is it possible to love both the spouse and the AP?

[noel2]

I absolutely do believe it is possible to love two people. Who are we to limit the heart? I know it is the typical thought that true love can only be shared between two people, but who are we to say that our hearts aren't capable of loving two in a romantic way. Being the OP isn't always about sex. I think that a man or woman can fall in love when they meet someone just as they did with their H/W.

 

I don't understand how people can be so shallow to say that our hearts are bound to love only one. Yes, that is a more romantic way to think of love, heck, I'd like to think the man I love could only love me, but because I know my heart, truly know my heart, it is so big that I do think I could have room for two.

[Silly_Girl]

I don't understand how people can be so shallow to say that our hearts are bound to love only one. Yes, that is a more romantic way to think of love, heck, I'd like to think the man I love could only love me, but because I know my heart, truly know my heart, it is so big that I do think I could have room for two.

 

Or three? Or four? Or more?

 

It may be shallow to only offer that type of love to one person, but it is a choice I have made and intend to continue to make. For me it is vital that there are parts of me that are only open to that one person. It helps reinforce the intimacy, it makes me respect/love them all the more that they recieve that from me and they treasure it, and vice versa.

[bentnotbroken]

I absolutely do believe it is possible to love two people. Who are we to limit the heart? I know it is the typical thought that true love can only be shared between two people, but who are we to say that our hearts aren't capable of loving two in a romantic way. Being the OP isn't always about sex. I think that a man or woman can fall in love when they meet someone just as they did with their H/W.

 

I don't understand how people can be so shallow to say that our hearts are bound to love only one. Yes, that is a more romantic way to think of love, heck, I'd like to think the man I love could only love me, but because I know my heart, truly know my heart, it is so big that I do think I could have room for two.

 

 

Sure you can do what ever you feed into. Is it the kind of love that God wants for couples.......I guess that depends on each one's belief system. I guess that is how we will answer.

[Fieldsofgold]

That's a smoke and mirrors argument. It's pointless, because what you cite is actually physically damaging to the very fabric of society you live in.

It's completely "Anti Social". And it's against the Law - rightly so.

 

Remaining monogamous, and loving only one person, actually goes against Nature. And it's not illegal.

 

If every human being actually followed through with what we have been conditioned to accept about monogamy, in society -through laws, through social conditioning, and through religious influence, - then you'd still be with the first BF/GF you'd ever met.

At the time, they were the love of your life, your soulmate, the person you were going to grow old with and have for ever....You had every intention of staying with them, because of the intensity of feelings.

 

Feelings, desires and tastes, change. People change. Our view of 'love' changes. Priorities change.

Nothing stands still, ever.

So expecting a relationship to remain unchanged, is actually sheer lunacy, and unnatural.

 

I don't have time this morning to reply to your entire post BUT to say that monogamy goes against nature? That statement is false. In the animal kingdom, there are species that mate for life. They are "naturally" monogamous until the death of their mate.

 

For the record, I respect your right to have a different opinion about monogamy in humans, but your statement that it goes against nature just is not factually accurate.

[TaraMaiden]

I don't have time this morning to reply to your entire post BUT to say that monogamy goes against nature? That statement is false. In the animal kingdom, there are species that mate for life. They are "naturally" monogamous until the death of their mate.

Yes - but there's a problem with your argument, here....

I'm an animal sure, but I belong to the classification of Mammals.

There are virtually no mammals which have a single partner for life. (check the link...it even says humans are NOT monogamous.....)

Loads of birds.

But not many mammals.

And even then 'monogamy' is a questionable term....

 

For the record, I respect your right to have a different opinion about monogamy in humans, but your statement that it goes against nature just is not factually accurate.

Yes, it is.

[Fieldsofgold]

I don't have time this morning to reply to your entire post BUT to say that monogamy goes against nature? That statement is false. In the animal kingdom, there are species that mate for life. They are "naturally" monogamous until the death of their mate.

Yes - but there's a problem with your argument, here....

I'm an animal sure, but I belong to the classification of Mammals.

There are virtually no mammals which have a single partner for life. (check the link...it even says humans are NOT monogamous.....)

Loads of birds.

But not many mammals.

And even then 'monogamy' is a questionable term....

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

Sorry, Sweetcheeks, but you are skewing the statement. The original statement you made was about "nature." You did not specify that you were speaking only of mammals, as you have now altered your argument to be limited to mammals.

 

My response was that in "nature" monogamy occurs. It is a true statement.

 

I don't care to get in a p*ssing contest with you, soooooo......back to the topic, anyone?

[TaraMaiden]

And I've just give you a link to prove it doesn't.

Being Monogamous goes against Nature.

 

We are the only group of Animals on the planet who wilfully, deliberately and purposely create environments where monogamy is not only encouraged, but the alternative is condemned and criticised, vilified and torn to shreds.

 

Monogamy is not a natural trait, no matter how many people wish to claim it is.

Monogamy is an imposed, programmed and instilled condition.

 

If people want to adhere to monogamy, and they decide that they are going to conform to socially acceptable standards, that of course is their choice, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's a conscious and deliberate decision, and one they make in good faith, with every good intention of following through.

 

But it's not something that is naturally programmed into us - just as it isn't with any other animal. At All.

 

And I'm not entering into a pissing contest with you.

You happen to be incorrect.

 

For the record - I am monogamous.

I could very easily not be, and would have no problem with that.

But my partner is a person who believes in monogamy, and is both faithful and completely trustworthy.

I would never, ever betray that trust and commitment.

Therefore, I am, by association, also completely committed to a monogamous relationship.

[crazycatlady]

Tara - I have enjoyed your posts a great deal about monogomy and love a great deal.

 

Just wanted to say thankyou for sharing.

 

CCL

[TaraMaiden]

Thank you CCL.

 

I appreciate it.

[NoIDidn't]

That's a smoke and mirrors argument. It's pointless, because what you cite is actually physically damaging to the very fabric of society you live in.

It's completely "Anti Social". And it's against the Law - rightly so.

 

Remaining monogamous, and loving only one person, actually goes against Nature. And it's not illegal.

 

If every human being actually followed through with what we have been conditioned to accept about monogamy, in society -through laws, through social conditioning, and through religious influence, - then you'd still be with the first BF/GF you'd ever met.

At the time, they were the love of your life, your soulmate, the person you were going to grow old with and have for ever....You had every intention of staying with them, because of the intensity of feelings.

 

Feelings, desires and tastes, change. People change. Our view of 'love' changes. Priorities change.

Nothing stands still, ever.

So expecting a relationship to remain unchanged, is actually sheer lunacy, and unnatural.

 

Actually, I think yours is the smoke and mirrors argument. "then you'd still be with the first BF/GF you'd ever met" because of feelings? As you said, "feelings....change".

 

The argument that we can't be monogamous is just a copout because the people cheating on their spouses have made a choice to get married, meaning they can also make a choice to get divorced and be as polyamorous as they choose to be should their spouses not agree with it.

 

When people choose to get into a R that's intended to be monogamous, they can't then cry foul because they want to sleep around. I thought humans were supposed to be more evolved than that.

[NoIDidn't]

We are the only group of Animals on the planet who wilfully, deliberately and purposely create environments where monogamy is not only encouraged, but the alternative is condemned and criticised, vilified and torn to shreds.

 

LOL. Of course we are. We are also the only animals on the planet that melt metals and forge weapons out it. We are the only ones that can talk. We are the only ones with universities and schools. I've yet to see other animals on this planet manage what humanity has.

 

Monogamy is not a natural trait, no matter how many people wish to claim it is.

Monogamy is an imposed, programmed and instilled condition.

 

If people want to adhere to monogamy, and they decide that they are going to conform to socially acceptable standards, that of course is their choice, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's a conscious and deliberate decision, and one they make in good faith, with every good intention of following through.

 

But it's not something that is naturally programmed into us - just as it isn't with any other animal. At All.

 

And I'm not entering into a pissing contest with you.

You happen to be incorrect.

 

For the record - I am monogamous.

I could very easily not be, and would have no problem with that.

But my partner is a person who believes in monogamy, and is both faithful and completely trustworthy.

I would never, ever betray that trust and commitment.

Therefore, I am, by association, also completely committed to a monogamous relationship.

 

You negate your own argument. You just said that monogamy goes against nature and imply that humans are incapable of it, and yet say that you have chosen to be monogamous.

 

[sarcasm: on] Really? Wow. So humans can actually override their "programming" and choose to be monogamous? [sarcasm: off]

 

The argument that humans aren't or can't be monogamous rings hollow when its obvious that we have the mental capability to choose to behave differently than our "programming".

