A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

NOTE: spun off from a thread about morality in general.

Agreed. So if you want to specifically talk about sexuality, do you think promiscuous lifestyles have had an adverse effect on our culture? STDs, unwanted pregnancies, adulterey, divorce, jealousy, disrespect for the opposite gender. Can a large percentage of these things be traced back to the "sex positive" lifestyle our culture promotes?

yes, i think a few of them can (STDs, unwanted pregnancies specifically) to a degree. which is why sex education and access to birth control are so imperative.

the other stuff - jealousy and adultery - can be avoided if people are open and honest about the relationships they are having, obviously.

Obviously these things are never a 1:1 ratio and I am sure we both could bring in tons of anecdotes from people we know to try to disprove the others theory. I would say that a large number of people I know that have had problems in these areas, you can trace it back to some sort of sexual issue.

I also think you underestimate how living a promiscuous lifestyle carries on with you. It is not something you can turn off like a faucet. Our actions have consequences and effect who we are. In theory you can tell your significant other, all done now it is just me and you. In practice I think your past has more effect than you think.

what are you talking about, specifically? are you talking about STDs? pregnancy? something else? it's hard to respond when i'm not sure what you're referring to.

are you speaking in the context of going behind your partners back, though? cause i wasn't talking about that.

Re: How do you know the difference between right and wrong?
 

I'll let him answer himself, but I think he's saying that previous relationships inevitably involve emotional baggage, invite comparisons, and other things that probably make eventual monogamous relationships more challenging and less exclusively intimate.

I agree that this should probably be spun off soon, though, if you guys are interested in continuing.

Here I was talking about you saying that if your just honest with your parner then jealousy won't be an issue.



Not necessarily. Do you think your sex life before a commited relationship only effects that relationship if your not honest about it?

ok.

except i'm not making a thread titled 'PROMISCUITY' so i'll leave it up to him if he wants to :p

On the whole no, I'd say that religious repression has had a much more adverse affect on our culture. You're also greatly exaggerating the problem seeing as the average person is is not extremely promiscuous regardless of what you might see on TV.

The media is to blame for creating an overly negative and misanthropic perception of the average American - similar to how on every news site each day you'll hear a new story about "someone killing someone", when in reality this rarely happens, and you won't hear about all the people who didn't kill someone that day.

Sure you can complain that less people have their relationships blessed by the Church today- but ignore the fact that in the early 1900s religious child marriages occurred in rural parts of the US, with girls as young as 10 years old

You're more likely to die in a car wreck than you are to of an STD - the "STD" fear is one which is manufactured rather than realistic, as the risks are comparable to many other things which people engage in daily, yet disproportionately talked about.

Plus one day all STDs will be cured anyway by science.

See above. Not to mention a person who absolutely wanted to avoid said risk could just avoid the act of intercourse altogether - but of course a lot of religious fundamentalists would be against any recreational sexual activity, since preventing unwanted pregnancies isn't their real agenda.

Jimmy Swaggart? Ted Haggart?

Apparently having "found Jesus" didn't help them much. lol

I'd say the increased divorce rate is a positive thing, since what it means in practice is the ending of a lot of sham marriages which are "marriages" in name only but in practice dead relationships.

Famous author Dale Carnegie for example stayed in a horrible marriage for 8 years simply because it was less acceptable at the time to divorce.

And of course according to studies, Christians actually have higher divorce rates than other demographics, such as atheists.

Marriage and divorce were treated more seriously back in a day in age when a woman was much more dependent on the husband for support, and in which producing heirs for her father was considered a much more important "role".

Since the industrial age has made it easier for a woman to support herself without a man, and since we recognize women today individuals rather than "property" of her father, it's natural that long term, monogamous relationships are less of a pragmatic priority in this day and age.

If you want to return to a simpler, more puritanical time, then you'll need to undo all of the industrialization that's taken place over the past 70 years since WWII, which one one hand brought about a lot of the social changes which you're objecting to, yet at the same time made possible modern conveniences like the internet which people take for granted.

Jealousy's caused by emotionally immature individuals. If a person can't control their own emotions it's their problem.

None of Solomon's wives had much of a problem with jealousy apparently ;)

Whether people like it or not, monogamy isn't a "natural" institution within the human species - religious monogamy was invented by the early Catholic church and was done for practical reasons at the time, not because people "naturally" monogamous, because they aren't. it never even existed in the Bible at all - the ancient Israelites were polygamous.

Your standard of "respect" sounds like it's based more on the mentality that a woman is "property" and that one is "obligated" to marry her and produce heirs for her father (with little individual say in the matter) - than on actual principles of respect in the context of human interaction.

By that logic, then two people having consensual recreational sex are "disrespecting" each other, since "respect" is simply being re-defined to mean something other than what it actually does in the context of real human interactions.
No not at all. If anything the things you're talking about are a slightly excessive backlash against Puritanical repression of past eras.

As far as disrespect for example, talk a look - or how they were treated in the Old Testament - you'll see far more antisocial behavior occurring toward women in more ascetic cultures than you will in ours, with little exception.

But in in fact, countries which are the most ascetic are pretty much without exception the most barbaric, repressive, and deviant. From Iron Age Israel, to modern day Saudi Arabia - where a woman wearing jeans or showing her face in public is a bigger sin than stoning children or forcing girls to marry their rapists.

What aspect of "our culture" promotes it? Are you talking about the marketing industry?

While I believe that people do have to a degree and innate desire for modesty, I'd say the majority of is simply jealousy and a desire to control, as well as the simple creaton of a false dilemma. Bertrand Russell had a good understanding of this even back in 1936.

If you object to the excessive marketing of sexual content via the internet and the media, then ironically if you need to lay a blame anywhere - it would be excessive capitalism, and the execs who know that selling skimpy clothes or racy music is a great cash cow for marketing to rebellious teens who want to piss off daddy.

