oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 HERE'S THE PUNCHLINE - -A person who has a solid character trait of self-control and restraint and has strong beliefs on sexual restraint and values sexuality only within exclusive serious relationships/marriage will be more apt to try to preserve the relationship and more likely to not engage in outside sexual activity. That person will be less likely to be unfaithful as long as the relationship has some kind of breath of life in it and will be more likely to show sexual restraint until the relationship has been formally concluded. A person who does not have such beliefs and values will be more inclined to view the relationship as over or as "rocky" before it is formally terminated and will be likely to resume in outside sexual activity before the formal conclusion of the relationship. A person with a more lax and casual attitude towards sexuality will be more likely to be receptive to sex with other people as the relationship declines in excitement or experiences relationship stress. So here are the Cliff Notes - -In the initial stages of the relationship where everything is good and the excitement level is high, both people with rigid values and mores on sexuality with low partner counts and people with more relaxed and casual attitudes and belief with a higher partner count will say they won't cheat and are likely to remain faithful during the good times. - where the two paths will diverge is when the relationship stagnates or experiences periods of relationship stress or especially periods of separation. - A person with conservative beliefs and values on sexuality and practices sexual restraint will have a higher degree of continued sexual restraint during periods of relationship stress/separation and will be less likely to indulge in sexual activity until the formal conclusion of the relationship. - a person with a more relaxed view of sexuality and less personal sexual restraint will be more likely to view the relationship being over, giving them more sexual license to indulge in sex with others sooner and they will be more likely to indulge in sex with others during times of relationship stress/separation.
ChessPieceFace Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Such bullcrap. You clearly missed my post. I myself have had a ONS before as well as other flings. I myself have never cheated and am extremely loyal. In which case, what someone does when they are single (within reason) doesnt say much about what they do when they are in a relationship. I dont cheat, and I dont help others cheat. But flings with people Im attracted to and trust? Sure. This all being said, my ONS was during a time I was super torn up about a recent break up with a girl who betrayed my loyalty and trust. Which wasn't "as soon as we break up baby, I'm gonna be hitting those ONS's again mmmmmm!" Thus using yourself as an example fails. Stop defending the moral integrity of a guy who probably doesn't have much. At 21 my number was double his...I have no problems at all. I was married too before, loved having one man, hes the one that ended it. I guess that makes me a walking contradiction eh? No, it makes you a significant risk. Risk isn't certain failure. It is not the nature of the human animal to be monogamous. So you've already undermined your entire argument before you've begun. Very nice. People CHOOSE to be monogamous for reasons other than sexual, it has nothing to do with sex, honestly. I choose to be monogamous with my long term partner because we like each other. If we didn't have things in common and a reason to be together other than sex, there would be no reason to stay monogamous, I could have random sex with other women I have little/nothing in common with and be just as well off as I was with someone I didn't care to be around, other than naked. How morally destitute. Hopefully you guys won't stop liking each other, otherwise you'll instantly start cheating, apparently? With all of these facts in mind, sex cannot be the cause of infidelity. Logically the infidelity must stem from a dislike of the person you're with, to the point that you don't care about them enough to be monogamous with them, whatever the reason may be. So serial cheaters just "don't like anyone enough." Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are scumbags. Lacking in integrity. Lacking a moral center. Lacking in conscience. Wired wrong, taught wrong, failures of human beings. Nope, they're just the same as everyone else, they just haven't been paired up with the right person yet. The idea that guilt and shame can make people into something that they are not is a grand failure. Modern western culture is a grand failure, and the evidence is the divorce nation of fatherless children you're living in. Religion has been trying to accomplish this for thousands of years, and has never succeeded. Humans are inherently flawed and broken. External standards (religion being one example, and not just any religion either) are required for the proper functioning of most humans. Your humanistic view is what has failed, and once again the evidence surrounds us. Someone would have to be blind not to see how badly this culture has failed, how bad the state of relationships is. By far, a man's best chance of a good relationship in the US is to find a Christian girl with the right upbringing, with an actual moral center, believing in the standards you've chosen to discard. Your assumption that ignorance of sex can make people not desire it is ridiculous. Ludicrous. Either you are incapable of understanding a moral position on sex, or you willfully refuse to acknowledge its validity. Sticking your penis in every female hole that presents itself doesn't just make you "wise in the ways of sex." It also makes you immoral, and degrades the strength and meaning of any sexual bond you make with subsequent women. You dismiss all the virtues of chastity and believing in a higher meaning to sex as "ignorance." Disgusting.
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) OP, lets think this trough... everything your boyfriend did was before than you even met him... it has nothing to do with you... He has chosen to be with you, even when he could be single and have ONS, etc he chose to be with you! Embrace that thought and forget about your jealousy of he will be your ex before you realize it! Edited June 24, 2013 by therhythm
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 So basically your choice is what kind of mate do you want during times of relationship stress (the bad times). Do you want someone that will remain sexually faithful or chaste until the formal conclusion of the relationship and the relationship is dead and buried? Or do you want someone that will hit the bars looking for a thrill once you've had a big fight or are out of town for a few weeks or you got pi$$ed off and yelled, "WE ARE OVER!" in a fit of rage. It's all about personal sexual restraint and how they view sexuality within or outside relationships. The person who values sexual restraint and sexuality within the strict confines of a relationship will be more likely to remain sexually restrained during times of relationship turmoil. The person with more relaxed attitudes and beliefs and is comfortable with sexuality outside the confines of serious relationships will be more likely to pursue/accept sexuality from other people in times of relationship turmoil. The reason our grandmothers always tell us to engage in partners with more restraint and value of relationships is because grandmothers know that ALL relationships will have periods of turmoil, stress, separation and even periods where people get pi$$ed and say, "we're through!!" even though they really aren't. 2
ASG Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 HERE'S THE PUNCHLINE - -A person who has a solid character trait of self-control and restraint and has strong beliefs on sexual restraint and values sexuality only within exclusive serious relationships/marriage will be more apt to try to preserve the relationship and more likely to not engage in outside sexual activity. That person will be less likely to be unfaithful as long as the relationship has some kind of breath of life in it and will be more likely to show sexual restraint until the relationship has been formally concluded. A person who does not have such beliefs and values will be more inclined to view the relationship as over or as "rocky" before it is formally terminated and will be likely to resume in outside sexual activity before the formal conclusion of the relationship. A person with a more lax and casual attitude towards sexuality will be more likely to be receptive to sex with other people as the relationship declines in excitement or experiences relationship stress. I refer you to my post on the previous page where I recounted the facts of one of my past relationships. I'd had plenty of ONS/casual flings. He'd had none. I was his 3rd partner, he was my 10th. By your line of thought, I would have been the potential cheater of that specific relationship. Only, I never did. Never have. Can't say I never will, as I don't know the future, but I can say I don't intend to, ever. My ex, on the other hand, had only had sex with long term girlfriends and had cheated on BOTH of them. I strongly suspect he cheated on ME and I know for a FACT he cheated on this next GF. So... if you were going just by numbers and attitude towards sex alone, I would have been the cheater. Only that is completely inaccurate and honestly? I know plenty of people who have casual sex who cheat. but I also know plenty of people who never have sex outside of relationships who do so. On the other hand I also know plenty of people who have ONS and don't cheat. Or never have, until now, at least. You can't judge the "cheating ability" of someone based on numbers alone or on the terms of the sex. What is true though is that no one has to deal with it. If the OP is not happy that her bf has had ONS, then she should leave and go find someone who shares her values. But not because he's more likely to cheat on her.
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 OP, lets think this trough... everything your boyfriend did was before than you even met him... it has nothing to do with you... His past behavior has nothing to do with her but it is a window into his beliefs, values and attitudes towards sexuality and relationships. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. He has attitudes and beliefs that make him OK with ONSs and recreational sex outside of relationships. Those beliefs, values and attitudes will continue even when he is in a relationship with her. That doesn't make him a bad person and even doesn't make him more likely to cheat when things are going well. What is key is those beliefs, attitudes and values are vastly different than her's and the role of sexuality in a relationship is so deep and so core that that big of a difference will cause a huge clash at some point...already has in a way. 2
RedRobin Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 empathy gratitude ability to delay gratification (really, really cliff notes )
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 His past behavior has nothing to do with her but it is a window into his beliefs, values and attitudes towards sexuality and relationships. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. He has attitudes and beliefs that make him OK with ONSs and recreational sex outside of relationships. Those beliefs, values and attitudes will continue even when he is in a relationship with her. That doesn't make him a bad person and even doesn't make him more likely to cheat when things are going well. What is key is those beliefs, attitudes and values are vastly different than her's and the role of sexuality in a relationship is so deep and so core that that big of a difference will cause a huge clash at some point...already has in a way. I don't know how the sexual values of another person in the past (while single) have nothing to do with the sexual values of that same person when in a relationship... It is totally different concept... She can decide to be with him or not, there is people who as a deal breaker even weirder things... but if she stays in the relationship she can't judge him for anything he did in his past... If OP is such a judgmental person she better let him go, he is missing of a lot of fun to be with someone who feels has the right to judge him and feel better than him... that is really a great value to have (NOT)
Els Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I don't know how the sexual values of another person in the past (while single) have nothing to do with the sexual values of that same person when in a relationship... It is totally different concept... She can decide to be with him or not, there is people who as a deal breaker even weirder things... but if she stays in the relationship she can't judge him for anything he did in his past... If OP is such a judgmental person she better let him go, he is missing of a lot of fun to be with someone who feels has the right to judge him and feel better than him... that is really a great value to have (NOT) C'mon, this isn't fair at all. Everyone has preferences for relationships. Every single one of us. Who is to say that someone who cites past sexual history as a preference is any more judgmental than someone who cites preferences for anything else?
