Men- explain yourselves

[Guest]

The language may be different, but the dance is the same.

That's a mixed metaphor. Just being picky.

Perdita

 

[NoJo]

That's a mixed metaphor. Just being picky.

Perdita

oo pick me, pick me

 

[Guest]

oo pick me, pick me

Yuk, begging turns me off.

 

[shereads]

Could always go back to the way we used to do it:

A man married into his wife's clan. Any children resulting also belonged to that clan (not necessarily her). When one or the other had had enough, he simply left, or she packed his things, and set them outside. No hard feelings.

I like that.

Wait a second. Are you saying I'd still be living at home with my clan? Yikes!

 

[shereads]

I don't know what is meant by a "marriage-like institution"

'
Under my plan, there wouldn't be a lockbox.



(There might be one for social security, but not for lovers who want to share a home and family.)

There would be a legal contract that outlines the sharing of property and other financial and legal benefits that we associate with marriage.

The 'marriage vow' would be one that has a realistic chance of being fulfilled by most men and most women, even after they grow up and realize that she likes girls and he wants to wear her nightgowns. Hey, that doesn't mean you can't still love each other and the kids, right?

A sample vow:

"I promise to respect your feelings and be honest about my own. No matter what."

Translation:

"If I develop a fetish for clown sex, and bring home a red nose and floppy shoes and start hinting that you'd look cute in them, don't be scared. You don't have to wear them. You don't even have to watch. I respect your feelings, as you promise to respect the sexual fling I'm likely to have if I can find the right clown.

"I won't love you any less. When I snap out of it, I want you to be the one I'm with when I start laughing. What a great story it'll make for our grandkids."

Then we pronounce them man and wife.

It can be even simpler than that if the details are left out of the service.

 

[shereads]

Women tend to justify flings by pleading love.

And men plead love to achieve flings.

 

[Norajane]

doc said,

I wonder why we don't reverse the question and ask: Why do woman not cheat? Why have we let the female idea of lifelong monogamy become the ideal when divorce statistics suggest it doesn't seem to work for most people?

Why do we assume that monogamy is morally right and polyamory morally wrong?

cloudy points to 'man bashing.'

the terms of the debate are skewed. totally exclusive monogamy is not written in stone by god. it's rare and only exists where society has fearsome backups for it.

the 'exclusive male' whose praises are sung by woodnymph, is a rare duck. any list of admirable male persons will be dominated by NON exclusive ones--I challenge her to prove otherwise. (see the doc's point about the 'best genes.) indeed, given a choice, women will chose the quality, non exclusive male most of the time, over 'exclusive' wimp or prig. Women: Who do you want, Martin King, or George W (or Sr.)? FDR or Richard Nixon? Churchill, or Pope John Paul or Benedict?

biology is the key, as the doc says. a man is likely to take a fuck that's offered.

why that is 'cheating,' has not been made clear or established. (the deeper sorts of infidelity of the heart are ignored).

I wouldn't say, however, 'why do women not cheat'-- we know at least a quarter of married women do and have (compared to more than half the men). as doc says, biology doesn't dictate female monogamy either: watch the talk shows where childrens DNA is compared to hubby's!

We might ask, however, why control of 'cheating' is such an obsession with some women. AND why they take promises about this as 'good as gold.' Any halfwit cluck is going to 'take the pledge' if the payoffs are set. It always amazes me that women, in this age, possibly a majority, believe they can improve their position by securing a marriage--a promise and a document.

why is that, nora?

Well, I certainly can't speak for all women or all of society!

But, hell and damn, I'm appalled to hear that people on this forum aren't so concerned about the promises made to their partners when they get married!!

You always hear that successful marriages are based on communication, trust, respect, loyalty, honesty. Cheating busts all of those key elements to hell. The lying, the withholding of truth, the sneaking around, the disloyalty of being intimate with someone else while your trusting spouse has no idea, STD's, and the incredible disrespect to your partner - cheating when you KNOW your partner will be devasted to find out about it...that's why I am obsessed with fidelity in a marriage. It's important to my sense of trust and comfort with the person I'm making myself vulnerable with by opening up myself, and vice versa.

