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.
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?
Calrid:Why is that? You fail to explain? Good people are good people, they take on board the morals. It doesn’t take religion to be a good person and honourable, you seem to think that only your religion has this morality, my evidence would disagree.
No, it has never been “good enough” to just “be good”.
Good is a Becoming. That’s why morality, morals, and religion are all important. What is Good, also Is. I hope you’ll understand this point.
It is not enough that a person, or a Blessed and Wedded pair are Good. It is more that these types Demonstrate why and how, as well.
Goodness does not exist in a vacuum. It is also communal, and a social affair.
Calrid:Yeah weird. I think there are gender roles, I don’t think though that we should cast them in stone.
I didn’t imply that. I understand that gender trends change.
But Marriage has withstood the tests of time. It works, for very specific and explicit, particular reasons.
Calrid:So just because they don’t follow your faith and believe in monogamy their faith is wrong? Why is that.
No, I don’t care if people follow “my faith” as long as they are still Good and become Good.
However that is not sufficient for my proposals. And also doesn’t mean such people are “moral, spiritual, or religious”.
Religioners require an organization to belief, or just organized beliefs. The organization is the first cause behind social movement, or even society itself.
Calrid:Didn’t Jesus say that we should accept those who believe differently from us?
Maybe in the perverse, decadent, and hedonistic, False New Testament.
The New Testament is for perverts.
It’s like “Coca Cola Zero”, same great taste, with no calories. All pleasure, no pain. It’s an obvious lie.
Whomever is responsible for writing that blasphemy ought to become crucified. Good thing they’re already in Hell, serving the Dark Lord.
People who preach Greatness without Sacrifice are obvious liars. With great Spirituality, comes and requires great Sacrifice.
If you want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then prepare for a life of chosen hardships, asceticism, and meditation.
You must spend your whole life devoted to God. Some need to work harder than others, obviously, because morality does not come naturally to some.
Some it just does. Some are just naturally “nice”, “caring”, “good”, “trustworthy”, “proud”, “strong”, “beautiful”, “godly”. These are those natural Monarchs who we all look up to. These are our heroes. These are our legendary men and women.
These are our Kings and Queens, who will die for without hesitation, Serving the Greater Good. And we will kneel before their greatness, out of humility and love, out of complete and utter adoration.
If you’ve never known this feeling, then you’ve never known “love” of any kind. It is complete and utter devotion to an ideal, and the realization of this ideal through the realization of strongly principled persons. Man and Woman, wedded in holy matrimony, a King and Queen in the flesh.
Jesus Christ II, the second, the rebirth of all that is Good and Holy. All ideals are mere resurrections of those great and heralded ideals of our deep past.
Genealogy of Morals, the past exists within us today.
/end sermon on the mount, thread
Calrid:Burned you are ranting about faith? Surely if Jesus taught anything it was tolerance, why are you preaching hatred and death to people?
No, Jesus displayed tolerance. That doesn’t mean his Words and Speech were tolerant of others. Quite the contrary, actually, Jesus taught some of the strictest virtues, ethos, and morality known to mankind. He taught the highest Exclusion from others. He taught that morality brings one closer to God, and to Heaven, by living your ‘pathos’.
His highest lesson, and most revolutionary was, “practice what you preach”. This is why He is so remembered even today, by all.
Calrid:A true Christian would never wish death on a person no matter what his sin, a true Christian would love the sinner not the sin.
A…“true Christian”??? So you mark yourself some sort of Moral Authority now?
Under whose Name or goodness do you preach a lesson of morality???
Who are You to decide, deem, and To Judge the truth or falsity of Christians, unless, you are one, see?
You presume to know about “true Christianity” then. While yes, maybe it is true that “only God can Judge”, what is not true is that Man is perfect. And therefore, I do Judge, with great hesitation, as to what I personally see as wrong, evil, and immoral.
And the first of this Immorality, is the Lie.
What is more immoral than deception and deceit? What is wronger than to create discord between the inherent and natural trust, between peoples and persons?
The First Liar known to Mankind was Satan. And this is why God cast Satan out of Heaven as the Fallen Angel. Because Satan began to practice Lying.
The First Sin of All, the Lie.
[b]To know the Truth, but to withhold it from others, and then subsequently, to mislead via a false, fabricated “Truth”.