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I refer you to my post on the previous page where I recounted the facts of one of my past relationships. I'd had plenty of ONS/casual flings. He'd had none. I was his 3rd partner, he was my 10th. By your line of thought, I would have been the potential cheater of that specific relationship. Only, I never did. Never have. Can't say I never will, as I don't know the future, but I can say I don't intend to, ever. My ex, on the other hand, had only had sex with long term girlfriends and had cheated on BOTH of them. I strongly suspect he cheated on ME and I know for a FACT he cheated on this next GF. So... if you were going just by numbers and attitude towards sex alone, I would have been the cheater. Only that is completely inaccurate and honestly? I know plenty of people who have casual sex who cheat. but I also know plenty of people who never have sex outside of relationships who do so. On the other hand I also know plenty of people who have ONS and don't cheat. Or never have, until now, at least. You can't judge the "cheating ability" of someone based on numbers alone or on the terms of the sex. What is true though is that no one has to deal with it. If the OP is not happy that her bf has had ONS, then she should leave and go find someone who shares her values. But not because he's more likely to cheat on her. OK lets try this again. Cheating and casual sex are two different things. Casual sex does not necessarily lead to cheating and cheating does not necessarily lead to casual sex (Some cheaters are very serious about their affair and affair partner) The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Your ex has a proven track record of cheating even though his partner count is low. He is at extremely high risk of cheating and he has proven himself as such. Your track record is of casual sex/ONSs but not of cheating. You will be more likely to reengage in casual sex/ONSs at the conclusion of or in the waning days of a relationship. Your ex is likely to enter into a relationship, have sex and then cheat. You are more likely to engage in casual/ONS, then enter a relationship, remain faithful then return to cas/ONSs blah blah blah blah. I think where you are getting hung up and taking offense is my assertion that someone with a more relaxed and casual attitude towards sexuality will be more likely to view that a relationship is over or declining and will be more likely to reengage in outside sexuality in the waning days of relationship or during times of relationship stress. Sorry if that ruffles feathers but it is what is. someone who's been around the block a number of times is simply more comfortable with going back out on the block again. Someone who hasn't been around the block is more likely to stay at home until they get shoved out of the house. Again, cheating and casual sex/ONSs are two different wavelengths. Your ex was a dyed-in-the-wool cheater. Cheating isn't dependent on partner counts.
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 C'mon, this isn't fair at all. Everyone has preferences for relationships. Every single one of us. Who is to say that someone who cites past sexual history as a preference is any more judgmental than someone who cites preferences for anything else? Preferences is not a problem... as I said in my post, she can decide to be with him or not... that is her decision to make.. If she decides to stay she can't judge him for what he has done, or hold it against him... and that is exactly what she is doing... I don't think it is bad if she looks for someone who is inexperienced in sex... or who approach sex in a more relationship focus manner... that is something she needs to short out but she needs to learn to deal with her choices.... once you know something you can't unknown it... I think anyway that in the most of the cases people who judge other with this kind of criteria is due to personal insecurities and it says much more about the ones who judge that about the ones that are judged
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 C'mon, this isn't fair at all. Everyone has preferences for relationships. Every single one of us. Who is to say that someone who cites past sexual history as a preference is any more judgmental than someone who cites preferences for anything else? Yep, we are all judgemental and have preferences. Someone can want a low partner count in a potential partner just as much as they want red hair or washboard abz or blue eyes. Some people will walk away from someone the moment they find out they are virgin. Some people won't even consider someone of a different race or religion. Heck some people won't even consider someone of the same race or religion. It may be judgemental and someone else may not like it when they get axed from consideration because of their partner count or their hair/eye color or their body size or their race or religion but that is how the world works whether we like it or not.
