Category: Dating and Relationships
I’m a divorced man, so you can discount my expert credentials right here. Smile.
I’d also like to refer to some posts I’ve seen here, or discussions to make points, but not as being critical.
When people, religious, or not, talk about things that can, or will damage relationships, they are always based on sexual, or emotional betrayal.
We Reade, pornography is bad. She cheated on me Skyping with other guys, even though we had not met, just made an agreement to do so.
We have a man whose wife forbids him going to Hooters, because of the topless waitresses.
If a man or woman looks at another in an admiring way, she or he is cheating on you, or lusting in their hearts, and this is wrong.
Even entertainment sex is forbidden to some. Masturbations wrong. Watching or listening to your wife/husband stimulating themselves. Maybe going to a place that provides sexual related entertainment with them.
It seems anything done not in the boundaries of connection, love, or affection for one another are ruin.
Why are we not more concerned with a person’s Stuart ship?
Why don’t we want our partners to be open, honest, and forthright about what they believe in?
Why don’t we embrace our partners needs instead of trying to cure them, or heal them of it?
Why aren’t other aspects, credit, life goals, and such taught, or talked about?
If we knew our partners as people, best friends, would this not be a stronger foundation for a long lasting relationship over restrictive rules?
Would it not be better, safer, and less worry to know our partners instead of control them?
Love, or control?
Let’s talk.
Interesting topic. However, if a man insists on me doing something that makes me feel uncomfortable, is this not controling as well?
If a man states he is interested in meeting me, but then makes all kinds of excuses as to why he cannot meet me only to find out he has been interested in someone else, is this not a form of dishonesty?
I do not see how masterbating is wrong regardless if you are doing it on your own or in front of your partener.
I think things like having a partner engage in porn, look lustfully at other women, or attend and adult entertainment place would probably make me feel insecure about myself as a woman. So I would think if a man truely cared about me that he would not want to do anything that would make me feel uncomfortable. Doing so would be more of a form of disrespect rather than betrayal.
Hi For Real,
As a Christian from the LDS church, my oppinions will be from a more spiritual perspective. For the most part, I do agree with this. Love, including physical intimacy, should be a candid thing in any relationship. Trust, openness, comfort, all of these should be present. I’ve agreed with the majority of what people have been saying. I think the main issue that arises from we religious types has to do with our view of sex, and sexuality. Now, those views can be broad. You have some religions that teach that sex is a necessary evil, not to be enjoyed for the sake of intimacy or pleasure, but as an unfortunate way to bring children into the world. Then the opposite area, which is what I personally believe, that sex and sexuality are important expressions of love between two partners who are lawfully married. To us, sex is sacred and special, a pleasure to be enjoyed, but only between wedded couples. I do indeed see the benefits of self-exploration, and with open and honest discussion of sexuality, even before marriage. But I also think one needs to be responsible in matters of sexuality, and in many ways, the secular world differs in their beliefs. Safe sex is not a new concept. Be using sex responsibly is more than just using protection. The term “entertainment sex” was used. Casual sex, or sex simply for the purpose of indulging one’s urges, that is what God is against. That is the “natural man”, and the natural man is an enemy to god. It’s not about suppression. Sex isn’t to be suppressed, not for women, nor men, , but it is meant to be controlled and used according to God’s commandments. And those who are not willing to sex responsibly, AKA being promiscuous, or being in an uncommitted relationship – or even a casual one – those are they who are in violation of God’s commandments. That is fornication, and yes, that is a sin if you’re Christian. In secular society, such things are seen as okay, especially if you’re a man – double standard much? If you have no belief in God’s commandments regarding sex, then of course you won’t agree. The thing about sex from at least an LDS perspective is that it is an expression of love, and as such, it’s meant to be enjoyed by both committed parties. That means – ideally – putting the needs and pleasures of your partner first, making sure there is satisfaction. That means learning all you can about sex in general, and experimenting to discover what you and your partner like. That’s something which can still be done, whether you’re married or not. The wedding night, as I said, is the best place to start. It’s a time for relationship to move forward. Certainly that anticipation might make one nervous, but nobody says it has to be instantaneous. There’s a lot more to sex than simple penetration, and a lot more a couple can do with one another. Make out, touch, taste, explore, discover, then when you’re “both” ready, then you “have sex”. Hec. I know a lot of people who got married as virgins, and they are just as sexually satisfied as anyone. That’s the thing too. All that exploration and sexual learning doesn’t garontee a fulfilling sex life either. I know just as many people who are not Christian who have bad sexual experiences and don’t find it all that fulfilling . What sexual compatability usually comes down to, I feel, is the personalities of the people involved. It’s a give and take exchange. The only difference between two virgins experiencing this for the first time in secular society, is that when you’re married, you’ve already formed an emotional – and to a degree – physical bond. While I agree that things like masturbation and other forms of experimenting can prepare two people to experience sex, I don’t think that’s “necessary” to be fulfilled. Keep in mind that I came from just such a lifestyle. I’m not saying this should be a taboo subject, never to be talked about and experienced. I believe very strongly in being sexually educated. I’d much prefer my daughter to learn about the subject in our home, rather than from popular – or X-rated - media , or in school’s sexual education programs, but I’m not exactly opposed to schools teaching it either. There are a lot of factors that go into sexual education. In this situation, I’d rather she learn from us “before” learning things in school. Ultimately though it will be up to her what she does with that information. If she decides to be sexual before being married, then I’d like to hope we’ll have developed a decent enough relationship with her that she won’t think we’d hate her or something. That’s usually where all the shaming happens, not from the fear of what God will think, but the fear and shame of what other people will think. God understands us, our motivations, hearts and minds. People … they’re just people, and sometimes, they’re really not that understanding.
This one's a really hard one to answer, because whether it's love or control looks different to each person, and each relationship. What you might deem controlling, to another person or couple is viewed as love. Or vice versa. That, and I don't think you can go just by what people post on here. You only see whatever aspect of the relationship someone posts about, not their full dynamic. That, and you only see one person's side, not how a couple might interact if/when they talk about these issues. I think it just depends on what two people agree on together. Speaking for myself, I try to know my partner on all levels: my love, my friend, a person in his own right.
As I've said in other topics, it isn't about controlling a person, but rather, about mutual respect for the person I'm with.
I'll add that, as the second poster said, it's about our significant other not wanting to put us in an uncomfortable position, and us not wanting to make him or her uncomfortable either. Where the line is drawn for me though, is when whomever I am with is not supportive of things that make me happy (for example, having a social life with people of both sexes).
Back to the topic at hand though: no one has said that they want the person they're with to hide things from them, or otherwise be dishonest. Quite the opposite, actually.
I, for one, am not discouraging sexual discussion, because it's important to know how we came into the world. However, if sexual education is gonna happen, it needs to be done by a person's parents, rather than schools or the world at large. Because, there is so much misinformation out there, and our parents are the ones who need to tell us straight.
But what about those whose parents just weren't in to talking about it? How much of an education did your birth canal give you in this area?
Thanks for all the feedback.
Why is the sexual aspect caring so much weight though?
People are worried about being forced in to situations they don’t want to be in as related to sexual matters.
They are worried about their partners seeking sex outside of marriage, or the relationship.
No one has said they are concerned about the partner’s happiness.
We don’t worry about our partner’s financial smarts, or habits.
Our partner can sit around all day and watch sporting events, and we don’t wonder if maybe the outcome of these sporting events could mean we won’t have our rent or mortgage paid.
Shopping too much and too often can be damaging to a relationship, but no one seems to care or worry about this.
If we are going to sign on, so to speak, why aren’t we more concerned about the total picture?
We sign on knowing, or assuming our partners like specific things, but instead of learning why, or trying to support them in a positive manner, we set up rules, ultimatums.
Most of the rules/ ultimatums are based on sexual matters.
If you go to Hooters, you’ll be disrespecting our union.
If you enjoy a porn movie, you’ll be cheating on me.
I saw you looking at my friend’s legs, you must want her.
If your friend’s legs were say a Picasso painting, or a wrestling match, you’d not care.
Why do we not try to figure out who are partners are, and if we decide to sign on, try to love them for it, instead of control them?
Does going to Hooters make a man that pays his bills, loves his kids, keeps himself cared for, and believes in helping others a bad person?
Can he not say, I really enjoy looking at beautiful women in the natural state, enjoying a beer for the pleasure?
Instead of restricting the behavior, healing me, praying for me, why don’t you come with me?
That guy over there really looks nice to me. Instead of getting mad, why not look at the guy for what it is, and agree, sure, he does.
You know your mate, and what he or she believes in.
You know them because you talked to them about all aspect of life, their needs, desires, and wishes, and I don’t only mean the sexual based ones.
Because it that, you can trust him at Hooters just like you trust him at the football game, would you agree?
What do you think?
The questions you asked on this board topic were sexual in nature. So it only seems natural that the answers to your questions would also be sexual in nature as well. There are other things that make me feel uncomfortable too, but none of these other things were a part of your questions.
I did not say anything about being worried about my partner seeking sex outside of the relationship. I simply stated that I would feel insecure about myself as a woman.
I believe the beginning of a relationship is the primary place to learn about what your partner likes and does not like to see if you would be a good match for each other. If I am already in an established long term relationship with someone, and if he had the types of interests you are mentioning here, but failed to discuss them with me at the beginning of the relationship, it is possible I may feel a bit deceived.
However, it has been my experience that women are not always the ones who makes the rules or give ultimatums as it concerns sex within a relationship. Some men will also make their own rules and ultimatums regarding sex within a relationship as well.
It seems to me like you are being a bit close minded in regards to your opinion in regards to this topic. Therefore, I am not quite sure why you are asking these questions in the first place.
I believe relationships should be based on mutual respect where both people in the relationship is willing to respect each other's likes, dislikes, and comfort zones. However, different people have different things that make them feel uncomfortable. So if you are with someone who feels uncomfortable with something you are interested in doing, then perhaps that particular relationship is not the right relationship for you.
But again, if a man deliberately does something that makes me feel uncomfortable without any concern for me would be considered a sign of disrespect. I am sorry you find this concept so difficult to understand.