Hey, why not just marry off 9 year old girls to 50 year old men, and institute the death penalty if they ever get caught being an adulterous.

Take a look at the divorce rate in Saudi Arabia compared to ours. It works! lol :cool:

---

Though it begs the question of why said trouble is being gone through to begin with to ensure that other people remain "monogamous" just for the sake of being "monogamous".

What would be the benefit in persuading two people who hate each other to remain in a miserable relationship for 10 years as opposed to just 5 years, especially when the only reason they're in the relationship to begin with is a fear of God's wrath, or a fear of their Church's disapproval, etc? Rather than any actual desire for the relationship itself.

Nothing I said remotely implies any of this.

Well, then it's a good thing nobody suggested that people should be monogamous just for the sake of being monogamous, then.

Nobody said this either. In fact, they explicitly gave other reasons entirely.

It's becoming abundantly clear that, if you don't get an argument that's easy to argue with, you just pretend people advanced one that is, anyway.

Re: How do you know the difference between right and wrong?
 

I don't have the time right now to go through everything you said one by one but I will say in every instance your argument is but hey I found something worse. Or the classic this guys believes the same as you and look at what he did. That is all deflection from the questions I asked.

The only thing you addressed head on was jealousy and your take away from that is just don't be jealous. Monogomy is not about "owning" one another. It is about two people commiting themselves to one another with their entire being. You always want to talk about things that are hard wired in us and that commitment is one of those things. You don't have to get to know people very well to figure that out. You can of course excuse it away or ignore it but it is in fact there. Yes, I bet even in Solomon and his wives. Once again pointing out that someone else did it wrong doesn't make your way right.

That's essentially what doing it just for the sake of religion is - it has nothing to do with the actual context of the relationship.

That's why we think that miserable couples who married just for money, religious reasons, etc divorcing is actually a "bad thing".

The other reasons were incorrect in many counts, and were also irrelevant, since even if none of them existed people would still support monogamy for religious reasons alone.

Just like the religious people who oppose homosexuality and claim it's because of the high rate of AIDs that gay men have - when in reality even if AIDs was cured they'd still oppose it just because "the Bible says so".

No it's not - the Bible says women should be submissive to their husbands, and that men may marry women they've violated if they pay her father pieces of silver.

Marriage in the Biblical, religious sense - is not about commitment or modern, egalitarian Western concepts - it's about producing heirs and owning women as property, nothing more.

Modern egalitarian marriage has nothing in common with "marriage" as practiced in the Bible or by Biblical literalists. It has nothing to do with commitment, but everything to do with control.

You're falsely equating monogamy with commitment, and no religious monogamy was not hardwired into us - it was invented by the early Catholic Church and did not exist anywhere in the Bible.

It's there with siblings too - no matter how equal a parent treats siblings they're inevitably going to have more in common with one child than the other, and the other child will feel a little jealous

That doesn't mean a person should "never have more than one kid though" just to avoid said potential jealousy.

And nope, I'd never bother with a woman who's so entitled and insecure that she has the nerve to be "jealous" of some ex of mine from years before I met her - the only thing I'd give a woman like that is the phone number to the local psych ward - lol

False dichotomy

To die sure, but you're very likely to get one as more than 110 million Americans have, what is that like 1/3?

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Let's agree that you think my views on monogamy are dated and that I think yours is an excuse to do as you please. That way we can stop this from being a debate about OT law where you pretend that is where modern Christianity begins and ends. I will ask two questions to try and move us forward.

Do you draw a line in the sand anywhere when it comes to your sexuality? Number of partners, limited partners at one time. Just anything that would imply a limitation.

Would you hope future partner in a commited relationship has some sort of sexual standards for themselves?

you're right, we both could pull in anecdotal evidence to support what we're saying, and i for a fact could bring in anecdotal evidence to support my own claim as well as yours. what i mean is i know couples who have been happily monogamous (my grandparents are about to celebrate 60 years of marriage in October), and i also know a few poly-amorous couples who seem to have their s**t together and seem quite happy with that situation, too. i'm not trying to endorse 'poly-amorous relationships for all or gtfo.' what i am endorsing is that i think it's okay, not sinful, not immoral, if one wants to continue having sexual relationships with other people even if they are in a committed relationship, as long as they have their SO's consent.

i think it's safe to say that it's more of a case-by-case thing and not universal across the board for every relationship ever.

i think when it comes to committed relationships, it's a matter of taking a good, hard look at what you want out of it and what you want out of your partner, and making sure you're with someone who wants those same things as you do.

sorry, i'm not quite sure what you mean? i didn't realize we were talking about one's sex lives before they were in a committed relationship. i don't actually think it should matter to my fiance, for example, what kind of sex life i had before he knew me. all that should matter to him is who i'm having sex with now, depending upon what our agreements and expectations are in our relationship.

Hey, if you're just going to drop that child bride straw man nonsense the moment I push back on it, it might be better if you just invested a minute before you replied to see if you're saying anything obviously ridiculous. That way, you can avoid posting it at all.

And who said anything about staying together for the sake of religion? Nobody. Literally nobody. You're not replying to anything anyone has said.

Oh.

Er, first, this isn't true, for reasons I've pointed out before (without response). You're assuming no causation, as if religious reasons exist independent of other reasons. They don't. People practice religion because they think it's true, sure, but also because it has valuable things to teach them about human nature, which--check this out--is one of the reasons they think it's true. They wouldn't go on following it if you just flipped every edict to say the opposite.

Second, in what context would the motivation of monogamous people be "irrelevant"? Not in the context of the discussion we were, you know, actually having, which was about the relative benefits or detriments of promiscuity. What you really mean is that it's irrelevant for your own purposes, which appears to be finding excuses to talk about how much you hate religion. Nevermind if it has anything to do with what was being discussed.

