Why Monogamy is Ridiculous

[tenni]

Ok..sparky ;)

Are there some /any good points to these ideas?

"If you have been monogamous for 45 years and only cheated a couple of times during those 45 years, you are good at monogamy"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8SOQEitsJI

[Paul B.]

Amen! You're preachin to the choir!

[elian]

?

I spent time with a couple once - I loved both of them but found trying to be there for both people emotionally draining. It's hard enough for me to focus on one person in a long term relationship let alone a group of people.

Promiscuity happens, but I believe that you should only have as many children in the world as you can support.

I dislike this video, I dislike the idea that because author does not agree, and he wants to be able to justify sleeping around that "manogomy is ridiculous"

You know what, I can't even properly consider this topic it makes me so angry. there are some things that just aren't worth watching. I am so tired of fighting myself, I'm tired of fighting with everyone else. Do what the heck you want to do - why do you need me to justify or not justify your behavior?

I know people who sleep all over town, who don't use a condom "because I don't like them" - "because I am allergic" - whatever .. the "boy" doesn't have a job and has been the father to at least five children - the state took the first two, the others he found adoptions for. He'll never get out of debt if he does find a job, and for some reason sex feels so good that he can't keep it in his pants. It's sad, look into the faces of those five kids and tell me "Monogamy is ridiculous"

People justify all sorts of shit with "logic". I get very unhappy thinking about the number of people who have been abused by cults and other things, people who think outside of the box are sometimes using their "revolutionary" ideas to justify abuse of power and sexual control.

We could do a poly society and do it the right way - children could be raised properly, but we won't - ego is too embedded in our culture. We'll just continue to use the means to justify the ends - to get what we want. What is life worth anyway?

If you want to have group sex or multiple partners FINE, but do it very deliberately and openly .. that way everybody knows what to expect. Is that what this jackass is advocating? Huh, it's been a long time since I've run across someone I just didn't like for no particular reason..

Maybe I just don't get it. To me, living life is hard enough - I like my personal relationships to mean something..I don't just fuck someone like a dog in heat...isn't that what this guy is trying to justify? If not he needs to use a more intelligent argument. When I consider the double standard that is already in place for women, then this guy is saying, "Well, we basically marry women for property. We made a mistake, we need to now blatantly say guys can sleep with anyone." Is that really what I am hearing him say? What about the double standard for women?

I'd like to know what this guy believes the value of male and female life is worth. It is very disappointing that we still haven't gotten past the "treating people as objects" stage of our development yet.

[cherry88]

monogamy is unnatural for -some-. monagamy is difficult for -some-. monogamy as he is talking about, just another piece of bullshit from a society which is clogged and packed with sooooo much other bullshit, is not the same as consciously choosing monogamy as a free individual..... -some- people happen to enjoy and prefer monogamy. i enjoy the multi faceted exploration of -one- person who i really truly care about. there is endles variety and depth there for me. i have never wanted or needed anything else while in a relationship. not becuase im a slave to society but because i prefer it.

ive been on a journey of exploring polyamory for a whole year now, and i can say that while i have considered it and made myself open to it, and found it very interesting to learn about how other people do things, and ive enjoyed learning about it as a facet of my current partner who i love very much, i still believe i will always prefer to practice functionally closed relationships when i have a choice.

i prefer monogamy (Or rather as he might call it, monogamish.. becuase i am -open- to -occasional- sex with others, as recreation... i always have been.. but its extremely low on my list of priorities and somethign i could -easily- live without.. im just open to the idea) for the same reason i dont let homeless people stay at my house.

i dont allow strangers and people i dont care about in my personal physical space. because i have more respect for my personal physical space than that. i dont allow strangers and people i dont care about in my intimate emotoinal space. becuase i have more respect for my intimate space than that. i feel the same way if im in a relationship or single. relationships are complex and intimacy is very complex and i am a complex person, i am not capable of 'simple' or casual relationships and i see no point to them and i understand that and accept that about myself.

if someone is poly and does not like monagamy thats great for them and i support their right as free beings to do as they wish as all beings should, in an ethical and honest manner, but calling monagamy 'ridiculous' is just as prejudiced and narrow minded as calling polyamory 'ridiculous' -- i expect better. monogamy is an extremely valid lifestyle choice for those who prefer it and choose it. just as any other.

he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. if your want to call this society bullshit and ridiculous i will totally agree with that........ and people who blindly accept the bullshit society wants us to think, yes that is ridiculous in a lot of ways. but the problem is the larger society and the fact that its full of bullshit, not monogamy itself. its wrong to lump in people who choose to freely practice monogamy by their own choice, with the fact that this society is totally full of ridiculous bullshit. as free beings we have the right to choose how we run our intimate space. whatever we choose if we choose it consciously, it is our right as free beings. to call anothers choice ridiculous becuase you disagree with it is hypocritical and prejudiced.

[Gearbox]

You know what, I can't even properly consider this topic it makes me so angry.
That's why these things need an airing, coz people like you DON'T want to consider things, and are quite happy to label some as 'scum' even tho you refuse to consider why you do it.
Nothing in that video was about any of the negative connotations you have about sex, love and people, yet they spewed out of you like a fountain. That didn't come from anywhere but you.
That's who you need to question IMO.


he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. if your want to call this society bullshit and ridiculous i will totally agree with that........ and people who blindly accept the bullshit society wants us to think, yes that is ridiculous in a lot of ways. but the problem is the larger society and the fact that its full of bullshit, not monogamy itself.its wrong to lump in people who choose to freely practice monogamy by their own choice, with the fact that this society is totally full of ridiculous bullshit. as free beings we have the right to choose how we run our intimate space. whatever we choose if we choose it consciously, it is our right as free beings. to call anothers choice ridiculous becuase you disagree with it is hypocritical and prejudiced.
I agree 100%. But he's talking about what appears for about 2secs at the start of the vid "Does society need to rethink it's views on love & commitment". Not monogamy as a choice, but monogamy as the litmus test of love & commitment. In that sense, it is really ridiculous IMO, coz as he said and we all should know - we can love somebody AND have sex with somebody else without loosing any love for them. Commitment has nothing to do with sex either IMO.

BUT society does use monogamy as the standard package deal for love and commitment:- If you love and respect your significant other, you'll be monogamous.
That's why the divorce courts are always packed with couples who love each other, and why partners break up in a big old drama when one breaks the rules.
As a society, we need to take a chill pill and relax a bit.:tongue:

[cherry88]

I agree 100%. But he's talking about what appears for about 2secs at the start of the vid "Does society need to rethink it's views on love & commitment". Not monogamy as a choice, but monogamy as the litmus test of love & commitment. In that sense, it is really ridiculous IMO, coz as he said and we all should know - we can love somebody AND have sex with somebody else without loosing any love for them. Commitment has nothing to do with sex either IMO.

BUT society does use monogamy as the standard package deal for love and commitment:- If you love and respect your significant other, you'll be monogamous.
That's why the divorce courts are always packed with couples who love each other, and why partners break up in a big old drama when one breaks the rules.
As a society, we need to take a chill pill and relax a bit.:tongue:


no ive got no problem with most of what he says.... you are totally right.... society as a whole does need to have more realistic attitudes about a lot of things... the sort of monogamy he is talking about is the kind imposed on people by the church etc to control people and stuff and in that case yeah thats ridiculous... yes of course people need to rethink all that stuff (If they still are ancient enough to actually pay it any attention at all in the year 2013 jeez) and of course realize they have way more choices and options than society tells them about a LOT of stuff..... i do object to calling monogamy -itself- ridiculous. and saying that -everyone- is bad at it and cant do it, i dont think thats at all accurate.

i kind of -do- believe that when im in a relationship that it shows respect for the person im with to not allow people he doesnt know and i dont know into our intimate space. the same way i wouldnt allow a bunch of people into my roomates bedroom when he was gone for the weekend. if thats a persons personal measure of respect and love, then i think thats perfectly ok. if i go away for the weekend and my roommate invites a bunch of people i dont know to stay and they go through my fridge and mess up my room and trample my stuff and whatnot then yes i will feel disrespected by them, thats why i dont have roommates and totaly not roommates who do stuff like that... that would get that roommate kicked out of my house..

in a relationship its similar. i expect my partner to be sexually attracted to plenty of other people just like i am... i expect them to be interested in beign sexual with others just as i am. i know they wanna watch porn and i kow they fantasize about other people and all that stuff is totally ok with me. i ALSO expect them to show restraint about how they actually go about doing it... to adapt to my personal preference.... as i would adapt to theirs. and yeah i do think that is a show of respect and love. i honestly do.

i dont want to control anyones thoughts but i do expect someone to show respect for the way i do stuff too... and not invite a bunch of people to walk through my nice clean living room with muddy shoes, yes i do think thast a sign of respect and love. thats totally different from the way society/religion views 'monogamy' as a sign of respect and love....... i think one is valid.... the other is just antoher one of society's constructs and like most of society's constructs is bullshit and yes should be rethought. (like i said if anyone still actually buys intio that stuff, its kinda hard to believe in this day and age that anyone really still does).

but also i dont exactly know what society hes talking about. peopel who still think like that are like dinosaurs to me!! i dumped all that stuff from religion and society decades ago. i -still- feel its respectful of my partner to be aware and careful about who they allow into an intimate space that we share. i really -do- think thast a show of respect and love.... but for different reasons than the situations he is describing. its a complicated topic certainly. yes peopel need to rethink that stuff its totally valid. i still object to calling monogamy ridiculous though.

[tenni]

Do we need to rethink love and commitment?
I think that what Savage is discussing is not restricted to a religion but a societal issue.

1/ issue of union of two equals
-not giving equal freedom to each but restricted both
Many posters here discuss restricting their partner rather than freedom. Savage argues that prior to sixty years ago, men were basically not monogamous (gave lip service) and restricted women to monogamy. I’m not sure if he is correct but it is an interesting point. Whether its source was religion it was no longer restricted by religion(Christian at least). The feminist movement demanded equality in many areas but perhaps because it was a freedom that men quietly exercised (non monogamy) they over looked or society as a whole didn’t get the memo that equality is not restriction.

2/ Belief
Sexual commitment at the heart of all relationships
Sexual commitment is unnatural
Savage argues that this sexual commitment is not working and he points to divorce rates and short term commitment as evidence. The question about the un naturalness about sexual commitment may be argued all night by some. Cherrie points out that it is natural for her. On the other hand, I get the impression that she doesn’t see sexual commitment as the heart of her relationships?

Falacy
If you are in love you will not should not want to fuck another person

Reality
You will want to fuck a different person

Solution
We need to reframe love and relationships (argues Savage)


How then should we reframe love and relationships?
Savage argues that we should use a more realistic attitude towards exclusivity of sexual activity. Cheerie seems to agree that monogamish for those who want /need monogamy may be best. When we add bisexuality in to the mix some have difficulty with the same sex sexual activity rather than reframing it ? Some partners(only women report this but maybe male heteros feel this way) seem to fear loss because they can not “give” the bisexual what they need. It isn’t a church doing this. It is something else within the person that prevents a more monogamish approach?

[darkeyes]

Are u saying that feminists wanted restriction over sexual freedom, tenni? Some, a few did, but then there are such people among any group of people.. feminists were more in the vanguard of gaining freedom, including sexual freedom for all, not just women.. it is a tenet of feminism that true equality is liberation for men as well as women... and not on the sneak as the male dominated society seemed to allow men to do prior to the 1960s...

Sexual commitment doesn't have to mean sexual possession.. or any kind of possession.. many are committed to their partner(s) yet concede to their partners all kinds of freedoms including sexual... and many others as he says, do it on the sneak for whatever reason.. women and men as they always did, yet men far less judgementally... no one can say just how many marriages or partnerships are monogamous because no one knows just how many are open and how many one or both partners nip out for a kwikkie on side... either occasional or frequently... as Savage says.. the divorce courts give us a fair ole idea it is a lot... sexual commitment is important but at the heart of the relationship? I don't think so at least not for me, yet many make it out to be the most important part even if they deny it... which is so often why relationships collapse.. mono or poly...

.. the person who 1ce in a relationship of any kind who goes through life not wanting to fuck someone else outside of that relationship is a very rare beast indeed... it isn;t that we need to reframe love and relationships... just accept that we and our partner(s) have the right to go outside of the relationship(s) for many things... sex included... accept that we are the free individuals that our societies keep telling us we are... and in a sense we are... for there is no law to stop us nipping out for a kwikkie with anyone or having another relationship with anyone outside of our principle relationship... it is not reframing that we need.. simply acceptance that each of us is free to live our lives in accord what we want from it as long as it harms no one.. but then that takes us into a whole new ball game.. because many will still, even although society doesn't give 2 hoots who we shag and how often...many will still want to live monogamous lives... and we who are much less monogamous in instinct and inclination, will still fall for them and they will fall for us.. and we will still hurt each other whatever our and our partner's sexuality...

..it is easy say don't set up shop with one who is not like us or believe the same things as us, or who have different views on living life.. love doesn't work like that.. and besides.. we change as we go through life.. and how we were at 15 or 20 or 25 is not how we are at 35 or 40 or 45 and older...

[tenni]

Hey darkeyes
I’m not saying that feminist wanted restrictions over sexual freedom. I don’t think that Savage said that either? I think that he said that the route of equality somehow didn’t deal with giving sexual freedom to women in the sense that men had..perhaps because it was invisible permission.

I’m also not convinced that this changed just sixty years ago. It is true that a form of sexual freedom was given to women sixty years ago with the invention of the birth control pill. Women were/are freer to have sex with less fear of pregnancy but this seems to be replaced with a fear of contracting disease. Initially, that was not a concern. Many women and men did practice less of a connection between sexual commitment and what is at the heart of their relationships.

If sexual commitment is not at the heart of relationships then what is? So many women (hetero) struggle on this site with their bisexual husbands and same sex play or relationships. They seem to have such fear of abandonment that how can sexual commitment not be at their perceived core of their relationship? Or is it homophobia that is at the core of their fears about expecting monogamy from their man?

Why are concessions at the heart of relationships or is that not what you are writing?

It is also an interesting question whether sexual commitment is natural or a social construct imposed on us preventing equality and sexual freedom. Savage states that sexual commitment is unnatural. I recently read/heard a report about animals in long term relationships have both male and female partners sneaking away for a piece on the side. Poor Swans too much social pressure on them...lol

[darkeyes]

Hey darkeyes
I’m not saying that feminist wanted restrictions over sexual freedom. I don’t think that Savage said that either? I think that he said that the route of equality somehow didn’t deal with giving sexual freedom to women in the sense that men had..perhaps because it was invisible permission.

I’m also not convinced that this changed just sixty years ago. It is true that a form of sexual freedom was given to women sixty years ago with the invention of the birth control pill. Women were/are freer to have sex with less fear of pregnancy but this seems to be replaced with a fear of contracting disease. Initially, that was not a concern. Many women and men did practice less of a connection between sexual commitment and what is at the heart of their relationships.

If sexual commitment is not at the heart of relationships then what is? So many women (hetero) struggle on this site with their bisexual husbands and same sex play or relationships. They seem to have such fear of abandonment that how can sexual commitment not be at their perceived core of their relationship? Or is it homophobia that is at the core of their fears about expecting monogamy from their man?

Why are concessions at the heart of relationships or is that not what you are writing?
I was querying ur own comment about sexual freedom not Savage's.. it just wasn't clear to me what u were saying. I don't think equality such as it is has changed things that much for women when we discuss sexual freedom.. there remains much greater criticism of the woman who asserts her sexual freedom than of the male.. whatever their relationship status. The fear of pregnancy that the pill took from women did begin their march to greater sexual freedom and even although fear of stds has replaced that fear women have not been knocked back into the box although some, the more misogynistic among us would have it so.

When younger, I too thought sex was the be all and and all and the central plank upon which love and relationships were based and maintained.. but even then I knew that there were other things as important.. friendship, companionship, love, the sheer enjoyment of each other, our sameness, our differences, our lives together, our lives apart...... sex is part of this and an important part but not I think central and serpently not all.. if it was then more of us arguably may be more likely to be monogamous depending on a certain point of view..

What is central is what attracts us and keeps us attracted, why we are drawn and holds us.. sex helps and is in my view the initial driving force behind that attraction but not all and it is far more than sex which keeps us together.. although shit sex or sex problems such as we discuss often can drive a wedge which is often difficult to fill. But so can so many other things in any relationship. So that in my view does not make sex the heart of the relationship any more than wishing to go to different places on holiday, or disagreeing on politics or religion.. it can be overcome, but while sex is incredibly important to me, and I speak only of me, there is so much more in my relationship with my partner I am simply incapable of saying that sex, for me, and even less so for her, is the heart of the relationship... and don't take it that we don't have a raunchy and fun sex life cos we do an ver nice it is an all... but ther is far more 2 what we have, and other things more to the heart of what we have than sex... if sex wos the heart of our lives together I am bloody sure I wudn't stick around because as u kno we do have ver different views on sex and monogamy...... sex alone or making it the heart of a relationship are very poor bases upon which build one which is long term and loving.. we need far far more...

Concessions at the heart of relationships are what people deem to be just that for themselves... it means different things to different people.. everyone makes concessions to their partner and while one partner may believe that concession to be at the heart of the relationship the other may not believe that to be the case.. so it is a subjective judgement everyone will make. I haven't said that concessions have to be at the heart of a relationship but they inevitably shall be to either or both partners..

As to Savage saying sexual commitment is unnatural is total hogwash.. commitment doesn't have to mean sexual monogamy.. whether that commitment lasts a lifetime is always in the lap of the Gods. We commit to people we love and care for and part of that commitment is to one/some sexual as part of the whole package.. it doesn't mean necessarily that we are restricted to a single sexual or any other kind of commitment it means that we show a commitment to a person just as we do in so many other ways especially to the ones we care most for... parents, children grandparents, friends... we are human beings not swans... and commitment to those we feel most for expresses itself in many different ways, and just as we commit ourselves (arguably) to the good of the community at large.. Savage as he so often does, talks through his arse... human beings are social animals and committing to each other in so many different ways is most natural... just as is disagreeing as to what these ways are and the value or otherwise of them.

[tenni]

As far as sex being at the heart of the relationship, darkeyes seems to agree with Savage that sex is not /should not be at the heart of the relationship. The question becomes then why toss out the relationship if there is a slip in the monogamy aspect of a relationship or even why expect monogamy any more than you expect to agree on a holiday location(I can tell where your mind is darkeyes...lol) Why do posters get so upset when a biman partner wants same sex play? Darkeyes may not place it at the heart of the relationship but is it not clear that others do?

Ah, but then I hear the rebutal that it was deceit and not same sex play outside of their relationship. Still, they seem to default to resistance (place it at the heart of the relationship) even when they know their partner wants same sex play.

[darkeyes]

Peeps twist arguments to suit themselves and their point of view, tenni...u kno that and this site is a prime example of it... until faced wiv a situation we nev really kno how others will react and what they say is the heart of ne thing.. even how we will react...often it is said but not believed ever by the sayer.. it's life.. summat we have 2 live wiv Im afraid.. and no rebuttal from me babes... I've been bad girl and my default wen found out wos 2 hold me hands up, 'fess up, tell meself wot a daft cow I wos and kick meself hard an blub as she walked out door suitcase in hand an b mizzy for a ver long time.. felt as I do now then more or less bout the place of sex in me life tho had nev really thought it out 2 much... but in the end.. wot the heart of the matter is 2 1, is not always heart of the matter the other.. and wen a dispute arises, wether 1 or both believe it or not.. it will create stress... bit in general ur rite.. sex is 2 many... question is shud it be?

[jamieknyc]

We had the same debate the other day in a bi group I belong to. One guy who runs a swinger-party group was debating several others who were believers in monogamous and long-term relationships.

[darkeyes]

Put it this way.. we will treat Savage wiv all the same seriousness and respect we have always done for ur ravings... wb back by the way... wish u wud stick wiv same nic and/or not get banned so often cos peeps will soon b running out of nics 2 call themselves..

[zigzig]

I think in these days people have the right to choose. Some people prefer to be monogamous even though they have urges to be with someone else as well.
I agree with that point in the video that society pushes women to be more monogamous then men. If they cheat, society gives them harsher punishments then cheating men gets. In some countries like India if a woman cheats - her nose gets cut off, or in Iran she gets stoned to death, but men gets whopped at least 20 times.
Even though people act as religious followers or good partners, more then half cheat anyway even though they claim they love their partner. I love my husband, but I still feel attracted to other people, and he admitted of being attracted to other women.

[Gearbox]

but also i dont exactly know what society hes talking about. peopel who still think like that are like dinosaurs to me!! i dumped all that stuff from religion and society decades ago. i -still- feel its respectful of my partner to be aware and careful about who they allow into an intimate space that we share. i really -do- think thast a show of respect and love.... but for different reasons than the situations he is describing. its a complicated topic certainly. yes peopel need to rethink that stuff its totally valid. i still object to calling monogamy ridiculous though.
I know what you mean about having your personal space invaded. It's all very well having a partner who has different interests to ours and it's ok for them to go out to enjoy them, BUT you don't want to come home from work and find them holding a mud wrestling match in YOUR living room.:tongue: Or wake up to find them going at it with the postman right next to you.:eek:
You DO exist, and that should figure in their planning. Freedom does NOT mean that respect and consideration comes 2nd & 3rd, not in my book.

Monogamy makes perfect sense as a stage of a relationship that encourages bonding. During that time, you get to focus all your attention on just one person and explore the person they are.
As anything more than just a stage in the relationship, NO! Then it begins to loose that sense and becomes problematic to the relationship. People grow and change, and that should be respected and even encouraged IMO. Nobody can be the 'be all and end all' of another, nor is it healthy to expect that.
Much like a parents relationship with their child - you bond, nurture and give them freedom to explore the world and selves. That kind of relationship is healthy. Failing to nurture and give freedom when it's required is unhealthy.
Having consequences to secure the sexual repression of our partners is definitely not healthy for either IMO.:eek2:

So monog isn't ridiculous in itself as a stage in a relationship, but IS ridiculous as a relationship whole IMO, and get even more so as time goes by.

[hasty1]

Problem is gearbox that when you are bringing up children you expect them to leave you, it's right and proper and therefore you encourage behaviour that makes them into independent people.

I guess the guy's entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. As darkeyes says there will always be those that prefer monogamy, or any other type of arrangement and we're all in the mix together which makes for discussions like this, whatever the prevalent 'norm' happens to be. I know for myself that I probably quite naturally veer more towards monogamy than not. Whether that is the product of societies expectations is another matter, however whatever the reason, I am who I am, why should I change it because of a strangers opinion? I have been severely tested on this point in the past, try 10 years in a marriage where you love your husband, and desire him sexually but nothing is happening, because you're being denied sex. I can't say I wasn't tempted, but I didn't stray and I can't really say why. I don't expect many would have judged me harshly (not that this was the only problem in our marriage but I always felt that if I could kick start our sex life then everything else might follow) but I guess that I took my vows and commitment to our family seriously and probably would still be with him if he could have only found it possible to show me a little kindness.

In response to my current relationship, my bisexual partners needs, my desire to make him happy and demonstrate my commitment towards him it becomes apparent that whilst non-monogamy is not something I'd necessarily seek out, I can happily accommodate it, in theory so far anyway. This is in response to someone who I love very much and our personal situation. I wouldn't dream of saying our solution for our relationship is desirable or recommended for anyone else, or that monogamy is for that matter. I think people should find their own way with honesty and respect, and it's this that is lacking. Society does teach some hard and conflicting rules, especially for those whose sexuality fluctuates between the sexes and possibly more so for men with the traditional role of being masculine, but I really do think that things are changing, albeit slowly. Society is light years away from what I remember as a child in the 60's and young people now seem far more able to express their true selves, I think that we just have to consider that sometimes their true selves might just be monogamous. Rather that insisting that a non-monogamous society is what we need, I would say a more honest one would work better, even that wouldn't be perfect or ideal, as we know things change, self discoveries are made and people change over time. This is a sexual site so things of a sexual nature obviously get discussed, but a successful marriage or long term relationship is much more than sex and sexuality, and those things don't exist independently of the whole relationship.

[elian]

Cherry expressed what I was trying to say a lot better when she wrote about personal space..and I think what you wrote below makes sense. For some reason I do have a lot of issues to work through and Mr. Savage pushed all the right buttons.

If I knew that there was no judgement, and that everyone could be safe, healthy and treated with respect (love even) I would have very little issue with poly relationships; to me this seemed to be the opposite of what Mr. Savage was advocating.

I don't know if it's for everyone, but I wouldn't discriminate against someone who was poly as long as they were honest with all of their partners.


I know what you mean about having your personal space invaded. It's all very well having a partner who has different interests to ours and it's ok for them to go out to enjoy them, BUT you don't want to come home from work and find them holding a mud wrestling match in YOUR living room.:tongue: Or wake up to find them going at it with the postman right next to you.:eek:
You DO exist, and that should figure in their planning. Freedom does NOT mean that respect and consideration comes 2nd & 3rd, not in my book.

Monogamy makes perfect sense as a stage of a relationship that encourages bonding. During that time, you get to focus all your attention on just one person and explore the person they are.
As anything more than just a stage in the relationship, NO! Then it begins to loose that sense and becomes problematic to the relationship. People grow and change, and that should be respected and even encouraged IMO. Nobody can be the 'be all and end all' of another, nor is it healthy to expect that.
Much like a parents relationship with their child - you bond, nurture and give them freedom to explore the world and selves. That kind of relationship is healthy. Failing to nurture and give freedom when it's required is unhealthy.
Having consequences to secure the sexual repression of our partners is definitely not healthy for either IMO.:eek2:

So monog isn't ridiculous in itself as a stage in a relationship, but IS ridiculous as a relationship whole IMO, and get even more so as time goes by.

[darkeyes]

I'm sorry it must be difficult for you to keep your hands and mouth out of another woman's gash.
Infinitely more easily that u apparently find it to say something sensible and constructive...;)

[tenni]

"If I knew that there was no judgement, and that everyone could be safe, healthy and treated with respect (love even) I would have very little issue with poly relationships; to me this seemed to be the opposite of what Mr. Savage was advocating."

I watched the video more than once. At no point do I recall Savage using the word "poly". I don't think that he specifically excluded any concept of a "poly" relationship. In fact he was broad in his approach and only specific about monogamy as love and relationships(whatever they may be) need to be reframed to permit more flexibility than how monogamy is being imposed on relationships. Being in love means that your being in love will be enough so that you won't want to have sex with someone other than your partner is a fallacy.

[DuckiesDarling]

Amusing how everyone hated Savage when he said bisexuals didn't exist but now that he is crowing on about monogamy are ready to jump on his bandwagon. Bottom line there is nothing wrong with monogamy or polygamy as long as all parties in the relationship are agreeable. So why don't we just let everyone in relationships be happy in their own zones and quit trying to dictate that they live up to a certain person's standards.

[cherry88]

1/ issue of union of two equals
-not giving equal freedom to each but restricted both
Many posters here discuss restricting their partner rather than freedom. Savage argues that prior to sixty years ago, men were basically not monogamous (gave lip service) and restricted women to monogamy. I’m not sure if he is correct but it is an interesting point. Whether its source was religion it was no longer restricted by religion(Christian at least). The feminist movement demanded equality in many areas but perhaps because it was a freedom that men quietly exercised (non monogamy) they over looked or society as a whole didn’t get the memo that equality is not restriction.


ok well actualy i dont really believe hes accurate in that assessment personally. to my mind something very different happened during the sexual revolution. basically i think that only a small number of people actually really understood what the sexual revolution really was about, which as a couple people here mentioned was at its heart about freedom and equality for -all- beings, of any sex or gender, and mostly recognizlng that all people are at heart unique, that sexuality is a very personal expression of a persons self, and that because of this all people will express this differently and uniquely and THATS OK. that to me was what the sexual revolution was reallly about. it -should- have been about realizing that all beings are free and all beings are different and all beings own their own bodies and the most awesome thing is to respect enjoy and embrace that.

the thing is that in america honestly there are small pockets of progressive people like that and then huge vast areas of really super conservative people who did not and will never get what the sexual revolution was really about. so i think he is referring to those people when he talks about 'society'. those people never really 'got it' and those are the people who are still practicing restriction of others because in their own mind they just didnt get the real message.

what i think really happend as some other posters alluded to was that the true rate of 'cheating' or non monogamy didnt change even slightly for men -or- women before or after the sexual revolution...... men always 'cheated' and so did women.. all that happend was the social consequences changed.

before that time men cheated openly, becuase there were no social consequences for them doing it. their wives were dependent on them for income, housing, social status, and basically any chance at a normal life. the man even legally owned their children. if a man cheated, what was a woman gonna do? jack shit. so men cheated openly. however if a woman was caught cheating she stood to lose everything, (as still is true in some cultures) and so women cheated just as much as now.. but they cheated discretely.

after the sexual revolution women gained legal, social, and financial status. therefore the social consequences of being caught 'cheating' became very different. besides the protection of available birth control, it suddenly became easy to get a divorce, and not only that to get the house, the car, the kids, half the assets, and a good chunk of a mans future earnings.... at that point the social consquences for men cheating became very high. at that point men continued 'cheating' just as much, but more discretely. woman also 'cheated' just as much, but more openly. that to me is the only difference at least here in america. in 'mainstream' society that totally missed the real message of the sexual revolution, all it meant to women was more leverage and more power to exact social consequences, and that is how they used it. but that doesnt mean that was the true message of the sexual revolution.

the truth is noone has even really been able to legislate sexuality. we see it all the time, people are gonna have sex, no matter come hell or high water you cannot stop people from having sex. its been tried. it cant be done. the only difference is the social consequences and whether people are gonna do it openly or not. but nothing, nothing on this earth will stop people from fucking when they wanna fuck. not being married, not being a priest, not being in jail, not being alone, not facing horrible punishments, people are gonna fuck when they wanna fuck. i think we can all agree thats been true for all recorded history. thats where society falls down is it believes it can legislate sexuality and it simply cannot. it can only control the social consequences.



2/ Belief
Sexual commitment at the heart of all relationships
Sexual commitment is unnatural
Savage argues that this sexual commitment is not working and he points to divorce rates and short term commitment as evidence. The question about the un naturalness about sexual commitment may be argued all night by some. Cherrie points out that it is natural for her. On the other hand, I get the impression that she doesn’t see sexual commitment as the heart of her relationships?



actually i do see sexuality at the heart of my intimate relatoinships. (along with many other things) i just realize that not everyone else sees it the same way. i think it all comes down to again the fact that sexuality means very very different and unique things to different people. it accomplishes different goals in their life. to me the goal of sexuality is to cement existing emotoinal bonds. therefore to me its only real point is happening with soemone im really interested in building a very serious bond with. i also see a purpose for occasional purely recreatoinal sex. however in my mind, that kind of sex has literally no emotional component. its -just- recreation, nothing more. so to me, individually, those are in my mind the two purposes of sex in -my- life. so that is why i shape my relatoinships the way i do, to accomodate those personal sexual goals, 'monogamish'... that means for the most part i only have sex to cement existing strong emotional bonds... or -strictly- for playing around. (and i would vastly prefer such playing -with- my partner to doing it alone! i would really almost never want to go off to be with someone else alone.... i just really see very little point to that, but thats just me) also i would -never- ever in a bilion years be in a fwb situation. it just makes no sense to me at all. for me its kind of all or nothing emotoinally. thats just how my own mind works and thast why i structure my relationships the way i do. the difference between me and 'society' is that i realize that NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME GOALS FOR SEX IN THEIR LIFE.

for instance my bf is perfectly happy having sex with soemone he is only 'friends' with. he is fine with a fwb situation. to me thats incomprehensible. (if not humanly impossible) but to him thats one of the valid purposes of having sex. i respect thats how he does stuff, but i dont share his view. i understand sexuality is a very personal thing and everyone has different goals for what they want it to acheive in thier lives. i respect that all beings own their own bodies and all peopel approach their own sexuality in different ways.



Falacy
If you are in love you will not should not want to fuck another person

Reality
You will want to fuck a different person

Solution
We need to reframe love and relationships (argues Savage)


How then should we reframe love and relationships?

the entier problem is that the larger mainstream portions of 'society' are tryign to legislate their own sexual view onto the masses. that will never work because sexuality is a very individual thing that means different things to different people. what would really need to happen, but will never happen becuase most people are just not mentally able to deal with it, is realizing the true message of the sexual revolution which is that all beings are free. all beings own their own bodies. all beings have their own relationship to their sexuality. and the way they structure their relatoinships is going to be a reflection of that.

society has created a 'template' out of a relatively common relationship structure, total monagamy. they expect everyone (externally at least) to follow this template. people have shown that they will not. there is just too much variety in human sexual experience.

but the fact that 'society' demands it anyway, creates a lot of very maladaptive and dishonest behavior. the way to reframe this is for people to realize you cant legislate sexuality in any way, sexuality is a free substance, peopel will exercise it how they will, and it is different for everyone, and thats ok.

but most people will never really get that becuase they are just too straight. thats the real problem. additionally there is no easy way to 'change' society. society is made of individuals. the only real way to change society is to change the way -you- think. when enough individual people change the way -they- think, then society will change. not before.

[cherry88]

I know what you mean about having your personal space invaded. It's all very well having a partner who has different interests to ours and it's ok for them to go out to enjoy them, BUT you don't want to come home from work and find them holding a mud wrestling match in YOUR living room.:tongue: Or wake up to find them going at it with the postman right next to you.:eek:
You DO exist, and that should figure in their planning. Freedom does NOT mean that respect and consideration comes 2nd & 3rd, not in my book.

haha! totally...... (especialy not the postman! ew! haha) this is why its such an interesting question though.. i mean i have the right to ask my roommate not to have wild parties in my room while im gone..... right? yeah thats restricting their behavior but as a roommate i have the right to at least ask for it... i guess they have the right to move out if they dont like it. doesnt it seem in a close relatoinship i also have the right to ask my partner to restrict some of his activities if they bother or annoy me, or conflict with what i want out of life.. at what point does that become such a problem.. its an interesting question. he too has the right to leave if he doesnt like my request.... inst it just another thing to work out between two people sharing an intimate space who have slightly different goals and preferences...



Monogamy makes perfect sense as a stage of a relationship that encourages bonding. During that time, you get to focus all your attention on just one person and explore the person they are.
As anything more than just a stage in the relationship, NO! Then it begins to loose that sense and becomes problematic to the relationship. People grow and change, and that should be respected and even encouraged IMO. Nobody can be the 'be all and end all' of another, nor is it healthy to expect that.

i really think this is debatable. i think (and know) its true for -some- people.... but i honestly think taht isnt the way all people see it. i honeslty dont see it that way. i feel frequently attracted to others but really have almost no desire to actually follow through on it. i feel absolutely not the slightest regret that ive 'missed' anything, or that anything is missing for me in not doing it.... not even the tiniest, littlest, scrap. it just strikes me as too much complication, way more than it would be worth. to me the fantasy is just way better. being intimate with people is incredibly complicated, why open that can of worms unless you -really- intend to make a commitment? thats kind of the way it seems to me. i just enjoy the flirting and the fantasy and leave the reality alone and thats totally fine with me. intimacy is work! intimacy is problems. i only do that stuff for people i -really- care about.

so i mean, to me, that isnt the case.. but i know for some, it is the case. i really think neither fits all people. but its a very interesting question in and of itself. i respect the fact that other people dont see it the way i do.

[darkeyes]

Amusing how everyone hated Savage when he said bisexuals didn't exist but now that he is crowing on about monogamy are ready to jump on his bandwagon. Bottom line there is nothing wrong with monogamy or polygamy as long as all parties in the relationship are agreeable. So why don't we just let everyone in relationships be happy in their own zones and quit trying to dictate that they live up to a certain person's standards.
Even the greatest of tyrants, bigots and fools will say and do things with which we agree and we can applaud either wholly or partly. Savage is no exception and by law of averages will say something some of us can agree with at different times. But saying one or a few things we may agree with and applaud, does not make them other than the tyrant, bigot and fool they were before they said or did it.

..and this is a debate.. an argument... people express points of view.. they do not attempt to dictate how anyone lives their lives. That is how debate works. People listen, agree with or take issue and go the way of their conscience.

[12voltman59]

For someone to make such sweeping statements as "monogamy is ridiculous"--well---that is simply put----is bullshit and "IS RIDICULOUS" since the old saying about people is true, "everyone is different" and "different strokes for different folks."

I am no fan of Savage---he is such a "defender of the cultural gates" in my book---especially when it comes to things relating to "gay culture" and such----I think that he basically holds that bisexuality---at least for men--- is something that is non-existent and that guys who say that they are bisexual----are at best-----deluding themselves and at worst---out and out liars and or fools----and that bisexuality--at least for men--is just a convenient "waypoint on the road to gaydom."

I do agree with what he says that society does demand and defines monogamy as the set standard for what defines relationships---but I am more thinking on the individual level-----that for some people----monogamy surely doesn't work---and for many---even though it may not always work---it is the standard to which they do try to uphold and operate by, even if they fail.

I am sort of "on the fence" when it comes to monogamy----I have never married---but I have preferred when involved in a "serious relationship"---that me and my partner----are monogamous and if that changes---we talk it out and if it cannot be worked out--then we go our own ways and move on to other relationships.

[Gearbox]

Problem is gearbox that when you are bringing up children you expect them to leave you, it's right and proper and therefore you encourage behaviour that makes them into independent people.
Yes you're right, we train them up to fly the coop. That's not why we get into adult-adult relationships, and we'd like them to stick around. But there are elements of 'letting go' & 'individuality' that figure in those relationships too. IMO as parents healthily acknowledge their child to be a person in their own rights as well as their child, it is also healthy to acknowledge that a partner is a person as well as a partner too.
We don't stop maturing or discovering (as far as I can tell) and as the rules that a parent gives a child has to change as they do, so should IMO relationship rules change too. Else the relationship will smother and become unhealthy.


I guess the guy's entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. As darkeyes says there will always be those that prefer monogamy, or any other type of arrangement and we're all in the mix together which makes for discussions like this, whatever the prevalent 'norm' happens to be. I know for myself that I probably quite naturally veer more towards monogamy than not. Whether that is the product of societies expectations is another matter, however whatever the reason, I am who I am, why should I change it because of a strangers opinion? I have been severely tested on this point in the past, try 10 years in a marriage where you love your husband, and desire him sexually but nothing is happening, because you're being denied sex. I can't say I wasn't tempted, but I didn't stray and I can't really say why. I don't expect many would have judged me harshly (not that this was the only problem in our marriage but I always felt that if I could kick start our sex life then everything else might follow) but I guess that I took my vows and commitment to our family seriously and probably would still be with him if he could have only found it possible to show me a little kindness.
No I don't think we should do anything coz some bloke on youtube or anybody else said so, but I do believe that we should stop and take a look at things and question them.
For instance, those vows you took. Who were they to, did they solve anything, why did you abide by them despite the obvious negative effects on you etc etc
I'm NOT saying that you were right or wrong, but just asking why we do the things we do. Not one of us can look back without asking "WTF was I thinking?", and I def got plenty of personal material for that, believe me.:oh:


In response to my current relationship, my bisexual partners needs, my desire to make him happy and demonstrate my commitment towards him it becomes apparent that whilst non-monogamy is not something I'd necessarily seek out, I can happily accommodate it, in theory so far anyway. This is in response to someone who I love very much and our personal situation. I wouldn't dream of saying our solution for our relationship is desirable or recommended for anyone else, or that monogamy is for that matter. I think people should find their own way with honesty and respect, and it's this that is lacking. Society does teach some hard and conflicting rules, especially for those whose sexuality fluctuates between the sexes and possibly more so for men with the traditional role of being masculine, but I really do think that things are changing, albeit slowly. Society is light years away from what I remember as a child in the 60's and young people now seem far more able to express their true selves, I think that we just have to consider that sometimes their true selves might just be monogamous. Rather that insisting that a non-monogamous society is what we need, I would say a more honest one would work better, even that wouldn't be perfect or ideal, as we know things change, self discoveries are made and people change over time. This is a sexual site so things of a sexual nature obviously get discussed, but a successful marriage or long term relationship is much more than sex and sexuality, and those things don't exist independently of the whole relationship.
Yes I agree that we should find our own way as people who define the relationship their in, as apposed to the relationship defining the people within it. It makes sense IMO, and is more accommodating of us all being Humans. Whatever label is put on the relationship be it monog, poly, open etc doesn't have to mean that's all it will ever be.
I've noticed that people find it far easier to express their true selves too, especially the youth. Today when somebody says they are gay or lesbian etc in college, it's old news in 5 mins. When I was their age it would have been a big long lasting scandal. Sadly, the elder need to catch up with the young.:bigrin: But it's good to see things are changing, coz they do need to.

[elian]

Well tenni, I suspect that being in love is something that monogamous couples will work out for themselves. I just don't like the way Mr. Savage framed his argument. At minimum I agree with gear's statement that monogamy can serve a useful purpose at one stage of a relationship's development...and for some people it is enough, for others it is not. From what I understand people are waiting until later in life to get married, if at all. A person has to wonder if we are just that much more connected in each other's personal lives now that we hear about infidelity more. Or perhaps it is because I hang out no a bisexual site where the predominant message type I see are spouses trying to come to terms with their partner's desire for same sex love. Or perhaps I watch too many talk shows where they traipse the young lady out on stage for the 10th time and she cries about not knowing who the father is.

STRAIGHT people DO need to have a conversation about the value of male and female life and what their relationships mean to them. Gender roles (preconceived labels) are also something that on some personal level most people object to because it limits their potential. These topics involve Western religion and we LGBT people already know how difficult it is deal with religion as a part of the discussion.

If the theory of evolution is correct, there IS a biological basis and reason for being unfaithful, the debate becomes how much are we like "animals" and how willing are we to impose "morals" .. things that a lot of people don't want to think about. I don't like being perpetually stuck in a black and white episode of "Leave it to Beaver" either.. I am convinced there is some middle ground that is more realistic.

We Westerners wanted to be so much like the Romans, and worship the planet Mars - well here we are, isn't it great? ..the only difference is this time we realize how deadly lead poisoning is.

There are other societies and cultures who don't have this problem, the concept of "two spirit" people amazes me. Sadly I'm not sure they've lasted - sooner or later ego seems to affect (or is that infect?) everything it touches.

I do believe that love and pleasure should be shared, I am only saying that respect for ourselves and others has to factor into that as well..including respect for any children that may be the result of that union.



I watched the video more than once. At no point do I recall Savage using the word "poly". I don't think that he specifically excluded any concept of a "poly" relationship. In fact he was broad in his approach and only specific about monogamy as love and relationships(whatever they may be) need to be reframed to permit more flexibility than how monogamy is being imposed on relationships. Being in love means that your being in love will be enough so that you won't want to have sex with someone other than your partner is a fallacy.

[elian]

Well I always start from the premise of learning to love yourself first, if you can do that, maybe then you stand a chance of knowing what it means to love someone else in a healthy way.


LOL being "in love" is something that Tenni doesn't understand at all one of his ex's who was a therapist told him he's very selfish, has major issues, and needs therapy and should not attempt a "relationship" with anyone.

[pasadena1941]

Just because you'd like to fuck or suck someone else does NOT make monogamy obsolete or ridiculous. humans are wired to want what they want and the rules of society, as we know it, limit that to "one at a time". If you want more well, that's cheating but the thing is, with out a little reservations on the lot of us, we'd be overrun with progeny and things would be so much worse for everyone. I'm personally barely able to take care of what I have and anyone else would be overload! So much for me, but I don't think most of us, male and female, will or even would, if they could, write off the idea that there is someone they would want to stay "true" to, for the most part. That was a bit tongue in cheek.

[Gearbox]

haha! totally...... (especialy not the postman! ew! haha) this is why its such an interesting question though.. i mean i have the right to ask my roommate not to have wild parties in my room while im gone..... right? yeah thats restricting their behavior but as a roommate i have the right to at least ask for it... i guess they have the right to move out if they dont like it. doesnt it seem in a close relatoinship i also have the right to ask my partner to restrict some of his activities if they bother or annoy me, or conflict with what i want out of life.. at what point does that become such a problem.. its an interesting question. he too has the right to leave if he doesnt like my request.... inst it just another thing to work out between two people sharing an intimate space who have slightly different goals and preferences...

You'd have the right to ask.:bigrin: It becomes a problem when one finds the others requests 'unreasonable' and refuses to tolerate them. Then it goes into a standoff!
Being 'unreasonable' isn't such a prob by itself. There are many who DO follow requests that in others views are completely unreasonable - such as walking 6 paces behind hubby in a yashmak, walking on eggshells to avoid jealous consequences, having one sided sex, having no sex at all etc etc etc
That's all fine, until it's not tolerated.


Cherry expressed what I was trying to say a lot better when she wrote about personal space..and I think what you wrote below makes sense. For some reason I do have a lot of issues to work through and Mr. Savage pushed all the right buttons.

If I knew that there was no judgement, and that everyone could be safe, healthy and treated with respect (love even) I would have very little issue with poly relationships; to me this seemed to be the opposite of what Mr. Savage was advocating.

I don't know if it's for everyone, but I wouldn't discriminate against someone who was poly as long as they were honest with all of their partners.
I took it that it's promiscuity and the promiscuous that you have a dim view of. Dan being a professional button pusher surely knows that he can bring out several layers of negative emotions just by stating that monogamy is ridiculous.:rolleyes:
Doesn't make him a Saint, but IMO those emotions NEED ousting into the forefront, else they'll remain festering behind the barbs of 'morals'.
I wasn't condemning you for your discrimination, but pointing out where you need to look if you want to resolve issues. You're very good at hiding them from yourself coz you refuse to be anything but a 'good man'. NO I'm not saying you're not!lol I'm saying that we are ALL not! We are IMO both Angel & Demon and very capable.
You've already shifted things around and hidden what you need to confront IMO, but I wish you wouldn't. It's ok to be angry, really it is. Especially if it gets us to where it comes from for us to deal with it. Go write about the promiscuous and whatever tips your stern, asking what it really means to you.:)

[elian]

I think that part of being moral is to be able to treat your partner(s) with respect and not rely on deception. Religious people have used the argument that people who are attracted to the same sex are less moral to justify all sorts of cruelty, including viewing "homosexuals" as less than human. I am trying really hard to convince some of the folks I encounter that LGBT folks are honorable...then you have people like Savage.

My true feelings on this issue are complex enough that I don't know if I want to spend an hour writing about them. Why be happy when you could be "normal" eh?

There is jealousy, anger, resentment, loneliness, sadness and love involved. I am a good friend to everyone and a lover to no one. I am very tired of going to bed alone, but it isn't in my nature to sleep with someone just for sex..at the moment sex is the farthest thing from my mind - pleasure, acceptance are closer but still a world away.

I am being forced to deny something I want, but you know - sometimes that's just the way life is..you have to be patient, if you truly care about someone you try not to hurt them or take advantage of them.

I may never resolve this conflict, and in that case the more i am forced to confront it, the worse off I am. Having fluid gender identity and sexual preference is a bitch..but I don't like Savage's answer.

It is late, I am exhausted, I have a sinus headache and my wrist hurts so I am in pain, not thinking very clearly - other than the oft chance that I would rather just not go to bed alone - as tired as I am I don't want to go to bed, wish I had someone who would just tell me what I want to hear - that it will be alright. My stepdad is going through a lot and I guess some of that energy probably transferred to me too..pushing my body harder to be able to try to help him..tends to make me cranky I suppose.

Sadly, I am only human

[Long Duck Dong]

after reading many threads like this in the site.... I have noticed the same style of thinking constantly...... its not monogamy that is really the issue....the base issue is one of people should be able to indulge in casual sex whenever they feel like it, with out any issues or complications, and that is proven by the nature of the stance towards non monogamy, there is very lil mention of the partner unless its in terms of the partner as a person that is being intolerant, selfish, withholding sex etc.... the same arguments that are used most times as why partners are at fault in a relationship where the bisexual male is not sexually active with other people

dan savages opinion, is simply a reflection of his own thinking that his reality is the way the world needs to be, therefore the world needs to change to his reality in order to be * correct * ..... and the attitude that is being displayed, is unbelievably similar to the attitude that used to exist where the male does what he wants to do, the woman stays at home, bears the children, does the house work, cooks the meals and does as she is told without question.... so in a lot of ways the idea that monogamy is ridiculous, is more a case of fossilised thinking, wrapped up in a covering of new thinking... and in truth, simply a case of * STFU and make me a sammich while I go out and have sex, but when I want to be held and loved and looked after and cared about, you better do it to the best of your ability *

there is no way to be non monogamous as a single person as it requires a relationship of some semblance....... and we all know that its possible for two or more people to be in a relationship style situation where there is more a sense of ownership... its called a harem

honestly.... there is no correct way for society to think, there is only those that want to live their lives without being told how to live it or how wrong their relationship / lifestyle issue or how they are conforming to social norms, simply for the * crime * of not conforming to non social norms..... and that is why monogamy is not ridiculous, but the thinking that we should push people to rethink their lifestyles and how they live their lives in order to conform to social norms, is simply a repeat of what the LGBT have been fighting so hard to get past, for the last 50 odd years and that is the opposition, not to a lifestyle or a relationship style or choice, but our right to be who the fuck we are, as people, be we lgbt, hetero, sexuality undefined and of any gender.....

we can share the world and learn to live to together, or we can continue to try ( unsuccessfully ) to make the world * conform * to what we want it to be and continue to be fools that are trying to repeat history..... but either way, we can not ask people to practice acceptance and tolerance, if we can not practice it ourselves.. and so that is why we need to embrace monogamy and non monogamy as part of this world and human nature, otherwise we become as selfish and ignorance as the people that still try to take away our right to be who we are and live in the lifestyle we want..... that includes the anti same gender / sex marriage people, the anti LGBT people and the anti monogamy people....

if my partner and I have a non monogamy relationship, we want it to be because we choose it, not because its a socially accepted norm that we should have to conform to..... and so the right to a monogamy relationship should be the same way

[tenni]

"Monogamy makes perfect sense as a stage of a relationship that encourages bonding."

There may be some validity to Gear's statement but monogamy usually refers to sexual commitment. Is the bonding aspect sexual or mostly an emotional bonding that happens in the early stages of partnerships? The sexual commitment of exclusivity may factor in some relationships emotionally or has it become intertwined with social mores? If sexual commitment was considered no more significant than enjoying to eat a certain food together as part of bonding would society be in such strife and anxiety?

Savage is speaking about sexual commitment not emotional commitment. Therefore if you have only an emotional relationship and are monogamous emotionally with one person, the entire premise of Savage is not relevant to that non sexual relationship. Perhaps, if sexual commitment is removed from being a bonding factor, you may still bond emotionally.

Regardless of Savage's other beliefs, the points that he makes may have some worthiness for bisexuals in particular.

[DuckiesDarling]

Answer a few things. Do you realize that while pushing for bisexual rights you are denying bisexuals the right to be monogamous because it doesn't fit your view? So how does that make you different from everyone else you are fighting against? I am sure you have the best of intentions.. but so did the Exodus church when they tried to pray away the gay. Let people be who they want to be and live the way they want to be and stop trying to tell them the way a relationship should work because you have a certain viewpoint.

[cherry88]

man, i really love that ignore feature. //

[darkeyes]

Answer a few things. Do you realize that while pushing for bisexual rights you are denying bisexuals the right to be monogamous because it doesn't fit your view? So how does that make you different from everyone else you are fighting against? I am sure you have the best of intentions.. but so did the Exodus church when they tried to pray away the gay. Let people be who they want to be and live the way they want to be and stop trying to tell them the way a relationship should work because you have a certain viewpoint.

No one wishes to push monogamy or anything else on ne1.. what is being argued is to a freeing up of how people may live... no one wishes to impose anything on anyone... what is argued is that people are given the right to decide for themselves whether to be monogamous or not without the judgement of society that it is somehow reprehensible and against the natural way of things or God's will. There is no question of forcing people into doing anything their conscience and own sense of morality tells them they shouldn't. The debate is about the removal of monogamy as the moral standard from our societies.. whether it is for str8 gay or bisexual people is irrelevant.. it is about doing what u say u want people to be allowed to do... live as they want to live without the stress and pressure which society puts on them to conform.. it is to allow each of us to decide for ourselves whether to live monogamously, polyamorously, promiscuously or anything else as we think is best for us. It is about being allowed to live differently without the condemnation of society and those who think differently for not conforming to a particular predominant moral code and set of rules.

If people just crawled away into a hole somewhere and said nothing, no progress would ever be made in our world. Those who protest and shout loudest about others telling them how to live while expressing a different view during debate are very often those who wish to do exactly that. This whole debate is about allowing people to be and being able to live as they choose.. and not being judged badly for it. The only people as far as I can see who are least keen on that idea is the clown in the vid and those who would rather this debate was ended.

[darkeyes]

and that is why monogamy is not ridiculous, but the thinking that we should push people to rethink their lifestyles and how they live their lives in order to conform to social norms, is simply a repeat of what the LGBT have been fighting so hard to get past, for the last 50 odd years and that is the opposition, not to a lifestyle or a relationship style or choice, but our right to be who the fuck we are, as people, be we lgbt, hetero, sexuality undefined and of any gender.....


I happen to agree monogamy isn't ridiculous.. whether it is right or wrong for us is our choice to make.. but how else have we arrived at this point? Through argument and debate, protest and demonstration to be allowed the right to be and live as we wish. To push the world, sometimes gently, often much less so, to allow us that right and to try and change minds and be free to be who we are and live in peace. Had the LGBT not done so over the last haff century and more it would still be a world of conformity, the closet and repression of our kind... it still is to a great degree but far less than once it was... at least in the west. This debate is such a small part of the continuation of that push to change minds, to open their hearts and question age old beliefs.. not to push people to live as we think they should live, but to push by persuasion, people to allow us the freedom, and by extension themselves their own freedom, to live in accord with our own wishes without adverse critical judgement and condemnation.

[Long Duck Dong]

a freeing up of how people live, in what way??..... there is no talk of a easing of the pressure on people to be non monogamous but great wailing and gnashing of teeth by people about how monogamy is wrong and people are being forced to conform to social norms...... and people that try to present their own understanding as monogamous bisexuals are quickly and rudely shut down in the site, with remarks about how they are brainwashed and conforming to social norms......

most of the site just want to chat and talk, have fun, joke and share experiences as people.. its why so many people have left, they are tired of the pressure to conform to a bisexual * image * or hear about how the monosexuals / heterosexuals are so wrong ( most of our partners are monosexual / heterosexuals.....

if people want to be non monogamous, fine.... learn to share the world with the monogamous people, there is room for all...... but most of us are sick of being told how wrong we are for being who we are..... so could the anti monogamy people lay off the crap about how the monogamous lifestyle is ridiculous.....

if monogamy is a social standard, fran.... did you or kate conform first to the standard ? cos if you say that it was a personal choice, then you are saying that its not society that set the standards, its you and your partner for your relationship.... and if non monogamy became a social standard and the answer was that one partner said no thank you to a open relationship... then who makes the choice for the relationship being closed or open.......

in my relationship, it would be both of us, cos we are the two people in the relationship and we are not dating society so what society thinks, doesn't matter

[Gearbox]

Answer a few things. Do you realize that while pushing for bisexual rights you are denying bisexuals the right to be monogamous because it doesn't fit your view? So how does that make you different from everyone else you are fighting against? I am sure you have the best of intentions.. but so did the Exodus church when they tried to pray away the gay. Let people be who they want to be and live the way they want to be and stop trying to tell them the way a relationship should work because you have a certain viewpoint.
I've read that thread where 'Pray the gay away' is hitched to 'Fuck the monogamy away', as if monogamy is anything like a sexuality. It's nothing of the sort!
Nobody is saying that you MUST be non-monog, but that you CAN be non monog, and the latter has more to do with allowing people to be themselves than the former. It is a choice on what restrictions you put on others due to your own views of sex & love! It is not something we are born with.
That has nothing to do with bisexual rights or the LGBT in particular, but to do with our own individual capabilities to love without fear. That effects everybody.

[darkeyes]

What I am saying, Duckie is that there should b no social standard...we should not be indoctrinated by religion or state into a social standard one man one woman thing. which is the historical social standard.. the lgbt shouted loud and long against that in its own way and pushed, yes pushed society into moving towards its view. It did not do it by sitting back and saying nothing. It did not tell people u have to be gay, or bi, or trans.. it argued and screamed from the rooftops, often in peoples faces that they should allow those who are gay and bisexual and trans to be allowed to live as they are.. love who they wish, shag who they want, irrespective of gender... u get nothing by saying nothing and doing nothing.

My own relationship is well documented in the pages of these forums.. Kate is by inclination a monogamous girl.. by upbringing mostly I would say but possibly by nature too.. although that is impossible to tell.. but she does have a history of past promiscuity and she will forgive me for telling u that... not while with me other than with me in the beginning, but before we met. My history and upbringing were quite different. I was allowed to be who I am and develop differently. I was not given the strictures of most, certainly not that Kate had been raised into...not because my parents wished me to be promiscuous, or bi or gay or anything else... but because they encouraged me, as they did my siblings to be ourselves and to know what was out there in the world, and to question everything and enjoy what the world had to offer.. to find our own way.. and if that involved promiscuity, having same sex relationship then so be it...

..there was a caveat.. Iive honestly and do no harm.. I try as far as I can not to hurt other people. Easier said than done especially when young, but throughout life too. I have not always lived up to that caveat.. I doubt anyone can entirely... I am a flawed creature and have selfishness in me like anyone else. I fell for Kate.. a monogamously inclined girl when I am anything but. What was I to do? Walk away? Love doesn't work like that. I have often said there can be no compromise between those who wish to live monogamously and those who don't when they are in a partnership..and there cant. I lost Kate for following my inclinations and life was awful... and when she finally came home which was not 5 minutes and a lot of water under the bridge later, I knew that if we were to make a go of it it couldn't be on my terms... whatever is inside of her would not allow it to be. So for the first time really, I agreed to what she wanted for us... it was the only way and is still the only way we can make a go of it... so yes I conformed because it was the only way I could regain what I had lost.

Whatever the social norms of our society when it comes to sex and relationships.. there will always be those who wish for monogamy and those who wish for a different way of living. What I am saying is this... if we are not pointed down a particular road and expected to conform as we are by state, religion, education, our peers, by parents more often than not, but educated about just what is possible for us and allowed to find our own way it is, in my opinion more likely that we will end up in relationships more to our liking and which work. There will still be people who enter relationships who have different views, and there will still be the same arguments as now about monogamy, polyamory, and cheating... but we are likely.. and I put it no more strongly than that, likely to have relationships which in general are more harmonious than now. People will in general be more honest with each other when getting to know each other and when committing to each other because there is no standard morality when it comes to sex and no standard for relationships... there will always be expectations.. people do change.. they do fall out of love, and often just fall out.. their sexuality evolves.. their desire for something new and different.. there are so many imponderables... so we do not entirely eliminate the problems we have now but we put ourselves on a more honest and firm footing to ease so much of the worst of them and to allow people more easily to live their lives as they wish without judgement.

[elian]

... and in truth, simply a case of * STFU and make me a sammich while I go out and have sex, but when I want to be held and loved and looked after and cared about, you better do it to the best of your ability *

Ah yes, thank you LDD, this is the part that I was objecting to the most, thanks for pointing that out. I'm not entirely sure if he said all of that in the video or not, but that's the sentiment I got anyway. I have never been a big fan of human subjugation, I actually react pretty violently to the idea of someone imposing their will on others without permission and his message has hints of endorsing that sort of behavior.

I think there are ways, such as open relationships where everyone agrees to multiple partners that I am perfectly fine with.

[tenni]

"No one wishes to push monogamy or anything else on ne1.. what is being argued is to a freeing up of how people may live... no one wishes to impose anything on anyone... what is argued is that people are given the right to decide for themselves whether to be monogamous or not without the judgement of society that it is somehow reprehensible and against the natural way of things or God's will."


Quite some time ago, gear presented the idea that you can only promise to be monogamous for yourself. You can not impose monogamy on another person.

Celibacy is not monogamy. Savage states that sexual commitment is unnatural. I do not read (clearly) any argument that sexual commitment is natural? Sexual commitment seems to be an un natural imposed condition with much guilt about vows holding it together. There needs to be a societal imposed promise to be sexually committed to each other. There seems to be an attempt to impose one person’s will on another. If you have to promise, then it is not natural.

[tenni]

Post 41
Elian
You know that Savage did not refer to ordering a partner to make a sandwich while the person went out to have sex with a third party. Savage referred to the change from that position to a more egalitarian position. He referred to previously as marriage being a property right agreement and that it changed from that to a union of two equals. He argues (weakly yes) that is when monogamous commitment at the heart of relationships. I think that monogamous commitment was at the heart long before the 60’s. Divorce was less frequent prior to the 60’s. Putting up with whatever negative conditions (ie ordering a spouse to do X) became less common as women gained some economic freedom and social restrictions to end a relationship became more frequent to the point that we have the majority of such monogamous relationships becoming a slight minority(as witnessed by divorce stats).

What I see happening is that red herring points are being presented that have little to do with Savage's points of reframing love and relationships and sexual commitment is unnatural.

[darkeyes]

Ah yes, thank you LDD, this is the part that I was objecting to the most, thanks for pointing that out. I'm not entirely sure if he said all of that in the video or not, but that's the sentiment I got anyway. I have never been a big fan of human subjugation, I actually react pretty violently to the idea of someone imposing their will on others without permission and his message has hints of endorsing that sort of behavior.

No one is arguing Duckie's point, Elian.. but Duckie serpently wants the world to think so. However.. I do suspect Savage prob thinks like that... and ther r many besides him who do.. but that isn't what the debate is about... it is what Duckie is trying to make us think that is what it is about...

[darkeyes]

Gear is partly right.. we have no right to impose monogamy or any other life choice on another. But we do have the right to ask and expect our partner to consider and discuss it... but promise to be monogamous for ourselves? No.. not really.. I promised for myself and my partner.. because I care, had lost her once and was fucked I wasn't going to again.... we promise and do many things for those we love which they want which we may not like much and do not want. Is such an agreement 'tween 2 peeps an imposition or a concession? Both I s'pose but only imposed because I conceded for wot I considered the better good..... and it is a subject to which we return quite frequently.. some day it may change who knows... if she concedes and we move to an open relationship am I not then imposing on her my wishes in just the same way if she concedes for what sees as the greater good against everything that tells her differently?

Relationships of all kinds are about give and take.. compromise if we can, but in a relationship such ours, this is not always possible. All relationships have such dilemmas about many more things than sex.. So we balance out things in our mind and decide just what we concede and why and when we refuse to.

..and sexual commitment unnatural? I answered that earlier in the debate... if one commits to another in a sexual relationship, one commits sexually but not necessarily exclusively depending on the kind of relationship, which is an important distinction..... we are social animals, and committing to each other is a natural part of what we are whether we are in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship.. even if we are having a kwik fuck up close with sum 1 we only met 5 minutes before... that is a form of commitment too... even if it only lasts until the act is done...

[elian]

Yes, well - not all of us are as enlightened as Mr. Savage..some of us are still struggling to make sense of our feelings on the issue.

Thanks for your thoughts


Post 41
Elian
You know that Savage did not refer to ordering a partner to make a sandwich while the person went out to have sex with a third party. Savage referred to the change from that position to a more egalitarian position. He referred to previously as marriage being a property right agreement and that it changed from that to a union of two equals. He argues (weakly yes) that is when monogamous commitment at the heart of relationships. I think that monogamous commitment was at the heart long before the 60’s. Divorce was less frequent prior to the 60’s. Putting up with whatever negative conditions (ie ordering a spouse to do X) became less common as women gained some economic freedom and social restrictions to end a relationship became more frequent to the point that we have the majority of such monogamous relationships becoming a slight minority(as witnessed by divorce stats).

What I see happening is that red herring points are being presented that have little to do with Savage's points of reframing love and relationships and sexual commitment is unnatural.

[elian]

Recognizing that the biggest problem I have with this is one within myself, my intention is not really to argue with anyone, I am simply sharing my own feelings on the issue..be they right or wrong - and trying to see how other people feel about it.

Boils down to something very simple for me, I am sick and tired of seeing the people I care about get hurt. This world could be a much better place if we wanted it to be.

A lot of moral issues and dilemmas have come into my life recently, so to me this is just one more exercise in trying to make some sense of it all. Trying to measure my own actions and sense of self worth against everything that is going on. Guide says, "You still believe in the 10 commandments." I doubt that I am more righteous than anyone else, however maybe those words still mean something to me, in the face of people trying to justify different behavior.


No one is arguing Duckie's point, Elian.. but Duckie serpently wants the world to think so. However.. I do suspect Savage prob thinks like that... and ther r many besides him who do.. but that isn't what the debate is about... it is what Duckie is trying to make us think that is what it is about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk

[tenni]

"A lot of moral issues and dilemmas have come into my life recently,"

Ah, the religious influence in this is a valid one as far as morality. I would assume based on previous posts that you have struggled with sexuality itself although I don't think that there is a commandment stating that same sex activity is immoral per sei. The adultery issue is probably at the core of the issue. In contemporary times sexual commitment has been expanded to include perceiving /questioning adultry if the parties are aware and not practising sexual commitment. The issue raised by Savage is one of sexual commitment and not cheating. Adultry is much more black and white. If you have sex outside of the partnership it is adultery regardless if the people have agreed to no sexual commitment as part of love and relationships.

Hopefully this discussion is a positive impact on your search. I'm not sure that I would place Savage in the position of enlightenment but perhaps an alternate voice that has also struggled with moral issues. (I know that he doesn't appear that way though)

[elian]

As for the ten commandments I cannot say that I care for a monotheistic perception of the divine, but my heart sinks what I consider the ways we have abused this world and mistreated human dignity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F5lbMrCj80

[darkeyes]

As for the ten commandments I cannot say that I care for a monotheistic perception of the divine, but my heart sinks what I consider the ways we have abused this world and mistreated human dignity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F5lbMrCj80
I live by just 5, Elian as best I can, although would prefer it just 4 if we accept adultery as meaning fucking outside of marriage whether it be by a partner's consent or not...which I do not accept btw.... the first 5 mean nothing to me for being an athiest u would not expect them to... of the latter 5 I have been adulterous and have coveted.. told lil fibs an all.. stolen a few things wen I wos little from my sister and brother mostly. And nicked the odd sweetie out of a shop.. worra lil tea leaf I wos wen wee... other than animals and beasties, I have however never killed and nowadays never them deliberately even although I am no vegan or vegetarian and understand that to be so means the killing of many creatures and fully understand what that means.. and I never shall, not again... and human life is far important for me 2 even contemplate it... we have abused and are abusing this world, u r right... we have mistreated and are mistreating human dignity too.. in many ways than than sexual, and many far more important and fundamental... but we do not improve our species record on either by insisting people live by societal and religious social norms... I have no perception of the divine whatsoever and never have had and believe it time humanity lost its belief and its perceptions.. but the future will take care of that or not as the case may be, we shall see:)...

[Long Duck Dong]

Gear is partly right.. we have no right to impose monogamy or any other life choice on another. But we do have the right to ask and expect our partner to consider and discuss it... but promise to be monogamous for ourselves? No.. not really.. I promised for myself and my partner.. because I care, had lost her once and was fucked I wasn't going to again.... we promise and do many things for those we love which they want which we may not like much and do not want. Is such an agreement 'tween 2 peeps an imposition or a concession? Both I s'pose but only imposed because I conceded for wot I considered the better good..... and it is a subject to which we return quite frequently.. some day it may change who knows... if she concedes and we move to an open relationship am I not then imposing on her my wishes in just the same way if she concedes for what sees as the greater good against everything that tells her differently?

Relationships of all kinds are about give and take.. compromise if we can, but in a relationship such ours, this is not always possible. All relationships have such dilemmas about many more things than sex.. So we balance out things in our mind and decide just what we concede and why and when we refuse to.

..and sexual commitment unnatural? I answered that earlier in the debate... if one commits to another in a sexual relationship, one commits sexually but not necessarily exclusively depending on the kind of relationship, which is an important distinction..... we are social animals, and committing to each other is a natural part of what we are whether we are in a monogamous or polyamorous relationship.. even if we are having a kwik fuck up close with sum 1 we only met 5 minutes before... that is a form of commitment too... even if it only lasts until the act is done...

agreed and such is the way of the world

[Gearbox]

a freeing up of how people live, in what way??..... there is no talk of a easing of the pressure on people to be non monogamous but great wailing and gnashing of teeth by people about how monogamy is wrong and people are being forced to conform to social norms...... and people that try to present their own understanding as monogamous bisexuals are quickly and rudely shut down in the site, with remarks about how they are brainwashed and conforming to social norms......
The only 'gnashing of teeth' to be seen are towards 'cheaters' that you yourself and others try to shut out from the site. Any monogs who leave the site, do so coz they won't tolerate 'cheaters' being tolerated or monogamy being disparaged in any way. That is their prerogative, but a pity IMO.

most of the site just want to chat and talk, have fun, joke and share experiences as people.. its why so many people have left, they are tired of the pressure to conform to a bisexual * image * or hear about how the monosexuals / heterosexuals are so wrong ( most of our partners are monosexual / heterosexuals.....
IMO about 98% of the threads here are about sex, sexuality and relationships. There are MANY sites for monosexuals, but very few for bisexuals where they can go and express themselves and expect not to be judged. That's why Many monosexuals come here to learn about bisexuals through open and honest discussion, not to have some claim there is a 'bisexual image' to fit all!
They want to know why some cheat, how to resolve or prevent it etc. If they wanted to learn how to scorn, they'd go to a Catholic site.

if people want to be non monogamous, fine.... learn to share the world with the monogamous people, there is room for all...... but most of us are sick of being told how wrong we are for being who we are..... so could the anti monogamy people lay off the crap about how the monogamous lifestyle is ridiculous.....
......and you claim others try to shut people down!:rolleyes:
Some things ARE ridiculous to some, and it would be lovely to understand why people do things, such as why some believe that monogamy is a good thing. You haven't communicated that very well so far.

[elian]

If they wanted to learn how to scorn, they'd go to a Catholic site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grJ3wsmV47I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grJ3wsmV47I)

So I just won't respond to any more threads about bisexual relationships with straight folk or threads discussing poly relationships. Then the "real" bisexuals can feel free to share their "real" feelings without interference.

..and it isn't that I don't have empathy for men who discover they are bi AFTER they are married and/or have children - I do. There are some things we'll probably not agree on. I grew up in a divorced family and my own personal decision is not to get involved in a relationship where *I* am likely to break up an otherwise loving relationship between two partners. I don't have enough energy to police everyone else, I can only be responsible for myself.

[Long Duck Dong]

The only 'gnashing of teeth' to be seen are towards 'cheaters' that you yourself and others try to shut out from the site. Any monogs who leave the site, do so coz they won't tolerate 'cheaters' being tolerated or monogamy being disparaged in any way. That is their prerogative, but a pity IMO.

IMO about 98% of the threads here are about sex, sexuality and relationships. There are MANY sites for monosexuals, but very few for bisexuals where they can go and express themselves and expect not to be judged. That's why Many monosexuals come here to learn about bisexuals through open and honest discussion, not to have some claim there is a 'bisexual image' to fit all!
They want to know why some cheat, how to resolve or prevent it etc. If they wanted to learn how to scorn, they'd go to a Catholic site.

......and you claim others try to shut people down!:rolleyes:
Some things ARE ridiculous to some, and it would be lovely to understand why people do things, such as why some believe that monogamy is a good thing. You haven't communicated that very well so far.


if people cheat, they cheat, I am not their partner and I am not the one that has to rebuild the relationship / marriage, its something I have made clear many times..... I leave the gnashing of teeth and wailing for other people, such as the ones that want to rewrite the rules on who is welcome here, who can post what and how many hours after a bisexual has posted or that as a bisexual female they should reconsider if they belong here if they are not here to hook up or that society will never be happy and there will never be truth and honesty in relationships unless the relationships are non monogamous.. etc etc etc....

simply and bluntly the day that drew bans all monosexuals from the site, then I will leave the site, I want no part of a site where people are excluded on the rounds of sexuality and / or gender cos many monosexuals are our partners, they love and support us, embrace our sexuality and our path of learning.... they are not perfect and nor are we..... however if I can suggest that you want to look around the net for sites that are more restricted and exclude monosexuals from accessing and posting in the main forums, I suggest you ask tenni, he is a member of one and shares much of the same views as you........

as for monogamy being a good thing.... understanding takes a open mind... the anti monogamy postings of you and others are there to read for anybody.... the open minded stance of many of the posters in this thread, reflect the fact that we do not want to limit people to one lifestyle only..... we are embracing of monogamy and non monogamy as a aspect of a relationship for everybody... and to start dictate how people should live, in order to be happy, would make us no different to the people that insist that we can not be happy unless we live their way......

if a non monogamous relationship is so great, why are its two biggest advocates not in one and showing us how telling a partner that its your way or the highway, works well and how you deal with the issues and aspects of a non monogamous relationship.... and yes I accept the fact that people do not have to be in a relationship if they do not wish to be, its a RIGHT OF CHOICE... but its a bit rich when people are telling others how to live, when they are not doing the same themselves.....

[tenni]

I don't believe that Savage used the word "cheat". This thread is not about cheating at all.

Therefore those discussing cheating or why posters leave this site would you please start your own thread. Thank you for being considerate.

The thread is about reframing love and relationships in particular about sexual commitment not being necessary to have love and relationships.

The idea of equal freedoms for those in loving relationships does not mean sexual restrictions for either is a premise presented by Savage.

I think that if you have equal freedoms as far as sexual commitment, it is both individuals choice to exercise that freedom. If a person doesn't exercise the freedom that is their choice. This adheres to the concept that one may chose monogamy for themselves but not another individual. If you love them, give them the freedom of choice as far as sexual commitment is concerned. It has little to nothing to do with your love for each other is my understanding of Savages comments. (I know that is hard if you feel insecure in the relationship).

I don't think that monogamy is ridiculous if all involved are free to chose whether they wish to be exclusively sexually committed. No resentment imposed by one party over the other for doing so. No interpreting a person not loving you if they chose to have sex with another person as well. There would have to be an understanding that love for each other is far greater than sex. Sex is not a sign of love. Commitment means other things than sex.

If people wish to say that they are in a relationship and that relationship includes celibacy that is fine. If one choses to have sex that would also be fine and the other would could remain celibate. However, they are celibate not monogamous if there is no sex at all? *according to a definition about monogamy that I read recently.

Post 45
"Gear is partly right.. we have no right to impose monogamy or any other life choice on another. But we do have the right to ask and expect our partner to consider and discuss it... but promise to be monogamous for ourselves? No.. not really.. I promised for myself and my partner.. because I care"

darkeyes
I think that I understand you but I don't believe that we can promise for another person and still consider them free..unless they are a minor? I don't think that you have the right to even ask them to be monogamous and still consider them free. They have the right to be monogamous even if they confuse sexual commitment as a sign of their love? It gets a bit grey.

[cherry88]

You'd have the right to ask.:bigrin: It becomes a problem when one finds the others requests 'unreasonable' and refuses to tolerate them. Then it goes into a standoff!
Being 'unreasonable' isn't such a prob by itself. There are many who DO follow requests that in others views are completely unreasonable - such as walking 6 paces behind hubby in a yashmak, walking on eggshells to avoid jealous consequences, having one sided sex, having no sex at all etc etc etc
That's all fine, until it's not tolerated.

i think this has been a really really interesting debate.... it kind of strikes me that the one really difficuilt question to answer is..... why exactly -do- so many monagamous people view non monagamy as a threat? and im just as fascinated, by why equally many non monagamous people seem to view monagamy in exactly the same way? that is what i really find interesting... members from -both- sides appear to view the other side, as a personal threat....

i just want to toss out some theories about this becuase i think its sort of the central question. why is it a threat? i also want to put forth the observatoin, that even completely polyamorous people, feel jealousy. isnt this a strange reality? even people who are completley polyamorous, and practice it freely themselves, (and that of course means multiple love and relatoinships, not just swinging or whatever) still are not free from the feeling of jealousy. they still struggle with it, they still experience it, even though they realize the hypocrisy of giving in to it, and try not to. but, they very often still feel it and recognize it as a very basic human emotion. this sort of tells me that just being polyamorous or being non monogamous, no matter how commited you are to it, doesnt realy make you all that 'different' underneath.

humans are still 'threatened' by certain things on soem internal level even when intellectually by every right, it seems completely illogical. not any point to pointing that out, but that i find it interesting. if just not being threatened by your lover being with other peopel were easy to do, or even all that 'natural' for all humans, you would think jealousy as an emotoin would be completely non existent among non monagamous and poly people.. but it is far from that. they are aware of it and work with it rather than being afraid of it, but many if not all of them still feel it.

about your comment gearbox i have a friend who postulates that an agreement of monagamy is similar to any other 'power exchange' agreement in relationships for instance between dom & sub people. 'reasonable' or not is defined purely by the participants. im not too familiar with those kind of relationships but i think its an interesting comparison. in lots of relationships people 'agree' to both give up and allow each other different kinds of power over each other in different ways. she believes that monagamy really isnt all that off the charts unnatural its just another form of power exchange between people who like to do things that way. i.e. i agree to be only with you, you agree to be only with me... you wear a collar and do stuff i say.. i sign this contract to do stuff you say... what is the difference? its an agreement to power exchange. in dom sub relatoinships that happens all the time in different ways and nobody cares what the two (or three) agree on. the nature of the exchanges and agreements involved are up to the individuals involved.

she also speculates that one point of conflict between monogamous and non monogamous styles is just a difference on a genetic level in 'mating strategy'. she believes that any species as adaptable and complicated as humans must employ a number of genetic mating strategies rather than just one. (this seems kinda borne out by the number of different mating styles here!) but basically she feels that the reason the different sides perceive each other a threat is becuase basically the opposing style is a threat to your preferred mating strategy.

if genetically you are the type to bond strongly to one person and cultivate loyalty with them, which i think many people legitimately are, then your genetic interest lies with keeping that person faithful to you, staying around to help with the kids and bring you food and all that stuff. thats your strategy for partnerships and seeing anything else happening will feel like a threat, on a genetic level. your interest is in bonding with -one- person. if thats the case you will see any attempt to bond with other people, (completley subconsciously) as a threat to your strategy. it increases the chances of betrayal, or having your interests screwed over, in favor of someone else. which is against your strategy.

if you are non monagamous and want to be with lots of people and spread your energy in a wider way, or your strategy is to bond with multiple people and thats what you are driven to do, certainly you will perceive any attempt to limit your efforts to do that, as a threat to your strategy.... and you will rebel against that becuase its in your very nature. its really kind of genetic and i kind of agree with her about that on some level.

i know that that is the 'threat' i certainly see in non monagamy, for myself. i know other people see it differently but to me intimacy =equals= loyalty. when im intimate with soemone it creates a really deep loyalty in me to them. and im (usually) with people who feel the same way. to my mind the benefit of monogamy is that when one person is loyal to me, then i know that my interests are one of their higher priorities.

if they are cultivating intimacy (which to me =equals= loyalty) with soemone else, then they have conflicting interests/conflicting loyalties.

sex is a powerful motivator, and peopel will do a lot of crazy shit for sex. (as we've seen) so i really dont want to be in a position where my lover is gonna be thinking "hey i promised cherry 'this' but girl X wants 'that'........ now i need to choose and right now being with girl X feel EXTREMELY important cause i really want to get in girl X's pants, so im gonna choose to blow off what i promised cherry cause weve been together awhile and she'll probly forgive me" i just dont want to open myself up to situations like that. cause i dont like getting screwed over. some people wouldnt see it that way, but i do.

so in my relationships becuase i have a genetic interest in cultivating loyalty with -one- person i will try to enter relationships with people who are also naturally monogamous, so that i know that -my- interests will be their top priority....... thats just one less thing i have to worry about in life and i really, really value that. i just sleep better at night, knowing my partner is looking out for -my- interests. and that they -like- it that way. (a lot of people do.) or, in the current case, i negotiate a power exhange, with my current lover who has different genetic programming than i do, and becuase we share a space, we have to come to a compromise between our two competing styles.... neither of us can have exactly what we prefer and stay together, so in order to stay together, we both give a little bit and try to reach a compromise. i would never tell him what to do with his body and life.... but i can easily tell him, what -i- personally need to feel healthy and happy.... then he has the choice to consider it or not. just like he is telling me what he needs to feel healthy and happy, and i have the choice to consider it, or leave him.

it all comes down to again what peopel personaly see as the value of relationships in thier own life, just the same as each individual sees the value and purpose of sex differently..... to me relationships are about being a team and having each others back. to me that is 100% the purpose of having a relationship. so cultivating loyalty to others, to me undermines that. so i just wanted to elucidate waht exactly i perceive as the 'threat' since i think its a valid question.

also interestingly, i can be attracted to other people while in a relationship and not view that as a detraction from my relatoinship. however if i ever actually wanted to -pursue- something, by my own internal definition, that to me would signal something was raelly wrong with my current relationship and that i was probably wanting to leave it. becuase im genetically programmed to only be with one person at a time. so if i actually wanted to pursue something else, that would mean without a doubt that i was losign interest in my current partner. thats the way my mind works, so its different to conceptualize that other people may feel differently. its hard to see the world through other peoples perceptions if you dont share them. so that again, is a threat to me. the very fact my partner seriously wants an emotoinal connection with someone else, by -my- internal definition, signals their loss of commitment to our relationship. to interpert it any differently means really stretching outside of my own viewpoint cause i just operate differently and thats ok. (and i want to clarify- i -do- perceive sex as creating a different kind of loyalty & motivation than non sexual relationships..... i know this is kind of the heart of the debate, but honestly, that is what i -personally- believe. i do feel and believe that once sex and intimacy is involved, the relationship becomes soemthing different. that is truly what i believe and what my experience has been. i -know- other people see it differently. and me being here is my attempt to understand the way other people see it. but that -is- the way that -my- mind sees it, and experiences it.) i feel that sex is -never- without strings. but thats just how it is for me personally.

final comment my daughter (who is completley polyamorous herslef) just came in here and i told her what we were talking about. she rolled her eyes and said she didnt know how i could stand the drama. she said the one thing she cant stand is poly peopel who think they are better than everyone else, the non monagamy is 'more enlightened' or better or that all people are just non-monagamous inside but dont know it... she said that stance really annoys her and that all people should be allowed to be who they are and do what they want.... then she went and had some ice cream. a wise child.

[Long Duck Dong]

interesting read, cherry... and your daughter is as wise as her mother.....

ok, I am a monogamous natured male that finds that I react to and crave contact on more of a emotional level than a sexual level.... even when I was sexually active with males and females, there needed to be some sort of emotional reaction in me, some need to *make the other person smile and let them know that they mattered to me * its part of why NSA sex doesn't do it for me, I feel like I am just being dismissive of the other person as a person and if that is what the other person seeks, they are talking to the wrong person, I know people that I could refer them to, that are more in line with what they want.....

in most cases when I have dealt with friends and partners that have dealt with cheating, the common aspect is that its not so much the sex that is the issue, its the attitude towards the partner, the sex with others and the way that the whole deal is dismissed as not really a big issue, get with the program style thinking..... and for many people its like a slap in the face as they are left with a sour taste in their mouth and the thinking that if their partner can be as dismissive of the issue as just sex, what value do they place on the partner and the relationship....

thats reflected in the way that posters are posting that its just sex, and there is a difference between sex and love.. and there is no mention of love making with the partner.... some partners hold love making as a big part of their relationship and a intimate, shared aspect between 2 or more people ( I include closed poly relationships in the same class as closed mono relationships because love, love making and sex are a big part of them )

as I have posted in the past, I have no issues with people making appreciative comments about my partner and some of them are very personal remarks, I take them as a sign that others see the beauty in my partner that I do and so I appreciate the remarks by the other people, they are a compliment, and I do not worry if my partner finds interest in others.... its actually fun seeing what makes each other tick.....

my partner has posted that she views herself as hetero-flexible, a lady that will not go looking for sex with other women but if a opportunity arose with her, me and another female that turned into a 3some, my partner would participate, something that resulted in some of the members telling her that she was wrong in calling herself hetero-flexible and to stop trying to * rewrite the rules * in order to make herself look better and pass herself off as a bisexual..... I accept my partner as she defines herself, but again, its the dismissive attitude towards a person that makes huge difference in their viewing of the value in a relationship and as a person ..... and its the same attitude I see in this thread with the remarks about love and sex....

my partner is ok with me and another male, but shes not comfortable with me and another female, part of that comes from the fact that her husband cheated on her with another woman and the blame was laid on my partner as for the reason he cheated ( the root cause was in fact a stressful job life for my partner and a medical condition )..... personally I am ok with another female and my partner... a fully intersexed female and my partner would be a dream come true as the intersex person could be the female / male aspect and so it would become a closed poly relationship.....

intimacy and love making is important to me in a relationship, but so is sex, there is a need for both.... there are times that a partner can want to be made love with... and other time that they want to rip the bed sheets and leave teeth marks in the head board ( nudges my partner as she is the reason why I am seriously considering a med related treatment when we are back living together )

the constant portrayal of people as insecure, needy, possessive, jealous etc because they are monogamous, is about as offensive as saying that non monogamous people are sex obsessed, self centered ego manics.... I know many people that are monogamous, non monogamous and poly, most of them are mature adults that are reasonable in their expression of their opinions about monogamy and non monogamy and its with their help that a number of relationships have been healed, strengthened and evolved.

my fears for the future, are issues that other posters have mentioned, such as * stretching myself * to embrace all my partners equally and in turn, ensure that my needs are met as a relationship is a working compromise between people.. and yes I have doubts about my ability to be a really good partner...... but much of the push for non monogamy as a norm, is not about relationships, its about a situation where people can have a partner and casual sex, or just casual sex... and in a site where poly relationships are known about and talked about... its a shame that they do not feature more in the site, but once again they are based on support and love for partners in a closed relationship or poly relationships with committed partners and casual sex as a option.......

so thats my personal understanding and viewpoint as a person that is omni/pansexual, refers to myself as bisexual with a hetero-flexible partner that are both more monogamous minded but viewing a closed poly relationship, and both dealing with our own personal understandings, doubts, thoughts and fears......

[darkeyes]

You mistake the sense in which I promised for my partner.. the promise I made was on my behalf to her for her, Because I wanted to for her. She has never made any promise on her own behalf and neither have I ever asked her to. Nothing in my promise holds her to be true to me in any sense... We have committed to each other but even our wedding vows never contained any promise to forsake all others. The promise was made on a soaking wet evening outside the Beehive pub in Edinburgh's Grassmarket long b4... I made it for her because of history and because of pain and because it had to be made.

The debate over monogamy as opposed to non monogamy as it has formed is not really in my view about committed relationships, or at least should not be.. that Gear and tenni are not has no bearing. It is the expectation of society and religions that we commit to as single person and our entire culture channels us down that route... that anything different is considered less than respectable... even people who never even have sex, or do not marry and die old maids are considered somehow weird and sad.... men who never do are look at suspicuously and considered pervs or dirty ole men. The argument is about freeing our world from the expectation of monogamy as the only real norm of consequence and the making it no more or less respectable than any other way of living..

So the argument really has been a false one... non monogamy really means anything different from monogamy.. something other than a commitment of one person to another at the exclusion of all others. So as I see it, whether Gear and tenni are or are not in any kind of committed relationship is moot... although both have had committed relationships in their time and have moved on since they ended.. that does not make what they have to say irrelevant any more than it does the relationship status of the Pope, the Queen's, the President of the US, Cherry, myself and if I may say so.. even you.. even one who has never had any kind of committed sexual relationship or any other kind of relationship has the right to express a view.. and not have it contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant.. just think on that all...

and finally.. of course it is in large part about casual sex... not entirely, but it is serpently about that aspect of our sexual lives... there is nothing at all wrong with casual sex and it something I long practiced and had great fun with...whether or not we have casual sex is also a non monogamous way of living and as such I am all for it.. it isn't dirty which is what some on this site seem to make it out to be....

[elian]

Gearbox http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/styles/lifeElement/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?p=253003#post253003) You'd have the right to ask.:bigrin: It becomes a problem when one finds the others requests 'unreasonable' and refuses to tolerate them. Then it goes into a standoff!
Being 'unreasonable' isn't such a prob by itself. There are many who DO follow requests that in others views are completely unreasonable - such as walking 6 paces behind hubby in a yashmak, walking on eggshells to avoid jealous consequences, having one sided sex, having no sex at all etc etc etc

To me this to me this might be a flag indicating an unhealthy relationship but the behavior can occur whether you are monogamous or not. Then again, some people are perfectly happy being subservient to those they love. there is an implied consensual agreement between everyone involved that makes a difference. People can and do leave unhappy relationships every day, hopefully they will learn something and seek out someone different next time.

I'm not sure what you want, all of these concepts exist in nature, it's not like someone has made them up. Certain species pair bond and certain do not, human beings seem to be a paradox, just like they are on so many other other levels. If you are free to choose, why do you feel we are holding you back?

My ONLY concern is that behavior is honest and open. Whether you have one partner or twenty - they have a right to know, if for no other reason than for their own health. ..and yes, there are ways to have a healthy relationship with more than one person - but you don't withhold information that affects someone on a very intimate level. Of course, people do that too - what I find frustrating is that there are no rules really. You can only take someone at their word and by their actions.

[tenni]

mo·nog·a·my
/məˈnägəmē/
Noun


The practice of state of being married to one person at a time.

2. The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Celibacy refers to a state of being unmarried and sexually abstinent usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee.
.................................................. .....................

“I am a monogamous natured male that finds that I react to and crave contact on more of a emotional level than a sexual level.”
A person in an unmarried relationship that is non sexual is not technically monogamous. They are closer to being in a celibate relationship.

A person may be monogamous natured only if monogamy is deemed natural as existing in nature. There are a few species that practice what some see as monogamy but is really life mates and so ok monogamous if these life mates are considered "married"(show us your marriage license :) Even a few of those individuals in the species have been found to slip out for a piece when their partner is not looking ;) These natural species have been deemed life mates but not really sexually committed for life. I do not read anywhere that monogamy has been deemed natural by science.

Similarly, it has been posted that a single person can not be monogamous. Yes, a single person can be monogamous. A single person may be in a “friend with benefits” sexual relationship. The single person may perceive themselves in a monogamous state even as a “fuck buddy” although probably less frequently so. They may chose to have sex when “needed” but with only one person and therefore monogamous. Both scenarios are not however "sexually committed" relationships as the more traditional approach to monogamy.

Thanks for the clarification darkeyes.

“It is the expectation of society and religions that we commit to as single person and our entire culture channels us down that route... that anything different is considered less than respectable.”

This is also the source that consider a lesbian less than respectable, is it not?

“non monogamy really means anything different from monogamy.. something other than a commitment of one person to another at the exclusion of all others. “
Is it not Savages point that you may commit to one person but that commitment does not need to be a sexual commitment as sexual commitments are unnatural? It is not monogamous but a commitment just the same. Should it be less respectable to have such committed relationship? Should society not accept this as equally as valid as your monogamous relationship?

Cherrie
Wonderfully well expressed ideas and questions.

Why do people on either side view on the issue of monogamy perceive the other side as a threat?
I can only write for myself. I’m not sure where I personally stand on the issue of monogamy and that may appear strange since I started the thread. Personally, I recognize that the issue of sexual commitment has caused many bisexuals in relationships with monosexuals great stress when the bisexual wants to be with whatever gender their partner is not. The monosexual (well hetero) has society defending that monogamy is right and various forms where there is not a rigid adherence to sexual commitment as bad. So the threat is to some biseuxal’s needs while other bisexuals are quite happy in monogamy (sort of low level bisexual same sex drive/need..don’t know to be studied one day)


On the question of jealousy, I have to wonder if there are shades of jealousy. It is possible that a person in a poly situation may want to dominate the others. I did a bit of research and wrote a blog on Possessiveness etc.

to quote myself (hopefully ok)
“Jealousy is possessiveness. Both relate to ownership and manifesting a desire to control or dominate another. This is most negative and especially if it is inorder to limit a person's relationship with others. Some permit platonic relationships with others and some develop jealousy and possessiveness of even platonic relationships. Fewer tolerate and are comfortable with sexual relationships with others which may lead to conflict for some bisexuals.

Jealousy is an emotion that refers to negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, particularly in reference to a human connection. Jealousy often consists of a combination of presenting emotions such as anger, resentment, inadequacy, helplessness and disgust. Jealousy implies a triad composed of a jealous individual, a partner, and a perception of a third party or rival. Jealous reactions typically involve aversive emotions( disgust etc.) and/or behaviors that are assumed to be protective for their attachment relationships instead of perceiving the triad as beneficial to the happiness of the loved one.

Jealousy may be: a/ sexual or b/ emotional/ romantic. Romantic jealousy is the most complex of the two forms and it is a result of a threat to the self esteem of the jealous person. Romantic jealousy arouses the strongest emotional reaction. Jealousy is often reinforced as a series of particularly strong emotions and constructed as a universal human experience that may seek to privileged monogamous discourses."

Therefore, it is possible that the poly relationship conflict has romantic jealousy happening to a greater extent than sexual jealousy? not sure.

[Long Duck Dong]

mo·nog·a·my
/məˈnägəmē/
Noun


The practice of state of being married to one person at a time.

2. The practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Celibacy refers to a state of being unmarried and sexually abstinent usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee.
.................................................. .....................

“I am a monogamous natured male that finds that I react to and crave contact on more of a emotional level than a sexual level.”
A person in an unmarried relationship that is non sexual is not technically monogamous. They are closer to being in a celibate relationship.

A person may be monogamous natured only if monogamy is deemed natural as existing in nature. There are a few species that practice monogamy and even a few of those individuals have been found to slip out for a piece when their partner is not looking ;) These natural species have been deemed life mates but not really monogamous for life. I do not read anywhere that monogamy has been deemed natural by science.

Similarly, it has been posted that a single person can not be monogamous. Yes, a single person can be monogamous. A single person may be in a “friend with benefits” sexual relationship. The single person may perceive themselves in a monogamous state even as a “fuck buddy” although probably less frequently so. They may chose to have sex when “needed” but with only one person and therefore monogamous. Both scenarios are not however "sexually committed" relationships as the more traditional approach to monogamy.

Thanks for the clarification darkeyes.


that crap is why most people avoid threads like this and why I refer to people as the goon squad......

[Gearbox]

if people cheat, they cheat, I am not their partner and I am not the one that has to rebuild the relationship / marriage, its something I have made clear many times..... I leave the gnashing of teeth and wailing for other people, such as the ones that want to rewrite the rules on who is welcome here, who can post what and how many hours after a bisexual has posted or that as a bisexual female they should reconsider if they belong here if they are not here to hook up or that society will never be happy and there will never be truth and honesty in relationships unless the relationships are non monogamous.. etc etc etc....
You have made it clear many times that you are very quick to gnash your teeth at the 'cheaters' that come here, then claim you didn't. It's not for any of us to decide who is welcome here, but you yourself make them unwelcome as they have told you so.
Don't know what you are talking about for the rest of that except the honesty in a relationship bit - that has a lot of merit IMO.

simply and bluntly the day that drew bans all monosexuals from the site, then I will leave the site, I want no part of a site where people are excluded on the rounds of sexuality and / or gender cos many monosexuals are our partners, they love and support us, embrace our sexuality and our path of learning.... they are not perfect and nor are we..... however if I can suggest that you want to look around the net for sites that are more restricted and exclude monosexuals from accessing and posting in the main forums, I suggest you ask tenni, he is a member of one and shares much of the same views as you........
Drew has never implied that, but has stated this site is NOT bisexual exclusive. You are creating a threat that doesn't exist for the purpose of your martyrdom again by trying to give the impression that I, Drew and Tenni somehow dislike monosexuals. It's bizarre, but not surprising, sadly.


as for monogamy being a good thing.... understanding takes a open mind... the anti monogamy postings of you and others are there to read for anybody.... the open minded stance of many of the posters in this thread, reflect the fact that we do not want to limit people to one lifestyle only..... we are embracing of monogamy and non monogamy as a aspect of a relationship for everybody... and to start dictate how people should live, in order to be happy, would make us no different to the people that insist that we can not be happy unless we live their way......
That's really saying how good people are in general, not monogamy itself. But you're right, people can adapt to non-monog and monog as have been seen MANY times in these threads alone. It's rarely easy on either side, but great efforts are often made and praised. However, opinions about what is the best way to live etc are NOT dictations, but merely opinions!


if a non monogamous relationship is so great, why are its two biggest advocates not in one and showing us how telling a partner that its your way or the highway, works well and how you deal with the issues and aspects of a non monogamous relationship.... and yes I accept the fact that people do not have to be in a relationship if they do not wish to be, its a RIGHT OF CHOICE... but its a bit rich when people are telling others how to live, when they are not doing the same themselves.....

Dictating that I personally have no right to talk about relationships while I am single? I think that's rich coming from you, as I have more of a relationship with my fuckbud than you have with your partner IMO. We at least interact with each other IN PERSON more than once in a blue moon. THAT has nothing to do with the right to speak of anything though.

[Long Duck Dong]

gearbox
http://www.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?12000-Reclusive-or-an-Inclusive-Bisexual-com



I feel pretty strongly that the site should be inclusive.

We've seen a lot of people who are partners of a bisexual man or woman come here looking for information and help in a time of need, and to the credit of the community, you have all provided it in a strong spirit of helping that person during a very difficult and confusing time.

Also I think there is something inherently inclusive about bisexuality. Perhaps because we are in the "between world" of straight and gay. "Exclusive bisexual community" seems somewhat paradoxical to me.

there is a long list of names of other members that have spoken out about cheating..... oddly enuf, its only ever my name that you and tenni can remember..... strange that....

gear, show me ANY thread where I have said that your opinion is not valid ??? I have said that I find it interesting that the two most vocal advocates of non monogamy in the site, are single males... but I have never said that it invalidates your opinion at all, cos it fucking well doesn't.... unlike somebody that is constantly trying to rewrite definations in order to invalidate my relationship, sexuality, partner and other things....

so I will repeat it... just cos you are not in a relationship, doesn't make your opinion about non monogamy and monogamy ANY less valid than a fucking eunuch monk living on mars..... and if you two want to put yourselves out there as paragons of relationships etc... then bear in mind that its you both that have posted how neither of you want relationships... so putting it out there that fuckbudbbies and FWB are relationships, basically implies that you both make up the * rules * as you go along..... and once again, its why I refer to people as the goon squad.....

btw, I live according to my standards which I have posted, are my standards for me.... not for anybody else to live to..... the only standard that I endorse for other people, is the same standard that others have endorsed, honesty and communication..... the idea of * rewriting the social and moral standards etc * are not coming from me but you and tenni and fran..... bear that in mind next time you or any of the others want to post about how I am trying to make people conform to a standard or change how they live, cos I am also sick of that crap as well...

[tenni]

"oddly enuf, its only ever my name that you and tenni can remember..... strange that...."

AGAIN! This thread is not about cheating nor self martyrdom.
Please start your own thread on cheating and how you are victimized.

If a poster writes something on topic it is open for discussion. If they write off topic, they are trolling.
Please stop trolling this thread and let a civil debate on Savage's points happen. In other words..piss off with the trolling.

For newer posters
There have been many bisexual men who have been condemned by the above poster over the years because they did not live up to his morality and he attacked them for not doing so.. He has improved recently within the past year. There is hope. Now if he only knew how to not troll a thread. ;)

Name calling others "goon" squad? In your new thread on how you are a victim martyr and cheating please explain who this goon squad is? Do not do it on this thread.

[Long Duck Dong]

"oddly enuf, its only ever my name that you and tenni can remember..... strange that...."

AGAIN! This thread is not about cheating nor self martyrdom.
Please start your own thread on cheating and how you are victimized.
Please stop trolling this thread. In other words..piss off troll.

There have been many bisexual men who have been condemned by the above poster. If a poster writes something on topic it is open for discussion. No one is name calling..unlike "goon" squad accusers

then leave me alone and there will not be a problem....

[darkeyes]

Aha!!!! So I am a member of the goon squad... wos beginning 2 wonder.. I like the Goons.. me dad brought me up on the Goons... after he died I nicked his record collection...ver funny and ver clever...imaginative, brilliant and not afraid to try and think new things comedically an' lampoon the status quo...u call me a goon ne time u like and the attitudes of the day... so won't take it personally, promise ya...

As for me trying rewrite the social and moral standards.. I plead guilty... though it is more a case of obliterating and erasing the ones current which is the immediate case to hand...am not ashamed of it cos they fucking need erased and rewritten as they stand... not just the 1's pertaining 2 sex and sexuality, but these r the 1s about which we r arguing... like tenni and Gear I seek to have them rewritten through argument in accord with the things I have written throughout this thread.. I have no wish to compel anyone to live in ne particular lifestyle.. neither do I wish to insist ne1 lives as I do or would wish to... only for each and every one of us, when it comes to sex, sexuality and relationships, to be allowed to live our lives as we wish, honestly and decently in the manner we decide in accord with our own view of the world as long as we do no harm and hurt no one... and not be judged badly for it by any..

Finally..as for leaving u alone, that very much depends as it always will in any debate about contributions by any poster on any matter, what u may have to say...if u pop ur head above the parapets, there is always likely to be a pop or 2 at that often rather thin skinned lickle bonce... call me Min ne time, Hercules;)...

[BareProf]

Stop flaming and stick with the issue of monogamy! Recently a book came out "What Do Women Want?" and one of the issues posed is that often in a marriage the partners get tired of sex with the same partner and that many women revived their sexual desires and drives by having sex outside marriage, often via "swinging."

"What is central is what attracts us and keeps us attracted, why we are drawn and holds us," posted a sensible person here.

I can only speak for myself but I've chatted with many men who feel the same. When my wife and I were first drawn to each other a hug and a kiss would make my cock hard. Extensive kissing and I'd be dripping. With her, wetness came easily. Fucking was frequent and in several locations. We kicked up our sex by having sex with others, she with men and women. Those episodes raised our excitement level and while we were not frequent swingers (maybe twice a year) recalling them as we made out and fucked excited us more than had we not fucked others.

Monogamy is sexually boring. I joined here, one because I am orally bi and two, I want to find another married orally bi guy to take to bed, ideally with my wife and me. I enjoy the open discussions here. Most seem honest and literate. Some even arouse me.

BareProf, a nudist professor near Tampa

[Long Duck Dong]

Aha!!!! So I am a member of the goon squad... wos beginning 2 wonder.. I like the Goons.. me dad brought me up on the Goons... after he died I nicked his record collection...ver funny and ver clever...imaginative, brilliant and not afraid to try and think new things comedically an' lampoon the status quo...u call me a goon ne time u like and the attitudes of the day... so won't take it personally, promise ya...

As for me trying rewrite the social and moral standards.. I plead guilty... though it is more a case of obliterating and erasing the ones current which is the immediate case to hand...am not ashamed of it cos they fucking need erased and rewritten as they stand... not just the 1's pertaining 2 sex and sexuality, but these r the 1s about which we r arguing... like tenni and Gear I seek to have them rewritten through argument in accord with the things I have written throughout this thread.. I have no wish to compel anyone to live in ne particular lifestyle.. neither do I wish to insist ne1 lives as I do or would wish to... only for each and every one of us, when it comes to sex, sexuality and relationships, to be allowed to live our lives as we wish, honestly and decently in the manner we decide in accord with our own view of the world as long as we do no harm and hurt no one... and not be judged badly for it by any..

Finally..as for leaving u alone, that very much depends as it always will in any debate about contributions by any poster on any matter, what u may have to say...if u pop ur head above the parapets, there is always likely to be a pop or 2 at that often rather thin skinned lickle bonce... call me Min ne time, Hercules;)...

agreed, the social and moral standards need a updating to match the changes in people, relationships, marriage and interaction...and yes I agree, that nobody should be forced or compelled to live a style which doesn't suit them ... and the reason why I agree with you so much, is that while you may disagree with some aspects, you are not trying to limit the possible range of changes down to one or two things that only favour a set group of society....

my only major concern is that we would need to be careful as there are many places that are fighting for the rights to same sex marriage, and one of the oppositions fav tactics is to claim that the moment we got same sex rights, that we would immediately set out trying to redefine the social and moral codes of relationships and marriages, to suit us..... and currently, despite all the denials that it would happen.... well... dan savage could do a lot more damage to the fight for same sex marriages in the US than any of the opposition groups, cos hes proving them to be correct......

thats not to say that rewriting the social and moral codes is wrong and should not happrn.. its just that easier to push for something when its not our fingers that may be burnt....

and fran, if I wanted you to leave me alone, I would tell you to ignore my posts cos I know full well that you wouldn't... you would just post that you were off to join other debates and discussions that were more enjoyable and challenging lol

[darkeyes]

my only major concern is that we would need to be careful as there are many places that are fighting for the rights to same sex marriage, and one of the oppositions fav tactics is to claim that the moment we got same sex rights, that we would immediately set out trying to redefine the social and moral codes of relationships and marriages, to suit us..... and currently, despite all the denials that it would happen.... well... dan savage could do a lot more damage to the fight for same sex marriages in the US than any of the opposition groups, cos hes proving them to be correct......

thats not to say that rewriting the social and moral codes is wrong and should not happrn.. its just that easier to push for something when its not our fingers that may be burnt....
Savage is a dick who does more harm than good to his cause... and ours.. am just glad few here have ever heard of him... things may just be a bit tougher... but not everything he says is wrong.. any more than the things u or I, Tenni or Gear or ne 1 else says... unfortunately some have an unfortunate way of saying the right things which can and does get other's hackles up... most of us do it at some time or t'otha.. some more'n others...

and I agree with this.. even with the implementation and acceptance of same sex marriage there will be those who want more... it isnt the end of the struggle for our rights.. a victory sure and an important one... and not just rights for the lgbt, but rights for all.. the struggle for the rights of the lgbt is substantially the struggle for the rights of all...of course we will argue that we want things changed to suit us.. we want them changed to suit everyone as far as we can... same sex marriage, if I can touch on something tenni asked earlier is still monogamy and only a slight extension of society's judgemental and proscriptive attitude about other kinds of relationships and marriage, about promiscuity and all the other ways human beings can live happy fulfilling sexual lives... the argument doesn't end there and neither should it..

..and as for fingers being burnt.. whenever radicals of any sort argue and press for real change it is for a long time generally their fingers who get burnt..and worse... what tenni argues, and Gear.. and I argue, and even u at times is that we should be striving for a world where no ones fingers get burnt.. when it comes to sex, relationships and sexuality I doubt we will ever achieve it entirely... but we can create a world where there is enough scope to eliminate the worst of it and allow people to create for themselves the real possibility of the life they want for themselves without being adversely and harshly judged by their society religion and their peers... instead of guiding them down the path of monogamy as we do now.. hold out the possibility of all lifestyles where people may easily gravitate to those of their own kind and of like mind and thus reduce quite drastically I would expect the many tragedies we endure now... people change sure, and will still have many of the same problems they have now.. but people will be able more easily and more often enter relationships where they can be sure that their prospective partner or partners is at one with them in how they see the world... or not should that be their wish... just fuck around and have fun.. if that is their desire... no judgements.. just joy..

[Gearbox]

i think this has been a really really interesting debate.... it kind of strikes me that the one really difficuilt question to answer is..... why exactly -do- so many monagamous people view non monagamy as a threat? and im just as fascinated, by why equally many non monagamous people seem to view monagamy in exactly the same way? that is what i really find interesting... members from -both- sides appear to view the other side, as a personal threat....
Yes both are viewed as threats, but for very different reasons IMO.

i just want to toss out some theories about this becuase i think its sort of the central question. why is it a threat? i also want to put forth the observatoin, that even completely polyamorous people, feel jealousy. isnt this a strange reality? even people who are completley polyamorous, and practice it freely themselves, (and that of course means multiple love and relatoinships, not just swinging or whatever) still are not free from the feeling of jealousy. they still struggle with it, they still experience it, even though they realize the hypocrisy of giving in to it, and try not to. but, they very often still feel it and recognize it as a very basic human emotion. this sort of tells me that just being polyamorous or being non monogamous, no matter how commited you are to it, doesnt realy make you all that 'different' underneath.
No we don't become another species by being polyamorous, non monog, swingers, etc and we STILL have jealousy, insecurity and all the base negative emotions that come with being Human. They are all there to be experienced even if they are against our better judgement. We'd have to be robots or Buddhist monks to ditch them completely.:)


humans are still 'threatened' by certain things on soem internal level even when intellectually by every right, it seems completely illogical. not any point to pointing that out, but that i find it interesting. if just not being threatened by your lover being with other peopel were easy to do, or even all that 'natural' for all humans, you would think jealousy as an emotoin would be completely non existent among non monagamous and poly people.. but it is far from that. they are aware of it and work with it rather than being afraid of it, but many if not all of them still feel it.
Yes, you can not overcome ANYTHING by not confronting it and exploring it first. I think that some monog people think that the poly -non monog don't know how they feel. But they do! Jealousy etc are completely natural emotions even though negative and self harming ones. That's the joy of being Human, we got a lot to deal with.lol
I have my insecurities, fears, negative emotions same as anybody else. To think that I have 'escaped' or ousted them would be to delude myself. Best we can do is be aware of them and not fear dealing with them. Although it requires no effort at all after a time, doesn't mean they are gone! I personally keep the ones that I can live with.:rolleyes:


about your comment gearbox i have a friend who postulates that an agreement of monagamy is similar to any other 'power exchange' agreement in relationships for instance between dom & sub people. 'reasonable' or not is defined purely by the participants. im not too familiar with those kind of relationships but i think its an interesting comparison. in lots of relationships people 'agree' to both give up and allow each other different kinds of power over each other in different ways. she believes that monagamy really isnt all that off the charts unnatural its just another form of power exchange between people who like to do things that way. i.e. i agree to be only with you, you agree to be only with me... you wear a collar and do stuff i say.. i sign this contract to do stuff you say... what is the difference? its an agreement to power exchange. in dom sub relatoinships that happens all the time in different ways and nobody cares what the two (or three) agree on. the nature of the exchanges and agreements involved are up to the individuals involved.
The big difference is the timescale. That's basically it!:bigrin: Very few change their minds about what they committed to during a sex romp, but if they did, it wouldn't matter much coz it only lasts a few hours or so. They can put up with that, and not re-commit to it next time. But people do make commitments that can span years, decades or even lifetimes, which is a VERY long time to put up with something that you have changed your mind about along the way through no fault of your own. Truth is, we just don't know how or if we will change, and a contract should allow for those unexpected changes. Especially long term contracts such as a monogamous marriages etc where flexibility is an issue.


she also speculates that one point of conflict between monogamous and non monogamous styles is just a difference on a genetic level in 'mating strategy'. she believes that any species as adaptable and complicated as humans must employ a number of genetic mating strategies rather than just one. (this seems kinda borne out by the number of different mating styles here!) but basically she feels that the reason the different sides perceive each other a threat is becuase basically the opposing style is a threat to your preferred mating strategy.
I don't think that mating has anything to do with the styles of sexual activities portrayed here, but bonding is def involved. IMO It's more to do with sexual expression, the desire to explore sexuality, ID, social 'norms' and life etc. We ARE very complex creatures and we are still as a species exploring what we are and what makes us tick.


if genetically you are the type to bond strongly to one person and cultivate loyalty with them, which i think many people legitimately are, then your genetic interest lies with keeping that person faithful to you, staying around to help with the kids and bring you food and all that stuff. thats your strategy for partnerships and seeing anything else happening will feel like a threat, on a genetic level. your interest is in bonding with -one- person. if thats the case you will see any attempt to bond with other people, (completley subconsciously) as a threat to your strategy. it increases the chances of betrayal, or having your interests screwed over, in favor of someone else. which is against your strategy.
There's no research (at the mo) to support that the desire for sexual exclusivity is a genetic trait, but more to the contrary. If monogamy was purely a genetic disposition to rear young, there'd be no monogamous gay, lesbian or even hetero childless couples around, especially above child rearing age.
But if there were genuinely monogamous people via genetic predetermination they would need to have the same desire to bond with offspring too, else it would be pointless in that sense. That does't necessarily discount it though. We are strange after all.


if you are non monagamous and want to be with lots of people and spread your energy in a wider way, or your strategy is to bond with multiple people and thats what you are driven to do, certainly you will perceive any attempt to limit your efforts to do that, as a threat to your strategy.... and you will rebel against that becuase its in your very nature. its really kind of genetic and i kind of agree with her about that on some level.
Any breach of freedom is rebelled against eventually, as can be seen in our history as a species. One group will subdue another, and that other will work to be free/freer.
Being non-monog doesn't always mean you appose monogamy so you can have sex with others while with a monogamous partner. It more to do with the freedom to do so and not be oppressed. I think that's to do with social evolution and not genetics. We had to learn that slavery, misogyny, racism etc are bad things. It didn't come from genetics.
But YES there is also the want to go have sex with others too, which is not viewed the same by all.

i know that that is the 'threat' i certainly see in non monagamy, for myself. i know other people see it differently but to me intimacy =equals= loyalty. when im intimate with soemone it creates a really deep loyalty in me to them. and im (usually) with people who feel the same way. to my mind the benefit of monogamy is that when one person is loyal to me, then i know that my interests are one of their higher priorities.
if they are cultivating intimacy (which to me =equals= loyalty) with soemone else, then they have conflicting interests/conflicting loyalties.
That view is also shared by the non-monog couples, but loyalty has different connotations. They are loyal and intimate with their partners, despite who they have sex with etc. To the monog, that may seem un-loyal, but it's purely subjective.


sex is a powerful motivator, and peopel will do a lot of crazy shit for sex. (as we've seen) so i really dont want to be in a position where my lover is gonna be thinking "hey i promised cherry 'this' but girl X wants 'that'........ now i need to choose and right now being with girl X feel EXTREMELY important cause i really want to get in girl X's pants, so im gonna choose to blow off what i promised cherry cause weve been together awhile and she'll probly forgive me" i just dont want to open myself up to situations like that. cause i dont like getting screwed over. some people wouldnt see it that way, but i do.
Sex is a very powerful motivator and we do many crazy things when all horned up. We do and think things that we wouldn't usually when not horned up.
Fear is also a VERY powerful motivator and we do many crazy things when that gets boiled up. We do and think things we wouldn't usually when its not. We can see that in this thread.
We can work on both to prevent ourselves going completely gaga with experience. Not that many chose to, but it can be done.lol

so in my relationships becuase i have a genetic interest in cultivating loyalty with -one- person i will try to enter relationships with people who are also naturally monogamous, so that i know that -my- interests will be their top priority....... thats just one less thing i have to worry about in life and i really, really value that. i just sleep better at night, knowing my partner is looking out for -my- interests. and that they -like- it that way. (a lot of people do.) or, in the current case, i negotiate a power exhange, with my current lover who has different genetic programming than i do, and becuase we share a space, we have to come to a compromise between our two competing styles.... neither of us can have exactly what we prefer and stay together, so in order to stay together, we both give a little bit and try to reach a compromise. i would never tell him what to do with his body and life.... but i can easily tell him, what -i- personally need to feel healthy and happy.... then he has the choice to consider it or not. just like he is telling me what he needs to feel healthy and happy, and i have the choice to consider it, or leave him.
I'll have to disagree with the genetic claim again, sorry. You would not fair so well if you are a hetero female and you're partner was a hetero female would you? How much power struggle against a genetic code could you handle?:tongue:
What you do is tackle the emotions that make you veer to monogamy. That is a triumph in itself, whether you are in a monog relationship or not. I is it's own reward IMO.

it all comes down to again what peopel personaly see as the value of relationships in thier own life, just the same as each individual sees the value and purpose of sex differently..... to me relationships are about being a team and having each others back. to me that is 100% the purpose of having a relationship. so cultivating loyalty to others, to me undermines that. so i just wanted to elucidate waht exactly i perceive as the 'threat' since i think its a valid question.
That's a very common and understandable view. Having now seen that your bf doesn't have loyalties to others, even if he has sex with them, does that change your view of 'loyalty'?


also interestingly, i can be attracted to other people while in a relationship and not view that as a detraction from my relatoinship. however if i ever actually wanted to -pursue- something, by my own internal definition, that to me would signal something was raelly wrong with my current relationship and that i was probably wanting to leave it. becuase im genetically programmed to only be with one person at a time. so if i actually wanted to pursue something else, that would mean without a doubt that i was losign interest in my current partner. thats the way my mind works, so its different to conceptualize that other people may feel differently. its hard to see the world through other peoples perceptions if you dont share them. so that again, is a threat to me. the very fact my partner seriously wants an emotoinal connection with someone else, by -my- internal definition, signals their loss of commitment to our relationship. to interpert it any differently means really stretching outside of my own viewpoint cause i just operate differently and thats ok. (and i want to clarify- i -do- perceive sex as creating a different kind of loyalty & motivation than non sexual relationships..... i know this is kind of the heart of the debate, but honestly, that is what i -personally- believe. i do feel and believe that once sex and intimacy is involved, the relationship becomes soemthing different. that is truly what i believe and what my experience has been. i -know- other people see it differently. and me being here is my attempt to understand the way other people see it. but that -is- the way that -my- mind sees it, and experiences it.) i feel that sex is -never- without strings. but thats just how it is for me personally.
I think that the basic difference in our personal experience of sex & intimacy etc is that I have no problem letting others go. That's all I can come up with sorry.:tongue:
When not in a relationship, I have very intimate sex with others who I have no problems sharing love and desires with, then maybe not seeing them for a while or ever again. Yes I know how some think that can't be true coz it's 'just animal sex', but that's how it is.
In fact - NOT being able to let go, is the kiss of death to fuckbuddyship and the whole hooking up circuit. That is why many monogs have a dim view of casual sex IMO. They wouldn't experience it pain-free.
When in a relationship, I conform to monog coz it doesn't pain me not to, and would pain them if I didn't. I don't accept THEIR vows of sexual exclusiveness coz I have no right nor need for it. But I do vow mine, coz they have a need despite no right.
What I do see as a threat and has been, is jealousy. I have failed miserably trying to douse that in partners, and I have the utmost admiration for those who have managed to tackle it. It destroys relationships in my experience, sadly.


final comment my daughter (who is completley polyamorous herslef) just came in here and i told her what we were talking about. she rolled her eyes and said she didnt know how i could stand the drama. she said the one thing she cant stand is poly peopel who think they are better than everyone else, the non monagamy is 'more enlightened' or better or that all people are just non-monagamous inside but dont know it... she said that stance really annoys her and that all people should be allowed to be who they are and do what they want.... then she went and had some ice cream. a wise child.
Yes she's wise to go and have that icecream. It's lovely.:bigrin: