ImaManDammit Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 I'm writing an article for a blog based on an experience I just had in a relationship. If you are dating someone who has had sex with married couples, both straight and gay couples (Not that sexual orientation really matters) can you believe them when they tell you that they believe in monogamy? So to provide a little context. I'm monomgous and I don't beleive in having sex without some form of relationship. I understand that sex to some is just an act and nothing more. That's understood, so that part isn't being argued. If you believe in monogamy, I would assume the definition means you are in a relationship and have sex with one person. So if you say you beleive in monogamy, how can that not be a conflict if you entered a couples bed? I understand the couple may not be monogamous, but if I was offerred the opprotunity I would have turned it down as its a conflict to what I belive in. So it not a question if I should believe her or not, our values are not the same anyway, so I stopped seeing her, but it left this question of monogamy, and would love to hear your thoughts.
blind_otter Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 I think rigidity and resistence are the only source of suffering in this world. The more rigid you are, the more you suffer. Personally, I don't care who or what my current partner did in the past. I don't want to know. I can live the rest of my life without any mental images regarding that kind of stuff. As long as they are currently disease free and not involved with anyone else, I'm fine. But I know, different strokes for different folks. If this is choice is working out well for you, and you have no suffering related to it, then by all means continue. Regardless of other people's opinions, I think that it may be a good idea, though - if you DO feel suffering regarding this choice to hold other people to your behavioral standards - then it may be helpful to follow this emotion to the thought that initiated it. IME it's always a bad idea to act from the energy of emotion.
xpaperxcutx Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Hypothetically speaking, if s/he is having sex outside of a relationship, it's not called monogamy, it's called being single. The definition of a word is generally user defined. The same word can have different context for different people.
Author ImaManDammit Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 Regardless of other people's opinions, I think that it may be a good idea, though - if you DO feel suffering regarding this choice to hold other people to your behavioral standards - then it may be helpful to follow this emotion to the thought that initiated it. IME it's always a bad idea to act from the energy of emotion. To clarify, I am not sorry or feeling pain over the loss of the relationship. Its not behavioural based, its value based. If she has threesome with non married couples I would have still broken up her because that is not part of my value system. I also didn't asked, she told me. Why did she did is another mystery but have no interest in investigating it. I have friends that have done the same thing as she and we remain friends, simply for the fact that I am not going to critique their life choices as they on the larger scale do not affect me. However there's a different criteria for those I choose to enter into a relationship and a monogamous one at that. As for my question, she by her own definition could be monogamous when in a relationship and I am just merely trying to suss out if that can actually be.
Author ImaManDammit Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 Hypothetically speaking, if s/he is having sex outside of a relationship, it's not called monogamy, it's called being single. The definition of a word is generally user defined. The same word can have different context for different people. Thanks for the feedback. I guess monogamy can be contextual. In this case as long as you not having sex with someone while you're in a relationship you can still believe in monogamy if you're single and sleeping with people who are in a relationship. So its as if I was a vegetarian and dated someone who was a vegetarian, but worked as a butcher. I guess it can happen.
fishtaco Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Hypothetically speaking, if s/he is having sex outside of a relationship, it's not called monogamy, it's called being single. Yep. This. Monogamy means when you are in a relationship, you only have one partner. It doesn't say anything about when you are NOT in a relationship. If a single person has sex with a married couple, then the married couple don't believe in monogamy -- they have an open marriage. It says nothing about the single person. Sex without relationship is a completely different issue. For some people, sex doesn't have to come with a relationship, for some people it does. I don't think there's a term for those.
carhill Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 For some people, sex doesn't have to come with a relationship, for some people it does. I don't think there's a term for those. Casual sex and relationship sex? Casual can be exclusive or non-exclusive and relationship is whatever the parties describe it to be. If you are dating someone who has had sex with married couples, both straight and gay couples (Not that sexual orientation really matters) can you believe them when they tell you that they believe in monogamy? I would invite them to share the meaningful and positive monogamous relationships they've had and why they value monogamy. This, along with their actions with myself, would assist me in forming conclusions about the authenticity of their statements. This dynamic, along with others, like communication, emotional and sexual styles, would be factors of compatibility.
Author ImaManDammit Posted February 24, 2011 Author Posted February 24, 2011 Yep. This. Monogamy means when you are in a relationship, you only have one partner. It doesn't say anything about when you are NOT in a relationship. If a single person has sex with a married couple, then the married couple don't believe in monogamy -- they have an open marriage. It says nothing about the single person. Sex without relationship is a completely different issue. For some people, sex doesn't have to come with a relationship, for some people it does. I don't think there's a term for those. Just to play Devil's advocate. I do understand that sex is just sex to some, but again that's not my point. Perhaps if I put it this way. If I am a vegetarian and I go to someone's home who is not vegetarian, it doesn't mean because they are not vegetrian that I'm going to be eating meat that night. If I'm a person who believes in monogomy just because I have been offered to sleep with a couple who are not monogamous, I should be ok with it?
