A double standard - One mate forever? The OW vs the MM

[Realist3]

Strange how some people are against marriage and monogamy but end up married and monogamous.

 

I don't think it to be strange at all. The pervasive societal norm/expectation is of marriage and monogamy. If you went around trying to find mates that did not hold those views you would likely be left without much action. The same thing happens with religion. Do you really think every single person that steps into a house of worship believes or lives the tenets of that region? Nope, but they do it anyway to gain acceptance from their family/spouse/friends/community.

[Pierre]

You are misrepresenting my stance. I am currently exclusive because I find myself to be so - I am attracted only to one person, and have no desire for anyone else. That functions as de facto exclusivity. It is different to "deciding to be exclusive" (as in, wanting to have sex with others, but choosing not to), since I am not in that position, and cannot say how I would respond if I were.

 

Plus, in the context of your post, it reads as if _I_ were " unwilling to allow others to **** [my] mate at all times", having "decided to be exclusive". That again is incorrect. My exclusivity refers only to my own behaviour, and has nothing to do with whether or not others are allowed sexual access to "my mate". That access would not be mine to determine - I do not own him,nor access to him. He is his own person and can make such decisions for himself. I am not his pimp, nor his jailer.

 

You have decided to devote yourself to your mate and be exclusive. That is your desire and i understand your point.

 

If your mate has the same desire or not is up to him, I agree. But, how would you feel if your mate takes additional lovers besides you? In other words would you tolerate his promiscuity once you have decided you want to be monogamous with him.

[cocorico]

You have decided to devote yourself to your mate and be exclusive. That is your desire and i understand your point.

 

It is quite clear from what you posted below that you don't "u der stand my point".

 

If your mate has the same desire or not is up to him, I agree. But, how would you feel if your mate takes additional lovers besides you? In other words would you tolerate his promiscuity once you have decided you want to be monogamous with him.

[Pierre]

It is quite clear from what you posted below that you don't "u der stand my point".

 

Coco:

 

As humans we are ambivalent regarding this issue. As a species we are not programmed one way or the other despite societal pressures.

Promiscuity is wonderful, but monogamy can also be wonderful.

 

And those that are against monogamy may fall into situations where they cannot tolerate promiscuity in their mate.

[Furious]

I don't think it to be strange at all. The pervasive societal norm/expectation is of marriage and monogamy. If you went around trying to find mates that did not hold those views you would likely be left without much action. The same thing happens with religion. Do you really think every single person that steps into a house of worship believes or lives the tenets of that region? Nope, but they do it anyway to gain acceptance from their family/spouse/friends/community.

 

Monogamy was invented because as soon as man discovered sexual relations and the paternity of a child were connected, men wanted a faithful wife.

 

I doubt any husband or even a common law husband or boyfriend wants to unknowingly raise a child that's not biologically his.

 

I doubt even you, Realist, would be happy to hear your children are not your's biologically.

 

So spare me the religious sermon, and that your community forces you to pretend to be monogamous, it's just lip service to be accepted in your community, but the truth is you made a vow to guarantee your children are biologically yours.

 

I respect all types of relationships, whether it's traditional marriage, common law, open marriage, gay marriage, or swingers if that makes them happy.

 

I just don't respect hypocrites and liars and who present a false promise and then deny their partner the same choice.

 

If my husband had wanted an open marriage I should have been the first to know. Just saying.

[Realist3]

Nopey. There have been several couples on this forum alone who have open R's.

 

A couple... that does not make it by any stretch the norm that is accepted.

[Realist3]

Monogamy was invented because as soon as man discovered sexual relations and the paternity of a child were connected, men wanted a faithful wife.

 

WHAT????????? Back in the day children were assets; either as workers or future financial interests to be sold off(females). Women were chattel, and a means to attain those assets. For thousands and thousands of years we had only arranged marriages. I'm sure you would have loved living back then. You were bought and paid for. And all of that was the societal norm/expectation.

[Furious]

WHAT????????? Back in the day children were assets; either as workers or future financial interests to be sold off(females). Women were chattel, and a means to attain those assets. For thousands and thousands of years we had only arranged marriages. I'm sure you would have loved living back then. You were bought and paid for. And all of that was the societal norm/expectation.

 

Is that what your children are...just assets. Are you saying that if your children were not biologically yours, you'd be fine with that.