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I think where you are getting hung up and taking offense is my assertion that someone with a more relaxed and casual attitude towards sexuality will be more likely to view that a relationship is over or declining and will be more likely to reengage in outside sexuality in the waning days of relationship or during times of relationship stress. . Using that flaw logic we could say that a person who has had few sexual partners is more likely to feel that he/she has missed out and cheat Please stop the generalizations and begin to think that we are individuals not a sheep flock.... every person is different
ASG Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 OK lets try this again. Cheating and casual sex are two different things. Casual sex does not necessarily lead to cheating and cheating does not necessarily lead to casual sex (Some cheaters are very serious about their affair and affair partner) The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Your ex has a proven track record of cheating even though his partner count is low. He is at extremely high risk of cheating and he has proven himself as such. Your track record is of casual sex/ONSs but not of cheating. You will be more likely to reengage in casual sex/ONSs at the conclusion of or in the waning days of a relationship. Your ex is likely to enter into a relationship, have sex and then cheat. You are more likely to engage in casual/ONS, then enter a relationship, remain faithful then return to cas/ONSs blah blah blah blah. I think where you are getting hung up and taking offense is my assertion that someone with a more relaxed and casual attitude towards sexuality will be more likely to view that a relationship is over or declining and will be more likely to reengage in outside sexuality in the waning days of relationship or during times of relationship stress. Sorry if that ruffles feathers but it is what is. someone who's been around the block a number of times is simply more comfortable with going back out on the block again. Someone who hasn't been around the block is more likely to stay at home until they get shoved out of the house. Again, cheating and casual sex/ONSs are two different wavelengths. Your ex was a dyed-in-the-wool cheater. Cheating isn't dependent on partner counts. Right! We agree then. That being said, you cited his likeliness to cheat as a reason for her to leave him, did you not? When there is no indication that that might be the case. This is all I'm arguing about. Just like on your examples, my ex didn't cheat when things were good in the relationship. It was when things started waning and getting towards the end of it. He would start up a relationship with someone else before breaking up with the previous girlfriend. What I am saying is that if she wants someone who shares her values towards sex, then she should leave him. But she shouldn't leave him because he is likely to cheat on her, because, as far as we know, he isn't. *THAT* is the point I'm making. 1
Els Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I think anyway that in the most of the cases people who judge other with this kind of criteria is due to personal insecurities and it says much more about the ones who judge that about the ones that are judged It's these sort of lines that I take issue with, really. How do you say that someone has the right to choose as she likes, and then say this? That's like saying, "Yeah, you have the right to choose not to date an obese person, of course. But I think that in most of the cases, people who do that are very shallow." That goes against the 'right to choose' part entirely, does it not? It just strikes me as odd that some folks deem it acceptable to choose based on virtually anything - looks, weight, age, height, employment, even willingness to have sex early... but anyone who cites past sexual history gets so much flak? Why? If you leave someone who doesn't have sex as early as you'd like because you think it says something about their sexual attitudes - aren't you being equally 'judgmental'?
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 It's these sort of lines that I take issue with, really. How do you say that someone has the right to choose as she likes, and then say this? That's like saying, "Yeah, you have the right to choose not to date an obese person, of course. But I think that in most of the cases, people who do that are very shallow." That goes against the 'right to choose' part entirely, does it not? It just strikes me as odd that some folks deem it acceptable to choose based on virtually anything - looks, weight, age, height, employment, even willingness to have sex early... but anyone who cites past sexual history gets so much flak? Why? If you leave someone who doesn't have sex as early as you'd like because you think it says something about their sexual attitudes - aren't you being equally 'judgmental'? Yes, you are right... I don't think there is any problem with choosing a partner by any ways and criteria... I would not have any problem with a guy who choose not to date a overweight woman... but I would have a problem with a guy who dates an overweight woman and then open a post saying "I hate that I am dating an overweight woman" and begin a whole story about how he hates those kind of women.... how ugly they look or how unhealthy... whatever you want to put there.... Next question is... why are you still dating her? If you feel much better than her then leave the relationship... but then the guy go ahead with the relationship... he only needed to have his "I feel better than her" moment. Do you get where I am going?
