Fulfilling Needs....

[GrnEyedGrl]

I am looking for an entertaining discussion on a topic that hubby and I have discussed recently. I'm interested to see other people's reactions...

In society, it is acceptable human nature to have many people in our lives that fulfill a variety of emotional needs. We have family to support us in our times of need, friends to laugh with and enjoy certain hobbies and interests, sometimes we have a church family that supports us emotionally, etc. A lot of people DEPEND on these people in their lives to fulfill a variety of emotional needs.

However, in typical society (not necessarily the audience here....) it is "taboo" to think of multiple people fulfilling our sexual or physical needs. How many other people out there just think that line of thinking is seriously flawed? I find it very hard to imagine that there is any ONE person in this universe that can fulfill every single physical and sexual need we have as humans.

So, why is it socially acceptable to have multiple people fulfill emotional needs, but socially unacceptable to have multiple people fulfill sexual needs? Seems screwy to me....

Thoughts?

(interesting, respectable discussion only, please.....)

 

[JRaven]

You make a good point. Even in an open marriage, only the husband and wife accept having multiple people provide sexual needs. Society in general does not. I think your best line of research might be to look into why monogamy was developed in the first place. (I think it was an insecure male thing.)

Until society figures out that love, honesty, and trust makes for a better marriage than monogamy, divorce rates will be high and many more people will live in unfulfilled marriages.

Jenny

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

You make a good point. Even in an open marriage, only the husband and wife accept having multiple people provide sexual needs. Society in general does not. I think your best line of research might be to look into why monogamy was developed in the first place. (I think it was an insecure male thing.)

Until society figures out that love, honesty, and trust makes for a better marriage than monogamy, divorce rates will be high and many more people will live in unfulfilled marriages.

Jenny

Couldn't have said that better myself.... I have often thought that people by nature are not monogamous. Unfortunately, I don't beleive society will ever figure it out, so I guess it's up to us to make the decisions. Unfortunately, again, many couples can not agree on an open marriage because jealousy, too, is human nature. Hmmm....

 

[infinity706]

I think it's mostly just a good system for taking advantage of people. Having a monopoly on something always gives you the most power.

 

[smallgirl]

i know what you are saying. i hear others(not on here) talk about people who "swing". they are really put down. i dont understand that. im old school where i think most of society still think its ok for men to have multiple partners while it means the woman is slutty. i know here, where i live in small town america, this is the case. i dont agree with this.
i get bored, sexually, very quickly. being with one man, for the rest of my life is just not an option for me.

 

[frostyred]

It's my understanding that monogamy as a default in dating or in a marriage is a construct of recent Christianity (last 100 years, or so). I don't have facts to back that up, but that's the word on the street among my local polyamorous (many loves) crew.

There are communities of like minded people all over the world. Here in Chicago, the poly group is pretty active. We have potlucks, a book club, support groups, a yahoo group for info and activity planning, and recently began a monthly cocktail hour. It's great to network, and just hang with people who don't get whiplash when I say something like, "One of my boyfriend's wives said........"

Until more of us polyamorous types are out to friends, family and the public at large, the rest of the population is not likely to accept it as a lifestyle/lovestyle. I've heard people say "poly is the new gay," but I don't think we can really claim that kind of hardship. One thing I do know is that marriage between more than two people isn't likely to ever be legal... lol.

If you (or anyone else here) want links, or book suggestions, send me a PM.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, frostyred!

 

[mentionME]

It's my understanding that monogamy as a default in dating or in a marriage is a construct of recent Christianity (last 100 years, or so). I don't have facts to back that up, but that's the word on the street among my local polyamorous (many loves) crew.

There are communities of like minded people all over the world. Here in Chicago, the poly group is pretty active. We have potlucks, a book club, support groups, a yahoo group for info and activity planning, and recently began a monthly cocktail hour. It's great to network, and just hang with people who don't get whiplash when I say something like, "One of my boyfriend's wives said........"

Until more of us polyamorous types are out to friends, family and the public at large, the rest of the population is not likely to accept it as a lifestyle/lovestyle. I've heard people say "poly is the new gay," but I don't think we can really claim that kind of hardship. One thing I do know is that marriage between more than two people isn't likely to ever be legal... lol.

If you (or anyone else here) want links, or book suggestions, send me a PM.

agreed. if i remember correctly from hs pre-christianity it was generally accepted to have multiple partners. I think homosexuality/ same-sex relations was generally ok as well.*

cant really remember


*i put the homosexuality/same-sex relations, however i dont think people were concerned with homosexuality so much as enjoying themselves. *shrugs*

 

[frostyred]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, frostyred!

Any time.

 

[kaycee217]

I am looking for an entertaining discussion on a topic that hubby and I have discussed recently. I'm interested to see other people's reactions...

In society, it is acceptable human nature to have many people in our lives that fulfill a variety of emotional needs. We have family to support us in our times of need, friends to laugh with and enjoy certain hobbies and interests, sometimes we have a church family that supports us emotionally, etc. A lot of people DEPEND on these people in their lives to fulfill a variety of emotional needs.

However, in typical society (not necessarily the audience here....) it is "taboo" to think of multiple people fulfilling our sexual or physical needs. How many other people out there just think that line of thinking is seriously flawed? I find it very hard to imagine that there is any ONE person in this universe that can fulfill every single physical and sexual need we have as humans.

So, why is it socially acceptable to have multiple people fulfill emotional needs, but socially unacceptable to have multiple people fulfill sexual needs? Seems screwy to me....

Thoughts?

(interesting, respectable discussion only, please.....)

Because society is stubborn, prude, and filled with people who do things, not because it's the right thing to do (it makes logical sense), but because "that's how we've always done it."

As long as the proper precautions are taken, I find it perfectly acceptable to have multiple people satisfying multiple sexual needs.

I think sexual monogamy can serve a practical purpose, but at least in principal, there's never a reason to say sexual promiscuity is inherently wrong.

 

[fireymatt]

Who knows what the future will bring us as far as a society goes. Remember it wasn't really all that long ago we burned 'witches' at the stake. I think if we went through the ages we would find alot of 'silly ideals'.... and this might just be one of them.
I think marriage came to be as a sharing of resources a longtime ago. People were not that well off and getting together to share was a great way of making sure you had enough to survive. Men want sex... women want love/companionship (yes, i know you want sex to!)
Look how many times you see marriages fail as the one of the spouses 'upgrades' ... or so they think..
It would be great to have a society where you could get/recieve what you want ... when you want... and not hurt anyone in the process. I think maybe the Greeks/Romans were close to that 'free love' society.... but those empires failed to....

who knows!??

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Who knows what the future will bring us as far as a society goes. Remember it wasn't really all that long ago we burned 'witches' at the stake. I think if we went through the ages we would find alot of 'silly ideals'.... and this might just be one of them.
I think marriage came to be as a sharing of resources a longtime ago. People were not that well off and getting together to share was a great way of making sure you had enough to survive. Men want sex... women want love/companionship (yes, i know you want sex to!)
Look how many times you see marriages fail as the one of the spouses 'upgrades' ... or so they think..
It would be great to have a society where you could get/recieve what you want ... when you want... and not hurt anyone in the process. I think maybe the Greeks/Romans were close to that 'free love' society.... but those empires failed to....

who knows!??

Very thoughtful response! Thank you!

 

[OzoneRed]

Define "need". As opposed to "want".

 

[fireymatt]

Very thoughtful response! Thank you!

Your welcome.... its just an opinion....

 

[RedheadedHaze]

Interesting to find this post today...

I just finished writing a Sociology paper on deviant paper/polyamory. It is getting a lot more attention these days; one of my sources was an article published in Newsweek this past July. Sadly, many people still confuse it w/ Mormon based polygamy. It isn't anything remotely like that.

I've had this discussion quite a bit w/ another friend of mine in terms of marriages/long term relationships and we've come to the conclusion that the entity of marriage, as it currently exists, meets very few realistic needs at this point in society. Hundreds of years ago, people said "til death do us part", but remember, they only lived to their 30's or 40's max. People got married for dif't reasons than they do nowadays. And, as he pointed out, it's the last remaining contract that one enters where there's no opportunity to re-negotiate the terms at any point. Madness, I say. This isn't to say that I disagree with marriage as a whole; rather, I believe that everyone is entitled to a new set of ground rules on what works for them. I shirk traditionalism in this instance.

In any event, here's the closing paragraph from my paper, if you're so inclined to read it.


"Considering the current divorce rate and how many relationships fail due to a lack of honesty and open communication, who is to say that this type of currently dog-eared deviant behavior isn’t paving the path for a new cultural norm? What person in a long-term relationship hasn’t struggled with the age-old question: Can one person really satisfy every need? Durkheim noted that the death of Socrates paved the way for intellectual freedom. Much of the civil and human rights legislation, as well as public sentiment, has been influenced by those whose behaviors and actions were originally judged to be in violation of societal law or social convention. Perhaps this is perfect evidence as to how polyamory, while under considerable public, sociological and psychological scrutiny now, could become an accepted social norm over time as a solution or evolution to the issues surrounding traditional monogamy (i.e. cheating, extramarital affairs, divorce). In conclusion, today’s deviance or crime could very well be tomorrow’s accepted behavior."

Cheers,

~Red

 

[Berwyn]

I think for a lot of people it's a trust issue. For many people, male and female, they can only have a sexual connection with someone that they trust deeply. These days, where children are taught from toddler years that every stranger is a mass murdering psychopath, I think true trust is becoming scarce. People are being raised to be risk averse, and trusting your partner enough to let them have a relationship/sex with someone else is seen as a huge risk, hence all the jealousy.

 

[kaycee217]

I think for a lot of people it's a trust issue. For many people, male and female, they can only have a sexual connection with someone that they trust deeply. These days, where children are taught from toddler years that every stranger is a mass murdering psychopath, I think true trust is becoming scarce. People are being raised to be risk averse, and trusting your partner enough to let them have a relationship/sex with someone else is seen as a huge risk, hence all the jealousy.

What risks are we referring to here, emotional risks or physiological risks?

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

Define "need". As opposed to "want".

Why should I have to? It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a need or a want. Furthermore, what I view as a need, others may not.

In recent years, I've discovered that it doesn't really matter what I need or what I want, what matters is that I am happy and satisfied in my life. I refuse to settle anymore. I refuse to live unfulfilled because someone else doesn't value a need that I have the same way that I do. Call it selfish if you want. After you've been through what I've been through, you learn to be selfish in order to be happy.

 

[kaycee217]

Why should I have to? It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a need or a want. Furthermore, what I view as a need, others may not.

In recent years, I've discovered that it doesn't really matter what I need or what I want, what matters is that I am happy and satisfied in my life. I refuse to settle anymore. I refuse to live unfulfilled because someone else doesn't value a need that I have the same way that I do. Call it selfish if you want. After you've been through what I've been through, you learn to be selfish in order to be happy.

I think it depends on what's unfulfilled. What kind of unfulfilled desires are we talking about here? Maybe this is what the previous poster was alluding to when asking you the difference between need or want.

 

[fireymatt]

Why should I have to? It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a need or a want. Furthermore, what I view as a need, others may not.

In recent years, I've discovered that it doesn't really matter what I need or what I want, what matters is that I am happy and satisfied in my life. I refuse to settle anymore. I refuse to live unfulfilled because someone else doesn't value a need that I have the same way that I do. Call it selfish if you want. After you've been through what I've been through, you learn to be selfish in order to be happy.

Well spoken! I like the last sentence except i would change "be happy" with "survive". People will mistake you for being selfish or bitchy or whatever... fact is, they are probably jealous that you are a free spirit and living the life YOU want..
Not knowing what you went through, i would still say ... good for you... for going after what you want.

 

[frostyred]

Why should I have to? It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a need or a want. Furthermore, what I view as a need, others may not.

In recent years, I've discovered that it doesn't really matter what I need or what I want, what matters is that I am happy and satisfied in my life. I refuse to settle anymore. I refuse to live unfulfilled because someone else doesn't value a need that I have the same way that I do. Call it selfish if you want. After you've been through what I've been through, you learn to be selfish in order to be happy.

Awesomeness. And I agree with fireymatt.

 

[GrnEyedGrl]

I think it depends on what's unfulfilled. What kind of unfulfilled desires are we talking about here? Maybe this is what the previous poster was alluding to when asking you the difference between need or want.

Again, does it matter? It could be anything that makes me feel fulfilled. It could be as simple as being touched more, to having a completely different sexual partner. If I feel as if there is something missing in my life, that I need, want, desire, crave, (call it what you will), then why is it so wrong to find someone to fulfill that need?

 

[RedheadedHaze]

Again, does it matter? It could be anything that makes me feel fulfilled. It could be as simple as being touched more, to having a completely different sexual partner. If I feel as if there is something missing in my life, that I need, want, desire, crave, (call it what you will), then why is it so wrong to find someone to fulfill that need?

You have my full support, sista'.

Do whatcha' gotta' do, I say.

 

[coastal-boy]

Define "need". As opposed to "want".

Why should I have to? It doesn't really matter whether or not it is a need or a want. Furthermore, what I view as a need, others may not.

In recent years, I've discovered that it doesn't really matter what I need or what I want, what matters is that I am happy and satisfied in my life. I refuse to settle anymore. I refuse to live unfulfilled because someone else doesn't value a need that I have the same way that I do. Call it selfish if you want. After you've been through what I've been through, you learn to be selfish in order to be happy.

I actually think OzoneRed asked a great question. You seem to think it doesn't matter. I disagree. I agree with you that it doesn't matter to the individuals involved, but when you start asking about why a "society has a specific opinion", then I do, especially if society sees a difference between the two and that is the reason for its opinion.

 

[CWatson]

It's my understanding that monogamy as a default in dating or in a marriage is a construct of recent Christianity (last 100 years, or so). I don't have facts to back that up, but that's the word on the street among my local polyamorous (many loves) crew.

It may have started a lot earlier than that, with the Hebrew Torah. Remember the 1st of the Ten Commandments? "I am the LORD thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." I repeat: Before me. YHWH wasn't saying you couldn't worship other deities, only that He had to come first--a not-ridiculous demand, when you consider the covenant He was entering into with the tribes of Israel. The whole point was for God to put Abraham and his seed first on His priority list, and for the Hebrews to do the same. It was also so that this special relationship with God would become part of the Hebrew cultural identity. "I'm a Hebrew. That means, amongst other things, that I: keep holy the Sabbath, was circumcized at birth, and I'm on first-term basis with a god called YHWH. (If only I knew how to pronounce His name!...)" I don't recall where I heard this, but if I recall correctly, one of my history professors in college suggested that the monogamy thing was another attempt to do the same.

Now, as to sexual fidelity, there are certain advantages to that, best highlighted by the Greco/Roman culture which is so influential on both Western and Christian thought. In Hellenic times, back when Zeus still ruled Greece and Jesus of Nazareth was still a gleam in YHWH's eye, the family unit was called an oikos and it served as the basic financial unit of city-state society. I repeat: it was the basic economic unit. "The consumer" was an oikos, which itself was: a man, his wife, their children, and all their property (land, possessions, money and slaves). Marriages were much more about business than love; you wed someone because she came from an oikos you wanted to get close to, not because you necessarily loved her. (Incidentally, just because a marriage is made for reasons other than love, that doesn't mean love can't still happen. But I digress.) And if your wife bore you any children, it was your responsibility--yours alone--to feed, shelter, clothe, train and (for daughters) dower them. Paternity suits? Forget it.

With that in mind, imagine why a husband might prefer his wife to not have children that weren't his. Hellenic culture just amplified the issue by painting a cuckolded husband as the biggest sort of pussy it was possible to be, and by portraying women much the same way we think of men today: endlessly horny and basically out of control. Long story short, sexual fidelity was encouraged for the same reasons Athenian women weren't allowed outside without a male guardian, and why Islamic women aren't allowed outside without every possible inch of skin covered: so that you, the husband, wouldn't have to raise someone else's children.

Also remember that, as to fulfilling needs, the average Hellenic male had a lot of options. To quote Demosthenes, "We have hetaerae for pleasure, pallakae to care for our daily body’s needs and gynaekes to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” In other words: Want kids? Sleep with your wife. Want love? Sleep with a courtesan. Want doggy-style? Find a prostitute. Most world cultures, historically, have had similar outlets for (male) sexuality--yes, even the notoriously-repressive Victorian England. The idea of a single spouse fulfilling all these needs arose somewhat later, and for reasons I personally haven't learned. (Hmm, time to do some historical research...)

Now that DNA tests exist, this little piece of culture--"Enforce monogamy, and downplay female sexuality, to prevent having to send a bastard to college"--is basically obsolete. But it always takes customs a hundred years or so to catch up to technology. We, who live during that hundred years, will just have to live with it. And, come to think of it, so will our children, at least until STDs are conquered (another good reason for sexual fidelity, even today). But hey: the movement already started, some time during the 60s. Some day it'll be completed.