Affairs

[EscherEnigma]

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. 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. 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.

If that's what you truly believe, then you should probably wonder why our society pushes everyone towards marriage. Expecting everyone to be worthy of glory is a silly expectation. And if you don't have that expectation? Then you're pushing people towards what you expect they'll fail at. That hardly sounds moral to me.

A true marriage is not an environment of control. It never was ment to be, and never will work in that way.

That's one helluva coat of whitewash you just slapped down. I suggest you do some reading on what marriage was like, particularly the legal rights of the people involved, as recently as the 1800s. I'd also like you to consider polling through the decades on the reasons men and women marry and, perhaps more importantly, the reason they stay together.

 

[sabrinathecat]

The notion that people are advocating "Brave New World" I think misses the point entirely.

There was nothing I saw saying that marriage and natural procreation are unclean, should be considered unclean, or should be stigmatized.

The only notions I saw advocated is that sex should not be tied to or regulated by marriage (in short, marriage is not necessary to or essential for sexual activity), and that unless you are one of the parties involved, it is none of your business.

Maybe someone has said otherwise and I missed it.

If someone says "I'm OK with ______", and then turn around after _____ happens and declare that they aren't, that person has been dishonest. Maybe it was dishonesty and deception to themselves. Maybe they didn't realize it. But if you've said that you are OK with _______ and then get upset when it happens, that is squarely on YOU. YOU have to do something about it. I suggest this funny thing called "Communication." There's a whole lot of baggage in this culture that people have to work around and overcome.

As a landlord, I've had to learn things about people I didn't ever want to know. People have left behind things I never wanted to find. (Like a box of 'toys') It shouldn't have been necessary, and it is absolutely none of my business. Maybe people need to go back to their own matters.
I firmly believe that if people took the time and energy they devote to being nosey or condemning what other people do in their bedrooms, and redirected it to their own sex lives, the world would be a better place, and they would be a lot happier.

 

[delericho]

Why must we cling to the idea that one, and only one, mating pattern is "natural" for us? Why assert that monogamy is the one way? Or why assert that having multiple partners is the one way. Why not shift to the idea that, as a species, we follow multiple patterns?

Natural selection, surely? It's unlikely that all of those multiple patterns will be equally good at seeing children through to the point where they pass on their genes in turn, and so those patterns that are better will win out.

It is, of course, true that the patterns that were 'best' 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years ago may not be the patterns that are 'best' now.

So, we'd then have individuals tuned for each possible strategy, in a constant bid to make sure all our bases are covered.

Yes, but the competition isn't really "humans vs other species", it's rather which section of humanity wins the battle for selection. Does monogamy give my genes a better chance for propagation, or does a non-monogamous approach lead to more success?

 

[trappedslider]

The notion that people are advocating "Brave New World" I think misses the point entirely.

There was nothing I saw saying that marriage and natural procreation are unclean, should be considered unclean, or should be stigmatized.

The only notions I saw advocated is that sex should not be tied to or regulated by marriage (in short, marriage is not necessary to or essential for sexual activity), and that unless you are one of the parties involved, it is none of your business.

Maybe someone has said otherwise and I missed it.
.

I think you might have missed a lot,since I said

just reading the thoughts of a few folks in this threadmake me thinkof Alex Huxley's Brave New World take on sex and relationships.....

or you may have miss understood the underlined phrase

As in it reminds me of the view points expressed...

EDIT: you might also have a few post on ignored...so that could be it too

 

[Kramodlog]

Stating the obvious:

1) he could BAN you if he's serious

So he is not serious, like I thought.

2) he could have PMed the question to you if he wanted to, but he didn't. He asked you publicly, twice, and probably for a reason.

And I asked him questions publically and he wanted me to PM him. He could return the curtosy.

3) the initial posing of the question was utterly void of "French snarkiness".

Yeah, just an agressive order. This is not the army. There are ways to ask things.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

In my opinion it does -- your counter of Jaywalking vs. Homicide would be equating two different types of behavior, negligence to homicide, but the original quote compares one example of trustworthiness to another, lesser, example of trustworthiness (Marital Fidelity vs. Professional Fidelity). A better comparison would be Jaywalking to Running Stoplights, or intentional homicide to -- well, very little, really, western law puts it into a class by itself. In my opinion, yes, a person who cannot keep a vow to a spouse, is more likely to be unable to keep their word to a mere business partner. Not to say I wouldn't go into business with them, I'd just force 'em to sign one heck of a punitive business contract.

Actually, that's entirely my point: The two behaviors (cheating on a spouse and cheating a business partner) really are two different things. The penalties for cheating a business partner are potentially way, way more severe than cheating on a spouse - up to and including jail time, loss of any licenses one may have which, of course, means a loss of potential to earn at the same level, lawsuits resulting in greater material loss than a typical divorce, etc, etc. It's a wholly different mindset. You don't get drunk and pick up a new business partner at the bar and accidentally let things go too far. They really are different from one another. Again, that's my point.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

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.

Umm ... dood? There are other laws that protect the kids from molestation (er, that's a lie - laws don't protect people, they're a mechanism for punishing those that don't obey). Look up some child abuse cases in that state. Without looking myself, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority - if not all - see the alleged perp charged with something other than breaking the 'no sex unless it's married sex' law.

And I'm so bleepin' sick of people trying to pretend that allowing whatever sex they don't morally like automatically means that kids are gonna get touched. That's messed up and I'd hate to see how that sort of person's mind works.

 

[Kramodlog]

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.

It might seem creepy for some, but kids are curious about sex and are sponges at that age. It is the perfect time to educate them about anatomy, reproduction, sexual activities and health.

 

[Umbran]

Natural selection, surely? It's unlikely that all of those multiple patterns will be equally good at seeing children through to the point where they pass on their genes in turn, and so those patterns that are better will win out.

It is, of course, true that the patterns that were 'best' 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years ago may not be the patterns that are 'best' now.

Exactly. For that reason, nature rarely completely eliminates anything. For example, in genes we have dominant and recessive - the recessives are pushed to the back, and just kind of ride along only being expressed occasionally, so that if the need does arise, they are selected for and the species goes on, and we are more flexible to the changes that come in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years. The same logic follows for ideas (memes) - we rarely completely eliminate an idea, we just push it into the background.

Our mating patterns are a blend of genetic and memetic drives. We should expect there to be some patterns in the population that aren't the current dominant ones. In terms of long--term strength, we want that diversity to ride along with us. Winnowing it down to "one true way" is a weakness if the social or physical environment changes.

Yes, but the competition isn't really "humans vs other species", it's rather which section of humanity wins the battle for selection.

Who the competition is with is irrelevant.

Does monogamy give my genes a better chance for propagation, or does a non-monogamous approach lead to more success?

That is a question for the ages, not for the current moment. We, here and now, don't get to (or need to) answer that question. Nature will sort it out for us - the truth will ultimately be found by empirical results, without our having to pass judgments. Plus, as you have noted, the answer is context-dependent. What is best here and now may not be the best in 100, or 1000 years. So, why not recognize that fact that there is no single correct answer?

 

[Umbran]

It might seem creepy for some, but kids are curious about sex and are sponges at that age. It is the perfect time to educate them about anatomy, reproduction, sexual activities and health.

The sponge analogy breaks down - kids don't just absorb information exactly as you give it to them. They also *process* information. But, if they try to do so without proper context - life and emotional experience - they can process it poorly, and that can go badly for the child.

This is why some things you can get away with in an adult context wind up being abuse for a child. For example - repeated insults among friendly adults is often found acceptable, as adults are expected to have life experience enough to understand that the insults are not intended to harm. A child lacks the experience to make that distinction, and if you repeatedly insult them, it amounts to emotional abuse, and you can mar their emotional development significantly.

Sex is one of those things where it seems that the very young lack the context to be able to process information about it properly.