Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?

[Bigboobbabe]

I am very sorry that happened to you. His transition changes the nature of your marriage completely. For him to expect you to just keep on as if nothing had changed is incredibly selfish and narrow-minded. I cannot offer advice, but you have my sympathy.

I stood beside him through crossdressing. I wasn't perfect, and we had boundaries that sometimes were stretched.
We betrayed each other - mental and physical.

I believe he is lost. I hate it for him, more than I hate him.

And at some point soon, the tipping point will come where pronouns and name change occur. Not yet, but soon.

Until then, life carries on.

 

[sister jenny]

I think monogamy is dated and a religious construct.
I also do not believe in cheating.
If you are not monogamous you should be open with it.

Having said that, I am monogamous.
And obviously a hypocrite.

 

[Hipshot1554]

I think monogamy is dated and a religious construct.
I also do not believe in cheating.
If you are not monogamous you should be open with it.

Having said that, I am monogamous.
And obviously a hypocrite.

I believe we are all guilty of that at one time or another, and we rationalize the fact.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I think monogamy is dated and a religious construct.
I also do not believe in cheating.
If you are not monogamous you should be open with it.

Having said that, I am monogamous.
And obviously a hypocrite.

No, not a hypocrite. It's possible to understand something is flawed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for you. I agree with everything you said, but monogamy works for my wife and I. I'm very thankful that it does.

 

[sister jenny]

No, not a hypocrite. It's possible to understand something is flawed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for you. I agree with everything you said, but monogamy works for my wife and I. I'm very thankful that it does.

Same here, it’s perfect for me and hubby.
And still I dont belive in the concept.

 

[AchtungNight]

I did my best to stay faithful to my wife while we were together. Near the end of it she told me she loved me but was not “in love” with me anymore and therefore she would be leaving me. I didn’t believe her at first and stayed faithful despite temptation and opportunity. She left me regardless of that. And asked me why I didn’t take the hall pass. Another guy helped her move out, the divorce proceeded. These days I’m an ethical slut sowing my wild oats and intend to continue. Life’s too short to not be happy recognizing and indulging what makes me happy. And that is not dancing to the normal rhythm.

 

[SusanHoward]

Because we all need a confidante, monogamy remains for me!

 

[AchtungNight]

Because we all need a confidante, monogamy remains for me!

When I get such a person, and it’s not an internet board, and they’re attractive to me and attached to me, maybe I’ll be monogamous with them if it’s what they want. But I’m going to ask up front this round and tell them I’m ok with polyamory if they want to try it. Not doing that with my previous spouse was a mistake. I hope they give me a good answer- honestly sometimes I’m so lonely that I could take either answer with its potential bad side and be ok. But I don’t want to just assume one answer and get screwed again. I want my spouse and me to gladly embrace our options together. The last one and I swore it before the preacher but in our hearts neither of us were immune from temptation. She gave in, I didn’t, it was a regret for me. And now life is too short for regrets. That’s not to say I want to wound the world, I don’t plan on that actively. But there’s a difference between what the world is and what we have fooled ourselves into believing it is.

 

[ridemybeard69]

Because we all need a confidante, monogamy remains for me!

Lovely response

 

[InCNCestBangPie]

"Thoughts on monogamy in today's world?"
For me, the end of that question implies that the world around me should somehow influence how I internally feel about monogamy and that's just not the case.
Now, is it healthy to grow & adapt to an ever changing society? Sure. But, my personal values aren't easily swayed by what's popular.
As such, I'm completely a proponent for monogamy in my life. It's like having that one best friend by your side except now you've become family. So, you still get to share all your secrets and the parts of you that others don't see, plus, watch as age transitions you both into different stages. A friend, partner, & love for life.

 

[policywank]

For me being non-monogamous doesn't stand in the way of having a close relationship with my husband. He is my friend, partner, love and confidante. Being those things for one another does not intrinsically have anything to do with sexual exclusivity. For some people being sexually exclusive is part of their belief system. I totally get that and I respect it. But it isn't a truism or objective reality.

Presenting it as such is a little like a muslim woman saying "I cover me head because I respect my husband." Is she implying that a woman who doesn't cover her head doesn't respect her husband? If not it would be more appropriate too say "I cover my head because it is part of my belief system that that is the way to show respect for my husband."

