin right? Since most people tend to only wish to look for someone they think is like them, monogamy is not going to happen readily, you will still be forced to look around for the other side of that coin even though you don't realize it.

[lizbethrose]

I think monogamy has a lot to do with future expectations rather than immediate gratification.

I seem to have come across as having some sort of "perfect" (i.e. fairy tale) marriage. I don't. I just don't want to fight with my husband. He often wants to pick a fight with me as a way of working things out between us. I'd rather not 'fight,' because I've learned that I have a very low stress level. My husband seems to thrive on stress and argument--it's what he's used to. So be it. We generally work things out.

I read an interesting article in Time magazine while waiting to get my hair cut. It very briefly talked about the differences between a consumerist mind and a mind that can wait. The difference seems to be that the consumerist mind is geared toward instant gratification, even though instant gratification gives them little reward. Those who wait receive a greater reward in the end.

We're all hit today with advertisements for the 'newest and the best' of toys that'll turn everything into something. If you want it even though you don't know exactly what it is, here's the electronic toy that'll get it for you--right now. If you don't have the money to pay for it--borrow that money with your credit card.

Is Monogamy like grabbing the marshmallow when it's initially presented or is it waiting for the second marshmallow?

[Kriswest]

yes but if you fit together there is no expectations or gratification it just is. it just feels right even if you are angry at the other.