[White Flower]

LOL. Of course we are. We are also the only animals on the planet that melt metals and forge weapons out it. We are the only ones that can talk. We are the only ones with universities and schools. I've yet to see other animals on this planet manage what humanity has.

 

 

 

You negate your own argument. You just said that monogamy goes against nature and imply that humans are incapable of it, and yet say that you have chosen to be monogamous.

 

[sarcasm: on] Really? Wow. So humans can actually override their "programming" and choose to be monogamous? [sarcasm: off]

 

The argument that humans aren't or can't be monogamous rings hollow when its obvious that we have the mental capability to choose to behave differently than our "programming".

Oh boy, I think I smell a new thread coming on.

 

I think we choose to behave differently than our programming every day. Usually we call it self-improvement but I think you know what I mean.

 

I, for example, hate to organize. But I force myself to do it everyday. Now, there are thousands of agencies, schools, teachers, and institutions who find it very easy to do, that is how those people are programmed, or wired, so it comes quite naturally to them. But for me it is the most tedious thing in the world to do; therefore, I must force myself to do it.

 

I think someone who wants to be monogomous, even if they believe it is not human nature, is capable of doing it.

[TaraMaiden]

Actually' date=' I think yours is the smoke and mirrors argument. "then you'd still be with the first BF/GF you'd ever met" because of feelings? As you said, "feelings....change".[/quote']

You're making my point for me.... The reason we are not with our first and foremost, is because feelings change, and we are NOT monogamous. If we were, we would be with that person. It's precisely because we change, that we're not....

 

The argument that we can't be monogamous is just a copout because the people cheating on their spouses have made a choice to get married, meaning they can also make a choice to get divorced and be as polyamorous as they choose to be should their spouses not agree with it.

I have also made this point, several times, and agree with it. You're not reading my posts. Human beings are not naturally programmed to be monogamous. we are Conditioned to be. But if we find ourselves in a situation where we have CHOSEN MONOGAMY - we have a duty to stick by that. I have said this, time and again. Please may I suggest you re-read my posts?

 

When people choose to get into a R that's intended to be monogamous, they can't then cry foul because they want to sleep around. I thought humans were supposed to be more evolved than that.

I agree with you. If people 'want to sleep around' then that's their privilege. but they need to be in a position of total freedom from commitment or responsibility to another individual, to be able to do that. Unless, of course (and this is a big proviso) the other person is completely willing and complicit in this.

 

LOL. Of course we are. We are also the only animals on the planet that melt metals and forge weapons out it. We are the only ones that can talk. We are the only ones with universities and schools. I've yet to see other animals on this planet manage what humanity has.

That's because we are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. we are supposedly the 'most advanced' animal on the planet. We are also the most intellectual, and can use reason, logic and discernment, coupled with feelings, to evaluate and decide matters. Which, if this board is anything to go by - is not always the advantage it seems to be.

 

 

 

You negate your own argument. You just said that monogamy goes against nature and imply that humans are incapable of it, and yet say that you have chosen to be monogamous.

In context with the remainder of my posts, I think you will understand why I said that. I'm not negating my argument. I - like every other human being - have made a choice.

 

[sarcasm: on] Really? Wow. So humans can actually override their "programming" and choose to be monogamous? [sarcasm: off]

If you had read my posts, you would see that this is exactly what we do.

No sarcasm intended.

 

The argument that humans aren't or can't be monogamous rings hollow when its obvious that we have the mental capability to choose to behave differently than our "programming".

That human beings are not monogamous is not primarily my assertion. Biological naturalist experts all say the same thing, so it's not initially my notion. I just agree with it.

We do choose - CHOOSE - to behave differently to our programming. Unfortunately, a huge number of people revert to programming, and shy away from the conditioning of fidelity.

Don't they?

If Monogamy was a natural, inherent, programmed trait - there would be fewer affairs, fewer cheaters, and this board would probably not exist.....

 

Oh boy, I think I smell a new thread coming on.

There are some floating around already.... It's a bit like the 'porn' argument. sooner or later, we'll reach saturation point!

 

I think we choose to behave differently than our programming every day. Usually we call it self-improvement but I think you know what I mean.

The actions we take every day, are mixed in with our programming.

We are - like most mammals - 'programmed to live in groups.

This is why we have neighbourhoods, towns, cities.... there's 'safety in numbers'. Somebody deliberately choosing to live the life of a secluded hermit, is still surprising to other humans...

We are - like most mammals - programmed to have 'leaders'. That's why we exist in groups - or societies - that have a 'herarchy'. We are all responsible to an authoritative figure.

In animal groups, these are called 'alphas'. In human terms, you are looking at Mr Obama, and his like......

 

I, for example, hate to organize. But I force myself to do it everyday. Now, there are thousands of agencies, schools, teachers, and institutions who find it very easy to do, that is how those people are programmed, or wired, so it comes quite naturally to them. But for me it is the most tedious thing in the world to do; therefore, I must force myself to do it.

 

You're blurring the edge between conditioning and programming.

There are some human women who are good at "nesting".

There are others who aren't.

 

In natural animal circles, the females who 'nest' are actually lower in the pack, because they can be relied upon to maintain a clean den, free from parasites, and less vulnerable to detection by predators.

The females higher in the pack do not concern themselves with menial tasks, because they provide a support network to the Alpha males and act as 'domestic second-in-commands'.

This isn't anything to do with superiority, inferiority, or keeping members of the pack subjugated. It just falls into the natural order of things.

It's the same with women today. Some are well-to-do, hardened buisness women, who are often referred to as acting like men, and competing in a man's world. They probably have nannies and housemaids to do their 'menial' tasks for them.

Other women are happy to be stay-at-home mums, because thy love that bit....

And there are women who can successfully straddle both camps - but don't excel in either field.

 

I'm greatly- over-generalising here, but I'm trying to give you a comparison....

 

 

I think someone who wants to be monogomous, even if they believe it is not human nature, is capable of doing it.

Definitely. Absolutely, I completely agree.

But their partner has to be in exactly the same mind-frame. And unfortunately, this does not always pan out.

 

My ex- husband discovered, after his father's death, that although his parents had been faithfully married for 45 years, his father had had a period of having a 'wandering eye' which had caused his mother some distress at the time.

My own parents, having been married for 57 years, had their ups and downs, with my father having had a minor and brief fling during the time I had been at boarding school. I knew nothing of this at the time, and only found out about 10 years ago.

My partner's father, OTOH, has been married 3 times.

 

So all this Monogamy malarkey - while credible on 'paper' - is probably not as solid as we'd like to think it is.

In my experience working with a relationships counselling association, every couple - no matter how strongly-committed they are, or intend to be - will at some point have an issue of fidelity arise within their relationship.

Edited August 11, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[NoIDidn't]

You're making my point for me.... The reason we are not with our first and foremost, is because feelings change, and we are NOT monogamous. If we were, we would be with that person. It's precisely because we change, that we're not....

 

I don't think so. Problem is, you seem to be assuming lifelong monogamy with one person. I don't think humanity was ever intended to only be with one person. If a spouse dies, we shouldn't have to be alone just because the first partner is now dead. I don't think humans do monogamy like animals do it. We don't choose a mate and expect to never find someone else to be monogamous with. I agree with the term serial monogamy, because that appears to be the way that humans practice it.

 

 

I have also made this point, several times, and agree with it. You're not reading my posts. Human beings are not naturally programmed to be monogamous. we are Conditioned to be. But if we find ourselves in a situation where we have CHOSEN MONOGAMY - we have a duty to stick by that. I have said this, time and again. Please may I suggest you re-read my posts?

 

I read your posts, at least the ones I quoted. And you have not made this point in those.

 

 

That's because we are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. we are supposedly the 'most advanced' animal on the planet. We are also the most intellectual, and can use reason, logic and discernment, coupled with feelings, to evaluate and decide matters. Which, if this board is anything to go by - is not always the advantage it seems to be.

 

LOL. Your statement that "We are the only group of Animals on the planet who wilfully, deliberately and purposely create environments where monogamy is not only encouraged, but the alternative is condemned and criticised, vilified and torn to shreds" was said as if other animals on this planet actually can do the same thing that we can do. My point was we do so because we can. Other animals don't discourage non-monogamy because they can't. It was a silly statement to make knowing the limitations of the other animals.

 

Monogamy gives many benefits to humanity. It may well be that we are programmed not to do it, human nature is often at odds with what is best for humanity - no surprise there. But if humans have the capability of choosing monogamy, whether conditioned to it or not, the "we aren't naturally monogamous" argument is moot.

 

I disagree that the people cheating are simply reverting to programming, like they are mindless drones. They are making a conscious choice, just like the choice to be monogamous was.