Most STDs are easily treatable, and similar health risks arise from:

Eating fast food

Drinking alcohol or smoking

Not exercising enough

Video game addiction

Caffeine addiction

Thinking negatively too much

Social isolation

Sexual repression (studies show that it can be linked to developing paraphilias or dysfunctional sexual desires)

etc

Not to mention the risk of getting an STD from a partner who you know has tested negative for STDs is quite a different matter.

Yet the fixation specifically on STDs is highly disproportionate to the the actual statistics, because it's about religious reasons with "statistics" just being used retroactively to attempt to justify it.

Do you really think for example that if simple vaccination for all STDs was discovered, that Fred Phelps would just turn around and say "Okay I've changed my mind now, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality".? C'mon.

Says the guy who just implied that saying nice things about monogamy means marrying 9 year olds off to old men.

Nope - I just used it as an example of why using generic statistics such as "divorce" rates to make a point is a poor argument, since it's a fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran have lower divorce rates.

Sure some people may just divorce because they're too immature to make a relationship work; on the other hand back in the early 1900s it's not like a battered wife could just go visit a lawyer and being filing for divorce.

This is why I say that marriage and relationships are private matter between the couple, their marriage counselor, etc, and that people shouldn't be expected to be "monogamous" for religious reasons.

People who have a successful relationship are naturally more monogamous; they shouldn't feel pressured to stay in a bad relationship just to avoid the "sin" of divorce.

I feel this is almost a contradiction to your argument considering these are all negative things that have negative impacts.


I never picked a side on this argument, I'm just pointing out that seanc has a point that STDs are very common right now.

No it's illustrating that the fixation on STDs is disproportionate to the actual risk involved, and is more about religion than it is about statistical facts.

People for example don't think anything of reading all of the exploitative tabloid news headlines about murder, rape, etc even though studies show that constantly thinking negatively and stressful may have extreme health risks, and may even play a role in people developing depression and psychosis.

Well heck, the "safest" option is to become a Trappist monk then.

What "fixation"? sean listed half a dozen things, and that was one of them.

False dichotomy.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

No, you'd become a religious drunkard. That's as pertinent as much of this whatever it is.

<reply where I rant for six paragraphs about how backwards Puritans are responsible for prohibition>

to me, the thing about the STD and pregnancy argument is that those are always going to be risks of being sexual, obviously, but if we've learned anything from the past, it's that trying to enforce abstinence and sexual repression doesn't work, either. for example, teen pregnancy rates have actually dropped in the last few decades, steadily. less people are having kids at such a young age, and i think a huge reason for that is thanks to sex education and easier access to birth control.

basically, education and awareness seem to be more effective with these kinds of problems, because people aren't going to stop having sex.

I believe I address the things he mentioned.

Bottom line is that I and many people agree that moderation in all things is the best option. When people are adamantly against something it typically shows a different agenda.

PETA for example tries to use alleged health risks from eating meat as an argument for veganism, but we all know that no matter what the risks are they'd be against it no matter what.

For example - one day I believe all STDs will be eliminated. And one day there will be contraception which is 100% effective - and even without contraception, people can avoid the act of intercourse if they're hell bent on preventing an unplanned pregnancy.

But I don't believe that a lot of religious people would change their position regardless of the risks or facts, because religion is the number one reason for their opposition, and everything else is secondary.

That has literally nothing to do with what I just asked. Show me where sean "fixates" on STDs. He lists them as one of literally six things. And, amusingly, by taking that one thing and talking about it for several paragraphs, it makes you the one who's fixating on it.

Would you say you're "adamantly" against organized religion? :drevil:

Quite true. Also quite irrelevant for the purposes of evaluating their arguments. Logic.

The fixation is on the risks of sex in general, disproportionate to the risks of many other similarly risky activities (which aren't specifically singled out by certain religions)

There are quite a bit of health risks in playing professional football for example.

That depends on what the religion espouses.

I'm against religious beliefs which claim that science or observable facts about the world conflict with religion.

The thing I will agree with Seanc about is that sex is overly heavily marketed in the media, and due to the mass media (internet, cable TV) it's a lot easier to market it to kids than it used to be.

Similar question to the one I asked before since you brought up moderation. What do you consider moderation from a sexual perspective, and how did you come to that determination?

First: what does sean think about those other risky activities? Do you have any idea? If not, how do you know his concern is disproportionate?

Second: you didn't say the fixation was "on the risks of sex in general," and that's not what your argument was about, either.

Third, the discussion is about sex, so of course he's only listing the risks of sex. That's the topic, dude. It'd be bizarre if ash asked him to elaborate on the possible risks of promiscuity and he said "Playing football is dangerous!"

lolz

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Have to go, quite ironically to see Trainwrecked. Then I work later so I probably won't respond anymore till tomorrow.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Why are you fixating on Trainwrecked when fast food can also be bad for you?

Well man I'll touch on that later, however the thing is a lot of people seem to be under the impression that you have to either choose between monogamy or "sleeping with as many people as possible".

But the majority of people aren't "swingers" or "nymphomaniacs" who just sleep with as many people as possible with no concern for the risks. According to a study I read, the average male has 7 partners in a lifetime and the average female has 4 - and I bet a lot of these were actual relationships, not just one-night-stands or "hookups" or whatnot.

I think it's the media that's giving an overly negative perception of sexual ethos - I agree with you that sex is overly heavily marketed in the media, especially to young people (I made some points about that in my music thread - how a lot of "pop songs" on the radio are too racy for kids, yet too unintelligent for adults).

But I don't think that what you see on a cheesy sitcom like "Friends" or "2 and a Half Men" is really that representative of the average Joe or Jane - in the same vein as how all of the tabloid crime headlines aren't representative of the average person, since the majority of people wake up each day and "don't kill" someone, yet you only hear about the ones who do.

I also don't think "divorce rates" are automatically bad since divorce is only a legal matter and doesn't touch on the actual dynamics of the relationship itself - back in the day when it was much harder to divorce, it also meant that a woman who was abused would've had a much harder time ending the relationship for example.

i know this wasn't directed at me, but i'm going to respond to it anyway. specifically the bolded bit. you say this as if it's a bad thing to want to do what you like. like, i'm not going to speak for 90sAce, but during this whole discussion, i was speaking in the context that having an active sex life is fine as long as you aren't actively hurting anyone, and quite frankly, that's possible to do if you're mature about it. like, extremely communicative, non-manipulative, and very clear with your partners what your intentions are. obviously, if the person you're committed to is not in favor of this sort of relationship, then the moral thing to do at that juncture would be to choose which is more important to you. so, yes, if you're in a committed relationship with someone who is against this, and you still do it, then you and i are in agreement about that being immoral and wrong.

but the whole point of this is to do what you please. it definitely sounds like you think people should feel ashamed for acting on their sexual desires, under any circumstances, even ones where they are doing it with the consent and respective wishes of all parties involved. why?

Plus it's the burden of the person making the assertion to prove their claim, rather than simply beg the question and dismiss counter arguments as "excuses".

If a Muslim for example says eating pork is immoral, it's not the burden of the other party to "prove it isn't", it's the burden on the one making the assertion.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I don't know, but I think sean may be looking at it from the perspective of having two young sons and seeing everything from a much-broader view.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

well, OK. i can see why that would change someone's idea of what they want for their relationship. on the other hand, though, i don't think it's a bad idea to actually teach kids that having sex and wanting sex are bad things. i think it's way better than trying to ban sex altogether. that never actually works.

i'd also like to point out that poly isn't just about having sex with other people. it's about having relationships with other people. many people in poly relationships have children and share households, responsibilities, and other things that families share. though this isn't something i've necessarily had for myself, i've seen it work out for other people before, and have seen many pros to this sort of arrangement.

I'm in for a lunch break. I'm only addressing my own general viewpoints here.

The ever increasing problems of: infidelity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, unwed teen moms, STDs and unhappy relationships often stems from a lack of personal responsibility.

Starting with the hippies in the 1960s and then into the 1970s an attitude developed in America 'if it feels good do it'. Now several generations latter the idea of 'get what you need and screw other people' has become not only common place but revered as some form of strength and self gratification has becoming the norm.

While treating people like you would want to be treated yourself has become an old fashion and out dated idea. And from that selfish 'its all about me' attitude stems many of today's societal problems.

Being sexually repressed (ex. being conditioned to think that innate sexual desires are "sinful") isn't good for one's psychology, especially the male psychology since it raises cortisol and lowers testosterone.

I think modern industrialization places some of the blame on this.

By biology men are designed to have sexual "conquests", however in the modern industrialized world it becomes the "low-hanging fruit" and a substitute for real manly values.

Back in the pre-industrialization era men's distinct roles were more emphasized - but nowadays many guys can go their whole lives without ever being in a physical fight - and men's careers and jobs are shifting away from physical or "manly" work to more "androgenized" jobs (such as service industry jobs) which both sexes can do equally.

As a result, "sex" ends up becoming the low-hanging fruit and some men place too much emphasis on "sex" alone being their male identity, when in reality it was meant to be part of a triad (protection, procreation, provision), not the sole identifying characteristic of their manhood.

i've said this now, like, three times in this thread, and every time i say it, it gets ignored, but what the hell, i'll say it again:

no one is saying that you should go off and have sex with multiple partners with a total disregard for how your other partner(s) feel about it. the discussion has been, at least from me, about how having open sexual relationships is not immoral as long as you have the consent of the person you're in the committed relationship with. so, your "treat people like you want to be treated" and "it's all about me" thing don't hold up here - i'm agreeing that, yeah, you should treat people how you want to be treated, as the polygamy should be a mutually agreed upon situation. and that makes it all about you and all about the person you're with. which is perfectly fine.

I think some of those things are more of a problem than others.

For example if there was a metric to judge the actual quality of relationships other than just longevity or divorce rates I think that would better, since religious or social pressure can encourage people to stay in a bad relationship nominally if nothing else.

Even infidelity rates could be negatively effected due to this, if society or law makes it harder to officialize a divorce even when the relationship is "dead" in everything but name.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I think saying we're where we're at has something to do with the hippies is a short-sighted argument. All this stuff has been going on forever. The '60s and '70s just made people bring it more out in the open and deal with it or ignore it, which is their want.

The open attitude toward sexuality also coincided with the advent of the birth control pill.

A lot of the changes if not most occurred simply for practical reasons (ex. prior to birth control, and to women having jobs or means of supporting a kid other than the father's income - it was obviously a lot riskier to have recreational sex).

What exactly qualifies going "too far" though is a matter of contention.

I'd say that the media overly markets sex to young people, and the mass media makes it harder for parents to filter out what young teens are exposed to - and this could play a role in shaping their attitudes absent of any good role models.

As I said in my disclaimer my post was a general statement, it was not about you or anything you have posted. I didn't even read most of the post. That was my general view of things.

If you look at history, the generation that parented the baby boomers were the people who grew up in adverse hardships during the Great Depression and went off to sacrifice their lives in WWII (not all of them of course). This generation collectively referred to as the ' The Greatest Generation' (not my term, but Tom Brokaw's) went on to have an unprecedented number of births after WWII. In general these kids were raised with much higher standards of living and as often is the case their parents spoiled them giving their children opportunities that they themselves missed out on. As kids who had it much easier than their parents (not all of them of course), they had more personal time and so embraced the arts and social movements, hence all the significance change in the 1960s. This lead to a revolution of personal freedoms and so American society started placing a higher value on the freedoms of the individual. The problem with endorsing personal freedoms to far is it can lead to a lack of respect for others. By the 1970s and 1980s this 'me' generation continued to change the course of what is considered the norm.

(I'm of course talking in general figures and trends).

This is one of the negative effects of industrialization and does have some truth to it to an extent - after WWII the US had profited so much from the war that it became massively industrialized, however the negative effect is that many people become overly dependent on convenience and less on discipline.

Sure people were evolutionary designed to invent things, but they weren't designed to be "dependent" on modern conveniences.

But I'm definitely not of the opinion that the Puritanical attitudes held by the early New England colonists is the best alternative.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You're reducing the entire cultural revolution against racism, sexism, unjust wars and political corruption to some spoiled kids? :)

Well me I'd say yes and no on that.

Some people were fighting against legitimate injustices such as the Jim Crow laws, and lives wasted in the Vietnam War.

But some were just protesting because the Beatles made it trendy to be all about "peace and love" - that's why most of the the hippy shtick of the 60s went the way of disco and you don't see it anywhere today outside of headshops.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You're missing it again. I don't think the hippies have anything (or at most, very little) to do with "The ever increasing problems of: infidelity, adultery, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, unwed teen moms, STDs and unhappy relationships often stems from a lack of personal responsibility."

I agree with you on that - as I mentioned I think that if anything, industrialization contribute to problems for a variety of social factors. I don't think it's as simple as "people's attitude's changing" - I think that attitudes have changed in a lot of ways, but that attitudes changed in accordance with the environment, rather than vice versa.

Obesity for example is a problem caused by a lack of physical exercise combined with an abundance of cheap, unhealthy food - this is why the "poor" in industrialized nations like the US of A are the most obese, as oxymoronic as that might be anywhere else in the world.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I don't have a lot more to add to the discussion honestly. My point of asking the question where do you draw the line in the sand with your sexual relationships was to simply point out that most people do have boundaries. I think it is important to ask what informs those boundaries and why. Monogamy in our culture has become a punchline and I think if you look at the state of relationships in our culture it is not hard to draw the conclusion that we have become too promiscuous and it is effecting us.

That is not saying that if you don't practice monogamy or haven't in the past then all your relationships are doomed. Likewise those of us who still believe monogamy is practice don't want to ban sex, are not repressed, and are perfectly capable of having frank conversations with our children about sex.

I think in every area of life it is important to understand what best practices look like and question ourselves when we want to stray from those best practices. That never means straying is ultimate failure. However if we are striving for what is best for us and those around us it is always going to effect us more positively then negatively.

Mark mentioned personal responsibility. It seems to me that we have a major breakdown in our culture when it comes to that. Not only on this issue but many.

I think a problem is that you're equating "divorce rates" for example with a decline in personal responsibility.

But how is two people living together in a miserable relationship just for religious reasons showing "personal responsibility"? I've known plenty of people who've been married for a long time, but had terrible relationships with little love and lots of fighting; they might've just been staying together for religious reasons, or just "settling" due to the idea that even "a horrible relationship is better than none".

That's why I mentioned Saudi Arabia as an example, since arranged child marriages have a "much lower divorce rate" than Western marriages - but that doesn't mean that the dynamic of the relationship itself is ideal.

Back in past eras, it was a lot harder and less acceptable to get a divorce, and women had a lot less say in the act of marriage - so increased divorce rates may just as well be a backlash against forced, loveless, religious-motivated marriage as well as a decline in responsibility.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I can understand to a point what your saying, there is some real truth there. However, like with most things in human nature our culture has taken those truths and way over compensated. To the point where now people get divorced at the drop of a hat. Unhappy as you say has come to simply mean things aren't the way they were when I felt the most self-gratified and I am going to free myself to chase that fleeting feeling again.

So I agree that it is good that we live in a society where people do not have to stay in abusive relationships. The trade off is one I happily make but it is not without repercussions.

ok, what are you basing this on, out of curiosity? if you look at actual statistics on divorce, the biggest reasons people give for divorce are lack of commitment, excessive arguing, infidelity, marrying too young, unrealistic expectations, lack of equality, lack of preparation, and abuse. if you're going to make off the cuff claims about why the majority of divorces happen, at least back it up with something.

Do the bolded reasons sound like things that more then likely could be worked through to you? Cold hard facts are great but hard to come by when you are talking about very grey subject matter. How many divorced people do you know? How many have you talked to frankly about their divorce? Do you find any reasons not valid? Do you think people should go above and beyond to make their marriage work?

I haven't had to talk to a lot of divorced people to know that a whole lot of people come to a place of indifference and decide that is enough to move on.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

That list doesn't really tell us anything either way. Excessive arguing about what? How much is excessive to each person? What expectations were unrealistic, and why did they have them? Pretty much every reason for divorce you could, for whatever cultural reason you can think of, would fit within that list.

"Not valid" and "poor reasons" aren't quite the same thing.

For example someone choosing to ditch a friend just because they "voted for Obama" would be a poor reason.

How "valid" applies that there is an "obligation" to do "have friends" or "be in a relationship" to begin with. And that begs the question.

What goal are they trying to achieve by doing so? Pleasing God? Following the Bible?

A problem is you're presuming that a "reason" needs justification in the first place - being a "bad reason" and needing justification aren't the same things.

Sure in the Bible and in the Iron Age culture it was written on, it was a societal expectation to take a wife and have children for a lot of reasons that were practical to the culture at the time, as well as women's lack of recognition as individual participants in the relationship.

But many of those reasons don't hold water today, namely:

*Life expectancy is high, mortality is low in the West - procreation is not nearly as immediately necessary for collective survival as it was in Iron Age desert tribes

*While cultures have more or less universally expected members to "contribute more than they consume" to society, the West has a multitude of ways in which people can positively contribute to society compared to the Iron Age, where war, hunting, and procreation were the only ways a typical male could "contribute".

*Women are recognized as individuals who are voluntarily participating in an egalitarian relationship, rather than something which is essentially "bought and sold".