The Lie, the first Artifice of Mankind. The first and greatest Perversion of Nature.[/b]
/end 2nd Sermon
Calrid:Let’s face it Jesus was a liberal he would see someone of another faith and he would accept it.
“Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God” (I John 4:7).
Jesus Himself may have “accepted” other religions, and all peoples of Earth.
But that does not mean that he accepted Evils and Immorality.
Whether black or white, brown or yellow, makes no real difference, and this is true. But that does not address the Good, the Bad, and the Evil.
Rather Christ smote Evilness throughout the world. This is why Christianity is the first universal religion. He brought the Sword and “divided father and son, brother from brother, sibling from sibling”. Because even within a family, something as tight and trusting as a family, people can commit Sin against one another.
Christianity represents the “first family”.
Calrid:And yet we cannot judge the whole human race absolutely can we?
We can judge Good and Evil, if we obtain the Rights to Moral Authority, yes.
First one must investigate what is “good” and what is “evil” about the world, about the people, and about nature.
Evil is a process of exclusion. Are murders at random “Good”? No. If you see an apple pie in the window, and you take it, and the baker says “Hey, stop thief, that’s my apple pie because I baked it!” And you say, “Shutup, old hag, it’s mine now!” And then you pull out a gun and shoot the old hag.
Is this the kind of world we Ought To live in? No, in fact, Christianity has turned this old, brutal, violence, uncivilized past of our humanity, to today.
We have “improved” ourselves, through Reformation and “Progression”.
This is a spiritual endeavor. This is “Evolution”. Scientists copied Evolution from Religion and Christianity. Evolutionary Theory is based upon Transcendentalism.
Science stole the idea of Evolution from Religion and Christianity. But that’s okay. We forgive science. Scientists can “have” Evolution if they want.
It’s a freebie. We’re glad to give scientists the ideal, that, organisms can change “for the better”, “to adapt to environments”, or whatever those silly scientists are saying today.
They’re so funny and cute.
Calrid:Men are men, they sin Christian or x, what makes a good man is not his religion it is his ethics. Hell Christianity has a great deal to answer for in its history, religion never quite achieved what it should, because it never quite understood the nature of man.
Christianity has lived up to its potential, to now. But now we have more potential accumulated.
Even though a man maybe “Good” without religion. He needs to become “Good-er”. He needs to become Good-est, The Best.
Man Becomes Good-est, Becomes The Best, by Religion. His “religion” are the mere product of his ethics realized throughout a people and populace.
Because “He is Good, God”, then, afterwards people idolize The Ideal of Him.
Most irreligious people are looking at religion backwards. Or at least, they’re trying to justify their own morality and ethics backwards.
Look to Christ, “practice what you preach” first. The Lessons are revealed through Christ, our Lord thy God.
Calrid:Only God has the final word on who will be with him and without him, your very judgement is blasphemy. You must know you do not have that right.
I have the Right to Judge and Condemn, based upon my limited “knowledge” of good and evil.
And I admit that my failure to judge exists through my separation from God.
If I were “God” then my judgments would become fair, wise, just, and true. My wanting, lusting, desiring, needing to “become closer to God” only represents that I desire to justify and legitimize the capability of Judgment, and not just my own judgments, but those of other New Romans too.
While yes, “only God can Judge”, that cannot and does not stop us from seeking Him out, and becoming closer to Him.
Calrid:You can call it what you want, but there are good people out there who do not accept Christ and bad people who do. If God condemns those who are good people and those who are bad he takes into his breast, then he is no good God.
Think of it like Mathematics.
You need to understand addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (x), and division (/) before you can get to Algebra, correct? Correct!
And so it goes with religion, ethics, morality, spirituality, virtues, and on and on. You need to understand the basics (Jesus Christ, our Lord thy God), before you can move onto Algebra.
It’s a simple step, really. Even Muslims accept Jesus Christ as Prophet and Son of Man. The Jews are hesitant about this, but I believe, finally coming around to acceptance too. I only hope that Jews can accept Christ as Lord, and Son of God someday…but that’s completely another story, obviously.
Calrid:Would Jesus condemn the Orthodox church just because they schizmed from the catholic church?
Maybe. The Orthodox have practiced Christianity well, but not as well as Catholics, in my personal opinion.
Calrid:Would he bar protestants just because they disagreed with the corruption within the Catholic faith?