 

If monogamy wasn't important to you, if monogamy is un-natural... just like birth control and your wife gave you two children that were not biologically yours, you'd be ok with that.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Furious

[Realist3]

Is that what your children are...just assets. Are you saying that if your children were not biologically yours, you'd be fine with that.

 

If monogamy wasn't important to you, if monogamy is un-natural... just like birth control and your wife gave you two children that were not biologically yours, you'd be ok with that.

 

I'm not talking about that. You are missing the point.

 

We are talking about the history of marriage and why it is what it is. It started out as something completely different than it is today, but it was the norm and people conformed to that expectation. People today still conform the the expectation of what society marraige is even though they moy not believe in it.

 

You were the one that said faithfulness started from some idea that... heck I don't even know. No, faithfullness was expected because they bought them, as in a slave, and they produced assets for the man.

 

As women gained more rights over the years they required faithfulness/monogamy because they were gaining a more equal status, and did like a man with 5 wives and 10 mistresses.

[promises]

Using children as the reasoning to be faithful is a cop out, and sorry all who believe that.

[Realist3]

And the common traits between these people?:

- selfish (they ultimately care about what benefits their own self, not how their decisions will effect others)

- cowardly (they don't have the balls to just admit their true thoughts/deeds and own it no matter the consequence)

- lack of integrity (they think nothing of lying to others and defrauding in order to get their benefit. There are few virtues in their value system.)

 

I care about truth more than feeling good, this is a fundamental virtue in my ethic system. This is part of why I accept the lack of evidence for a god instead of lie to myself in fear. This is also why I find cheating unacceptable, it takes two seconds to inform your partner that you aren't monogamous, their knowing the truth is infinitely more important than my getting crotch stuffed

 

I agree. But it is certainly present in the society we live in today and has been that way forever. People do what they believe is best for them, regardless of what charades must be played.

[Realist3]

that reminds me of henry the eighth and his fifth wife katherine parr...( well, several of his wives)

 

he could go goating around with as many women as he liked , yet if he thought one of his wives was unfaithful to him, well, you know what happened...he could father as many ( I hate the term "bastard" but it was the word they used) as he liked, but heaven help him should one of his wives even look at another man ( even if it was before he married them)...

 

seems monogamy back then was a way to make sure you weren't expending your resources raising a child that wasn't yours...after all, the main purpose of sex is to pass on one's genes, not to ensure the longevity of someone else's genes ( even cuckoo birds and cow birds do that)

 

Yes, 100%. Monogamy was a rule for women, not men.

[Realist3]

The point being is that monogamy is something that has evolved from societal expectations, not some natural state of being.

[Furious]

I'm not talking about that. You are missing the point.

 

We are talking about the history of marriage and why it is what it is. It started out as something completely different than it is today, but it was the norm and people conformed to that expectation. People today still conform the the expectation of what society marraige is even though they moy not believe in it.

 

You were the one that said faithfulness started from some idea that... heck I don't even know. No, faithfullness was expected because they bought them, as in a slave, and they produced assets for the man.

 

As women gained more rights over the years they required faithfulness/monogamy because they were gaining a more equal status, and did like a man with 5 wives and 10 mistresses.

 

 

Realist...your perplexed because you expected monogamy from your wife, you wouldn't have married her if the children were not biologically yours.

 

Monogamy has it's reason, humans have evolved because of that.

 

Men denied women equal status, because a mother knows that's her baby...but a man would could never be sure.

[promises]

Realist...your perplexed because you expected monogamy from your wife, you wouldn't have married her if the children were not biologically yours.

 

Monogamy has it's reason, humans have evolved because of that.

 

Men denied women equal status, because a mother knows that's her baby...but a man would could never be sure.

 

Biologically the MM or not is a mute subject. Honestly.

[promises]

This us the second time I'm stating on this thread:

Monogamy is NOT solely a cultural invention, MANY species practice it, including our own. The human ability to be monogamous is on a bell curve just like the rest of sexual tendencies. MOST humans are serial couplers (monogamous 4-7 years). Monogamous life long couplers are rarer than other types, but they DO exist and to tell them they are unnatural is to be ignorant of the facts.

 

I agree with this and like the serial monogamy equation. Again, many can't do forever.

[Realist3]

Correction: SOME people always look out for their own best interests primarily and consistently.