Next: I thoroughly disagree that the exclusive male is a rare duck. That's bullshit! And all that business about monkey non-monogamy is a cop out! Human beings have the capacity to be monogomous; we are thinking animals and not solely driven to act on instincts, if for no other reason than we are capable of love and reason. Cheating is not a loving act toward your spouse. It is anti-loving. Our brains are capable of overriding our instints.

If you personally aren't the monogomous kind, you either find someone who agrees and is willing to commit to an open marriage, or you don't get married, period.

Why is the marriage vow or promise of fidelity good as gold? Apparently, it's not.

As for how marriage improves our position, the promise and the contract - it's a commitment to each other, and it matters on a personal level, and never mind the financial and legal benefits. Does personal commitment really mean nothing to people anymore? I don't believe it.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, I certainly can't speak for all women or all of society!

But, hell and damn, I'm appalled to hear that people on this forum aren't so concerned about the promises made to their partners when they get married!!

You always hear that successful marriages are based on communication, trust, respect, loyalty, honesty. Cheating busts all of those key elements to hell. The lying, the withholding of truth, the sneaking around, the disloyalty of being intimate with someone else while your trusting spouse has no idea, STD's, and the incredible disrespect to your partner - cheating when you KNOW your partner will be devasted to find out about it...that's why I am obsessed with fidelity in a marriage. It's important to my sense of trust and comfort with the person I'm making myself vulnerable with by opening up myself, and vice versa.

Next: I thoroughly disagree that the exclusive male is a rare duck. That's bullshit! And all that business about monkey non-monogamy is a cop out! Human beings have the capacity to be monogomous; we are thinking animals and not solely driven to act on instincts, if for no other reason than we are capable of love and reason. Cheating is not a loving act toward your spouse. It is anti-loving. Our brains are capable of overriding our instints.

If you personally aren't the monogomous kind, you either find someone who agrees and is willing to commit to an open marriage, or you don't get married, period.

Why is the marriage vow or promise of fidelity good as gold? Apparently, it's not.

As for how marriage improves our position, the promise and the contract - it's a commitment to each other, and it matters on a personal level, and never mind the financial and legal benefits. Does personal commitment really mean nothing to people anymore? I don't believe it.

Nicely said, NoraJane.

It boils down to choices and acting on those choices. Cheating will, in my opinion, only end up hurting at least three people; the cheater, the person they cheat on and the person they cheat with. More, if kids or another SO are involved.

I've never understood how people can hurt one another so easily.

 

[Stella_Omega]

... which is why we were very very careful about our wedding vows- we promised to love and honor each other, and stay friends.. I'd have to go back and find them. But we never, ever promised to remain monogamists.

We've had an open marriage for part of the time, and closed at other times. I've had more outside flings than he has. It's just his way, and mine. He's gotten hurt by my being too interested in someone else once in a while. I never have. When he tells me- and that took some training, to get him to understand that he could and should- I stop that affair. He is more important to me- our family, the business we share- and I couldn't imagine anyone else that I could have stayed friends with this long. No man or woman.

We've been together almost thirty years.

 

[Pure]

Hi Nora,

You said, in part,

Next: I thoroughly disagree that the exclusive male is a rare duck. That's bullshit!

Post a list of 10 well known, accomplished ones (preferably those for whom we have biographies)! (Aside from the Bush Sr. and Jr.)

And all that business about monkey non-monogamy is a cop out!

I didn't mention it.

Human beings have the capacity to be monogamous;

they have a capacity to be serial killiers, .... or to be celibate

we are thinking animals and not solely driven to act on instincts, if for no other reason than we are capable of love and reason.

we tend to 'fall in love' with whom we find attractive: love is guided by instinct.

Cheating is not a loving act toward your spouse.

As Sher mentioned (as I read her) withdrawing from sex with spouse is not loving either.

It is anti-loving. Our brains are capable of overriding our instincts.

Yes, the Brain can rule; it's much like dieting; you can lose 10 lbs or even a 100 lbs. That's the 'will' (what you call 'brain') overcoming bodily desires.

Most then gain it back. That's the instinct, the body. Triumphant.

---
PS. I don't oppose two people making a 'committment.' I'm just pointing out that the present marriage vows--often sought by women--
love for eternity and monogamy are highly unrealistic for 3/4 of those making them. Everyone attending a wedding these days, knows that 'till death do us part' is going to mean, in many cases, no more than 5 years.

 

[NoJo]

... which is why we were very very careful about our wedding vows- we promised to love and honor each other, and stay friends.. I'd have to go back and find them. But we never, ever promised to remain monogamists.

We've had an open marriage for part of the time, and closed at other times. I've had more outside flings than he has. It's just his way, and mine. He's gotten hurt by my being too interested in someone else once in a while. I never have. When he tells me- and that took some training, to get him to understand that he could and should- I stop that affair. He is more important to me- our family, the business we share- and I couldn't imagine anyone else that I could have stayed friends with this long. No man or woman.

We've been together almost thirty years.

It's awfully hard to separate love and jealousy, and I don't pretend to have ever come close to achieving that separation, the way you seem to have, except by actual separation.

 

[shereads]

It boils down to choices and acting on those choices. Cheating will, in my opinion, only end up hurting at least three people; the cheater, the person they cheat on and the person they cheat with. More, if kids or another SO are involved.

I've never understood how people can hurt one another so easily.

First of all, you and Nora are assuming that it is easy.

Getting married is easy and fun and such a grown-up thing to do. When we're young and not as mature as we think we are, some people get tattoos. Others take marriage vows, fully intending to honor them. Then we grow up, or we find that our partners aren't who we thought they were.

What would you do? Serve out your life sentence with grace and fortitude?

I spent years secretly regretting my marriage, convinced that I was trapped in it for the rest of my life because I would never betray my vows. The finality of what I had committed myself to - a life without passion, as his asexual companion - felt like being buried alive.

Easy? Not so much.

 

[shereads]

... which is why we were very very careful about our wedding vows- we promised to love and honor each other, and stay friends.. I'd have to go back and find them. But we never, ever promised to remain monogamists.

We've had an open marriage for part of the time, and closed at other times. I've had more outside flings than he has. It's just his way, and mine. He's gotten hurt by my being too interested in someone else once in a while. I never have. When he tells me- and that took some training, to get him to understand that he could and should- I stop that affair. He is more important to me- our family, the business we share- and I couldn't imagine anyone else that I could have stayed friends with this long. No man or woman.

We've been together almost thirty years.

I envy you. That's exactly what I meant when I wished for a 'marriage-like' institution.

When I remember my ex, I miss the friendship we might have had - maybe forever - if our commitment had been to sharing a home and companionship, witout sexual monogamy as a deal-breaker. I'd have happily watched Benny Hill to make him happy, when I got home from my date.

I'm as jealous as anyone when I'm in love. But jealousy isn't about love; it's about insecurity, and the compulsion to have exclusive possession of property and partners.

How many borders and fences have to be fought over, blown up or dismantled by divorce lawyers before we evolve beyond jealousy?


EDITED to add: Men, the idea that marital monogamy was invented by women is historic revisionism (aka 'Intelligent History'). It may be true in 2006 that more women than men want monogamous marriages. But it's hard to believe that every married man in the western world was bullied into it by his bride. Puh-leeze!

There's plenty of evidence in the developing world that marital monogamy is a male invention. Brides are sold and bartered like cattle whose job is to breed sons. To assure that no one else's DNA corrupts the purity of the line, monogamy is mandatory for wives.

So what if modern women have enough clout to ask for mutual monogamy as a condition of begatting little You, Jr? That doesn't mean the whole thing was our idea. Without the threat of public stoning, monogamy doesn't seem to work very well for either sex.

 

[impressive]

... which is why we were very very careful about our wedding vows- we promised to love and honor each other, and stay friends.. I'd have to go back and find them. But we never, ever promised to remain monogamists.

IMO, this is the crux. Too many marriages begin with the template vows by default -- including, unfortunately, mine (with minor tweaking -- no "obey" -- uh uh, no way). Hey, I was young & idealistic & determined to "settle down" before I wound up dead.

It is difficult and often painful to redefine those expectations down the road. If there is honesty & respect, there's a chance. However, would it not be better to get it all on the table from the get-go -- with the understanding that growth/change may require you to revisit the agreement from time to time?

When taking such a big step, I would think (hope) that we'd have the sense to make sure we were at least on the same page. Unfortunately, that's often difficult to see through the cataracts of mushy-gushy lovey-dovey you're-my-oxygen possessiveness.

I've always favored a more "contractual" approach to marriage -- with a fixed term for renegotiation. Let's be practical, eh? Then, when the initial giddiness fades, there might actually be something to build on.

 

[angela146]

In a polyamorous society, my chances of getting into a relationship would go from very low to effectively nil.

I don't get this...

The competition is easier. With polyamory, you can have multiple relationships, each of them giving you *some* of what you need. You don't have to "win". You get laid even if you come in third place.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. I guess I'll reiterate my perspective one last time. And then no more from me.

It's a question of value. And value is heavily influenced by availability.

It's been 16 years since I was last in a relationship. That was my first real relationship. I do not expect to ever be in a relationship again in all honesty. I don't really have the skills to start and maintain one. And by 99.99% of women's opinions I'm not much of a catch.

So, if by chance, I do get into a relationship again I am not going to risk it by fucking around. It's too likely to implode and I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt and pain of knowing it was my fault.

To those of you who are fortunate enough to have the skills and traits required to start relationships with a fair bit of ease, cheating is likely to be less of a concern. You know there will be another relationship sometime down the road. So you have less to risk.

Or so you tell yourselves.

That's it. I have no more to say.

 

[impressive]

Shrugs. I guess I'll reiterate my perspective one last time. And then no more from me.

It's a question of value. And value is heavily influenced by availability.

It's been 16 years since I was last in a relationship. That was my first real relationship. I do not expect to ever be in a relationship again in all honesty. I don't really have the skills to start and maintain one. And by 99.99% of women's opinions I'm not much of a catch.

So, if by chance, I do get into a relationship again I am not going to risk it by fucking around. It's too likely to implode and I wouldn't be able to live with the guilt and pain of knowing it was my fault.

To those of you who are fortunate enough to have the skills and traits required to start relationships with a fair bit of ease, cheating is likely to be less of a concern. You know there will be another relationship sometime down the road. So you have less to risk.

Or so you tell yourselves.

That's it. I have no more to say.

Supply & demand, Rob? Love isn't a finite commodity.

 

[hugo_sam]

Reading this thread has raised one question for me (more than one but one central)
As I understand what seems to be the 'position' held by the majority of the posters is that:
Men who seek and find a relationship with another women outside of marraige are cheaters and therefore scum. (unless an 'open' arraingement is there by proir mutual consent)
I can understand and do not argue or disagree with this point.

Women who seek and find a relatiionship of another man outside of marraige are cheaters, but are driven by 'needs' that should be fulfilled.
I can understand this as well through the cheaters part, until the modifier

Women who seek and find a relationship with another woman outside of marraige as expanding themselves and/or exploring and should be supported completely..

Somehow I fail to see the difference between the three senarios beyond the sameness of the gender.
Maybe I am missing something?

 

[shereads]

Reading this thread has raised one question for me (more than one but one central)
As I understand what seems to be the 'position' held by the majority of the posters is that:
Men who seek and find a relationship with another women outside of marraige are cheaters and therefore scum. (unless an 'open' arraingement is there by proir mutual consent)
I can understand and do not argue or disagree with this point.

Women who seek and find a relatiionship of another man outside of marraige are cheaters, but are driven by 'needs' that should be fulfilled.
I can understand this as well through the cheaters part, until the modifier

Women who seek and find a relationship with another woman outside of marraige as expanding themselves and/or exploring and should be supported completely..

Somehow I fail to see the difference between the three senarios beyond the sameness of the gender.
Maybe I am missing something?

Or maybe you're reading something I'm missing. Did someone actually make a moral distinction between 'cheating' by women and 'cheating' by men?

It goes without saying that some people of both sexes cheat with untroubled glee. Others are driven by 'unfulfilled needs' that are painfully real. With or without the little quote marks.

Some spouses of both sexes never stray for any reason - and still make lousy partners. There are lots of creative ways to make your loved ones pay for your misery and frustration, and still applaud yourself for being faithful.

Scum reproduces asexually.

 

[impressive]

Some spouses of both sexes never stray for any reason - and still make lousy partners. There are lots of creative ways to make your loved ones pay for your misery and frustration, and still applaud yourself for being faithful.

Amen.

 

[hugo_sam]

Or maybe you're reading something I'm missing. Did someone actually make a moral distinction between 'cheating' by women and 'cheating' by men?

It goes without saying that some of people of both sexes cheat with untroubled glee. Others are driven by 'unfulfilled needs' that are painfully real. With or without the little quote marks.

Some spouses of both sexes never stray for any reason - and still make lousy partners. There are lots of creative ways to make your loved ones pay for your misery and frustration, and still applaud yourself for being faithful.

Scum reproduces asexually.

I was highlighting the word, not saying that needs are not real.

I do resent the strong implication of your post that indicates that I am "Scum reproduces asexually"
unless it as a generalization of the entire gender and not me personally. Of course I resent that as well.

 

[NoJo]

Amen.

Yep, And awomen too.

 

[Belegon]

I do resent the strong implication of your post that indicates that I am "Scum reproduces asexually"
unless it as a generalization of the entire gender and not me personally. Of course I resent that as well.

Bear, when I read it I instantly connected it with the preceding lines:
Some spouses of both sexes never stray for any reason - and still make lousy partners. There are lots of creative ways to make your loved ones pay for your misery and frustration, and still applaud yourself for being faithful.

I don't think she was talking about us bra...

 

[Belegon]

But jealousy isn't about love; it's about insecurity, and the compulsion to have exclusive possession of property and partners.

How many borders and fences have to be fought over, blown up or dismantled by divorce lawyers before we evolve beyond jealousy?

This is so strongly something I believe that it could have been pulled directly from my own head...

sher

 

[Pure]

Ravings of a madman

Sher said, about the 'better' vow:

There would be a legal contract that outlines the sharing of property and other financial and legal benefits that we associate with marriage.

The 'marriage vow' would be one that has a realistic chance of being fulfilled by most men and most women, even after they grow up and realize that she likes girls and he wants to wear her nightgowns. Hey, that doesn't mean you can't still love each other and the kids, right?

A sample vow:

"I promise to respect your feelings and be honest about my own. No matter what."

Translation:

"If I develop a fetish for clown sex, and bring home a red nose and floppy shoes and start hinting that you'd look cute in them, don't be scared. You don't have to wear them. You don't even have to watch. I respect your feelings, as you promise to respect the sexual fling I'm likely to have if I can find the right clown.

"I won't love you any less. When I snap out of it, I want you to be the one I'm with when I start laughing. What a great story it'll make for our grandkids."

Then we pronounce them man and wife.

Stella said about her marital vow:

... which is why we were very very careful about our wedding vows- we promised to love and honor each other, and stay friends.. I'd have to go back and find them. But we never, ever promised to remain monogamists.

My assumption and view is that you can't 'promise to love.' Indeed, one probably can't promise to 'stay friends', if that means 'have friendly feeling for each other.'

So all the stuff about future feelings is not my concern: those types of commitments by friend and lovers are not my concern-- lovers till the end of time will promise 'till the end of time,' that's the nature of the romantic delusion.

What I focus on, is the kids, on a related vow by a pair intending to have one or more.
I have in mind, as a workable vow--a Partnership for Childrearing Vow [PCV]--as follows:

1. Property split and what each brings into the arrangement is defined.


2. The pair(partners) vow to live *together* in their best effort at 'harmony' for 15 years (first 15 years of each kid's life--i.e., till the youngest's 15th birthday.)


3. The object of care for the kids, loving them, guiding them, is paramount, and therefore the maintenance of a peaceful, respectful 'atmosphere' in the home. The that end--

a) There will be amicable, considerate relations and care for the kid(s), and this is an unbreakable promise to kids (PTK).

b) There will be respect for partner shown at all times

c) Hostilities will not be carried out in front of the kids

d) Backbiting will not be carried with the kids.

e) The presence or diminishment or end of 'love' is irrelevant. Same for sex.

f) Longterm, but not short-term, lovers of one party may move in provided they subscribe to a) to e).

g) Longterm lovers who become involved with the kids will have the option of joining the PCV vow, subject to the consent each of the existing pair. (In other words, this would entail staying, regardless of the diminishmemt or end of 'love.')

4. The pair agree to mediation and counselling to preserve the pair. As a last resort, the pair will separate, without drawing in of the children (to take sides), and without breaching the PTK, and remain both available to the children, say, living within a five minute walk of one another for the duration of the period.