Okay, so I have given this thread some more thought, and thought I would post again since I cannot get to sleep.
You say you want to go to Hooters just to have a beer. Who exactly goes to Hooters just to have a beer? I do not know about where you live, but around here, there are better places to go if you are just looking to have a drink or a beer. Plus, the last time I checked, Hooters had a no touching policy. If I were in an established relationship, my partner would know that he could play with mine in his own private viewing. So then what exactly would be the point of him going to Hooters just to have a drink?
As far as the adult entertainment places are concerned, it would not be as much as being worried about my partner seeking sex outside the relationship as it would be about me wondering if I am good enough for my partner. Usually these types of places have a lot of hot sexy beautiful skinny women parading around in their underwear. Personally, I would probably be wondering why my partner would want to choose me when he could be with someone who is skinnier, sexier, and prettier than me. So I guess it would be more like me questioning how well I would really measure up against someone my partner saw at a strip club.
As for the porn, I think I would probably feel the same way about my partner watching it on his own as I do about the adult entertainment places. However, I might also be more inclined to have an open discussion about this to find out his reasons for wanting to watch or read porn. I also might be inclined to at least consider watching a porn movie with my partner provided there is description for the movie as well as some sort of plot line to the movie. However, there is no guarantee that I would be willing to act out what was done in the movie. It would seem to me that if I were in an established relationship that my partner should have some idea regarding my comfort level and would be willing to respect it. If not, then he is probably not the right partner for me.
As for football, if my partner wants to be lazy on Sunday afternoons and watch football all day, I do not see how this would be a problem. However, if he wants to watch football at my place, and he wants to watch his team while my team is playing at the same time, then I can definitely see how this would be a problem for me.
I completely agree with you that sex itself does not make a relationship work, and there are other things that can make or break a relationship. However, everyone is different , and have their own personal preferences about things. And if my partner had major problems with my personal preferences, then I would honestly question if he was the right partner for me.
And finally, how exactly would you feel if you were out on a date with your partner, and some other man was checking your girlfriend out and staring at her chest? Would you be okay having another man check out your girlfriend and stare at her chest, or would you have a problem with another man checking out your girlfriend and staring at her chest? If you would not be okay with this type of behavior, then why exactly would it be okay for you to do the same thing? Just something to think about.
Hopefully this does a better job at answering your questions.
I think what it boils down to is communication. There needs to be lots of it in a relationship, and if not it will most likely fail. If you like something say so, and if you don't say so too.
Thank you for your post.
Let me say again, I created this topic to get open views.
Examine why we seem to put so much weight, concern, energy, and restrictions on the sexual aspect of our relationships, before, and after the signing on.
Anything I post is not directed at anyone directly, nor critical.
My views, opinions are just that.
Okay now.
I’ll answer the questions raised for me in the last two post with a short summary of my thoughts and how I feel about them.
You that know me and have read other post of mine on other topics know I don’t think in the normal ram.
When I sign on, I hopefully have signed on with an adult. That adult person will have things that interest them.
Because they live on the earth, things that come by them will affect them in some way.
I am an addition to their life, emotion, joy, not the cage they stepped in to.
When they sign on with me, it doesn’t automatically turn their minds, emotions, souls off.
If the see something beautiful to them, it is going to affect them. If someone finds them beautiful, how can they do anything about that person’s emotional stir?
I prefer my partner free to be what and who they are, not what and who I wish them to be.
The glue that binds us together is desire to be glued. When that desire is no longer, I want them to be free to say so.
They should be mentally well-adjusted in that they know what is self-destructive, and union destructive.
If they develop a drug habit, this is self-destructive.
If they burn down the house, this will be union destructive.
The drug habit will hurt me only because I love them, but otherwise no.
If they have no self-control not to burn down the house, I have signed on with a child, not an adult.
I am my partners best friend first, lover second, but never their jailer or parent.
I am the place they can lay down the burden of guilt, worry, inhibition.
I personally am not in to Hooters, or porn, but if I were, my partner doesn’t have to worry. I signed on with her, didn’t I?
Whatever she’s into I want to be a part of, and I want her to be a part of mine.
If I go to a strip club to watch the pretty girls, and she’s sitting next to me enjoying them too, she is my friend, lover, and she’s the place I end up at the end of the show.
I like beautiful cars, horses, furniture too. I never left my partner for a Jaguar. We went to the deal ship and set in it, rubbed on the paint, test drove it, and if we could afford it, took it home to enjoy together.
Again, if you know your partner, why the stress?
She is free to step in to say a female hooter to have a glass of wine. I wish to be free to step in to Hooters to have a beer if I should choose.
Sure, I could have a beer at tones of other places, but I wish to do so at Hooters.
I don't know how much clearer I can make myself--no one is saying we don't get to know our partners, or care about the big picture, nor has anyone said anything of the sort.
Most people here know you think differently than most of society, Wayne. So, that being said, I have no idea why you even created this topic to begin with. (You've said that you wanna know people's views) but I think you know them quite well. If you were really looking for honest discussion, you wouldn't feel the need to say something like "I'm not being critical or otherwise trying to argue." You would just state your perspective on this and quietly welcome others.
Anyway, as someone else has said, it's all about communication. If either person involved has likes or dislikes that the other one can't handle, then that might not be the right relationship for either of them. But, they should have an open and honest discussion between them, many open and honest discussions actually, to further determine if their likes/dislikes can be worked through, compromised on or what have you. From their, they can choose how to move forward.
I created the topic because I do know the views.
What I'm wishing to learn is why?
Why is there such little or no trust?
Everyone states the fact they believe in open discussion, and coming to an agreement, but that agreement seems always based on, if you really love me, you won’t and can’t ABC or D.
Compromise?
I agree, if you aren’t comfortable with that discussion, you shouldn’t sign on. It only makes you paranoid every time your partner was late getting home 30 minutes without an explanation.
Even with one, you’d most likely not believe the car had a flat, because you know what they think about Hooters.
Even when a person promises, I’ve observed extreme jealousy, or miss trust where non was necessary.
Is it not possible to allow your partner freedom?
I've gone to Hooters with my Aunt and Uncle O.0
Good wings, just saying.
I think in the end it boils down to mutual respect and being with someone who meshes with your idea of respect for your partner and vice versa. As has been said here , that will look different depending who you are. So finding a partner whose values and ideas mesh with your own will establish your "love" vs. "control" factor.
For me, I feel like asking a man not to appreciate a pretty woman is completely unreasonable, but there's a difference between appreciating the site and gawking/leering in a way that would make me feel disrespected.
So my answer is it looks different for everyone depending who you are. Which has already been said. so yeah.
It sounds to me like you are rather close minded about this issue. I have never said that if my partner loves me he would not do any of the things you have mentioned. Instead, I have said that if my partner loves me that he would be willing to respect me. My answers to your questions had absolutely nothing to do with trust. They had to do with my own insecurities about myself as a unique individual woman. It seems to me that you are more interested in your own opinions regarding your questions rather than being open to listening to the answers other people have provided you. Therefore, it seems rather pointless to discuss this issue any further with you. Insisting your partner do something he or she is not comfortable doing seems rather controlling to me.
I forgot to say.
If people care about the big picture why are most or all of the relating problems based on the problems of the sexual?
This is not only here, but generally?
I'd say 95% of people I know disagree with my unwillingness to put a collar and chain on my mate, and also wear one.
I'm more concerned about her life happiness.
I want to know her heart, not what she thinks I should hear, or know, because she's afraid to share with me.
I want to be secure my house is still standing, home is safe, and because she told me she is with me she is.
Wow! Your contrudictions are starting to amuse me.
In what way?
I think a lot of times for the “victim” as it were, it boils down to self consciousness and discomfort. As Chelsea and others have said it’s about respecting one another. Some people are completely alright with their partner checking out other people, going to strip clubs, heck, even having other sexual partners. But I’d venture that, even in this current stage i8n society, such people aren’t in the majority. I think most of us want to be first in the life of the one we’re with. When our partner’s attention lingers on other people in a sexual way, a lot of people don’t like that. And I get that. But communication and trust are essential. Finding someone else attractive isn’t in itself a bad thing. Its where that attraction leads, either mentally or physically that is the issue. When we start comparing other people to the one we’re with, even indirectly, that’s an issue too. Why things like going to hooters, watching porn, and going to strip clubs – to use the extreme examples – create discord is because those are situations where we see other people in their most exposed and sexual. Again, there are some people who will be okay with all of this, but I’d wager they are not in the majority. Yes, there are people who are controlling. Usually those sorts of relationships have a higher degree of insecurity though, either genuinely earned, or brought over from past experiences or insecurities.
Yes I know this.
Let me try another tact.
What concerns you most other then sexual things in a relationship?
In most of your posts on here, it seems to me that you are insisting that you should be able to do whatever it is that you want to do within a relationship regardless of how it makes your partner feel. If you are truly concerned about your partner's happiness, why would you intentionally do something that would make your partner feel uncomfortable? These two things appear to contradict each other to me.
Your last question is a good one. However, it is not a question I would feel comfortable answering publically. I would be too afraid that my ex-boyfriend would take it as some personal slight against him, and the accusations of ruining his reputation would most likely begin again. Since my ex-boyfriend has finally stopped harassing me, it would probably be best for me not to get into too many specifics regarding relationships on a public forum.
However, I would say that communication plays a big role in making a relationship work. Honestly, the communication style you have presented on this board comes across as a bit controlling to me. I think if you are open to the opinions of others, it would be something that should be demonstrated in your actions as well as your words. And with all due respect, I do not necessarily see you being open to the ideas of others on this board topic. It really seems as though you are simply trying to get everyone else to think the same way as you.
If he wants to do whatever he wants in a relationship, it's up to him to find someone who wouldn't mind that. if both of them agreed that they'd do whatever they wanted, then it works for them. It doesn't mean that it works for anyone else, or that it should.
exactly Anth.
I have expressed my views, sure.
Getting people to agree with me is not going to happen, and I don’t expect it ever will.
I’d like to know why my view is so repulsive, or wrong though.
Also what else is more important then the subject we’ve been discussing.
I believe myself to be uncontrolling, and I’d never sign on with a woman that wasn’t comfortable with my views.