 

MANY people consider the greater good on quite a regular basis. At least the people in MY world do. I've taught my children to not let the hideous behavior of others turn them into that kind of person themselves; to not take on an attitude of "Well, someone did it to me, so I'll pass on the 'love.'" I remind them to try, at all cost, to resist that "stinking thinking" lest this world become more and more evil as the number of those lacking in integrity compound exponentially.

 

Let's bring this back to the topic at hand.

 

Furious, said she found it peculiar that people that did not believe in monogamy got married or participated in a relationship where monogamy was expected. I simply pointed out that people will do things they may not believe in to achieve a goal, regardless of that that goal may be.

 

We witness on these boards on a daily basis people who may pretend to embrace monogamy, but in practice do not.

[Realist3]

This us the second time I'm stating on this thread:

Monogamy is NOT solely a cultural invention, MANY species practice it, including our own. The human ability to be monogamous is on a bell curve just like the rest of sexual tendencies. MOST humans are serial couplers (monogamous 4-7 years). Monogamous life long couplers are rarer than other types, but they DO exist and to tell them they are unnatural is to be ignorant of the facts.

 

I have no issue with any of that.

[Realist3]

Realist...your perplexed because you expected monogamy from your wife, you wouldn't have married her if the children were not biologically yours.

 

Monogamy has it's reason, humans have evolved because of that.

 

Men denied women equal status, because a mother knows that's her baby...but a man would could never be sure.

 

I disagree.

[Spark1111]

Yes, 100%. Monogamy was a rule for women, not men.

 

If you look at our biology, men have 10 times our testosterone, and were designed to procreate the species with as many wives or women as they could AFFORD or provide for.

 

Women, still today, are more want to be attracted to alpha males, those who can provide and protect her off spring until their progeny reaches the age of maturity. so yes, resources matter.

 

Animal kingdom still operates this way. Males fight each other for fertile females; females choose whose genes are stronger and who is best able to provide and protect.

 

Two dynamic events changed the role of women, fairly recently: The discovery of birth control and the entry of women into the workforce. Being able to control her biology AND PROVIDE for herself has changed the societal norms of the last millennium.

 

Things are changing for sure.

[Realist3]

^ Yes. It took a long long time for women to be able to demand monogamy.

 

Yet here we are on a board where hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women detail their stories of breaking monogamy. It is not just the MM/MW, it is the OW/OM.

[Furious]

Let's bring this back to the topic at hand.

 

Furious, said she found it peculiar that people that did not believe in monogamy got married or participated in a relationship where monogamy was expected. I simply pointed out that people will do things they may not believe in to achieve a goal, regardless of that that goal may be.

 

We witness on these boards on a daily basis people who may pretend to embrace monogamy, but in practice do not.

 

 

Monogamy is a choice, let's say it's a contract between two prople. If both parties agree to monogamy then it benefits both parties for whatever reason.

 

But to make a promise, or break a contract by deception, well that just stinks.

 

What do you mean by your goal...what exactly were you trying to achieve that it required deception?

[Spark1111]

Using children as the reasoning to be faithful is a cop out, and sorry all who believe that.

 

Please explain.

 

The fiercest, most dangerous animal in the kingdom, hands down, is a mama protecting her young. She kills with abandon, swiftly, quickly.

 

Maternal instinct, procreating and protecting the progeny until maturity is one of the most powerful, primal urges there is. She will attack her mate if she senses he is a threat to THEIR offspring.

 

If you do not think both men and women agonize over sharing resources of the clan, with another man or woman ( I.e., divorce) then you will never understand those who protect that at all costs.

 

THAT IS AS PRIMAL as monogamy may be unnatural and those are maybe the two oldest and forever in conflict urges left over from when we were cave dwellers wielding jaw bones at our attackers.

[Spark1111]

^ Yes. It took a long long time for women to be able to demand monogamy.

 

Yet here we are on a board where hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women detail their stories of breaking monogamy. It is not just the MM/MW, it is the OW/OM.

 

it still is only 50 percent. Alway is, always has been, probably always will be.

 

the other 50 percent seem to embrace just fine.

 

doubt they have reason to post here at LS....just saying.

[Realist3]

What do you mean by your goal...what exactly were you trying to achieve that it required deception?

 

I'm not talking about my goal, I'm speaking in general.

 

Someone can have any number of goals. They may think that person is pretty or handsome; they may think this person provides financial security; it could be anything. And in pursuit of that goal they may decide to enter into an agreement of monogamy. That is what everyone is taught to do and expect, so they conform.