 

Uncivilized man was not monogamous, so I can see that somewhere we saw the benefits of monogamy and encouraged it. I know you argued with a previous poster over her usage of murder, rape, and so on, but its not that different, IMO: An undesired behavior was discouraged. Take incest, for example. Humans also used to see nothing wrong with ANY male or female engaging in sexual activity - even if they were blood related. The results were found to be pretty undesirable, so I see no one claiming that those in incestuous relationships (willingly and unwillingly) are somehow reverting back to previous programming. So I still feel the "we aren't naturally monogamous" as a hollow excuse for poor choices.

 

For clarity, though, how are you definiing monogamy? I've never thought of monogamy as one mate for life, I've always only thought of it as being committed to the person I'm with at the time. I really didn't see the need for the coining of the term "serial monogamy".

[NoIDidn't]

So all this Monogamy malarkey - while credible on 'paper' - is probably not as solid as we'd like to think it is.

In my experience working with a relationships counselling association, every couple - no matter how strongly-committed they are, or intend to be - will at some point have an issue of fidelity arise within their relationship.

 

BTW, I agree with this. Its just the presentation that infidelity is somehow society's fault, I take issue with. Infidelity is the fault of those that choose to do it.

 

I can agree that its biological urges, that can lead us down that path. But if we can choose to be monogamous, I don't see the point of anyone arguing that we weren't meant to be. We weren't meant to fly either, but I don't see anyone arguing that we should stop building planes.

[NoIDidn't]

Wow, OP, I have to apologize for assisting in taking this thread off-topic.

 

To answer the question asked in the thread title, I have to say yes.

 

I heard the "I love you, but am not in love with you" line so I know that I was loved even though it was being strained at the time. I think one can love both.

 

I also think that "love" wins over "in love" every time. "In love" fades, but "love" has grown comfortable.

[TaraMaiden]

I don't think so. Problem is' date=' you seem to be assuming lifelong monogamy with one person.[/quote']

 

I thought that was the general meaning of monogamy. When people get married, they make a promise, in law, before xxx number of people, that they shall remain faithful and constant to their partner "as long as they both shall live".

 

isn't that what people are getting from the word 'monogamy?

The OP is married, and is in an affair. Ergo, he is not monogamous.

 

I don't think humanity was ever intended to only be with one person.

 

We agree.

If a spouse dies, we shouldn't have to be alone just because the first partner is now dead.

Again, I agree. but that's still 'monogamy', isn't it?

 

SO, dead.

No SO.

Find new SO.

'Commit'.

Monogamous.

 

 

I don't think humans do monogamy like animals do it.

So.... we're not animals then? I think you'll find, according to natural classification, we are.

What makes us different, is that conditioning....and that so-called 'higher intellect'. But we is undoubtledly - animals.

 

We don't choose a mate and expect to never find someone else to be monogamous with. I agree with the term serial monogamy, because that appears to be the way that humans practice it.

serial monogamy - ISN'T MONOGAMY!! It's sequential behaviour - practised exactly in the same way it is in the rest of the mammalian animal kingdom!

Even in the wild, in herds where there are alphas who mate exclusively, if one mate dies, gets injured, or merely gets ousted and dissappears - , another MUST replace it.

we follow natural programming.

if we have sequential partners - we are not monogamous.

 

I read your posts, at least the ones I quoted. And you have not made this point in those.

Then did you read the one where Owl and I were in complete agreement that cheating is wrong?

I fail to see how you could have missed that....

 

LOL. Your statement that "We are the only group of Animals on the planet who wilfully, deliberately and purposely create environments where monogamy is not only encouraged, but the alternative is condemned and criticised, vilified and torn to shreds" was said as if other animals on this planet actually can do the same thing that we can do.

No, my point is that we have reached such an 'elevated' level of 'intelligence' that we have become conditioned to make those judgements. When in actual fact, we should take things far more naturally and behave more 'like the animals on the discovery channel'.

 

Animals shouldn't do what we do. We should make more allowances for natural programmed behaviour, and be freer to do what they do.

Unfortunately, we have uber-conditioned ourselves to such a level, that issues like polyamory, or polyandry elicit much hostility, misunderstanding and alienation.

 

My point was we do so because we can.

we do so because we have over centuries, been conditioned to do so. but it's Not Natural.

 

Other animals don't discourage non-monogamy because they can't. It was a silly statement to make knowing the limitations of the other animals.