For that reason, I won’t run in to having to face major issues later.
Caring about another’s opinions and wishes is different from obedience.
” Honey, I don’t like alcohol, so I don’t want you drinking beer. People that drink beer become unruly, and alcoholics. If you love me enough, you will stop.”
Should I stop drinking beer, or can I point out I only drink beer on weekends, and less than a 6 pack?
I never miss days at work, use you verbally, or physically badly when I am drinking beer.
I am still the same person you know when I’m not drinking beer I am when I drink beer.
I care more about a person’s honesty, forthrightness, ability to reason, and keep things in prospective.
I care more for their integrity, love of humanity.
I care about the level of trust I can put in them, the bond of love, respect, and understanding.
I care about their mental stability, in that, can they be easily brainwashed in to some colt belief, or following.
Can they go to a casino, play for a while, and leave without bankrupting us?
Are they mentally strong enough to know they can’t, so they don’t?
My mate should set her own boundaries, limitations. If she learns that something she desires will change our relationship in some profound way, she is woman enough to come to me and share it with me instead of allowing it to hurt me.
If we are talking emotional hurt, she may not be able to keep that from happening, but she can keep betrayal, financial ruin, and physical harm from me.
If she must leave me, she leaves me whole.
These are the things I put above the others.
Again, as others have said, it's about "signing on," as you put it, with someone who has similar beliefs and values as you do. No one's values are exactly the same, of course. So then it's about learning what you can simply agree to disagree on, or compromise on, and what are deal-breakers for each person. That looks dramatically different for individuals and couples, and they have to work that one out themselves.
It seems that one of the things you're asking is why we seem to put a higher priority on the sexual issues than anything else. Sex and issues surrounding it are important, but the one area I definitely agree with you on is that there's a lot more in a relationship. Too many people don't communicate enough
to learn where they each stand on issues not related to sex. Too many of them get into something deeply committed and then all of a sudden learn there was a ton of stuff they never discussed and have problems. Any relationship has its problems, but I've learned by both my own experience and that of others that couples can save themselves a lot of problems if they communicate about the important stuff in the early stage of the relationship.
Wayne I loved your opening post.
What's interesting is that the least secure person is exacting the greatest
amount of control. How do we know this? Everyone is supposed to cater to the
greatest insecurities. The most hangups wins, rather an odd contusion of the
yuppie maxim the one with the most toys wins. Because, everyone and
everything stops for the insecure. It's been said you know who has the power,
because they're the one you can't criticize. I'd go further and say it's they who
decide "what;'s okay" and "what's not okay" in a given situation.
Now me with Hooters? I have said even Christians I know haven't fully
understood why I didn't "discuss" the situation more. There was no power play
there, She brought it up, I was pretty Hooters-indifferent at the time. I hadn't
been, and wasn't thinking about how much I wanted to go. So in that instance,
I have not sacrificed at all; I've only complied out of respect. This is, of course,
only my side.
As to the insecurities part? I will say that as a human being, as a partner even,
I have grown deeper when I decided to escape the learned helplessness society
provides to the insecure, admit that something She wanted was challenging, but
that I wanted to be up to the challenge. That's how a loving adult would
behave. A child might sit down and say "Waah! That makes me so scared!
Comfort me mommy / daddy, please don't make me go, pleeeeeease!!" And
adults give place to children in that context because children don't yet
understand.
But again, I say, there have been things that I don't regret at all, insecurities I
have had, that I was willing to be up for the challenge as an adult. I felt more
fulfilled as a partner behaving like that than I would have being all insecure and
demanding that She forego something because of me. There are limits, of
course, and everyone has those, but we live in a society far too ready to keep
the insecure in a state of learned helplessness.
But the Hooters example I've given isn't really one of control because I never
really had a thing for the place, She brought it up preemptively if you will, and I
went along at first somewhat out of indifference but down the line realized that
meant something to Her and so solidified my position to guard that.
I am an atheist, and I still believe in manogamy. Not that I don't mind if other couples engage in polyamorous relationships, but they aren't for me since I am demisexual and only feel right in a relationship with 1 man who is in a relationship with 1 woman. ie me.
If you want to have sex with multiple partners, that's fine, but that means you don't want to be in a relationship with me, and I certainly don't want to be in one with you.
It takes time to know yourself, but I know now that being emotionally or physically invested with more than 1 person does not work for me, and I don't want to be with someone who feels differently. I think couples need to be clear about the boundaries, and if you are in a relationship and those boundaries are clear, crossing them is cheating, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Yes, sister. I am trying to ask exactly that.
We seem to be so caught up in the sexual. Will he/she cheat on me? Can I trust him/her with my friends?
Why is she/he looking at that person over there?
We have so much more substance in life that might matter.
Seems if I sat down and really knew my partner, I don't need to be insecure about anything they might, or might not do, because I understand what their limits are.
I think if we are honest with ourselves, we know that throughout life, we are going to change.
We change because of experiences.
Sometimes our changes are profound, other times minor, but we change.
It just seems to me loving a person means you must also accept their changes, even if these changes are emotionally painful at times.
Maybe my mate was deeply religious, but has decided they aren't anymore.
This doesn't need to worry me, if I know my mates core.
I admit, I am willing to allow my mate more freedom then people feel reasonable, but for the life of me, I can't see how restricting them with a threat will change the outcome if they really want to do whatever it is they seek.
Loui, I think you're on to something.
First, the monogamy vs. polyamory thing is an interesting one. It appears that
we are neither an exclusively tournament or polyamorous species, nor are we
an exclusively pair-bonding species. If we were tournament, then males would
be on average twice the actual size / body mass of females. If we were
exclusively polyamorous as are the chimpanzees and bonobonos, which we
might have been before the end of the last ice age, then we wouldn't experience
the types of withdrawals from breakups that we, and wolves, and several other
species do. We seem to be the only primate species who do experience this. On
the other hand, if we were exclusively monogamous, then we wouldn't have the
offensive and defensive sperm included with the fertilizing sperm, which are all
indicative of internal sexual selection, which comes from sex with multiple
partners.
We humans have to figure it all out for ourselves, in other words.
Interestingly, you talk about knowing oneself. For many of us, we never even
heard of polyamory until recently, and so were acculturated monogamous,
meaning we fear the shame and stigma attached with "sleeping around" or "fear
of commitment" or "Peter Pan Syndrome".
I applaud anyone who has figured it out for themselves having been educated
on all counts.
I'm still unclear as to how polyamory will work in a post-industrial society, with
neat little nuclear families like yours and mine, societally programmed to create
more worker drones and soldiers. Make no mistake, the nuclear family as a
evolutionarily modern invention was not done for soft romantic reasons. It's
easier to tax, easier to regulate who creates and consumes what, it's a pre-
fabricated industrial package, no more and no less. I'm just not sure how
polyamorous arrangements will be able to functionally thrive in an environment
so hostile to their way of being. Just as monotheistic religions create better
militaries and more complete destruction, so the nuclear model creates much
more predictable and regulatable models of worker drones and soldiers.
I say this as someone who is apparently monogamous by cultural default, and
unless She gives me the boot, I'll probably outlive my societal usefulness for
awhile in the monogamous relationship, and like most men, expire without
incident. So I'm not "bashing" it, I *am* it, without all the fancy new labels,
just "it" by cultural default.
But in terms of our evolution, the answer seems to be far more complex. The
romantic notion of one man one woman is in fact seen in eagles and wolves,
among other species, but no other primates, and not even humans until
solidified in Victorian times. But the romance of it is merely the veneer. What's
underneath is a bit more industrial, "unnatural," I suppose the back-to-nature
ideologues would call it. I can certainly say that if it were a part of how we
evolved, we would not have to engage such societal pressure from an early age
to maintain it, nor would we have all the names like "Peter pan syndrome" to
shame people with.
Actually Leo polyamory relationships have been part of humans for a long time.
Many countries and cultures practice them right now, and have for centries.
Even as a child, I always knew about them, so I'm not sure why you say many haven't heard about them.
Not hear, but in many places, women, because it is mostly men that have several partners, enjoy them, and even seek them out.
For many, it is better to be in a polyamory , then alone.
But, that isn't my goal here.
I would say that if my partner decided one day she wanted to join one, or something, it be easier for me to hear it from her before the fact, not learn it later.
I've been in the situation were my partner woke up one day and decided she wanted to patch her relationship with her X.
She felt she hadn't given that relationship enough time.
This was after we'd been together for a long time.
Instead of anger, I accepted it, and told her she should experience it for 6 months, then tell me if she was sure she wanted to move on.
To me that was best then trying to make her agree she had some problem. She wasn't right, or an upstanding person.
She'd been talking to him for a while, because they have a child together.
But still, restricting her, or trying to with guilt, threats, and whatever, doesn't, and didn't seem the best way.
We aren't together now, but that wasn't the reason.
I had my time with her. That time was enjoyable.
It isn't emotionally fun to learn these things, but I feel it is unhealthy to hold on to something.
For that reason is why I have the list of things I value over this sexual area highter.
Wayne I personally hold your position as honorable. I believe I hold your view
though have never really articulated it.
I agree that polyamory exists in many modern societies but not Western or
industrial models. People coming out with these fancy new words to uphold the
monogamous Victorian ethic always come from Western industrial societies
where we by and large produce neat little nuclear packaging with 1.8 kids and
systems designed to generate workers and soldiers. So instead of the high-
minded spiritualists of the Victorian era, the new academics have just come up
with fancy words for their same ends. It is, after all, about control as you
suggest. Systemic control, and the regulation of both the means of production
and the ends of consumption.
I did not go through what you when through, Wayne, but something that is
somewhat close I think. The Wife for a time was very involved in ministries and
things. And among the evangelicals all the women's literature has to do with
god being the better lover and such. They even rewrote the Biblical narrative on
Hosea to make him the perfect sex-restricted controlled cuckold in order to
satisfy that demographic. Now even though She was not into some of that stuff,
She went through a time period where She was honest enough to say She didn't
know how one could deeply love both the god and a husband at the same time.