fishtaco Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Perhaps if I put it this way. If I am a vegetarian and I go to someone's home who is not vegetarian, it doesn't mean because they are not vegetrian that I'm going to be eating meat that night. Well, that's a bad analogy. A vegetarian eating meat = a monogamous person having relationships with multiple people. Of course that would be unacceptable. No one is asking the monogamous person to break their rule. Because when a person is single, there is no such concept as monogamous -- you don't have a partner to be monogamous with. A better analogy would be a vegetarian that is only a vegetarian during religious holidays. So during times when it's not a religious holiday, the religious holiday vegetarian eats meat, or not, doesn't matter, personal preference. Just like monogamy applies only when you are in a relationship. When you are single, there is no monogamy to speak of. Monogamous with whom? The battery powered device? The right hand? And just like my example, the religious holiday vegetarian can choose to eat vegetarian all year round anyway. Their choice. A monogamous person can choose to not have sex when single. But that's not part of the belief. Also, if a monogamous person is in an exclusive relationship. S/he doesn't have sex with another person, but goes on dates and kisses and everything else with the other person, that still breaks the monogamy rule. Cheating/breaking the monogamy rule doesn't have to include sex. I think sometimes, people focus on sex too much, either to have it or to not have it. Either way, it's giving a lot of power to sex, more than it deserves. The issue of monogamy/cheating doesn't even have to have sex as a component. I'd say sex is more of a result of a state of mind. The state of mind is the source. Sex is merely a manifestation. Take away the headache doesn't mean the tumor is gone. Disperse the smoke doesn't meant the fire is out.
xpaperxcutx Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Just to play Devil's advocate. I do understand that sex is just sex to some, but again that's not my point. Perhaps if I put it this way. If I am a vegetarian and I go to someone's home who is not vegetarian, it doesn't mean because they are not vegetrian that I'm going to be eating meat that night. If I'm a person who believes in monogomy just because I have been offered to sleep with a couple who are not monogamous, I should be ok with it? You mustn't forget monogamy/polygamy has moral and ethical connotations. If I was a vegetarian ( and I am) and I was dating a meat eater, I have to respect his values just as I expect him to respect mine. I I know I don't have a right to force him to adhere to my values. The issue here is that I know where I stand and there should be understanding that my partner knows it. In your case, if you were solicited for sex by a couple, what they offer would most likely conflict with your moral values. Basically, sex is broad. It's your interpretation and how you as an individual go about it, that separates your monogamy from other's polygamy.
Titania22 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Just to play Devil's advocate. Perhaps if I put it this way. If I am a vegetarian and I go to someone's home who is not vegetarian, it doesn't mean because they are not vegetrian that I'm going to be eating meat that night. Well, that's a bad analogy. A vegetarian eating meat = a monogamous person having relationships with multiple people. Of course that would be unacceptable. No one is asking the monogamous person to break their rule. Because when a person is single, there is no such concept as monogamous -- you don't have a partner to be monogamous with. A better analogy would be a vegetarian that is only a vegetarian during religious holidays. So during times when it's not a religious holiday, the religious holiday vegetarian eats meat, or not, doesn't matter, personal preference. Just like monogamy applies only when you are in a relationship. When you are single, there is no monogamy to speak of. Monogamous with whom? The battery powered device? The right hand? I think a better analogy is if a vegetarian goes to eat at someones house, and expects them to be vegetarian as well. See from my perspective, you are making a judgement on these people for not choosing monogamy, and you are exercising that judgement by saying 'no, I won't have sex with you', and 'I won't be with any girl who would choose to take you up on your offer while she is single'. It's the difference between being tolerant of others choices, and truly accepting the right of everyone to make their own decisions about about they live their life.
fishtaco Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 It's the difference between being tolerant of others choices, and truly accepting the right of everyone to make their own decisions about about they live their life. Good point. I like your answer better than mine.
elaina Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I think rigidity and resistence are the only source of suffering in this world. The more rigid you are, the more you suffer. I disagree with this. There are many kinds of suffering in the world. From children being molested, to women being raped and beaten, to people of all ages being tortured, to savage deaths of people, there are all kinds of suffering, and rigidity and resistance are not the main sources of those kinds of suffering. Rather, not caring for other people is the source that cause people to cause others to suffer. Personally, I don't care who or what my current partner did in the past. I don't want to know. I can live the rest of my life without any mental images regarding that kind of stuff. As long as they are currently disease free and not involved with anyone else, I'm fine.Agreed, and in my case, also as long as his values are similar to mine. But I know, different strokes for different folks. If this is choice is working out well for you, and you have no suffering related to it, then by all means continue. Regardless of other people's opinions, I think that it may be a good idea, though - if you DO feel suffering regarding this choice to hold other people to your behavioral standards - then it may be helpful to follow this emotion to the thought that initiated it. IME it's always a bad idea to act from the energy of emotion. If he has an issue with this, it is obvious it's important to him. As long as he isn't being a hypocrite and doing that and not wanting his significant other to do that, I don't see the problem. I'maManDammit, Lol interesting screenname! To me, the past is the past. As long as the person shares my values in the here and now, I have no issue with the past. I've a past myself, so who am I to judge those who do as well? If you don't have a past doing what you don't like, that's fine, but it's important to remember that people change. Not everybody stays the same, either in looks or in values or anything. Edited February 25, 2011 by elaina
Recommended Posts