I think humans are the ones limiting themselves.

Animals are blissfully happy as they are, because they don't go aginst programming.

 

When we capture animals and interfere in the natural order of things, stress is generated and animals suffer, because we impose humanistic thinking on their natural behaviour. This is why naturalists like David Attenborough, to name but one, now realise how critically dangerous it is to interfere with whatever they happen to be observing.

We have conditioned ourselves to behave in very 'un-animal' like ways, and it has not always worked to the advantage.

 

Monogamy gives many benefits to humanity.

 

Such as?

 

It may well be that we are programmed not to do it, human nature is often at odds with what is best for humanity - no surprise there.

Agreed - as illustrated above...

 

But if humans have the capability of choosing monogamy, whether conditioned to it or not, the "we aren't naturally monogamous" argument is moot.

no, it isn't.

we might choose monogamy. but that doesn't make it instantly 'natural'.

It's a choice we make, but like so many others, it's highly questionable, because it's a choice governed by conditioning.

And the fact that so many people who 'choose' Monogamy, aren't - shows that we aren't naturally monogamous.

If we were naturally monogamous - then we would be!!

 

I disagree that the people cheating are simply reverting to programming, like they are mindless drones. They are making a conscious choice, just like the choice to be monogamous was.

It's an easier choice to make, too.

people spend years deciding whether they want to commit to another, when they're going to get married, is this the one, do I love him/her enough.... yet, the 'decision' to revert to type is usually taken in seconds. "Shall we? Oh, ok!"

 

it takes months of conditioned planning to commit to one person.

it takes a few seconds of recklessness to revert to natural behaviour and ball something else.

 

I know, I know...I'm being facetious. But it's weird that people can just 'forget their vows' in an instant, and go ahead and do something they actually waited for years, and then earnestly planned to NOT do.

 

Uncivilized man was not monogamous, so I can see that somewhere we saw the benefits of monogamy and encouraged it.

Once upon a time, Marriage was purely a financial contract designed to unite families and conjoin fortunes. But the husbands often had concubines, mistresses and lovers, and this was an accepted norm. In the 14th century, or thereabouts, the Church (eager to jump on the bandwagon, and instil the fear of God into people) made marriage a sanctimonious act, and impressed fidelity upon the spouses (chiefly the husbands) in order to prevent the issue of so many ba-sterds, which caused a great deal of problems when it came to inheritance, payment of tithes, taxation and the like. So the imposition of fidelity and cleaving to one person for life, was a religiously imposed obligation, and had nothing to do with naturally desiring monogamy, by the two spouses.

 

I know you argued with a previous poster over her usage of murder, rape, and so on, but its not that different, IMO: An undesired behavior was discouraged. Take incest, for example. Humans also used to see nothing wrong with ANY male or female engaging in sexual activity - even if they were blood related. The results were found to be pretty undesirable, so I see no one claiming that those in incestuous relationships (willingly and unwillingly) are somehow reverting back to previous programming.

'Incest' still occurs in some societies, in India for example, and in parts of central asia. It's not unheard of in these social groups for fathers to sire offspring from daughters, and brothers and sisters having a relationship.

Remember again, that these rules were introduced to the west via religion. We can, in the west, marry our own cousins, it's allowed....

 

So I still feel the "we aren't naturally monogamous" as a hollow excuse for poor choices.

It's no excuse at all.

As I have repeatedly stated, we are not naturally monogamous. But being unfaithful, or cheating, when you have made a conscious, public and transparent commitment to one other person, is completely wrong.

 

And most people wouldn't ever think of using the "I'm sorry dear, I couldn't help it, you see, we're not naturally monogamous" excuse, when found out. They cite all manner of emotional reasons, but that one never hits the jackpot.

Nowhere near.

 

Why?

because if a person really believed they weren't naturally programmed to be monogamous, they surely wouldn't marry in the first place?

Or if they were marrying a partner who was vehemently opposed to a free and open relationship - they would make a decision about their own behaviour, right from the start.

As I have.

I am NOT naturally monogamous.

But I have chosen to be.

 

For clarity, though, how are you definiing monogamy?

The same way everybody else seems to have done.

Remaining constant and faithful to one married partner "for as long as you both shall live".

 

I've never thought of monogamy as one mate for life, I've always only thought of it as being committed to the person I'm with at the time.

That's your choice, and you're sticking to it. if you were married to that person, you'd be obliged, by regulations imposed within your marriage vows, to stick with it, for the rest of your life.....

I'm really not comfortable with that concept....

 

I really didn't see the need for the coining of the term "serial monogamy".

I never coined it, and don't agree with it.

Sequential, or concurrent, we are not naturally monogamous.

But for various reasons, we choose to be.

 

edit:

And yet, above, you say you agree with the term...? Slightly confused....

Edited August 11, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[NoIDidn't]

Tara, you are funny. You say "We aren't animals?" when I say that humans don't do monogamy like animals do it. Yet, you say "We aren't like animals" when explaining the ridiculous comparison of us to animals in stating that other animals can't criticize their members for not being monogamous. LOL.

 

If "animals shouldn't do what we do", then why should humans do as animals?

 

Regarding monogamy vs "serial" monogamy. I think the person that coined it did so based on a faulty view of what monogamy is. Monogamy is simply sexual fidelity to one partner at a time, being married to only one person at a time. Humans already do this. There was no need to coin the term, so I disagree with needing the term. But understand that it is pretty much what most of us already do.

 

So its clear that we don't even agree with what the word monogamy means. I've seen no where where it is defined as only having one mate for life. I know what my vows said, but I also know that if I or my spouse dies, the surviving one will go on to have a sexual R with someone else. Same if we divorce. I'm not committing to a life of celibacy just because my marriage ends.

 

Monogamy is not lifelong mating. Its Greek meaning Single/only (monos) Marriage (gamos). I don't know how it came to mean lifelong mating and never dating/mating again with the end of that R (via death or divorce).

 

As I said, I read the post that I responded to. I haven't read the entire thread. I guess I need to go back in this thread and see how this part of the conversation even started.

[Dexter Morgan]

is it possible to love both the spouse and the interloper?

 

only for a sociopath.

Edited August 13, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[2sure]

First, as the original question: I got the idea the OP was putting the question specifically to other married affair partners - the wayward spouses. This interested me because so very many of the Bs and OW/Om have had so much to say on this but not so many WS. If any?? I was curious to hear from WS either currently involved in an affair OR after....do THEY think its possible to love two people?? Also curious as to the differences in answers between those currently involved and those looking back.

 

Not much posted yet to really get a perspective.

 

As to the whole monogamy thing...I know its entirely possible, doable, and healthy for many many people. I know that polygamy is also possible doable and healthy for many people.

 

Being monogamous or not, changing your views midway thru life or not - to me have nothing to do with the betrayal of infidelity.

Sure, we are mammals and our natural instincts sometimes drive us to want/have sex with more than one partner. OK, most BS here would agree that the sex act itself was not the most important or harmful part of the betrayal. I myself might have preferred a sexually open marriage to the betrayal and lies. I deserved to have had the option to consider.

 

Whether someone is capable of having loving emotions for two people - as is often the case in infidelity...has, to me, less to do with their ability to be monogamous than their ability to treat both people with the honest, respect, and decency they deserve. To me if you claim to love both people while at the same time betraying or hiding things from one or both...that just inst love. It is a blatant lack of honesty, integrity, and respect for those closest to you. Dont try to change that into love.

[TaraMaiden]

Tara' date=' you are funny. You say "We aren't animals?" when I say that humans don't do monogamy like animals do it. Yet, you say "We aren't like animals" when explaining the ridiculous comparison of us to animals in stating that other animals can't criticize their members for not being monogamous. LOL.[/quote']

 

Ok, permit me to clarify. We are animals in every sense of the word, and we DO do monogamy like the animals do it.

If you read that link, it clearly states that what we assume is monogamy in the animal world, is not strictly monogamy as most humans mean it.

 

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "mate for life." These creatures do mate for life in the social sense of living together in pairs but they rarely stay strictly faithful.

So I guess your interpretation of what monogamy is, is closer to, and lies more with the link's definition, than that of most people.

And I agree with you with regard to the definition.

 

But the reason we are different to most animals is because Evolution has, in many ways, elevated our status within the mammal kingdom, to the top notch. we do a gadgillion things which other animals in "lower" classifications cannot do. So in some senses, we are different to other animals. It doesn't necessarily make us better. Just different...

 

Surely you can see the distinction I was trying to make?

 

If "animals shouldn't do what we do", then why should humans do as animals?

Because we are quelling and suppressing natural instincts, calling them "unnatural" and creating taboos where none should exist. We are animals, after all is said and done, no matter how different we are in some ways.