I will admit that while I didn't get angry, I was certainly sad and confused for
awhile. but like you, I do not see any value in placing restrictions or trying to
grip tightly to someone like that. If She had at that point decided to leave, I
would of course have fought to preserve relationship with my daughter, and
ironically might have become full on atheist sooner, who knows. But it was a
struggle brought on by spirituality and its accompanying marketing machinery, I
think, so I held Her no ill will at all. I only held that She was brave and honest
enough to say so, while probably many others were keeping it in secret,
possibly building a kind of resentment that only secrecy can provide. So in a
way, I was ultimately glad that I knew. Otherwise I might have concluded it was
me, my failings, the constant things we are told as men especially among either
the academics or the spirituals. I reject it all now, of course, but I never
rejected Her. So while I've never had the same sexual experiences as you, I
actually can completely understand your view on control. I would personally not
have it any other way, even if for a time I might have been some sort of
"spiritual" cuck. I am no cuck anymore, but still honor the personhood and
autonomy of people enough to not wish to control someone.
I think you tend to articulate things in a way that makes them understandable,
and perhaps in my case at least, really ended up clearing up some confusion.
And for the record, I have not intended anything here out of ill will towards the
Wife, only stating that it happened, and my own personal guess as to why.
Leo, I often have a difficult time reading through your posts. However, this one seems to talk about how you would have felt like a failure as a man if your wife was not honest with you. This is what I was trying to explain in my previous posts.
Things like having my partner being interested in porn or going to a strip club have never been an issue in any of my relationships, so it is difficult for me to say for sure how I would deal with these types of issues. However, I do not understand how expressing my discomfort in my partner engaging in such activities is the same thing as issuing some kind of threat against my partner.
I think the way you talk about feeling like a failure as a man is similar to what I was trying to say about feeling insecure as a woman. If my partner were to be interested in going to a strip club, I would most likely wonder what I have done to fail my partner's needs.
I think simplifying insecurity as something that stems from learned helplessness is a bit extreme. I think a lot of people struggle with self-doubt and how they measure up as a person. And I think this is probably more common among people who have suffered from some sort of trauma in their life. I think stating insecurity stems from learned helplessness only serves to blame the victims of such things as rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
But victims of rape, domestic violence, and abuse are not "insecure" in the
typical sense. Theirs is an entirely different situation.
Now would you feel insecure if you trusted your partner, and they were to say
they were merely curious about what it was like to be in one of those places? I
am not really curious in that regard so I have not done this. But usually
someone being honest and I mean completely honest about their intentions is
an entirely different situation.
I think there's a vast difference between those who have suffered some kind of
assault, and the generally insecure that our society coddles. The victim of DV or
abuse is far from coddled, and knowing such people myself, they tend to be
very resourceful people / are not given to the same types of behaviors. In fact,
my opinion of course, I've been left to wonder if they would not have survived
had they not been so incredibly resourceful as human beings. Big difference
between them and the insecure who try and ride on their coattails, coattails
they wish they never had. Without being terribly specific, I will say that I myself
have been through things that were I female people would lump me into the
victim category also, and I mean crime victim, not this new version. Very very
different from the "That just makes me uncomfortable" popular culture we see
around today, and I'm sorry for those whose coattails are ridden upon by this.
As to feeling like a failure as a man? I understand that for what it is, societal
and in part the times I've grown up in. But in my case, her being honest about
what she was contending with, actually is what settled the issue for me. And I
realize it's up to me to manage that as best I can. I can't expect everyone else
to, if I myself have trouble with it. That's simply not reasonable.
Maybe this post is legible, maybe not.
Yes, abuse, or people that have been abused and not recovered are different.
Less of a man/woman I also agree is a taught emotion, not an actual thing.
Many times being your lovers friend at the curious, or faze times is the best, because they feel safe, and you are safer more secure knowing I believe.
If the habit, or whatever, is continued, you have options as to how you will precede.
You also have the ability to protect yourself if that is what is required.
In my experience, they things I didn’t know, hurt me the worst, and were, and are harder to recover from.
That is if the thing is something in this category. Most things are not if you keep an open mind on them.
I agree Wayne. And looking back, I'm not even sure she or the other party
could have known, in my case, either. I think more often than not, things turn
out to be accidents. I think about the times when either I've been hurt or have
hurt someone, and to be honest, more often than not, it seems like it was an
accident.
I remember a situation over a decade ago where from my side, I believe we
were all hurt. To hear Her tell it, she would say She hurt me and someone else,
but honestly I think we were all simply hurt by the accident. When She asked
why I was as ready to let it go as I was, I could only say that it was obvious to
me that there was no malicious intent. For someone like me at least, the lack of
malice really makes the situation better. Sure, I might need time and space, we
all do, especially those who think they might not, but there's a difference
between being hurt, and holding ill-will towards someone. That situation which
occurred? In my opinion in those days, and still my opinion now? Things just got
carried away. Nobody set out to do anything to anybody. That's extremely clear
to me because I actually have been pursued and injured by malicious people,
physically and emotionally. So I know the difference.
Carelessness can certainly lead to hurt; I've hurt other people by being too one-
tracked-mined and careless. I know I'd been careless, even if sometimes some
people felt that was too strong a word. But it describes the situation; I just
wasn't thinking.
I guess unless you've actually dealt with real no-holds-barred malice from
people, it might not be so easy to tell the difference. But I have, and thus I can.
And yes, I cut people a hell of a lot of slack when I don't see malicious intent.
Malice is bad, and in my opinion may be impossible to recover from. But
accidents, carelessness or simply "not thinking'" is a whole different, in my
opinion lesser, ballgame. If you've been careless, as I have, you might be able
to make amends, though sometimes you can't. But at very least change what
you're doing. But you didn't have the initial motivation of hurting the other
person that a vindictive, malicious act does.
It's my opinion if you've been a victim of a malicious and vindictive situation, I
hope you have the means and resources to get out, someone who can help you.
Those situations tend to be traps, and I don't really buy the trope that the
abused person will "go back" willingly. They just don't have a proper set of
options, often are financially and mobility restricted so what looks like a "choice"
to go back couched in fuzzy words is really a lack of resources to get away like
they want to.
The vindictive malicious ones always start by restricting and controlling access
to things. My bet? If you gave every domestic abuse surviving woman $100,000
in such a way her perp could not access it, and gave her a fool-proof way of
escape? I'm betting you'd see 0% going back.
I say "woman" as they're the only socially accepted ones. It would certainly be
true of men also, for those openminded enough to see that's a problem too.
I realize my view isn't popular though. But while others say "Why does she keep
going back?" I merely ask, "How much would it take to give her enough
resources to get away like she secretly wants to?" I know as a man it's not
largely accepted, but I've had to get away from people who'd worked their way
in, and I know it's very difficult. Not just the emotional part everyone talks
about, hard as that is, but just the resources to make a clean escape. Clean
enough they can't contact you.
And so I still say this is a whole separate issue than someone being offended
that someone else saw a picture or video of yet a third party. It's just way way
way different. It helps to know what maliciousness really looks like, but I'd not
wish that on anyone.
I am sorry my opinion is so unpopular. I would definitely be grateful for my partner having an honest conversation with me. However, I am not quite sure if this would change the way I would feel about it. And if the nature of the conversation was simply meant to change my mind about it, I do not see how this would not be considered controlling as well. I am not trying to say that any of these things are wrong for anyone to do. I am just saying that some of them would simply make me feel uncomfortable. So I do not know, maybe there is just something wrong about me.
Yes, I agree that if I set out to change your mind that is a form of control, and I
do believe it's wrong.
But if I set out to be honest about my intentions so that intentions are not given
to me that weren't mine, then that is not controlling. I don't know if that makes
sense or not. Seems a big difference between explaining yourself and trying to
force the other person to see it your way. Big difference between defending your
character and forcing someone else to "agree" with you on something.
There are a great many people who do things I wouldn't, or engage in situations
I could not do personally. I've even had a stripper explain her situation to me
once, "defend her character" to me. It's a good living, she has kids, she goes to
high end places, etc. I could choose to accept that or continue in societally
popular judgmental tropes about it. I've never been to a strip club, personally.
And even if I looked good enough, I don't have what it takes to be a male
version. But in her explaining herself to me all she did was explain something I
couldn't have known before. I can understand it now, even if I've been culturally
conditioned to see things otherwise.
So in that case, she's not controlling. Now, if she was to try and talk me into
going, or getting into the business somehow, and if I felt sufficiently trapped for
real as I actually have before? I would call that controlling. But that would take
effort on her part. But just explaining her side, so that I as an adult could
understand someone different from me, someone who has a lot stacked against
them by society, well, I just don't see that as controlling. Nor do I see it as
controlling if someone, anyone, explains themselves and their situation. If my
mind is changed, welcome to the world outside a bubble, the free market
exchange of ideas. Presumably, in the stripper's case, to some extent she would
have wanted to change my mind even though I wasn't making any judgmental
overtones. Because she's at a peculiar disadvantage in society, all artificially
constructed against her by the rest of us. Me included.
But I think a person does have the natural right to defend themselves against
the accusatory responses society typically throws at people, especially people
who do something other than one specifically prescribed position at only certain
prescribed times, to crank out a certain number of prescribed offspring to create
workers and soldiers.
I did not come away from the stripper situation and say "I wholeheartedly agree
now! Yay and woo hoo!" But I did come away thinking: "Damn there's way more
to these situations than we've been told for years!" and "It's just way more
complicated than most people will dare admit to!" I dare say I wasn't controlled
but stretched in that situation. Even though, in many places as a guy if I
defended a stripper, I would be presumed guilty of wanting to go or wishing to
have one. I know this and am ready for it if it comes to that. And I still have not
been, nor called on one, nor do I actually know where one would call on such
people.
Smile. Exactly Leo.
Control and explaining your side, or need or whatever are different completely.
I never force anyone to agree, or do anything they don't wish.
Inviting them to come with me is not control, it is sharing.
If you reaed a few post back I talk about my partner setting their own limits and such.
Wayne you have really thought this stuff through and articulate it well.
Ironically, CrazyCat could change my mind on some things whether she wanted
to or not, by just continuing to post. I've an open mind to well-founded ideas.
And if or when that happens, I will only see it as my mind changed, not control.
we all need to be more honest with our needs. if we know what our boundaries are, we can discuss them more clearly.
Husband and I have a deal, if he ever feels the urge to cheat on me, he will stop what he is doing right away, seek me out to talk honestly.
same if I ever feel that urge.
this is because I was honest. I cannot say for certain that I could be a decent enough person to overlook something of that nature. it would mean the end of us, and I cannot say for sure I would not go into bitch ex mode, which would seriously hinder Johan's relationship with our daughter.
so for her sake, he will think before acting. the only way he could make that choice is by knowing clearly what my boundaries are.
Okay, but again. Back to my original question.
Why do we put such high static on the sexual, or cheating and not other aspects?
I guess that question isn't going to get answered, because everyone centers on this.
there's a huge jealousy factor I guess. For me, I trust my partner, but I don't trust his exes, I wouldn't trust someone he chose to sleep with. You take risks when having sex, and one of those risks is taking something home to your unsuspecting partner, which I think is hugely disrespectful.
Condoms can break, women can lie about birth control.
Next thing you know your supposedly faithful partner has got another woman pregnant, and if you've got a kid with them, suddenly you have to cope with the fact that your kid has now got a half sibling because your partner was unfaithful.
this is what goes through a lot of women's minds.
Possibly it's why, statistically, women are less likely to cheat. We can get pregnant. men can't. so perhaps there is a biological aspect to it.
For example, babies actually , at birth, look more like their fathers because they have evolved to do so. If a baby did not resemble it's father, more often than not, the father would kill the baby in many tribes.
I found this out after discovering that my daughter really looks mostly like her dad and not much like me.
Up till now, men haven't really had to think of the consiquences before cheating or getting a woman pregnant and dashing off to another woman's bed.
I'd argue several points, but first I'll say this:
Wayne, I don't know what it is about the sexual that really does it in a
postmodern society.
But I will say clearly as a middle aged guy that the "sin", "sexism," "Men
cheating," and other such religious tropes are useless to me. What seems much
more likely is the concept of "mirage.
I've literally heard a mirage in a Mexican desert, thinking it was the sound of
running water, and it was merely wind. So what the Christians call "temptation"
and the feminist religion calls "sexism" or "horn dog" I see merely as a mirage,
sometimes extremely powerful illusion. "Mirage" serves us so much better than
either of the two major religions of Christianity or Feminism / Academia, both of
which I currently reject as implausible and having space little evidence to back
them up.
Loui, I'm afraid you're wrong about classical censure of men against cheating.
Only the very powerful men used to cheat. Because if a working class male were
to do so, he could die at the hands of the wife's family or other people. Certainly
he could forfeit a lot. The problem with feminist theology is that it looks at the
very top 0.01 percent of powerful males and has enough faith to *believe* that
the remainder of the male population automagically inherits all these alleged
privileges. No, the censure against the male cheater has always been strong,
except for those in the elite. Which makes sense to anyone interested in
objective analysis and anyone with an elementary understanding of economic
theory. The male, even today in a postmodern society where high-class women
can *choose* their "work life balance", must continue to be shackled to the
provisional role. This I don't see changing, or at least when it does the society
will either fall or women will assume said role willingly, not just "choices" but
the way men do. Working class women always have, by the way, modern faith-
based myths notwithstanding.
Loui, I have to take my hat off to your discussion of needs. Only one thing I
could say: If my Wife proposed such a situation, I could see falling down in one
way. I would probably withhold discussion of such a need until I was personally
convinced it was something other than a fleeting desire. That has, by the way,
gotten me into trouble sometimes. I didn't resent later, but She would ask why I
hadn't told Her about X or Y, and these things were not even sexual. But for
better or worse, I'm the kind of person that needs to be personally convinced
first as I tend to doubt myself. Even needs. I hope you being as incredibly
strong in this way, that your husband doesn't possess my flaw. You, and to be
quite honest my Wife too, deserves someone without such a defect. It is
perhaps one major reason that I myself don't have the types of expectations, or
what you call "boundaries", of other people.
Now I will say though, that if someone is like me, and has to work something
through mentally first, we of that type don't have the right to expect someone
else to accept things immediately or even with time. Buy the time I came out as
a nonbeliever to my Wife, it had been years. I was not "hiding" anything, just
sorting it out so I could actually communicate about it with some form of clarity.
For those of us with my particular flaw, I'm afraid we by definition forfeit our
right to be accepted for any changes, as quickly as other people are, as things
tend to work themselves over for a long time in our minds, even before we
realize we're doing it.
That "Mirage" analogy I gave earlier? Probably the product of over ten years'
time of contemplating what I've seen on business trips, various mirages I
personally experienced, analyzing the popular myths from Christian and feminist
theology, and finding those to be rather untenable as answers to why this goes
on. The "mirage" notion seems much more likely to me.
As to your assertion from a biological perspective? Right on: The most modern
woman, the most independent, so strong perhaps that she can call upon the
State to enforce a censure against someone who offends? This person still
needs a male provisional appliance. Not because she can't provide, but the
physical act of having given birth and some other things render the human
vulnerable in that situation. Not until we have artificial wombs will that notion
be dispensed with. In Western society anyway, all joint resources are usually
assumed property of the female and this is in part why. The most modern and
independent will revert to a Victorian princess position if she was raised with
enough money, should disaster strike or problems occur. Are, there are
exceptions, but much of this probably explains a lot to us, and why most of us
males have rather tacitly accepted our lot as provisional appliances. Notice that
even in evolutionary psychology, people talk about the "grandmother" effect,
but never the "grandfather" effect. Because once a male has passed its
usefulness in earning and provision, he may look forward to being the object of
resentment, if not careful, certainly if any form of caregiving were to be asked
for at end of life. It is for that reason, rather than be resentful, I think any male
should have an "opt-out" strategy towards end of life. I've watched several
finish life and seen the results as they happened. But we hold no such feelings
towards women at the end of their lives. Not in the West anyhow.
I say all this to say it makes perfect sense to me why a woman, even a modern
one not raised under oppressive circumstances, could be particularly resentful
after being cheated upon, and why members of her family would look upon the
cheater with particular disdain. I've seen this recently, and all philosophy aside,
my "lizard" brain looks upon my poor sister with nothing but compassion, and
her ex who cheated, with utter disdain. Not even for the sexual component, but
the treachery and abandonment she has been forced to endure. We still raise
the most progressive of women as vulnerable, creating myths to sustain it and a
very expensive paternalistic State for them to run to, whether they ever do so
or not. As long as they are raised with this vulnerability, they will be vulnerable.
The lot of us males who just carry things through life and keep on trucking' just
have no idea, because we were fashioned, we were made, not men by default.
Even when grown and fully engaged, a male can lose his "man card". Not by
some juvenile lack of machismo, but by something far less dishonorable than
the cheating / treachery that is so often talked about.
Oh, one final note: Women statistically cheat as often as men do. Only, in the
West we call it "getting her needs met," and the man, while slighted, is not
infringed upon as a vulnerable victim. Cuckoldry is not terribly uncommon
among western males, and we are terribly foolish when it comes to catching a
partner at it. And women are far better at concealing it, if or when they wish to
do so. For both sexes, the number of cheaters is statistically low in comparison
to the number of persons of that gender. Think about it; if the numbers were
higher, the very stratified industrial society based on taxing providers simply
would not exist as we now understand it. Cheating and thereby spreading
resources very thinly, at least from a vast majority of males, would produce
economically devastating consequences, and a class of government middlemen
more grotesquely large and inefficient than we already have.
You just hear about the cheaters, as you hear about the odd climactic or other
incident; because it's rare. Rare things are newsworthy. The common, the
squirrel crossing the road, goes unreported.
Perhaps that's your answer, Wayne, the sexual infidelity, which results in or is
part of treachery in relationships, is statistically rare, which creates the news
paradox and the myths about it in modern religious / social sciences circles.
I like what Leo said about society's insistence upon catering to the insecure. Coming from a person with myriad insecurities (which I am always working on, sometimes more successfully, often less so), I understand exactly how much control I could exert over a partner, even when unaware of it. While I do agree with others about respect (you need to be with someone who is willing to understand your insecurities and do what they can to help), it is up to you to eliminate or at least minimize your hangups. It is not the sole responsibility of your partner to alter their lifestyle to suit your insecurities especially when they lead to controls on their behaviour. It's something that's very sensitive these days, and it controls and limits the insecure party as much as the secure one. Basically, we could all do with being a bit tougher on our own insecurities. If your partner is coming home to you every night, choosing you every day (and it is a continuous choice) then you need to try to accept that obviously you are good enough. Keep doing what you're doing if what you're doing works.
Leo, every decent study on the subject of infidelity has women slightly less likely to cheat. it's small. the difference is about 10% but it's there.
Also, women are less likely to have a one night stand or short fling for the sake of it. When women cheat, they do so, more often than not, emotionally as well as physically. Ie they end up in a relationship with that person and often leave their current partner for them.
The important thing is that my husband knows that even a one night stand would likely be unforgiveable for me. So he will always think before acting. he will think about our daughter and remember that, above anything, he has to get along with me for the next 20 years. I have made it very clear, and he has made the same clear to me. He is just as likely to go into angry ex mode if I do that to him.
Meglet, the irony behind what you said? The fact you are honest about your
insecurities actually makes you brave. The fact you know you have to work on
them also makes you honest.
We've all got insecurities, only some of us *pointing at self* had to get quite a
few years older before getting honest enough with ourselves to admit it. And
you're right, every one of us, certainly me, has to work on that stuff by
ourselves.
Everyone talks about the sexual insecurities as though those were the only
ones. But oh gods and gargoyles there are so many ways we humans can be
insecure! But anyone who is honest about their own, and is working on those /
taking responsibility for them? You're actually being brave. It is from fear and
insecurity that raw courage has the opportunity to roar.
I find it interesting when I tell a new prospective lover cheating doesn’t exist for me, they take it as a sign of my lack of caring for them.
People seem to want to be held to this concept, or what is to me a false restriction.
The reason I say false, is when the desire comes, or people find a need, they will cheat.