My comments aren't directed at anybody here. I am just highlighting the premise that we often confuse personal belief systems or preferences with truism or objective facts. When we do that we tend to confuse adherence to a given belief system with virtue. The unintended result is those people most invested in that belief system will interpret lack of adherence with that belief system as lack of virtue. That is indirectly the means by which we demonize those that don't share our beliefs and justify treating them poorly and/or force them to alter their belief systems.

 

[pplwatching]

We each define our belief systems and make the best decisions that we can given our experiences and the information at hand (context). Judging other belief systems is a natural part of defining and validating (and/or rationalizing) our own. We contrast and compare, biased by that same context of experiences and information.

Moral relativism allows people with different contexts to disagree on right or wrong, while at the same time allowing each to be right given their contexts. If we accept that our experiences differ and our knowledge is fallible, then any informed personal choices that don't infringe on other's rights to the same should be accepted as valid.

But, being human and fallible can be a bitch. I like the Mike Tyson quote going around recently. "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face." Sometimes things don't go the way that we think that they will. our context changes, and we re-evaluate accordingly. Monogamy as a plan has come with it's own kind of punches, but so far hasn't changed our context.

Still, “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail” (Ben Franklin). We each decide how much risk we are willing to accept and set our boundaries accordingly, sometimes independently of our belief systems. Do I think that my marriage could survive non-monogamy? I have faith in my wife and myself, so yes. Do I think that the risk/reward ratio is acceptable? No. My crystal ball has never worked right, and I've learned that things often don't end up going the way I think that they will. So, I plan and act accordingly.

So, my/our thoughts on non-monogamy (having discussed this with my wife) are that the risk and downside of that particular kind of punch to the face outweighs whatever I/we might gain from opening up our marriage. We roll with the punches accordingly. Love, learn, adapt, and love.

We all make our choices, take our chances, and if we're lucky learn and grow from the consequences. More power to everyone who thinks and makes informed choices and decisions about their sexuality instead of following trends.

 

[RoperTrace]

We have been exclusive for 50 years and counting, coming together in high school. Between November and March almost 51 years ago. The guys -- Paul and George -- had to spend 3 months in basic training and 13 months in Vietnam. We told them to do ANYTHING they needed to do get back to us. The five of us gals -- Kristin, Eva, Lisa, Jamie, and Lillian -- played with each other in their absence and prayed for their safe return. We are polyamorous but not open.

We extended an invitation to two others when they returned from his military service in Germany but, they had already formed a monogamous pairing, and stated a concern that our group dynamics worked against longevity. Their concerns were not necessary but they have done alright for themselves. Their pairing has lasted 49 years and counting.

Lisa's father, Gabe, was in high school when the Germans started bombing London. Judith, who eleven years later would give birth to her third son -- Paul, the future father of Lisa's sons -- met a young pilot, David, who was attending college in San Antonio. Back then Air Corp pilots had a quaint custom -- a sort of "really whole-life coverage," they shared mates and promised to ALWAYS care for the mate of a fallen comrade --.

Judith was invited to one of their swingers' parties on Lackland Field. She was hesitant. David said Gabe could come along so that Judith would "feel safe," the three of them joined and were part of a group that varied in size. Judith was exclusive with David for a time after he got orders for England in February 1941.

Gabe got drafted and received orders for Massachusetts, having to report literally within a week of graduating from high school. Judith and Gabe spent three weeks together as lovers Then Gabe spent four years walking across North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany to finally arrive in Austria. David slept in a tent in England before and after being shot at in the daylight over Germany.

Of their group, David had left first and he returned before the others, he and Judith got married and settled down near Gabe's parent's house. Gabe came back and married the 18-year-old sister of one of their group, Lisa's mom Katherine. The group in San Antonio had been young pilots except for Gabe -- who got drafted into the infantry before he ever had the chance to go to flight school --. Before the war there were a couple more guys than gals in the group -- but several of those young men never made it back to Texas.

Families were bigger back then, especially in the country. People were busy, transportation more difficult than it is today, it was easy to have relatives you didn't know well or at all. Growing up Lisa was often babysat by her Aunt Anne or Aunt Carol. Half of the time it was one of them watching her, Paul, and their combined four siblings at Paul's house while his parents were at her house. The other half of the time they were at Lisa's house and all the parents were at Paul's.

When she was ****, and dating Paul, Judith took Lisa aside and told her the story we just related adding that Anne and Carol were not actually Lisa's aunts -- which we knew -- but rather her lovers -- and Gabe's, Katharine's, and Steve's lovers -- from San Antonio. Anne and Carol were originally brought into the group by two fine young men who died flying B-17s over Germany.

Lisa and Jamie -- Jamie had moved in when they were thirteen -- already knew that Katherine and Gabe were great parents, they were suddenly very cool parents as well.

That is an amazing story. I may need to read it again to fully understand it. Thanks. RT

 

[policywank]

We each define our belief systems and make the best decisions that we can given our experiences and the information at hand (context). Judging other belief systems is a natural part of defining and validating (and/or rationalizing) our own. We contrast and compare, biased by that same context of experiences and information.

Moral relativism allows people with different contexts to disagree on right or wrong, while at the same time allowing each to be right given their contexts. If we accept that our experiences differ and our knowledge is fallible, then any informed personal choices that don't infringe on other's rights to the same should be accepted as valid.

But, being human and fallible can be a bitch. I like the Mike Tyson quote going around recently. "Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face." Sometimes things don't go the way that we think that they will. our context changes, and we re-evaluate accordingly. Monogamy as a plan has come with it's own kind of punches, but so far hasn't changed our context.

Still, “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail” (Ben Franklin). We each decide how much risk we are willing to accept and set our boundaries accordingly, sometimes independently of our belief systems. Do I think that my marriage could survive non-monogamy? I have faith in my wife and myself, so yes. Do I think that the risk/reward ratio is acceptable? No. My crystal ball has never worked right, and I've learned that things often don't end up going the way I think that they will. So, I plan and act accordingly.

So, my/our thoughts on non-monogamy (having discussed this with my wife) are that the risk and downside of that particular kind of punch to the face outweighs whatever I/we might gain from opening up our marriage. We roll with the punches accordingly. Love, learn, adapt, and love.

We all make our choices, take our chances, and if we're lucky learn and grow from the consequences. More power to everyone who thinks and makes informed choices and decisions about their sexuality instead of following trends.

I think the challenge comes in when people confuse beliefs with facts. For instance, there are those who would say that if you really love your husband you would be monogamous. That isn't a fact. It may be how some people feel, but it is not an objective reality that precludes other people from being non-monogamous and loving their husbands.

Sometimes the result is just a harmless difference of opinion, but sometimes that narrow absolutism can lead to real consequences.

 

[Britva415]

I think the challenge comes in when people confuse beliefs with facts.

Yeah, and people who confuse "what works for me" with what's right for everyone else.

 

[policywank]

Yeah, and people who confuse "what works for me" with what's right for everyone else.

Agreed. The need to compel compliance within a society or culture is an interesting dynamic.

If we in western democracies truly value freedom then why do men feel the need to organize around setting and enforcing expectations for female sexual behaviour and punishing women who don't comply?

 

[Devinter]

If we in western democracies truly value freedom then why do men feel the need to organize around setting and enforcing expectations for female sexual behaviour and punishing women who don't comply?

Punishing in what way? See them as less valuable? From a strictly egocentric point of view; someone who is looking for monogamy would find less value in everyone who isn't looking for the same thing, because they are no longer suitable mates. Similarly, a person who wouldn't want to do a monogamous relationship should find these people as more valuable instead.

This is not illogical in any way, but the consequences of this is the interesting and quite scary part, because people tend to treat other people that they do not find appealing differently from the ones that they do find appealing. Objectively, your views and values on these matters obviously doesn't make you a better or a worse person - but subjectively, to an individual, these actions might move you into the "no longer interested" folder and you get treated accordingly, which many seem to take offense to. Understandably so, because it implies that some of the value you bring to the table is only what you can provide for someone else - but this happens in all aspects of life if you give it some thought. A company, for instance, won't recruit someone they deem unfit for the job they are advertising, and will not pay these people much attention. They aren't relevant for the job. Similarly, a criminal for instance might be automatically excluded from even being considered based on their past actions.

I get the impression that sometimes both men and women are highly offended by not being desired by the people they wish to date based on the choices they've made - but if there's anything we actually should judge another person by, it's surely by their actions, which they are in control of themselves. Therefore, if you make a choice - any choice at all - which makes you less desirable to someone, and you get treated differently as a result, that's to be expected. In conclusion: So long as most men desires monogamous women, the rest will be seen as less valuable - but in the future, if the social paradigm shifts, it could turn into the exact opposite.

 

[TomTeacher19]

A long time friend of mine has had his marriage move into a place now where they are both poly. I talked to him and he explained it didn't mean he loved his wife any less, but that he was recognizing that he couldn't always meet 100% of her needs and would rather see them met than see her let down. He totally respects that some marriages do work as fully fulfilling for them both but many don't and achieving happiness should be the goal. Interesting.

 

[AnnyMouse28]

It is not my place to say what is right or wrong for someone else and their relationship(s). I just don't think I would be okay with my partner having intimate relations with another person. Nor would I want to.

If I am honest, it is so difficult to find one partner how in the heck to some find multiple?

 

[policywank]

Punishing in what way? See them as less valuable? From a strictly egocentric point of view; someone who is looking for monogamy would find less value in everyone who isn't looking for the same thing, because they are no longer suitable mates. Similarly, a person who wouldn't want to do a monogamous relationship should find these people as more valuable instead.

This is not illogical in any way, but the consequences of this is the interesting and quite scary part, because people tend to treat other people that they do not find appealing differently from the ones that they do find appealing. Objectively, your views and values on these matters obviously doesn't make you a better or a worse person - but subjectively, to an individual, these actions might move you into the "no longer interested" folder and you get treated accordingly, which many seem to take offense to. Understandably so, because it implies that some of the value you bring to the table is only what you can provide for someone else - but this happens in all aspects of life if you give it some thought. A company, for instance, won't recruit someone they deem unfit for the job they are advertising, and will not pay these people much attention. They aren't relevant for the job. Similarly, a criminal for instance might be automatically excluded from even being considered based on their past actions.

I get the impression that sometimes both men and women are highly offended by not being desired by the people they wish to date based on the choices they've made - but if there's anything we actually should judge another person by, it's surely by their actions, which they are in control of themselves. Therefore, if you make a choice - any choice at all - which makes you less desirable to someone, and you get treated differently as a result, that's to be expected. In conclusion: So long as most men desires monogamous women, the rest will be seen as less valuable - but in the future, if the social paradigm shifts, it could turn into the exact opposite.

I agree with what you are saying. There is nothing wrong with someone preferring monogamy with a partner who wants monogamy or preferring a partner with limited sexual experience. And it is natural that people will behave somewhat differently towards the prospective partners that they do regard as eligible and appealing.

But that is not what I am talking about when I say "punish". I am talking about the propensity to ostracize, shame, insult, judge and hurt women who don't comply with a traditional set of sexual values. And I was making the comment in the context of freedom. If we are all free then any man is free to reject a woman with too much sexual experience (whatever that means to him) and any woman is free to be as sexually adventurous as she wants without being harassed or punished.

 

[littlecordelera]

The whole idea behind monogamy is to make sure your spouse doesn't have more fun than you do.

 

[htobeme5]

It is not my place to say what is right or wrong for someone else and their relationship(s). I just don't think I would be okay with my partner having intimate relations with another person. Nor would I want to.

If I am honest, it is so difficult to find one partner how in the heck to some find multiple?

cool today, wearing a pull up depend panty and tights under jeans , while grocery shopping this morning.

 

[htobeme5]

if it is really good together, I prefer being with and inside her only. Love to bump the cervix.Mind if i wear expensive crotchless pantyhose with you?

 

[ctarrantella]

I can't imagine being with anyone else but my wife.
However, we have been in such a rut, I guess that's why I'm on here looking for answers.

 

[hanban24]

This seems to be a viable topic that I've seen mentioned in passing on a few threads. I wanted to open a discussion and see what opinions you all may have.

I have come to believe it is something that came about through necessity. Given the divorce rate is now above 75%, is the idea of having one mate for life still the ideal goal?

I may just be old fashioned but I’m big on monogamy. I’ve never had multiple lovers at once and don’t have a desire to. I prefer the emotional connection that comes with just being with whoever my partner is.

I think divorce has less to do with sex being boring, but more often with choosing the wrong partner or partners not putting the necessary work to make the relationship work. This can include sex, when one partner doesn’t try and meet the needs of their spouse.