Els Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Yes, you are right... I don't think there is any problem with choosing a partner by any ways and criteria... I would not have any problem with a guy who choose not to date a overweight woman... but I would have a problem with a guy who dates an overweight woman and then open a post saying "I hate that I am dating an overweight woman" and begin a whole story about how he hates those kind of women.... how ugly they look or how unhealthy... whatever you want to put there.... Next question is... why are you still dating her? If you feel much better than her then leave the relationship... but then the guy go ahead with the relationship... he only needed to have his "I feel better than her" moment. Do you get where I am going? Ah, yes. But AFAIK, the OP (assuming they are legit) has just only been told about his sexual past. Hence this thread.
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Ah, yes. But AFAIK, the OP (assuming they are legit) has just only been told about his sexual past. Hence this thread. If she has such a high standards why didn't see come out with that before he was invested on her? How it is fair for the guy? She didn't have to ask for his number but she could have told him at an earlier stage that sexual values were a deal breaker for her? Edit; what is AFAIK???
ASG Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 If she has such a high standards why didn't see come out with that before he was invested on her? How it is fair for the guy? She didn't have to ask for his number but she could have told him at an earlier stage that sexual values were a deal breaker for her? Edit; what is AFAIK??? As far as I know 2
kaylan Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 C'mon, this isn't fair at all. Everyone has preferences for relationships. Every single one of us. Who is to say that someone who cites past sexual history as a preference is any more judgmental than someone who cites preferences for anything else? This. (ten char) 1
therhythm Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 a) it doesn't say anyway in the OP post that he has just told her... so her post is all about judgment of the person she is with and after the "I feel better than him" moment she will come back to him b) her bigger concern is the fact that her boyfriend could cheat on him and his sexual past has NOTHING to do with his capability to cheat.
Els Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 If she has such a high standards why didn't see come out with that before he was invested on her? How it is fair for the guy? She didn't have to ask for his number but she could have told him at an earlier stage that sexual values were a deal breaker for her? Edit; what is AFAIK??? You've got to ask her that. IMO that has much more to do with communication issues than being judgmental, though. b) her bigger concern is the fact that her boyfriend could cheat on him and his sexual past has NOTHING to do with his capability to cheat. Yep, I agree with this, and said as much in my initial post here. 1
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Right! We agree then. That being said, you cited his likeliness to cheat as a reason for her to leave him, did you not? I don't think I said that directly but I've rambled on so much something could be interpreted that way. I don't think she should dump him because he is likely to cheat. I think she should seriously evaluate whether they share similar values, attitudes and beliefs on topics as fundamental and serious as sexuality etc etc I think these two have vastly differing views on relationships vs flings and sexuality etc and that in and of it'self is concerning.
oldshirt Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 What I am saying is that if she wants someone who shares her values towards sex, then she should leave him. But she shouldn't leave him because he is likely to cheat on her, because, as far as we know, he isn't. *THAT* is the point I'm making. And that is a very valid point and very similar to the one I've tried to make but you've been able to say it in two sentences what's taken me countless posts over two days LOL:laugh:
thatone Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 So you've already undermined your entire argument before you've begun. Very nice. You assume my argument attempts to mirror yours, it doesn't. Your beliefs are wrong, they are not the default. How morally destitute. Hopefully you guys won't stop liking each other, otherwise you'll instantly start cheating, apparently? I'm not a knight in shining armor and she isn't a princess. The fairy tale fantasies end for most normal people. You find someone you like more than the others from your past and stay with them, pretty simple. There is no grand moral cause involved. So serial cheaters just "don't like anyone enough." Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are scumbags. Lacking in integrity. Lacking a moral center. Lacking in conscience. Wired wrong, taught wrong, failures of human beings. Nope, they're just the same as everyone else, they just haven't been paired up with the right person yet. Your problem is you have a learned response to condemn what is, as stated above, the default pre-programmed genetic behavior, but simply condemning it won't work. Why should someone deny themselves an instinctive desire if they have no perceivable reason to? Tell a tank full of fish not to swim, because it's immoral and wrong and they'll be terrible fish if they swim. They're still gonna swim. Modern western culture is a grand failure, and the evidence is the divorce nation of fatherless children you're living in. Post-modern culture was a grand failure. You think men didn't have affairs and teenage girls didn't get pregnant in the 50s and 60s? Or did you miss the part where parents sent pregnant teenagers off to hidden medical facilities where they were forced to give up their children for adoption. Yes, lets bring back church prison! That worked