Whatever reason or excuse they use for it, it comes down to what they wanted to do, or the desire they had.
At the end of the day I am more secure giving my partner the freedom to cheat over setting her a false restriction.
If as stated in the post above, she is lacking emotional support from me, I’d like the opportunity to correct this.
Her telling her husband his cheating will be an unforgivable act, might cause him to take more risk to experience whatever he believes he needs at the time.
This puts her at greater risk.
At the end of the day, it seems to me more caring for a lover to let them know you will be open to them coming to you.
When you love a person, that unforgivable act doesn’t turn the love off right away, does it?
If my lover isn’t stressed, she’s less likely to forget to take her pill or bring her reliable method of birth control.
Paternity tests are expensive. Smile.
I forgot about this part as well.
It was totally ignorant of fathers to kill babies because they didn’t resemble them enough.
Not only does nature dictate this sometimes in the opposite direction, where a child might resemble the mother’s family more, but it was a direct misguided punishment.
See what I mean about the love not dying?
Instead of leaving the woman, or making her uncomfortable, he acts out on someone or something else to deal with his insecurity, but not his lover.
It is the same when a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man, or learns who that man is.
Instead of directing his anger/loss at his woman, he directs it on the man.
If you are going to keep her, keep her/him, in peace, or let her or him go.
It is miserable to live with a repeat cheater, if that is your thing.
You could put that energy in to finding someone more suited and get more sleep, be more secure.
If it doesn’t bother you, then it isn’t cheating, but experimenting.
Paternity tests are free within a time limit in Sweden.
I may well still love my husband if he cheated. but every inch of trust I have for him will have gone down the drain. I can't be with someone I don't trust.
and the time when men used to kill babies, love didn't come into it. love never came into it. it was about status....as most tribal life was several thousand years ago.
Meglet, Leo is right. You are brave for seeing and facing your insecurities, taking responsibility, and working on all of it. We've talked enough that you know I'm doing the same. Whatever else my faults have been over the years in relationships, and they've been many and varied, the one thing I've tried consistently to do is take responsibility for my screw-ups, and do better.
loui, you're right about knowing boundaries. I'm glad you and your partner have had these types of discussions. That speaks of good communication and honesty between you. More couples need to do that.
Wayne, I understand why people have taken some of what you say as a lack of caring about your partner. I'll admit that sometimes when I've read your posts, I've thought, well damn, he must not care that much for, or be very deeply attached to his partners. Generally it's assumed that such a lax attitude means not much emotional attachment. I'll admit the only times I've seen that kind of attitude in either men or women is when they truly don't care one way or the other about their partner or the relationship in general, when it's not really a big priority for them. Usually when someone does deeply care or attach, they're not able to keep such a live and let live attitude as you have. Because this has been my experience, that's how I read your posts, but I'm also well aware that I don't really know you, so those thoughts are very much an assumption, and likely a false one, on my part. You may be attached emotionally, just very different from the norm on this.
Sister. It's accepted.
I am seriously attached. I love the people I love deeply, if that makes sense?
I don't fall in love easy, but when I do, that love is for life.
Even if I'm no longer with the person, say my X wife, I love her to this day, and talk to her often.
When she needs help, if I can, I help her.
This love isn't the romantic sort anymore, but love for a person I care for.
I always was, and am able to talk to her about her love life, her dreams for her future, and it matters she's happy.
I guess it is I once was attached to her completely, and she has these qualities that made it so right now. For that reason, she's loved.
Most times when starting a new relationship, the question comes up. "Do you still love your X wife?"
When I answer yes, I have been rejected completely, or the person will feel Leary for a long time.
Did you talk to her this week?” Sure, I talked to her yesterday, or I saw her the other day.
“You must want her back?” No, it can’t ever work in that way again. That house burned.
Even casual people if we become physically intimate are important to me. These type relationships stay open while I’m single, but closed completely when I promise myself to someone.
I encourage anyone casual I know will remain casual to seek someone permanent if they are in that mode. I’ll go to the wedding and kiss the groom.
I admit my way of thinking is odd, but the next woman I share my life with can be 100% secure.
All I’ve posted here on this topic to me is love, and complete love.
For this reason, is why I wonder about love, or control.
I agree a couple should sit down and communicate, I just don’t believe in the section that dictates, threatens.
Understanding, reason, and forgiveness is how I see love. A person has to burn that preverbal house down to ashes, or say they wish to move on before I’ll give them up as lost.
Whether it makes me a pushover or not, I know by now I'm incapable of making
any sort of ultimatums as Loui described. I would capitulate, I already know it.
So I would personally not bother. I am just guessing here, but I'll guess Loui's
husband only echoed the ultimatum after she at first made it.
My way is not terribly uncommon for men in the West, although I'm guessing
far more uncommon in different cultures in the East or parts of Africa. I'm just
honest enough now to admit it; I simply could not make such an ultimatum on
another person. Perhaps, in some ways, I'm more like Wayne than I realized.
Although mine is a double standard as I'm not going to step outside the
relationship. Not unless that were first negotiated.
I only hope that if I were on the relationship market again, I would be smart
enough to avoid an ultimatum situation, only because those usually have
extenuating factors. I simply know I'm not capable of initiating such things. I
guess you could call that a "boundary" of you wanted, but certainly an odd one.
No one is stating that they don't have insecurities. No one has said that they don't communicate outside the bedroom with the people they're with about sex, core values, hobbies and other important issues that should be discussed early on in each relationship. People here have made those inferences based on the fact some of us are monogamous, but that doesn't mean they're correct in their assumptions.
I, personally, want the person I'm with to feel comfortable enough with me that they can tell me anything, and I the same with them. This means that as I've been saying, we'd be honest with one another, through checking in periodically. In other words, during our check-ins, we'd talk about the changes we have gone through or are going through honestly and without fear that the other person will blow a gasket. From there, we'd talk about how, if at all, things should be worked on, changed, ETC--so this idea that we're limiting people, controlling people or however else you wanna term it, is solely based from ignorance. Because I, for one, want the best for everyone I'm friends with, which of course fully extends to a significant other. That includes hearing him say, hard to handle or not, that he wants to be with someone else. Because, the reality is, I have no desire to keep someone where they don't wanna be.
Leo, we both agreed to have a discussion about boundaries. We were in a situation where we were going to spend a lot of time and money on the relationship, so wanted to be clear.
We are both demisexual. so there would be no sex for us without an emotional connection, and we both agreed that the kind of emotional connection we would need to have sex would constitute very serious breach of trust between us as a couple.
So it's just not on.
I used to be the type of person who considered infidelity the ultimate, unforgivable sin...I have since softened that judgement. Okay, so there's no doubt that trust would be seriously compromised, perhaps permanently. But, like Leo, I'm not willing to give ultimatums anymore. Love has taught me a lot, including that a lot of my hard ideas were a bit useless in practical terms. So, Shepherdwolf knows that if he were unfaithful, he'd be inviting huge, possibly insurmountable, trust issues, but I won't come out and say "I'll leave you, period, regardless of circumstances surrounding the infidelity." We're all human and shit happens, to be blunt. I may be able to forgive, say, a one-night stand where it was a moment of weakness rather than an emotional as well as physical affair lasting five years. The former is terrible judgment; the latter is pure, premeditated, and ongoing betrayal. So, cheating may well end things for me, but I won't give my partner an ultimatum...at least, not now. I don't believe that makes me weak or too permissive. I think it makes me honest enough to know that life is never black and white.
Right. Life isn't black or white.
Sure this concept works fine for couples that see it in that way, or believe they do, just not for me.
Seems we'd not have to even deal with this problem if we opened ourselves to allow discussion on it from day one without the threat of loss if a person has feelings of this kind.
I am talking all aspects, not only the cheating, because many times cheating has a reason why.
From a man’s prospective.
You can’t read, or watch porn. You can’t have a beer in a Hooters. You can’t enjoy a strip show. You can’t express the fact the lady over there really looks great, and has nice legs, or something. You can’t even come home and tell your wife you’d like to experience these things and invite her to come along without the threat of her anger, retaliation, or feeling wronged, unworthy.
All men aren’t interested in half this stuff. Personally I’m not on a daily, weekly bases, but I’m not opposed to it, or feel it is wrong for these that are interested.
I found it totally amusing that women who’d ban their mates from this sort of entertainment read all the books of the 50 Shades of Gray.
It is said even the prim and religious purchased this book. I know a few I was surprised that did.
How many of you read it? Smile.
What if your mates told you under no terms could you read that trash, because it might make you want these things from someone else?
Would he have to buy pizza for his dinner?
Interesting, isn’t it?
Love, or control?
Ah Wayne I appreciate your posts.
One of the biggest, and yes hardest, lessons I've been learning over the past
decade or so, is just how *not* black-and-white things often are. That doesn't
mean "anything goes," as the conservative may retort, but it does mean that
figuring out the situation takes some effort. I'm afraid black-and-white thinking
is a form of laziness, even if it is justified by popular and religious culture.
So someone please explain a demisexual?
I can more easily understand this among women, since there are so many
precursors that a man must go through before being invited sexually. But for a
man? Are you saying if your husband is demisexual, that he feels no sexual
attraction at all towards someone of the opposite sex until there is already a
relationship established? That would sort of defeat the purpose of needing these
boundaries and ultimatums, would it not?
It is interesting; a man who has no sexual attraction, the "flag flieth not," as it
were, for anything casual. No perception that someone is sexually attractive,
not until emotional relationship is fully established?
I wonder how common this is? Certainly it seems more the province of a woman
with peculiarly conservative, Victorian values mixed with romantic notions from
that same era re: how each party "should" behave in order to "get the goodies".
But I've not yet met a man who held such values, without doing so under
duress or obligation, or belief that doing so was the only competitive mating
strategy he could hope for.
I, for one, even with all these new fancy pants words and phrases they got,
shake my head more often than not, and think "I don't know, and I'm not sure if
I can know half this stuff."
So someone please explain a demisexual?
I can more easily understand this among women, since there are so many
precursors that a man must go through before being invited sexually. But for a
man? Are you saying if your husband is demisexual, that he feels no sexual
attraction at all towards someone of the opposite sex until there is already a
relationship established? That would sort of defeat the purpose of needing these
boundaries and ultimatums, would it not?
