Rooster_DAR Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 I would love to hear an opinion on this from someone that is elderly. I know that nursing homes and independent living communities are now exploding with elderly swingers and the like, but there is no real conclusion on why they do it other than because they can. It seems like serial cheaters (usually not monogamous is the assumption) eventually settle down with one woman when they deem themselves "too old" to keep up with that lifestyle. What do you guys think? I agree that with you about the age and settling down, it seems pretty logical. You know something that I have observed getting older? It seems that the older you get the more you abandon inhibitions, and think about swinging or multi-partner sexual engagements. Even some of my friends (christian) that are getting into their upper thirties joke around with their wives about having threesomes. I admit myself that I've had thoughts of my GF/Fiance and myself having relations with friends (group activity for lack of better words). I believe that probably most people have these kinds of thoughts when they get older, but many people don't act on them and just fight them off (the great evil one is at work!). Again, I suspect evolutionary forces are most likely behind all the urges we have sexually and romantic. Cheers!
NoIDidn't Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 You know something that I have observed getting older? It seems that the older you get the more you abandon inhibitions, and think about swinging or multi-partner sexual engagements. Even some of my friends (christian) that are getting into their upper thirties joke around with their wives about having threesomes. I agree. I find this particularly true with people that have always seemed 'uptight' or prudish. Its like they wake up one day and decide to have a walk on the wild side.
HsMomma Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 I agree. I find this particularly true with people that have always seemed 'uptight' or prudish. Its like they wake up one day and decide to have a walk on the wild side. Ok, may I just say...YUCK! I'm neither uptight nor a prude, and am in my mid 40's - my husband is mid 50's. Neither of us is thinking about 'walking on the wild side'. I think it's determined more by who the people are than a specific age group, just as I believe that monogamy is determined by the people themselves rather than a specific belief system/cultural training, etc. Just my .02 worth
NoIDidn't Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 Ok, may I just say...YUCK! I'm neither uptight nor a prude, and am in my mid 40's - my husband is mid 50's. Neither of us is thinking about 'walking on the wild side'. I think it's determined more by who the people are than a specific age group, just as I believe that monogamy is determined by the people themselves rather than a specific belief system/cultural training, etc. Just my .02 worth LOL. Agreed, but I didn't attach that to a particular group of "older", just older. Nowadays those under 30 seem to have already tried everything under the Sun anyway! LOL. Some do. Some don't. And some os us just think about it. LOL
clv0116 Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 "Meant" is a bad word choice I think, but the 'spread our seed' argument is pretty specious in my opinion. Isn't there some evidence that men are more likely to seek OW when their own wives get to be beyond the procreative age, as it were? Onset of menopause and the male 'midlife crisis' have a very high correlation. I suspect it's a causative relationship. As for women being less promiscuous ... about 1 in 6 children have their paternity misattributed. Genetic research shows this has been roughly true for as long as they can get samples to test.
HsMomma Posted June 5, 2009 Posted June 5, 2009 LOL. Agreed' date=' but I didn't attach that to a particular group of "older", just older. [b']Nowadays those under 30 seem to have already tried everything under the Sun anyway! LOL.[/b] Some do. Some don't. And some os us just think about it. LOL Isn't THAT the truth!
sxyNYCcpl Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 It seems that the older you get the more you abandon inhibitions, and think about swinging or multi-partner sexual engagements. I think there's something to be said for this. Average age of most swing events hovers around late-30's, though as a couple in our late-30's we've been to clubs where we've been the oldest, and others where we've been the youngest. Once by about 25 years, that was a bit frightening lol. More often than not we do seem to be about in the middle. Maturity has something to do with it, many if not most 20-somethings just don't have the right mindset.
BadKittyNo Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 " If you mean most people try or want to be monogamous, I would agree. " Yep, I meant that most people at least make the attempt to live monogamously because that's what they feel is right or what they believe should be right.
Alma Mobley Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 People are hard-wired to be both monogamous and promiscuous. That's what makes this hard. Both males and females have biological reasons to "cheat." Historically, anyway. Does not mean they have to, in this day and age.
Holding-On Posted June 6, 2009 Posted June 6, 2009 You're probably right and as I said before I think we all land somewhere on a large continuum. But I don't think that being attracted to other people is the same as being inherently non-monogamous. Seeing an attractive person, even to point of arousal, is just a natural response. Having these feelings overtake you to the point that you frequent porn or strip clubs or start having sex with other people doesn't even mean to me that you are inherently non-monogamous...it MIGHT mean that, or it might mean that your relationship has issues...that you are looking for fulfillment that you aren't getting from the source you should be getting it from. Sorry to pick on you here but this sums up, in a nutshell, an attitude of the so called "monogamous" masses I personally find maddening. See I don't think that my husband should be my source of so much emotional or sexual fulfillment much less every one. I don't want to think that's his responsibility. I think he only has one life. He's got to live it not waste time trying to be everything to me, or me everything to him. If many people want their spouses to be the sole source of emotional/sexual fulfillment well that's a choice but not necessarily how it should be.
Author Jennifer26 Posted June 6, 2009 Author Posted June 6, 2009 Holding on - when you say your husband isn't the only source of sexual fulfillment do you mean that you get it elsewhere? Or are you referring to masturbation and self fulfillment? If you mean the latter, I completely agree. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with swingers, or people in a polygamous relationship. So long as it is between consenting adults. However, I know I could never be in a multi-partner relationship.
Holding-On Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Holding on - when you say your husband isn't the only source of sexual fulfillment do you mean that you get it elsewhere? Or are you referring to masturbation and self fulfillment? If you mean the latter, I completely agree. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with swingers, or people in a polygamous relationship. So long as it is between consenting adults. However, I know I could never be in a multi-partner relationship. Jennifer, In my case both. Though I find marriages that dictate you should not masturbate/watch porn/have fantasies to be disturbing. Multi-partner relationships requires a view of sex and a level of communication that are not the norm in our society. I do not think it is the solution for all or most people to the inherent constraints of monogamy. My problem with the everything and should situation put out as "romance" is that it puts so much pressure on spouses that it almost dooms a marriage from the start. How can you grow, be true to yourself over the course of 50 years? For example in the case that brought me here, the wife really wasn't wanting sex for a great many legitimate, physical reasons. However, she felt very strongly that it was her job, that she was "failing" in not being in the same place as her husband. And he was just dying, a shell of himself, living with the sexual frustration for over a decade. We could not have a situation where she was relieved of this pressure, he could get as much sex as he needed and I could have sex with someone I really liked. I did not want "her" marriage. In so many of these threads is the concept of competition. I never felt that. I loved her for loving him. He never spoke poorly of her. I wanted her to be respected. In the end she was as she got what she dictated. but why would you want to keep your spouse so miserable if he can get sex for free with someone who is clean (and happy to prove it and WILL use protection to stay that way), has a life of her own and won't bother you or get in the way or demand too much time??? Our personalities and ages did not in any way make it likely we would want to shuck off our spouses and marry each other. See - I just. don't. get. monogamous. people. and "they" (the great washed mainstream) of course have a view of me. Which I know full well. Hence my user name (well the short hand of it). see, lol, I am frustrated. But I have, at least, learned to hang only within the poly community. So this board was fabulous for that.
z1850 Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 What part of, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" don't you understand? The Bible says, "The man that commits adultery destoys himself," and also: "Such is the way of an adulteress: she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and sayeth, 'I have done no wickedness,'' and also: "Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell," and also: "Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well." Your problem is that you have no fear of God, and of the certain fact that you will stand before Him to be judged for all you have done in your life, according to His moral laws. So many people in our society forget this, or just plain don't care! So to answer your original question--yes, men have a sinful nature that some people label as "polygamous", but it is the Bible which provides the definition of right and wrong.
BadKittyNo Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 "Your problem is that you have no fear of God" You're right. I don't fear your god. I was raised with different morals, ethics, and values than you. I was raised that it is our duty to take sole responsibility for our actions. That we should strive to make choices that do not harm others, ourselves, or the world we live in. That we should do "right" out of respect for ourselves and others, not out of fear of eternal punishment. I am accountable only to myself. If I choose well, then it's all on me. If I choose poorly, then it's still all on me. No devil tempts me to do something bad. I do it because I choose to. No god commands me to do something good. I do it because I choose to. The above allows for more personal choice when it comes to relationships. I was raised that any form of love that does not cause harm is good. And that instead of worrying whether somebody might or might not be loving the "right way", that we should just be happy that there is a little more love in the world because of them. I also do not believe that sex necessarily is linked to love. Sometimes it's just sex. And just like love, as long as it doesn't cause harm, then what is the problem? If somebody can love more than one other person ethically, then more power to them. If somebody can take multiple lovers ethically, then more power to them. It's just simply not my business because it's not my choice to make. *Before anybody goes there, I am talking about legal adult humans who have the mental capacity to form consent.
Holding-On Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Yes, you are correct. I am not afraid of your imaginary friend. I'm very frightful of those irrational followers of this book written by humans (divinely inspired or not does not mean they wrote it correctly or translated it correctly). Particularly people who would prefer no separation of church and state. Even if God exists as a conscious being, the Yahweh of the Torah as written is irrational, cruel and conniving. You need to read the ENTIRE old testament. Read about Delilah. Read everything. Picking and choosing is pretty weak. Do you go about your business when you are menstruating? or near women who are menstruating (if you are a man)? Do you mix certain fabrics? (can't remember which ones, so you'll have to consult your priest man on that) Were you a virgin when you married or was your mother if you are a man? Women who cannot prove it are supposed to be stoned to death. If you have a disobedient son you also, biblically, have the authority to stone him to death... this could go on and on and on
Holding-On Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Back to the question. I think it has been summed up before. Humans are not necessarily naturally monogamous. Many choose to attempt to be.
luvstarved Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 If many people want their spouses to be the sole source of emotional/sexual fulfillment well that's a choice but not necessarily how it should be. Well I said earlier that I believe that any relationship's rules and goals should be determined by the parties involved, so I did not mean to make some sort of sweeping moral judgment with those words. I was referring to those who have knowingly entered into a monogamous marriage with a presumption of sexual exclusivity... But...I am not sure what the point is of a committed relationship (a "spousal" relationship) if not to be at least a major source of emotional and sexual fulfillment. That is not to say there are not valid reasons, I'm just not sure what they would be...to put on a front for society, financial convenience, what? I don't expect my H to be my everything nor vice versa. But, I do want a monogamous relationship and I made that plain before we married. Everyone has the right to the type of relationship that they want, but they do not have the right to "pretend" to want the same thing and then later on want to change the game without negotiation because they are bored or stumbled onto someone irresistible. My concept of monogamy IS pretty intense and exclusive but I see it ideally as a safe haven and not a ball and chain. A person's sexuality is part nurture and part nature. For some, it is a sport, and as long as it is also a sport for their partner, well hooray for them. Some see it as a necessary ordeal for procreation and..condolences to them. Some see it as lovemaking with an essential emotionally connected aspect (raises hand). Some see it as just bustin' a nut, whatever works (H would raise hand if he were honest). I am not judgmental about other people's lifestyles and choices. When I said "should" I meant in a committed monogamous relationship and i said should based on my belief that if you communicate effectively, one person can be enough for you sexually. That is not to say you don't look, or occasionally fantasize and masturbate, but that you aren't doing those things out of frustration over what you're missing in your R. IMHO guys who look at porn every day, frequent strip clubs AGAINST their wife's wishes (if she is ok with it, who cares?) etc are either missing something with their wives or are sportf**kers hidden in married men. And that in that case they should work harder to get what they want from their wives...or admit that they were not cut out for monogamy and let the chips fall where they may. Instead many choose to hide these activities and characterize their wives as prudes or control freaks. That does not seem fair to me.
Author Jennifer26 Posted June 8, 2009 Author Posted June 8, 2009 And that in that case they should work harder to get what they want from their wives...or admit that they were not cut out for monogamy and let the chips fall where they may. Instead many choose to hide these activities and characterize their wives as prudes or control freaks. That does not seem fair to me. It's not fair at all. If you have two adults consenting to extra-marital activities - that is fine. That type of situation just wouldn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it can't work for everyone. Lying, hiding, and making excuses for these activities is a whole other deal. If you've entered into a marriage, with the agreement of monogamy and you break that deal - shame on you. If the marriage isn't going well, and you're not getting your needs met (sexually or emotionally) or if you just find that monogamy and marriage aren't for you I think you have a responsibility to address the issues with your partner. If no agreement can be made, it may be time to discuss divorce at that point. However, it does not excuse having an affair. Ever. I cannot stand when I hear others excusing their behavior because their 'needs aren't being met' - it's simply not a good reason. Throughout my marriage there have been many times when I felt my needs weren't being met, and I talked to my husband about it. Whether we're meant to be monogamous or not, I do think if you make a commitment to another person you need to uphold it. If you find it's something you are having difficulty doing, be honest about it. Further back someone mentioned that while men are very sexually and visually oriented, women too, have needs that that can lead to affairs and not being monogamous. I thought that was an interesting point. So often men are viewed as the 'non-monogamous' ones in relationships, but women often will have emotional affairs and that can ultimately lead to physical affairs. I know for myself, in the past, when my needs weren't being met at home I thought about other men romantically. I didn't want to have sex, but the flirting, talking, etc. all seemed very enticing. I've never actually had an EA, but the thought was there at one point. So I think perhaps women too, may struggle with monogamy along with men, just in different ways.
GorillaTheater Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Monogamy's not that big of a deal to pull off. I'm not sure we as humans are "meant" not to kill various people we run across who apparently need to be killed, or to take food (and women) from our neighbors, but most of us manage to restrain ourselves.
Jersey Shortie Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Tara: You are confusing choice with instinct. Animals have instinct and make choices based on these instincts. we make choices through evaluating a far wider parameter of options, with far more consideration. THAT is what separates us from other animals. But we are PART of the animal kingdom. The mistake is to assume we are not, or that we are naturally superior in every way to every other creature. No, I am not confusing choice with instinct. What I did say is that we are biologically programmed to have a choice. That’s different then your conclusion. We are biological programmed with hormones and drives that enable us to be either way, monogamous or promiscuous. One does not have a greater importance or more "biological" validity over other. Simply because situations of both monogamy and promiscuity have their purpose in the survival of the species. It’s called “balance”. And the world is a fascinating dichotomy of such balance. As far as the animal kingdom, no one here argued anything so ridiculous that we aren’t part of it. The mistake is too assume that because we are, that’s justification enough to show similar animal behaviors. If a monkey scratches it’s ass, then we have an excuse to do so too and that that must be are *first* and *most* important *honest* drive. Which is bs. You can’t logically make an all encompassing statement about people relating to the animal kingdom because different animals have different drives and behaviors. Just because a polar bear hibernates with her offspring and keeps them away from male polar bears, doesn’t mean that it’s a reason for us to. Male polar bears will actually kill their own off spring because they are solitary and territorial creatures. That’s why you never see the males with the mom or the babies. That’s how they were “biologically” programmed. Does that mean it’s naturally okay for men (or a woman) to kill their children? Because in some animals it is biological programmed for it? See when people use the old animal kingdom arguments and “biology”, they only ever want to apply it to reasoning of sexuality. They don’t want to factor in all the other natural “biologies” that counter their argument. Truth remains; we are biologically programmed with a choice either way. Some people have more chemicals that swing one way or the other.
2sure Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Monogamy's not that big of a deal to pull off. I'm not sure we as humans are "meant" not to kill various people we run across who apparently need to be killed, or to take food (and women) from our neighbors, but most of us manage to restrain ourselves. Thats exactly it. In a nut shell. Fight or flight is a Natural In-Born reaction to conflict. But usually, we do neither. I dont care if someone has the Natural URGE to have sex with everyone who walks by, or the inherent need to form intimate relationships...the ability to use tools, make decisions, use discretion and restraint can easily override those feelings. Having a bunch of partners is OK in my book as long as no one is being deceived. Being deceptively Non Monogamous is just choosing to be selfish.
sxyNYCcpl Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 Being deceptively Non Monogamous is just choosing to be selfish. I agree with you, but the statement caused a question to arise within my mind, and probably an unanswerable one. I wonder how many people know that they just aren't the monogamous type, but rather than accepting that and trying to embrace it, they suppress it. They hide that aspect of themselves because they've been taught since the word go that such an attitude is morally reprehensible, while at the same time in far too many cases nudge-nudge-wink-wink is the name of the game when it comes to cheating?
NoIDidn't Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 I dont care if someone has the Natural URGE to have sex with everyone who walks by, .... When that urge is acted upon, don't we call that rape? I have to wonder, not trying to make a case for or against monogamy, do we consider rape to be a bad thing because society and religion told us to as some have alluded is the case with monogamy?
luvstarved Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 The "biological imperative" excuse from men who cheat is just insulting. A person who chooses not to be monogamous is well within their rights. But most do choose monogamy for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that human children take two decades to come to maturity. People are supposed to be the supreme beings of the planet. Most of us don't steal, or kill, or even piss in our neighbor's rose garden. We have feelings and emotions and needs, but we don't just "go with them" and call it human nature. We invent, explore spiritual questions, and produce art and discover science. When it comes to sex, we make a much bigger deal of it than other animals do. Possibly because sex is the most difficult of the "animal urges" that we have to control...we turn it into some awful secret embarrassing thing...that feels really really good. Repression goes in and "perversions" pop out. I still personally feel that I would gain more satisfaction from deeply knowing one human being (and I don't know any to the depth I am talking about, sadly) to a level of comfort and understanding and connection...than boffing an endless series of strangers or near strangers. To be fair, I have done the latter so perhaps I am in a different, jaded place...but again I am only talking about myself. As an anecdote, I was in an open marriage some years ago. The theory was that people were not monogamous so let's be "enlightened". The enlightenment ended when it became apparent that as a woman I could get laid by nearly any one at nearly any time. My H did not have such luck. So...rather than "go with nature", he became obsessed with getting as many women as he could...at one point wanting a "handicap" and keep score, etc. Yeah, animals do that. As for the question of whether there are non-monogamous types who suppress it. Certainly there are. But they don't have to get married. THis is what pisses women off. A guy claims to want her only and makes a promise to sexual exclusivity and then starts crabbing about his rights and the harmless nature of porn (short answer to the whole "is porn ok" - if your mate is ok with it, YES, if not, NO - if it is that important, find a new mate who is ok with it, otherwise give it up) and if he does cheat breaks out the "needs" bit. I actually had a divorced man tell me one time that he had his affair because sex with his wife was so "boring". I responded, "well it sounds like you weren't trying hard enough".
brianfighter Posted June 9, 2009 Posted June 9, 2009 This is the actual answer: In terms of our body and arousal emotions, No, we are not really meant to be momogamous because we are attracted to many people. In terms of the whole HUMAN, YES, because we have a conscience, and the power of our conscience HEAVILY OUTWEIGHS the power of bodily emotions by miles. Therefore, we can stop ourselves from going off with the hottest women with the hottest body/looks/legs and the most fun/cool personalities BECAUSE OF our CONSCIENCE. So listen, ladies and gentlemen, this argument is NEVER an excuse for any cheating. Theres no more discussion to it.
Recommended Posts