Affairs

Henry said:

My opinion is that if marriage were as easy as breathing or coitus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now - the commitment of marriage IS difficult! It's why we glorify it.

Click to expand...

Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult. There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable? It is a source of a lot of problems really. We had a huge fight to get divorce legally and to get rid of the social stigma (that still exist), because we had to fight against the idea that marriage was glorious. Eliminating monogamy is just the next push.

We also glorify firefighters and policemen in western society, because not everyone can rise to those callings and perform them day in and day out.

Click to expand...

Police officers are usually vilified. I never heard any one say somethign nice about them after getting tickets. Plus these are people who regularely abuse their powers, but that is another discussion. Firefighters are d-bags. I've spent enough time with some of them. They are generally horrible people with huge egos because a lot of people glorify them. I'm all for paying them good salaries and pensions, their job is very physical and dangerous, but glorify them? Nope. If we start elevating people they sort of become sacred and untouchable, no one should have that status. Don't get me started on soldiers.

It's why we celebrate achievers in different fields -- they are uncommon individuals, and seeing a Buffet, or Einstein, or Jordan or Baryshnikov is an example of diligence and dedication that one can aspire to. To not celebrate something BECAUSE not a lot of people can perform that level of commitment misses the point of recognizing the commitment itself.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and monkeys. Sure, Einstein was a smart guy and we want some people to follow in his foot steps. Humanity benefits from this. What is gained from the ideal of monogamy since it creates a lot of problems because we are very bad at respecting it? Do not force people to do something they are bad at, remove the stigma that comes with not respecting that ideal.

just reading the thoughts of a few folks in htis thread make me think of Alex Huxley's Brave New World take on sex and relationships.....

goldomark said:

Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult.

Click to expand...

Any close partnership is difficult, and needs work. A close partnership that is based on emotional bonds is even moreso. Adding more people and personalities into the mix doesn't make it easier, in general.

It is glorified for many reasons. Many find that the restrictions are worth the benefits, and that the investment of effort pay off in the long run.

There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable?

Click to expand...

Maybe you don't mean it that way, but your wording is just as bad as those who seem to imply that monogamy is for everyone.

It goes against your personal nature, perhaps. But just as in games, one should not mistake one's personal preferences for "The Truth". The needs, desires, and natures of different people may lead to different relationships being easiest for them.

goldomark said:

Not really. It is "glorified" because it helps control people, not because it is difficult. There is some propaganda boasting how great it is, but why is something that goes against our nature desirable? It is a source of a lot of problems really. We had a huge fight to get divorce legally and to get rid of the social stigma (that still exist), because we had to fight against the idea that marriage was glorious. Eliminating monogamy is just the next push.

Click to expand...

A true marriage is not an environment of control. It never was ment to be, and never will work in that way. Of course there are problems with a control type marriage, because the good marriages I have seen working are those of a partnership. If you look at a partnership like a business partnership, how long do you think a business will last if one of the partners is [if you will pardondon the terms used] screwing over the other? It will be doomed to failure just like a failed marriage.

The problem is marriage today is built on a cracked and crumbling foundation. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying get rid of the building, just rebuild on a proper foundation. I hope this makes sense.

Umbran said:

Many find that the restrictions are worth the benefits, and that the investment of effort pay off in the long run.

Click to expand...

All I want is to give people the choice and the way to get there is to not push monogamy, remove the stigma that comes with having multiple partners.

But just as in games, one should not mistake one's personal preferences for "The Truth".

Click to expand...

I'm not.

Scott DeWar said:

A true marriage is not an environment of control.

Click to expand...

I'm talking control in the broad sense too, not just one indvidual over his or her partner. In this case society controlling individual with norms like monogamous unions.

goldomark said:

All I want is to give people the choice and the way to get there is to not push monogamy, remove the stigma that comes with having multiple partners.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any. The bachelor playboy has only positive 'stigma' associated with it. George Clooney, Hugh Hefner, Bruce Wayne. It's portrayed in media as a privileged and enviable thing.

Making a promise then not keeping it? Yeah, there's stigma about that.

If there's an issue, it's gender based. Women don't currently get that bachelor playboy validation that men do.

I think you are seeing it backwards. It is not society forcing the control over the relationship, but rather the couple GIVING the right of regulation to the couple for the mutual benefit to the society as a whole.

An example of a good mutual benifit is the state of Virginia having an 'archaic' law regulating sex to be between married partners, not for the restrict of the individuals, but the protecting of innocents from acts as incest and such. The state had that law challenged recently, but that did not pass as they saw the greater good in protecting the individual such as a child from being brutally assaulted by molestation.

And please, if you respond to this, be careful how you word so as not to come across as a creepy pro-child-sex advocate as that is wrong in any civilized society. I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . . found it: 34.

Scott DeWar said:

And please, if you respond to this, be careful how you word so as not to come across as a creepy pro-child-sex advocate as that is wrong in any civilized society. I also want to mention the idea of teaching a kindergartner in sex education is pretty creepy as it is, as was done in post . . . . .

Click to expand...

That's why there are statutory rape laws. Marriage shouldn't be a requirement.
Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Nothing more.
Such a contract should not be required between two consenting adults, nor should there be a need to have the pairing approved by any religious authority. Sex is strictly a matter between those directly involved.
Get over it.
So long as all involved agree to the same set of rules, there shouldn't be a problem.

sabrinathecat said:

So long as all involved agree to the same set of rules, there shouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

there in lies a problem. I have seen so many times where both parties say they are in agreement, but it usually came out in the form of great emotional pain that there was a desire for the 'exclusive rights clause'. it is regrettable, and my friends who get hurt in that kind of a mess usually get more emotionally hurt then my physical damage that put me in the hospital 2+ years ago.