It is interesting; a man who has no sexual attraction, the "flag flieth not," as it
were, for anything casual. No perception that someone is sexually attractive,
not until emotional relationship is fully established?
I wonder how common this is? Certainly it seems more the province of a woman
with peculiarly conservative, Victorian values mixed with romantic notions from
that same era re: how each party "should" behave in order to "get the goodies".
But I've not yet met a man who held such values, without doing so under
duress or obligation, or belief that doing so was the only competitive mating
strategy he could hope for.
I, for one, even with all these new fancy pants words and phrases they got,
shake my head more often than not, and think "I don't know, and I'm not sure if
I can know half this stuff."
So someone please explain a demisexual?
I can more easily understand this among women, since there are so many
precursors that a man must go through before being invited sexually. But for a
man? Are you saying if your husband is demisexual, that he feels no sexual
attraction at all towards someone of the opposite sex until there is already a
relationship established? That would sort of defeat the purpose of needing these
boundaries and ultimatums, would it not?
It is interesting; a man who has no sexual attraction, the "flag flieth not," as it
were, for anything casual. No perception that someone is sexually attractive,
not until emotional relationship is fully established?
I wonder how common this is? Certainly it seems more the province of a woman
with peculiarly conservative, Victorian values mixed with romantic notions from
that same era re: how each party "should" behave in order to "get the goodies".
But I've not yet met a man who held such values, without doing so under
duress or obligation, or belief that doing so was the only competitive mating
strategy he could hope for.
I, for one, even with all these new fancy pants words and phrases they got,
shake my head more often than not, and think "I don't know, and I'm not sure if
I can know half this stuff."
Sorry the site went crazy and for some reason posted this three times. My
apologies.
Ah, yes Leo. That is interesting.
I understand the term and what is written about it, but the concept to me as a man is odd.
Sexual interest for me comes before emotional attachment for women.
I don't understand getting emotionally involved with someone I don't really know, or have some interest in unless that person is my child, or sister, or mother.
Even if I subscribe to the no sex before the wedding, the girl will be turning me on.
True emotional attachment takes me some time to develop.
I have never heard the term demisexual in my life, so I'd like an explanation too. But I have actually met guys who do need an emotional connection before they get sexually involved with someone. So, while that may not be the norm for men, just as Wayne's very lax attitude on a partner's behavior in spite of being deeply emotionally attached is not the norm for people, it does exist. Shocking as it may be to some of you out there, not all men can fuck indiscriminately. And not everyone who needs emotional attachment to have sex is religious or conservative.
Oh, two other things. Wayne, I began reading the first Fifty Shades book (no way in hell I'd pay money for it), and had to stop about a third of the way through because the writing was the worst I've ever seen in my life. As with most books that become crazes, I usually at least start to read them, to make up my own mind whether I like it or hate it instead of just listening to the court of public opinion. But in this case, it wasn't even the content that stopped me, but the purely terrible writing.
Oh and Leo, maybe one of the CL's could delete those duplicate posts if you asked.
Oh many men don't have sex until emotional attachment, of course, cultural
constraints being what they are. I don't even know if I could fuck
indiscriminately or not, being a product of the dominant culture.
I thought, and maybe I'm wrong, that the demisexuals actually don't feel any
sort of attraction until they are emotionally attached. So I assume, but maybe
wrong, no biological response from the male or female at sight or sound of
someone attractive. While for many of us said biological responses do happen
only we don't give into them. I thought it was physical perhaps it's not.
If it's not, then almost everyone in the West is demisexual by default due to
Victorian innovations as part of Western culture.
Right. I understand not having sex with just anyone until you are emotionally attached.
What I'm not sure about is there being no sexual interest at all unless you are emotional attached.
That is the part I wish to understand.
I've read about it, and understood it to be that people just don't get involved physically until they feel as if they have a connection, but no interest at all?
It seem like not having any sexual drive until you had the mental going for both men and women.
This is a totally new term for me.
Sister, I don't know many people like myself. Smile. Lots of women are claiming to be demisexuals here. It was the first time I heard of it.
Sure, I know women that won't have sex with you unless they are sure you are their boyfriend, like that, but even they have sexual interest, they just don't give in to it.
I always thought they didn't want to be thought of as looser easy.
I have met some A sexual people, but they aren't interested at all period.
So, like Leo, I'd love to have this explained more.
As to the 50 Shades, I'm not sure how the book sold either, but I know several women I didn't think would be interested that purchased all three books and were excited over it.
The book sold a ton.
So, that question stands. Smile.
That's my question too, Wayne. If it's just not giving in, that's cultural or what
have you. But if it's actually a case of not feeling any sexual interest at all until
an emotional attachment? Then that would be unusual for a male. No erection,
no physical changes, no heart beat or any other changes, no sexual anything
until a relationship was first established. I'm afraid Alicia was just lashing back
at us rather than helping to understand.
Anyhow, I can imagine the "no attraction" in some females, but I've yet to meet
a male gay or straight who possessed this.
And if it is an attraction thing, the poster who talked about this said, 'We're both
demisexuals," which would render the ultimatum completely useless because
until one has followed up with all the culturally prescribed emotional responses
for courtship, the male wouldn't even "get excited" for another partner.
All these new fancy terms are quite confusing I think. Not a lot done to explain
this stuff with any clarity.
I don't understand this "demisexual" thing either. It's damn near impossible for me to imagine sexual attraction not being present until after a strong emotional bond is formed by people. For me, if I've interacted with a person and the vibes between us are great, sex might be a possibility. Interestingly though, my church has much different views on sex than I do--they say that sex should only be done within the confines of marriage. So, I struggled with that for a while because my thoughts are that it's not the church's business what I do with my friends or a significant other. I brought this up on this topic since we're talking about sexuality. My intent is not to derail the discussion, but to contribute to it in a meaningful way.
I will take it a bit more and say the concept of no sexual interest at all in females would be interesting too.
I can understand demisexuals, in the context of not doing anything until you have the attachment.
However, females that have sex drive must feel some sexual interest?
I'd agree if a person was demisexuals,, and had no drive at all, the ultimatum is not necessary.
If you say you must give them the ultimatum, then you open up the door of the possibility of emotional attachment with more than one person to the point of sex.
If you do that, you are stepping over in to my area that says people change, or go through fazes, so need understanding.
You would have to agree that this is a human thing, or natural, not a way to hurt you necessarily.
You have to also admit you are susceptible to it.
I don't understand the demi-sexual thing either. I can see not acting on your desire for a person until after some relationship is established, but just not having the feelings at all until then? Seems unlikely. Something has to prompt a person to start a relationship, to think of that other person as more than a friend. If not physical desire, then what?
That's a good way to put it. If not physical desire, then what? Because for most of us, myself included, what separates my friends from a boyfriend, is the fact I think of that person sexually and can't wait to experience what it's like to be with them. So, for the demisexual people, if not sexual interest, what does it for you?
Demisexuals might feel attraction, but the attraction is not completely sexual. for example, I believe my husband when he said to me that he was sure about our relationship because absolutely no other women were attractive to him. My husband is unable to be excited by porn, because it doesn't involve him. same for me. One night stands might be possible for us if we are very very drunk, or drugged, but more often than not we can't perform. It was a long road for me discovering this identity.
Demisexuals find women attractive, they find men attractive, on a physical level, but that attraction is only ever deepend to sexual attraction by knowing that person. We don't just see a person in the pool and get hot for them, because that person is doing nothing to interest us particularly by just being there. When people told me that they liked my pic only in a message on a dating site, I immediately ignored them. Johan was the first who actually commented on the text of my profile, he was interested in me intellectually.
We could be unfaithful by meeting and becoming friends with a member of the opposite sex. because the opportunity for emotional, intellectual and then physical connection is available.
I am not saying it takes forever and a day for us to want to have sex, but it takes more than buying me a drink and complimenting me. I first felt sexual attraction to Johan after 3 lengthy conversations of about 6 hours.
We have to know one another on a deeper level than just being aquainted.
Demisexuals might feel attraction, but the attraction is not completely sexual. for example, I believe my husband when he said to me that he was sure about our relationship because absolutely no other women were attractive to him. My husband is unable to be excited by porn, because it doesn't involve him. same for me. One night stands might be possible for us if we are very very drunk, or drugged, but more often than not we can't perform. It was a long road for me discovering this identity.
Demisexuals find women attractive, they find men attractive, on a physical level, but that attraction is only ever deepend to sexual attraction by knowing that person. We don't just see a person in the pool and get hot for them, because that person is doing nothing to interest us particularly by just being there. When people told me that they liked my pic only in a message on a dating site, I immediately ignored them. Johan was the first who actually commented on the text of my profile, he was interested in me intellectually.
We could be unfaithful by meeting and becoming friends with a member of the opposite sex. because the opportunity for emotional, intellectual and then physical connection is available.
I am not saying it takes forever and a day for us to want to have sex, but it takes more than buying me a drink and complimenting me. I first felt sexual attraction to Johan after 3 lengthy conversations of about 6 hours.
We have to know one another on a deeper level than just being aquainted.
A good description. Thank you.
In your description, I would have some elements of Demisexuals.
You can’t buy me a drink and complement either and get sex, I have to know something about you.
However, I don’t need an emotional connection, and that’s the part that still is a source of interest to me.
You said he talked about your profile over your picture. You had some conversations.
Can a person really be emotionally attached to someone they’ve not spent any physical time with?
I don’t mean sexual time, but day to day life?
I can understand interest, or liking a person based on the things they tell you, and how you feel when talking to them, so maybe that makes you a bit more secure that if you do become sexually involved, you feel better about it, because you now think it has more substance?
You are still physically turned on, or were before you met physically, right?
Porn, or a good sex seen in a book can turn me on, but I don’t want to have sex with the people involved but with someone I know.
People seem to believe that being Demisexuals gives them more protection from bad relationships.
They seem to believe the sex will be better too.
What if your husband was totally a turnoff in bed? Would your friendship, and like interest outside of sex have been enough to live with?
I genuinely want to know.