 

Regarding monogamy vs "serial" monogamy. I think the person that coined it did so based on a faulty view of what monogamy is.

I think you are probably right.

 

Monogamy is simply sexual fidelity to one partner at a time, being married to only one person at a time. Humans already do this. There was no need to coin the term, so I disagree with needing the term. But understand that it is pretty much what most of us already do.

Agreed again.

 

So its clear that we don't even agree with what the word monogamy means. I've seen no where where it is defined as only having one mate for life. I know what my vows said, but I also know that if I or my spouse dies, the surviving one will go on to have a sexual R with someone else. Same if we divorce. I'm not committing to a life of celibacy just because my marriage ends.

The problem lies within relationships that shatter that oath.

I think in many ways we are saying the same thing.

My point is, I suppose, whether human beings should be asked to promise such a thing, or whether it should automatically be expected of them even within the confines of commitment initially, to another person.

People who successfully indulge in open marriages (and I grant you, that for reasons we have flogged to exhaustion, very few do) have what I would consider to be the healthiest idea.

 

 

Monogamy is not lifelong mating. Its Greek meaning Single/only (monos) Marriage (gamos). I don't know how it came to mean lifelong mating and never dating/mating again with the end of that R (via death or divorce).

 

Because up until recently, divorce was taboo, and frowned upon.

(Divorce in some western countries is still a social no-no, and unfortunately, the woman does come off worse. )

Divorce was something that simply wasn't considered, as being a viable option in terminating a marriage.

For example, when Princess Margaret (The British Queen's sister) fell in love with a divorced man (Peter Thownsend) the relationship was prevented from developing and she was forbidden to marry him, because of his divorced status. We even had a King abdicate because of his love affair with an American divorcee.

Now, three of the four queen's children have divorced, and the heir to the throne has married his childhood sweetheart - who is also a divorcee.

so divorce is no longer the taboo it was a mere 50 years ago.

But then, 'till death do us part' or 'as long as we both shall live', defined monogamy.

Death too, was a bone of contention.

In the victorian era, a widower was expected to stay in mourning for at least three months, while a woman was expected to mourn the death of her husband, for 2 years.

 

The length of mourning depended on your relationship to the deceased. The different periods of mourning dictated by society were expected to reflect your natural period of grief.

 

Gentlemen in mourning wear weeds, whose depth is proportioned to the closeness of their relationship to the dead. Their mourning is adhered to only as long as the ladies of their household wear it.

Men had it easy – they simply wore their usual dark suits along with black gloves, hatbands and cravats.

A widow's bonnet should be of heavy crape, with white crape or tarletan border, and the veil must be worn over the face. At the end of three months she may wear the veil depending from the back of her bonnet. This deep veil must be worn a year, and mourning must be worn two years.

 

This was apparently because men with children might need to marry again quickly, in order to provide maternal influence for the offspring, and to run the household. A woman was expected to remain on the right side or propriety and decency.

 

Talk about double standards!

So even within 200 years, fashion and social customs have undergone dramatic transformation, but some ingrained ideals remain.

 

As I said, I read the post that I responded to. I haven't read the entire thread. I guess I need to go back in this thread and see how this part of the conversation even started.

I forget too....

[NoIDidn't]

TaraMaiden

 

What's funny in all this is that I think we agree on most points. Just found different ways of getting there. LOL. Too funny.

 

I still haven't read this entire thread.

[TaraMaiden]

I think you're right.

 

And to read the thread is a laborious task, if you choose to do it....!

 

This however,

Then did you read the one where Owl and I were in complete agreement that cheating is wrong?

I fail to see how you could have missed that....

 

(Which I said in a previous post, #69...don't...I'm laughing too)

 

Is a complete dunder-post.

The discussion with owl, happened in another thread, where curiously, the issue of monogamy also arose.

I apologise if I inadvertently misled you.

Edited August 11, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[Dexter Morgan]

is it possible to love both the spouse and the interloper?

 

No, its not. Only someone that doesn't give a crap about the feelings of either person and lacks the respect for both of them could think that its possible.

[TaraMaiden]

Dear me Dexter..... has it come to this?

there's an insistence to be heard, when you end up responding to your own posts.....

 

Your assertion is inaccurate.

It is completely, totally and utterly possible for someone to love both their spouse, and the AP.

 

Whether it is advisable, wise or appropriate, is another matter.

But it is possible.