I believe Jesus would have sent a lot of people to Hell for becoming both Protestants and those Corrupt catholic fucks.
Calrid:The granting of indulgences for money, the waging of war in the name of Christ?
Christ probably knew that blood had to become shed. I don’t think Christ would have “opposed violence” per se. It’s more about Him becoming the exemplar of what is Good and Holy.
Christ realized, probably better than anyone, including you and I, that violence is very necessary. That’s why Christ was Crucified too.
He was ready to die for what he believed in. What is more virtuous than this? Nothing. That is the epitome and realization of Meaning and Purpose in Life.
Calrid:There is no true faith in history because no true church has ever followed Christ’s message. The message is simple do not pass judgement on others and therefore do not hate or chastise others. It’s a simple message it is something that you Christians seem to have missed.
No, you make a common misinterpretation of Christ.
He did not oppose judging others. What he said was: “Let he who is without Sin cast the first stone.”
This means that The Good, the Innocent, the Blameless ought to cast the first stone. It means He-whom-is-closest-to-God cast the stone!
It does not absolve the world of evil, or integrity. It is rather a reaffirmation of Goodness, and Evil.
While many stupid and degenerate people see themselves as “Good and Holy”, and they’re not, and they may falsely cast the first stone while in Sin…Christ’s message was a call for self reflection and honesty. It was a reaffirmation for those who are Best, those who strive to become Good and Holy.
And these, ironically, are the last to cast the stone. But Jesus does Not say: “No one cast any stones.”
This is a perverse, New Age, New Testament, false, liberal, “Christian” garbage. It is a pollution.
It is a pretense that “all is innocent and holy” when this obviously is not true, and, nobody believes that bullshit anyway.
Jesus Christ’s message is most perverse today, to those New Testament shit bags.
Excuse my biting and uncivil nature here. I apologize. My rage rises up when being constantly reminded of these falsities and lies.
My point is that Christ called for a deeper integrity into Sin. And the Orthodox and Catholics both took up this practice, correctly at first. It wasn’t until later that either would become perverse and perverted.
None of that removes what is “Good and Evil” though. Jesus was clearly against Evil, and clearly in favor of Good. He represents the Highest Good, because he is the absolute, infinite, and final Authority when it comes to Peace. Jesus was the antithesis of all War, and the thesis of all Peace.
There is no Peace without Jesus Christ. Otherwise cycles of revenge, anger, and hatred, will continue into infinity. And every insult will become met with a vengeful hand.
This is that “Sword” of Christ, and why He is Lord. It is a weapon. It is a method of defense, without blood.
Christ turned His Word into an immaterial sword. Rather He commanded his brethren and followers “to put down their arms” for Him. Do not strike back against those who strike us first, and second, and over and over. Rather endure Oppression. Rather know Humility. Rather persist in the face of all hardships. If the entire world is against you, then Don the Mantle of Atlas.
Put the entire world upon your shoulders, and bear it as your Cross, your Crucifix, your Crux. This weight, this burden, is yours. That is His message, to His chosen people.
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
He did not oppose judging others. What he said was: “Let he who is without Sin cast the first stone.”
This means that The Good, the Innocent, the Blameless ought to cast the first stone. It means He-whom-is-closest-to-God cast the stone!
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:
We can judge Good and Evil, if we obtain the Rights to Moral Authority, yes.
First one must investigate what is “good” and what is “evil” about the world, about the people, and about nature.
Evil is a process of exclusion. Are murders at random “Good”? No. If you see an apple pie in the window, and you take it, and the baker says “Hey, stop thief, that’s my apple pie because I baked it!” And you say, “Shutup, old hag, it’s mine now!” And then you pull out a gun and shoot the old hag.
Is this the kind of world we Ought To live in? No, in fact, Christianity has turned this old, brutal, violence, uncivilized past of our humanity, to today.
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.
lizbethrose: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.
Two become one
anon: lizbethrose: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.
statiktech: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.
anon: statiktech: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
- i’d be polygamist if i could and have it be socially acceptable (more babies)
- so would other men, namely more powerful ones than me
- 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.
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.
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,
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 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”?
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.
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.
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.
Er… Relevance…?
But I hope they’ll all be very happy with one-another. =D>
[quote=“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.
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”?[/quote]
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.