Monogamy

Then I am honored for the one that married us and the ones that witnessed it were loving caring people. That is far superior to what you propose a marriage should be. Ours carries honor love and true togetherness while yours is only concerned with capitalism, greed and ownership. That is sad.

What’s your basis for this view, Liz?

I find it very awkward to make sense of what you are saying here, as it seems contradictory in parts, but meh. I will I think leave you to it. Live it in peace and humility is all I ask, something I think that should resonate at least. At least unlike HtH most of what you say makes some sort of sense, and you clearly have thought about it quite profoundly. So I find I am not at odds with you.

I will say this though

No one except Christ is without sin, I think it could be argued that he meant the crowd to look upon themselves and realise they were not apt to judge.

“Judge not lest ye be judged.”

Would seem to confirm this. We may judge but bearing grudges against people without first acknowledging your own sins is hypocritical.

Hence:

Quite apart from you assuming that I don’t have the moral foundation to judge, which is true. This also makes your judging doubtful, why do you presume to have the moral authority just because you are a Christian. Judgement about who is true to his faith and not rests with God. I don’t think wishing death on people is a very Christian virtue, I didn’t say however that you yourself should be condemned for it just that it seemed inappropriate in the context of Christianity.

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.

Two become one

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.

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.

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.

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. :banana-dance:

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.

Anon said,

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?

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.

Votes? Huh? If you’re making a joke I don’t get it. :slight_smile:

What do you mean by “true selfness”?

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. :smiley:

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

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

Er… Relevance…?

But I hope they’ll all be very happy with one-another. =D> :-k

[quote=“anon”]

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!

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. :smiley: