Marriage...what does it mean this day and age?

[Guest]

What does "marriage" mean today? I'm married and unless my hearing failed me that day on the alter, I don't recall hearing the preist say "through sickness and In health and threesomes till death do us part".

I understand it's the 21st century, and an occansional 3some may spark a dull relationship. But I don't understand swingers. They claim to be "happily Married", while they screw multiple partners.
My question is: what does "married" actually mean these days?

For the record, I mean no disrespect to swingers.

sputnik

 

[Skitten]

I don't know about t he swingers and let them enjoy their own thing. I have been happily married for 12 years and what marrigae means to me is totally committed to that one special person. Also means when the tough gets going you work it out no matter what no give-up when you don't know what to do. I agree to a point with you about the three-somes but I guess everyone has their own thing. Just my opinion don't mean any harm .

 

[Renee]

I have to agree, marriage to me means being committed to one person. Although, you will have challenges along the way and rough times, you work it out together. Learn from that experience and move on to a deeper understanding of each other. How you can be happily married and say you are committed to each other as I have heard swinger on Real Sex say about their relationship is beyond me. If you are out there with more than one other person whether it be at one time or over periods of days and nights, then IMO you are not committed, and that's not a marriage.

 

[Growler145]

We're all individuals with different thought patterns so specific meanings would be revelant only to the individual concerned,,
Now if you'd asked "What is the present social view??" then it would depend on the generation and location because we are all products of our enviroment...It'd be like asking whats normal or sane?? I don't know if there is a baseline to form an opinion
from,,,What is it supposed to mean well from my point of view,frame of mind,phyilosphy
of life,,,It's commitment,loyality,respect and friendship,,,In this generation of moral decay---I couldn't begin to tell you.

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't recall hearing the preist say "through sickness and In health and threesomes till death do us part".

You left out the key phrase I think. “Forsaking all others”: I think that’s the key to your question. I initially passed on replying to this as it’s obviously a ‘different strokes for different folks” kind of situation.

They claim to be "happily Married", while they screw multiple partners.

sputnik


I think the answer you might be looking for is that they have different definitions of ‘forsaking all others’.

If you were to absolutely and without question, ‘forsake all others’ then the marriage vows would require that you and your spouse become hermits and associate with no one on any level.

I’m sure that you’re thinking that the marriage vow only pertains to ‘forsaking sex with all others”, but even that leaves room for drawing a line as to what is sex. I.e. masturbating your intern with a cigar isn’t sex.

Another way of looking at this question is the aspect of what makes a marriage work.

'Shared interests' is a one thing usually included in the answer to that question. So just which ‘shared interests’ are permitted, and which aren’t when it comes to ‘forsaking all others’?

Whether shared or not, the interests and needs of the spouse have to be considered if a marriage has a realistic chance of being ‘happy’. Where those interests and needs involve things like ‘a night bowling with the guys’ or ‘mixed league bowling’, ‘Mixed doubles tennis’, or similar ‘acceptable sports’ there is likely to be little disagreement that they need not be forsaken.

If however, a spouse has a sex drive that requires multiple partners for satisfaction, even with their mates consent there is bound to be aspersions cast if that need is catered to even occasionally.

That staple of erotic fiction, the woman who needs multiple penetrations to orgasm, probably doesn’t really exist. If she does, she’s rare. The standard interpretation of the marriage vows condemns such a woman to a life without sexual satisfaction.

The man who ‘needs’ variety is much more likely to be real. (Biological Imperatives etc.) He too is bound into a less than satisfactory sex life by the way mainstream society interprets the marriage vows.

Since polygamy and polyandry are illegal, swinging, adultery, or festering urges are the only options left.

I’m not a swinger, although I have been an adulterer, but I can see where others might define their marriage vows as ‘Forsaking emotional attachment to all others.’



[This message has been edited by Weird Harold (edited 03-07-2000).]

 

[Sammyjo]

Alright, by not being married, I'm sure I don't know anything about it. I say this:

When two people take marriage vows, those vows can and will be interpreted than another two people. What you say to your intended, may be the same "in words" as what I say to mine, but it may have a different meaning.

That said, when I get married, I plan on spending the rest of my life, with my husband. I do not intend for either of us to "stray" from the marital bed. I hope that our emotional needs will be met by each other, not needing to seek out someone to fill that void.

However, life is not perfect. People like to experiment with things like swinging, threesomes, homosexual sex, BDSM, or any of the other number of things we have or have not discussed on this board. I have had many sexual experiences, some of which my partner (whoever he is) may not have had. If he was eager to try something, such as a threesome, I wouldn't object. I think that people should be able to live out their fantasies, if they can. However, this would not be an everyday occurance. This would be playing out a fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. If my partner NEEDS to be with other people, then I am not good enough to satisfy him, which means we will NOT be together.

Now, there is always the off chance that we will both be so into our new lifestyle that we won't want to stop (yeah right!!) and if we were both totally comfortable with it, it could and probably would continue. That wouldn't mean that we don't love and respect each other, it would mean we had taken our relationship to a new level. *sidebar #1: this will never happen..LOL*

Basically what I am saying is that you make your marriage what you want it to be, and no one can tell you the RIGHT or WRONG way for you.

*sidebar #2: these are the views of sammyjo, they may not be used, broadcast, or changed without the express written consent of sammyjo. These may not be YOUR views, but they are hers. If you have an opinion differing from the esteemed sammyjo, that is fine, but do not deny her right to her own view.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

[Slut_boy]

These are my views. Please don't let this offend anybody: Hey will somebody please put a leash on Fake Name *laughs* I am sure that I'll pick up flack for the way I feel.

I try to walk the pragmatic path of life. I am a human, we all are humans. In order to regulate society (so that it may function adequately and effectively) people created institutions.Institutions were created to serve people. The law is one such institution, education another. Both marraige and religion are also institutions - which by their very definition render them man made.

Rituals like marraige ceremonies mean nothing to me. I don't need the state to intervene into my relationship with someone I love simply to caste a specific flavour to what it ought to be.

I doubt whether I will ever marry. My love for someone is uniquely mine. That person and I should be able to regulate the parameters of our relationship as we choose. I find it difficult to accept that when I love someone, and we get married, then society (in other words a collective someone else) now has the right to prescribe how we must love each other.

I have rejected institutions. I regard them as evil. The power imbalance has the pendulum swaying always against the individual who doesn't conform. It is not always good to conform simply because the majority of people do. As I said earlier, institutions were made to serve people - when people's needs change then so should the institutions change to accommdate this. This is growth - humanity is a living organism, ever changing as it might.

To answer your question then Sputnik: I believe that marraige is an archaic institution which has possibly outlived its purpose. I am sure that we, as humans, can define our love for another person independently - and without the involvement of parastatals like the law (to register the marraige) and the church (to perform the ritual) and public policy (to tell us what is right and what is wrong) and religion too.......

Thanks for listening. I know its controversial, but thats how I feel. My friends don't understand that I don't wanna do what everybody else does - I tell them that the fact that everybody else does something doesn't authenticate the act. Once again I am misunderstood and labelled a misfit. Do any of you see my point?

Thanks again,
Slut_boy.

[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 03-08-2000).]

 

[Laurel]

I doubt whether I will ever marry. My love for someone is uniquely mine. That person and
I should be able to regulate the parameters of our relationship as we choose. I find it
difficult to accept that when I love someone, and we get married, then society (in other
words a collective someone else) now has the right to prescribe how we must love each
other.

I believe that marraige is an archaic institution
which has possibly outlived its purpose. I am sure that we, as humans, can define our
love for another person independently - and without the involvement of parastatals like
the law (to register the marraige) and the church (to perform the ritual) and public policy
(to tell us what is right and what is wrong) and religion too.......

Amen and hallelujah... An example culled from today's headlines: it's illegal in my state for gays to marry. Yesterday, a rather nasty initiative passed that makes it so not only can gay couples not marry in California, but gay couples who marry in states where it's legal are not recognized as married if they come to California.

When I was younger and more naive, I thought there was a church marriage and a state marriage. The religious ceremony (should you choose to have one) bonded you by your faith, while the state bit was a legal action designed to protect both partners. Boy, was I wrong! There's no line... The state has basically proclaimed that gay couples do not have the right to legal protection, based on the Judeo-Christian ideal of one man and one woman, disregarding the fact that America is a soup of differing idealogical views. (Christian heritage aside, this country WAS created as a haven for all beliefs.)

Why not gays? To Protect the Sanctity of Marriage? If Manu and I were to marry, & he were to beat the crap out of me all day long, and we were both to lie cheat & steal to buy crack, it would still be considered a viable marriage. But a loving, considerate, monogamous gay couple does not have the same rights - should one of them die/need medical treatment/etc., his or her partner would have limited control and limited choices.

So, I agree with slut_boy. I was taught that marriage was a union of two people between love each other (the swinger thing is unimportant - if they both enjoy having sex with other people, are completely honest with each other, and don't love anyone else but each other, then cool for them. Not what I'd want for me, but this world is full of people unlike me, and I respect that). Where I live, marriage is a trite, archaic, exclusive, Christian custom that needs to be either redefined or scrapped altogether. Just my opinion, of course..

 

[Luci]

I have to agree that marriage is a bit useless. I have been married. And I have learned that a piece of paper from the state does not keep two people together, or enforce how kindly they should treat each other. I would not have any problem staying with one person for the rest of my life without that legal document. A commitment is in the heart.

 

[Laurel]

A commitment is in the heart.

Absolutely! If paper kept people together, then there'd be no divorce, eh? Marriage is a ancient custom developed to sanction sex between two people. My friend's grandparents are in their 80's and celebrated their sixtieth wedding anniversary last year. THAT'S love, and that love would exist with or without outside approval. If you truly love someone, then you can live with them forever and be happy. If you don't love each other, you can be married for years and suffer. I like the idea of marriage very much - people deciding to share life together - but I think the actuality of marriage is imperfect, and has been for years if not centuries.

Of course, I'm the child of two divorces, so I'm just a weentsy bit bitter...

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by Luci:
I have to agree that marriage is a bit useless.

I some respects and situations, it's worse than useless.

My mother is 75. She 'lives in sin' with her Boyfriend, because they can't afford the financial penalties if they were to marry. (social security, taxes, et al.)

 

[Slut_boy]

I was thinking about this topic some more. I reckon that marraige is probably the ultimate submission in a world of conformity. Not submission to your partner, but submission to the system, and to the reasonable expectations of the state vis-a-vis its subjects (for those reasons already given in my earlier posting).

It doesn't mean submission to a person that you love. Firstly because 'submission' ought not to be confused with 'commitment' and second because I don't believe that any one should submit to another in a relationship (that would imply an unequality of status).

 

[Arkane]

AQUOTE]Originally posted by slut_boy:

Rituals like marraige ceremonies mean nothing to me. I don't need the state to intervene into my relationship with someone I love simply to caste a specific flavour to what it ought to be.


I have rejected institutions. I regard them as evil. The power imbalance has the pendulum swaying always against the individual who doesn't conform. It is not always good to conform simply because the majority of people do. As I said earlier, institutions were made to serve people - when people's needs change then so should the institutions change to accommdate this. This is growth - humanity is a living organism, ever changing as it might.

To answer your question then Sputnik: I believe that marraige is an archaic institution which has possibly outlived its purpose. I am sure that we, as humans, can define our love for another person independently - and without the involvement of parastatals like the law (to register the marraige) and the church (to perform the ritual) and public policy (to tell us what is right and what is wrong) and religion too.......

B][/QUOTE]

Bravissimo Slut_boy, well said well said... I also think think that institutions are an archaic way for the "hirearchy" to keep tabs on the rest of us. Although, I have been married for some time...I did that for her piece of mind more than my own....this was something that she needed closure on not me. Does that make me a hypocrite, quite possibly, but I did it for my lady and there is no other reason. So, in that vein, I take the vows I recited that day very seriously....but, I cannot and willnot judge anyone elses interpretation or ignoring those...As humans we must be comfortable with our lives and ourselves....to do that we have to adapt ourselves and our lives to what we want them to be....


Arkane


[This message has been edited by Arkane (edited 03-10-2000).]

 

[Slut_boy]

Hi Arkane,

I don't think that you are being a hypocrite at all by getting married. A compromise can very often reflect as a 'strength' in your character and far less as a 'weakness'. Love requires compromise. It sometimes means doing things that you may not otherwise have done but for the realization that it means a lot to her. That kind of sacrifice takes strength - you are most certainly not a hypocrite in my eyes.

Very often, I think, the weakness is not in the compromise but rather in the stuborness of refusing to compromise - if that makes sense.

[This message has been edited by slut_boy (edited 03-10-2000).]