*Women are capable of and allowed to financially support themselves; whereas back in the Bible era a woman was entirely financially dependent on her husband - and since virginity was extremely important due to concerns of male linage, her "value" on the marriage marked would be greatly diminished if she was "used and return" - similar to how just driving a car off the lot greatly diminishes its value.

These threads go nowhere if they always turn into bashing Christianity. We're not going to change each others minds, but if we listen and speak from our own experiences we might learn from each other.

I'm not bashing Christianity itself, I'm just stating that the importance of marriage, divorce, procreation, etc in Old Testament Israel had very little to do with modern, egalitarian concepts of love and commitment.

It was purely survivalistic, and about the importance of male linage in the culture at the time.

This is why being "against divorce" for example without evaluating the situation at hand, or the goal of the relationship itself - makes a lot less since in the modern era, because it's applying Iron Age logic to the 21st century, without regards to why said things were even put into practice to begin with.

The goal of an Iron Age "relationship" or marriage was quite fundamentally different than the goal of one in the modern era. It was about producing heirs, as well as the husband being financially obligated to the bride's father, and much less about the modern egalitarian concepts of relationships.

Er, no, nothing about what you quoted presumes that in any way, shape, or form. Seriously, nothing.

The question was what causes divorce. Sean listed some reasons, ash countered by listing reasons typically given by the couples themselves, and I pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive. You've completely imagined whatever part of this you think you're responding to.

In other words, you don't care what anyone's saying, you're just going to pretend people said whatever thing allows you to rant about the thing you want to rant about.

I have been trying so hard not to mention religion when it comes to this debate because all it ends up doing is changing the topic. What you fail to understand, and admittedly what a lot of Christians fail to understand, is that God's laws are not for his benefit, they are for ours. That is why under the new covenant I am under no obligation to follow them. However chances are if I believe I am compelled to follow them.

So in terms of this argument my opinion would be that the way our culture treats sexuality and marriage is very short sighted and selfish in nature. We seem to have very limited definitions of terms like happiness, commitment, or even contentment. I don't think you have to spend too much time talking to people about their relationships to understand this. In fact most people would agree with that statement before adding but that's not me, that's the other guy.

Oh I'm sure people with short-sighted attitudes exist.

The problem arises when longevity of a relationship is immediately associated with the quality of said relationship - and when there's more of a desire for the couple to "officially be a couple" on paper - than for the actual interactions within the relationship itself.

Today there are a lot less practical and immediate reasons to get married in the first place - it's not immediately necessary for survival, nor is it the only way for a man to preserve his legacy for future generations, for example. I'd say the primary purpose of having a relationship today is for the mutual benefit and improvement of all parties involved, if those factors aren't being met then there isn't an "obligation" to be in a relationship - people aren't "under contract to the wife's father to produce heirs in exchange for him giving her away to you" like they were in the BC era.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Nope, we are under no obligation to each other at all. A couple that has children together is also under no obligation to them at all. Again, what are best practices and what informs that?

For someone who usually seems very interested on how humans are hard wired at this point in their evolution, you seem to be completely ignoring it on this subject.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

I have a question for everyone...if you could change how other people view sexuality, relationships and marriage and change how other people practice them to match your own ideas, would you do it?

The tempting answer is of course yes. However saying yes goes against everything I believe on a spiritual level so I give an adamant no. :D

That's a non-sequiter.

How can you be under "obligation" to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want the relationship?

That presumes a lack of free will and equal rights in a relationship - which was the case in the Iron Age where the woman's father (not her) had the say, but isn't the case today".

A child is a legal and physical dependent of the people who produced it.

A mentally capable, consenting adult can't be "obligated" to do something for another adult who is not consenting to it.

Again back in the Iron Age a woman was essentially a complete dependent on the husband, and had no free will in the matter - but that's not the case in an egalitarian relationship where both are voluntary participants.

I'd say the best practice are to study and learn as much as you can about how to be a good person and give your best shot in a relationship, and to have realistic expectations - if the other person isn't meeting the criteria then it's no knock against you if the relationship doesn't work out.

The presumption however is that "any couple could work out", and that any relationship which ends is solely the fault of the parties involved makes little sense though - because again this shows more of a desire for the relationship to "simply exist on paper" than for any actual good to happen within the relationship.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

You know I mean it when I say we are under no obligation to each other, right? Your responses make me think that you think I am being facetious.

I'm not totally sure what you mean.

If the other party isn't meeting reasonable expectations, but still "wants a relationship", then no I don't believe you're obligated to remain in one.

I think that reasonable, realistic, and mutually agreed upon expectations are the key. If one person is expecting more from the other person than they're offering themselves - or not believing they have to participate at all yet still deserve a "relationship", then this is when I think problems arise.

Your not wrong about that. That is where the work of a relationship comes in. Again, a lot of people are not willing to put in that work. I think we are running out of steam here. Having clear expectations of each other and having shared values is paramount. I think it is very important to understand that people are always going to fail each other in those expectations and be willing to communicate through those types of trials.

but talking to people you know who are divorced/going through divorce doesn't qualify you to make judgments on whether or not their reasons for calling it quits is based upon valid enough reasons. if anything, my first thought would be 'they should have never gotten married to begin with', not 'they shouldn't be getting this divorce, their reasons aren't valid enough for it.'

if i had to speculate about why people are getting divorced at higher rates than they were, say, 50 years ago, i'd say it has less to do with the quality of relationships and personhood and more to do with what is now more socially acceptable. people have always been selfish, self-gratifying, and fickle. they just used to be more concerned with hiding it previously. of course, if you disagree with this, i'm curious to hear why.

but basically, i'm more of the opinion that another person's divorce is really none of my business, as it has no affect on my life or my well-being. the only person i'm going to worry about divorcing is my husband, someday.

that was kind of my point, though - that the reasons given for divorce are vague, so making sweeping statements on why people get divorced doesn't seem to be coming from anything more concrete then some vague statement about how "people are just more selfish these days." i'm interested in discussing why he thinks so, or why you think so if that's what you think, but i'm more interested in having the discussion based on something more than "i know someone who got divorced and this is what happened to them, therefore it must be true of all couples."

Been thinking about the topic but in a more personal sense. Talked to friends and one agreed with me while others disagreed.

I generally frown upon most people's approach to relationships, and I think that the lack of pure romanticism or a very impure approach to all things love might be due to no exposition to art in general. No sense of aesthetic is another issue I'd attribute to ignorance of art because it's art that develops our sensitivity.

Sure, you can call me a sentimental sap, but I have a very traditional outlook on love and relationships, and what's really disheartening to me is that not many people seem to share my opinions in this field.

I'm really surprised so many people are looking for sex and so few for love. Sure, most of them would tell you that their looking for sex is by extension also looking for love, but I have a hard time swallowing that. If you're looking for the love of your life, what are the chances it will be that half-dead drunken guy who's groping your ass at the party? The girl you just met and asked over to a hotel room - sure, this must be the love of your life. Well, it's pretty obvious you're looking for sex. For fun. Not love. The "first have fun, there will be time for love later" mindset so prevalent amongst the youth kicks in.

I take no issue with promiscuity among other people I don't know, but this lifestyle is so alien to my own, I can't help but run away from any potential date that gives off even a hint of such practices. I can't wrap my head around the sheer desire for pure sex. One without love, just based on desire. Nowadays you have so much porn, erotic stories, etc. that there is simply no need for sex with people you don't love. You can explore your sexuality without the need of meeting anybody. You can save yourself for somebody you love, and if it doesn't work out later, it's not a big deal. If you're not a virgin, it's not a big deal. But if you're really promiscuous, what's the actual value of you having sex with somebody? Of you giving yourself to somebody? If you did it before, say, a hundred times, there is no real sacrifice there. It's like saying: "Oh hi, you're my 101st sexual partner. Not a big deal, I'll probably forget you tomorrow on my way to the 102nd one". As long as I believe a person like that is capable of love (not very likely, but still), and maybe the 101st partner will be one's last and to till death do us part, there is one thing missing. You don't feel special with that partner. Maybe that's narcissistic or egotistical to think that way, but there you go. I don't need to feel special, but I need to feel understood and respected. It's obvious it's better for me when I hear a girl say "I never really dated anybody, but after some time I thought you're a good person, I dated you and I was right", than something like "Oh, it's not a big deal. I date every guy who asks me. Everybody gets a chance.".

The problem here, I think, is that people not always date to potentially form a relationship. They think with their sexual organs rather than their hearts or at least their brains (admittedly, the last one is the best thing to do). They just want one-night-stands and casual sexual intercourses, and that's fine as long as they make it clear from the very beginning this is the only thing they're after. But the default should be a loving relationship.

So, of course, I'm weirded out when I hear a girl imply she's considering dating more than one guy at the same time. This to me shows her disrespect for every single guy she's dating as if none of them was good enough to date just him. And that's if you forget about all the potential problems that can arise from dating more than one person at a time. But the thing is, she doesn't think there's anything wrong with it. She can't understand what's the problem here.

I'd rather skip the part about inviting her over, because apparently nowadays (or was it always) it means I want to have sex with her, and she will be greatly disappointed and basically would break the deal if I don't cling to her. I don't care. I really don't care anymore. Why do girls think that if I don't at least kiss her as early as possible, it means I don't care? Maybe I just need more time, maybe I want to get to know her more. A kiss is more important to me than sex to some people. I don't kiss just anybody, or rather, when I kiss somebody, that's already meaningful. It's been like that. I don't want to change that. In the era of Tinder and friends advising "don't take it too seriously", I feel lost in my dead-serious approach to dating and relationships. It seems that people value transitory fun more than sincerity, respect, and care.

Polyamory is another concept I can't quite grasp. Once again, that's okay if it works for you, and everybody involved is comfortable with it, but as far as I can understand you can still love e.g. your wife who died in a car accident or your ex-boyfriend, I can't for the love of me get it how can you love two people at once, at the same time, that is to willingly date or have sex with both. But yeah, that's just me, I guess.

Sorry about the rant, guys. I'm just really curious. Am I so different? Am I really not in tune with modern times?

One thing I'd add is that many people gave up on the notion of love, so they figure they might as well get something, so sex it is. Most of the girls I've had sex with were women I wouldn't hang out as friends. There has been one girl who I enjoyed being with (outside of sex) but we met at a concert and were very synchronized when it came to music. But if I wasn't attracted to her, I might have never talked to her. Nowadays, I actually avoid sex and the woman I had been seeing off and on for 15 years (when you weigh the pros and cons). And now with the virus, no way... I think sex might be ego; wanting to see if you are accepted by an attractive woman. It's a stupid game -- men trying to have sex with as many women as possible, yet women trying to downplay it. Obviously, that's not possible, so when a woman gives in, a man might feel like he "won". The only woman I pondered being with "forever and ever" was a girl who liked my music and movie taste (haven't met anyone yet), but it was her beauty that first struck me. I'm not the type who will settle for less, and after getting all the traveling out of my system, I prefer to live alone. There's probably a 0% chance I would ever be in a relationship; I'm picky with everything, especially people I'm going to spend time with.



Speaking of traveling, people talk about goals, and most of them are only interested in money, maybe sex, but one Italian girl I met in Australia (shyly) said she would want to get married and have a family. I was shocked because I never heard ANYONE say that.


I wonder how much the movies set people up for failure. I take art more important than everything, and for those early, idealistic movies from the 1930-70s I've seen, I can see how it distorts fantasy and reality... Mort Sahl had a funny movie idea and wrote a script (never sold it) where he sues Hollywood for lying to him.

I can’t understand people who want to have sex.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Eh, I don't think you're that weird. I think the problem, as lame and pat as this sounds, is media. Social media in particular. It creates the impression that the kind of promiscuity you're referring to is a lot more prevalent than it is. The people not living that life aren't really talking about it (or themselves) as much, I'd expect.

Also important to note the distinction between dating a lot and actually being in a lot of sexual relationships, since there's a big difference between the two.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

Interesting read.
I'm curious though. Was this thread scrubbed at some point of posts that might have gotten out of hand or did the 90s poster never really respond to anything Yoda called out? I'm not trying to stir anything. I'm only curious because it's sometimes difficult to read older threads in a context, and it's also difficult to see a poster so interesting in arguing for the sake of arguing to not pick up bait when it's made available!

Anyway. Interesting (old) thread, all the same.

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

There are no deleted posts in this thread, no. He just didn't respond.

That would be true if we were talking about "old" people already disillusioned with love. However, this approach is seen throughout some "young" people, too. They would rather party and hang out with somebody "fun" than try and build something serious. Their obsession with virginity is no smaller than that of prudes, but while these puritans would take keeping their virginity to its extremes, they would psych about losing it. As fast as possible.

But even among more moderate, relationship-oriented people, I rarely find understanding. When among people, I don't speak, I just sit there silently and make people think I feel bad, or I'm depressed while in reality, that's just the way I am. So, of course, I rarely go out, because I don't really find any enjoyment in such gatherings. Face to face meetings are fine.

Yeah, I want to be accepted, but I see acceptance as something different than sex. I want to be accepted, understood, respected and eventually loved. But none of this has anything to do with sex.

Well, this is worthless to me if there is no love. :(

Same here, bro, I feel ya. I actually was in a relationship, but I doubt I will ever be in one again. Not any time soon, anyway. I doubt I can find that again. Back in the day I already knew it was my only chance. And that's partly because I've changed too much. I've gotten accustomed to my single life too much. I'm not the person I once was. And also I'm way too idealistic, even though in a realistic sense of the word.

matt:
also matt:
I will pay anybody who wants to watch movies with me!

Haha! GOTCHA!

Yeah, I'm really shocked how money-oriented people are. I guess if you'd been starving in your childhood, it's fair you want to have a proper pay, but come on! Money is not the most important thing. :) I'm probably biased, but I also think women are more money-oriented than men, or at least the women I know! Girls, if you and your boyfriend are in financial trouble, you sell all your dresses, not break up with him and find a richer man!

Well, I'm a lost cause with such traditional girls, too, because I don't want to have kids. :)

Everybody has different expectations. It's not really the movies that set people up for failure, but people set people up for failure. The fact I'm an idealist doesn't mean I believe there will never be any problems, but that I believe if there is enough love, then the problems can be overcome.

Well, these films are beautiful, and not just such old ones. Of course, you could nitpick and cynically say things like most of them end after the couple got together, but what's gonna happen after a year or two -- are they still gonna be together? But that's not really the point. The films are supposed to fulfill your dreams. That's something I learnt from the films of Nobuhiko Obayashi. So yes, I use films just like that.

LOL. Gets my prize for most interesting statement of the day.

I try to deliver. ;)

But seriously, I identify as asexual. So I can relate with a lot of what @Mr Minio is saying. It's hard enough finding someone to settle/marry/grow with when the majority of people are just interested in getting laid. It's even worse in cities like mine where everyone is repressed. No lie, my city is super queer and super repressed. So you get a lot of guys that are married that are looking for a little queer piece on the side. Rather than accept that they're gay/bi/whatever they just marry one of the first people they date and then run around behind their back. IMHO, it's ****ing disgusting. People need to give more respect to their partners or embrace being old and sexless.

This is a big reason why I don't even bother trying to date because I know most people are looking for sex on the second or third date. I don't even want it on the twentieth or thirtieth date!

Interesting post. May I ask what you think about orgasms generally? Something that doesn’t interest you or something you take care of by yourself?

Oh geez, the stories I’m not going to tell here. haha

I honestly don’t even think about them. Occasionally ya just gotta do it because like curse of humanity. Otherwise you’d just go insane and do something weird and highly illegal. :lol:

I’m not a monster. :rotfl:

It surely was an impertinent question. :p

If this is the only thing stopping you, then maybe try looking for some place for asexuals to hang out. Is there any dating site exclusively for asexuals? Is there a way to only display other asexuals in some dating apps? If there isn't, there is a great business pitch. Businessmen who read MoFo, get to it! And while you're at it, make one that only displays traditional-but-not-bigot Asian girls pleeeaseee ;_;
Like using a pick to play the bass? :lol:

I have no idea. I am sure there are sites such as that but my area is just sexed up married queers. Besides, asexuals are boring. :lol: ;)

Re: A thread about monogamy, relationships, and other stuff like that
 

First thing I think of when someone says they're asexual is "I wonder if they get a lot more done than the rest of us." :laugh:

Try being more boring than me! You shall not win this battle! :D I'm extremely unboring, but boring people think I'm boring, because they can't comprehend my superiority
I'd be way past 15k watched films, no doubt! :lol:

And the first thing I think about when you say that ...


https://youtu.be/MvfZnCNFPJQ

I just have more time to waste. :lol:

That reminds me of an old joke:

- You spend so much money on cigarettes! If you stopped smoking, you could buy a Ferrari after 5 years!
- Do you smoke?
- No
- Then where's your Ferrari?

Can it be called a “dating” site if only asexuals use it? I mean, do asexuals date? One wonders what would be the point.

Depends how you define “get a lot more done”. Seems to me that sexual beings get a heck of a lot “done”. :p

Of course. They are asexuals, not aromantics.

Aye, I’m a hopeless romantic.