out so well in the past. Australia's Roman Catholic Church apologises for forced adoptions - Telegraph Your beliefs are the cause of the failure. Your ideology raises children to fear the opposite sex, fear sexual relationships, fear retribution for sexual desire, and at the same time, pressures them to marry and produce children as fast as possible. When you give them contradictory instructions they are bound to get it wrong from one or the other point of view. That seems like a pretty simple concept, to me, I don't know why it sounds so shocking to you. Humans are inherently flawed and broken. External standards (religion being one example, and not just any religion either) are required for the proper functioning of most humans. Your humanistic view is what has failed, and once again the evidence surrounds us. Someone would have to be blind not to see how badly this culture has failed, how bad the state of relationships is. By far, a man's best chance of a good relationship in the US is to find a Christian girl with the right upbringing, with an actual moral center, believing in the standards you've chosen to discard. Wrong, humans are not inherently flawed and broken. Just because a religion says it is, doesn't make it so. Which is more likely, all humans are flawed and broken, or the people saying they are flawed and broken are flawed and broken? Occam's Razor would be a good introductory lesson in scientific principles, try Googling that. If being religious made one good there would be no child molester priests. The existence of those people disproves that assumption. As for finding a religious virgin to marry, that is the cause of a lot of infidelity, to be honest. As stated in my previous post, all of the religious/social pressure in the world doesn't stop people from desiring sex. Never has, never will. Marrying someone based on the assumption that they will be too consumed with guilt/fear/shame about sex to ever cheat on you or leave you is hardly a good basis for a lifelong partnership. Sounds more like a way of picking the best slave, by which one has already been beaten into submission the most. What happens when you get bored with the slave or the slave gets bored with you? Those 'good religious' people engage in just as much infidelity as everyone else, that's what. Ludicrous. Either you are incapable of understanding a moral position on sex, or you willfully refuse to acknowledge its validity. I refuse to entertain your belief that sex is more complicated than it is. It isn't. Sex is a basic instinct of all living things that reproduce by sexual means. Sticking your penis in every female hole that presents itself doesn't just make you "wise in the ways of sex." It also makes you immoral, and degrades the strength and meaning of any sexual bond you make with subsequent women. You dismiss all the virtues of chastity and believing in a higher meaning to sex as "ignorance." Disgusting. I'm perfectly capable of understanding morality. You on the other hand are incapable of understanding the source of it. Hint: religion is not it. Again, people CHOOSE to be monogamous or not. The choice cannot be forced, or it isn't a choice. That choice stems from the fact that there is more to life than sex. A couple has infinitely more things to concern themselves with than sex ESPECIALLY as they get older and the natural desire for sex wanes. From shared finances and shared experiences to raising children and all of the other laundry list of things that life entails. If you find a person that you choose to do all of those things with, denying that person your companionship just to have sex with another person seems like a ridiculous idea. Definitely an irrational one, because fairness dictates that if you can deny that person your presence to have sex with someone else, they can do the same to you. If, therefore, both prefer the company of others, why stay together? It's an irrational circumstance, that's why people CHOOSE to stay monogamous. A healthy relationship is not built on fear, guilt, and shame, it's built quite simply on both parties wanting to be in it. Why do you think poorer and uneducated people in western democracies have higher numbers of children born to unmarried couples, higher rates of STD infections, higher rates of divorce and infidelity? No money, that gets rid of the shared finances idea. Work two jobs to eat and pay the bills? Not gonna be much shared experience outside of sleeping a few hours to get back to work. Children are more of a financial burden than they are a non-financial benefit? That gets rid of the child raising motivation. If there's no other reason for couples to choose monogamy, people simply don't choose it. And religion has clearly failed to guilt those people into doing so because everywhere religious participation is the highest, so are all of those 'ills' of society (single parents, high STD infection rates, high divorce rates, poverty, lack of education, etc). The one thing those people do have that everyone else has is? Sex! Sex is free, you don't need money to have it, and people want pleasure more than they want guilt, for some odd reason....and absent the above mentioned church prisons, you're not going to convince people to want guilt more than they want pleasure. Relationships built on sex are not typically healthy, that much we agree on. What you are incapable of understanding is that your beliefs are no different than the person who only has one night stands and 'friends with benefits'. Just as misguided youngsters start relationships with poor choices for partners based on the availability of sex, your beliefs base relationships on the denial and un-attainability of sex, except by your religion's rules. Both are unhealthy and unsustainable. You have the problem, not me. PS, I have never cheated on anyone I was in a relationship with, and my religious motivations for that behavior are zero because I have no religion, therefore I am walking disproof of your assumptions about morality too.
Recommended Posts