I, too, have one element of a demisexual, in that it takes more than buying me a drink to get me in bed. Even so, I still don't guess I understand (and maybe I never will) why there is even a name for this sort of thing.
Thanks for explaining that, Loui. Much appreciated. Wayne, I think you can develop some level of attachment before you spend time together in person, but only to a point. To make the attachment deepen and grow, and especially to maintain it, eventually physical time will be needed. Or at least, that's my opinion.
Well, I can say I've got a better idea of what people feel they are when they say this.
Her description helped much.
Maybe in the end it is more like, before I make love to your body, I make love to your mind.
I guess it doesn't give you any better relationships, but maybe makes people feel better about the sexual part of it.
Well, I certainly feel I have better sex because of it. Because...well,....I care and so does he. I think you have better sex when you are thinking about something more than just your own pleasure. We have so much vested in each other emotionally and intellectually, that the physical just follows naturally. One night stand sex is highly....selfish. And if you don't really have a connection with someone, at least for us, it's selfish and emotionless.
Demisexuals are highly partner focused. While it doesn't protect us all the time from bad relationships, I do feel we are less likely to be in conflict. Our relationships didn't start with anything physical. I can't start a relationship that way. in any way.
Our sex has been a work in progress. it was always good, but now, after 3 years, it's damn near as perfect as I would like.
I think our emotional and mental connection meant that we were willing to work on that aspect of our relationship, rather than it being a deal breaker.
I loved Johan well and truely before I even held him. when I finally did, that love only grew.
Perhaps it's because I've never participated in the so-called "hookup" culture or
any of that. It still sounds to me like "demisexual" is a new word for "cultural
default." But I've never known anyone in real life who just had sex with
someone they didn't know, or didn't consider the other's pleasure or well-being.
But I appreciate your description.
All these new identities are at best confusing for us simple folk.
I have a feeling it's a title men and women are using now to defend themselves for why they don't want to have sex on a first date, or even a 3rd....
as if you should have to defend such reasoning.
I actually see more men using it, I assuming as defense against other men, rather than women.
Defending themselves for behaving as the cultural default, the religiously
prescribed narrative for the past 1,000 years. guess I don't get that, just as I
don't get the Kim Davises of the world, or any other so-called "persecuted"
supermajorities with all the military industrial backing that they have, claiming
to be persecuted. I'm in a monogamous relationship. That doesn't make me
special, sorry. That's the system default as we defend the western industrial and
postindustrial model.
We don't "fuck on the first date," but as the supermajority, we bomb on first
contact. The only difference between these new identity people and the
imperialists of the past? The imperialists never claimed they were a victim by
being a supermajority.
Go with the industrial model if you want, I say. I've done it more by default than
anything else, because *nobody* really does differently, from a statistical
standpoint. It's like Kim Davis thinking heterosexual marriages was so "rare"
and "uncommon".
Ooookay, I guess.
I'm not restricted to doing any ultimatms either, but at the same time with the
dating and wedding industries as they are, we can see that at least the classic
Victorian (Demisexual?) notions are still so profoundly the majority.
I have greater respect for whoever came up with the term cisgendered; it's
based on scientific knowledge and none of us cis people (not trans) are claiming
we're the victim or our "way life," is being eroded, like a bunch of Fox News cray
crays.
Maybe it's just a more hip way to say "old-fashioned," or "I want my man to buy
dinner on the first date," or any other things. Who knows. I looked it up several
places online and outside of obviously biased sources, looks like a "identity" that
people are still unsure about. Probably because it's so incredibly commonplace,
socially prescribed, and backed by religion plus military industrial complex.
Whoever guessed that the new leading edge of everything was to be as radically
cookie cut conformity to what the rest of us have done, by default, without
incident, for generations.
Well, at least those of us who did it just because that's how society expected,
and admit to such are being honest. Except in the case of "trans" vs. "cis", they
needed a name for us because they had to have a name to describe what we
are as opposed to their situation. Like "blind" vs. "sighted". Like the sighted
people, as a cis person I don't think being cis is anything special, it's just the
default.
Guess the likes of the Right Wing Watch and Kim Davis have probably taught us
a lot about a lot of things re: creating an identity out of the default, and looks
like the "demisexual" situation is learning from them also.
I’d disagree that having sex on the first date means your selfish, or even a one-night stand if you are in to this.
Caring about the other person pleasure doesn’t require you to be anything but a nice person.
You don’t need an emotional attachment to want to please someone, only the desire to do so.
People that have sex on a first date are no more likely to not remain in a good relationship then people that wait until the 10th.
It just depends on the persons taste I’d say.
Working on a relationship also depends on the person’s demeanor, not a term.
Some people stay married years and never learn to please their partners. They are married, so have some sort of emotional connection, but just don’t care about sex pleasure.
Other factors play in to that too.
Some folks are just selfish, others are givers.
I agree Wayne, even though I've never done that. The problem is all the social
conditioning and cultural defaults that used to be called traditionalism and is
now conservative thinking rebranded to be edgy for hipsters.
In fact, these so-called "shit" tests are more about an idea than a person.
I have listened to someone cry on the first date. Guess that makes me, what?
an "emotional slut?" I've spent money on the first date. Guess that makes me a
"financial slut?"
Demisexual is just Rush Limbaugh rebranded to be edgy for hipsters. I have to
admit it's a clever move on the part of the traditionalist propagandists. Very
very slick indeed.
I see what Loui is saying. With the way culture is going now, sometimes you do have to defend yourself when you want to live by what Leo would call the standard. We're swinging to where it's not the standard anymore, and one can actually get criticized for not having some unique label for themselves. Very insightful about why people are using this term, Loui, especially men, who are now expected to just have sex with anyone. Many do, so the ones who don't behave that way, may feel on the defensive.
I can see that.
It is sort of my reason for this complete post.
When it comes to sex, or the sexual, this seems to take number 1 spot over everything else.
Even sense, fairness, reason.
When a man feels he's got to defend himself because he's not in to getting in to a woman's pants on the first date, that is sad.
When a woman feels she can't trust her man to have a beer in a topless bar, less he gets horny and forget all the love he has for her, that is sad.
If a man or woman cheats, we have no rational why, just the hurt.
When people fall out of love with us, or still love us deeply, but learn they have fallen in love with another person in a different way, but just as strongly, we don’t care about that partner’s feelings, only our hurt.
If a one-night stand is selfish, is not understanding the person you claim to love so deeply, and have a connection with not selfish too if they stray?
This is the unforgivable sin, right?
Sometimes I think half of all this is a taught thing. The rest is jealousy, or selfishness.
A guy that thinks like me can’t possible love his partner. He doesn’t care.
If I say I’d love sex with you on the first date, all I am interested in is sex, not you at all.
No one taught me what I believe, I came to it by sitting down and deciding what was most important to me in a relationship.
I came to understand I should love a person completely. Because I love them, I should try to understand them, not control them.
Sure, I like my lover to giver herself to me and love me completely, but I also understand we are human, and go through changes, emotions, feelings, or even needs we don’t know we might have.
Sex to me is an extenchen of love, pleasure and friendship, not binding. A person’s honesty, forthrightness, wellbeing is means more.
This has been interesting, and I thank everyone for the input here.
It is human nature to feel selfish about certain things though.
I'm not sure about that.
The reason is other cultures have different type relationships, and people take it as normal.
Some Eastern cultures will have several women living with one man.
I knew a girl once that told me she'd not mind being my second wife if I had a first. We had a lengthy discussion about this and her reasons for not feeling jealous, or threatened by this situation.
It was the normal way of life for her.
In Africa, I can't think of the place, women will have more than one husband.
Some places, and this is even here in America, just not talked about, men will have mistresses, or concubines.
You can’t marry more than one women here, and in most European societies, so men take other women.
You’ve heard of couples sleeping in separate rooms, right? Most times, this is because the husband will have a mistress, or something.
That happens in high society most time during arranged marriages.
If we took a western girl and placed her in an Eastern society, I wonder how she’d feel.
So maybe you could learn to not be as you say is natural?
actually, jealousy is another evolutionary trait we hold onto since the dawn of human existance, pretty much. While it was common for men to have more than one wife, it was not done for women to have more than one husband. Those sorts of relationships came later, and are not very common in any case. the most common form of cultural polyamory is men with more than one wife. The accepted theory is because the woman was the child barer, so in most cases was only allowed one husband. Hense why babies were killed if they did not resemble their father in some way.
I don't think it matters what kind of sexual relationship you subscribe to, as long as you and your partner are happy with it. If my partner is unhappy with being in a faithful relationship, he has a choice, and that choice is leave. it might be a hard choice, but it's there. I won't hold it against him if he does, especially since we have an agreement, but if I am not cheating, I expect my partner not to as well. I'm not interested in other men. not in the slightest.
Let me see if I understand.
If he leaves, you'll understand, because it is his choice. As for hard, do you mean a hard choice for you
But if he cheats, this will be unforgivable, right?
A great book on this topic is "Sex At Dawn," It's on Bookshare and really has a
balanced perspective based on pre-hominid and hominid societies.
Wayne, you're right about western Jealousy being a bit unique, and culturally
related. What Perestroika is talking about is the exact same mentality why Rush
Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" for having advocated free birth control.
Ironic as this sounds, Perestroika and Limbaugh are one in this respect. It has
to do with sustaining our industrial and postindustrial societies. Neat little
nuclear systems are far easier to count and quantify. That's why the nuclear
model came into existence largely during the Victorian era; it had to do with the
industrial revolution.
Sexual practices outside Christian or Muslim-missionized nations are as varied
as the cultures themselves. The reason the current default seems so "normal" is
because it works where you're trying to create or maintain a postindustrial
society.
You have folks like me who have just done it by default, and folks like
Perestroika who are its defenders against some new fringe carryovers from
preindustrial models.
I still wonder how well these preindustrial models will work in an industrial
society, even with 2.5 million polyamorous in the U.S.
The problem with people like myself is that we do it by default, and if you're
wanting to really maintain the status quo, you need the Perestroikas and the
Rush Limbaughs to do it. The fringe are, of course, not a real threat to
industrialization that the nuclear model is so terrified of. But the nuclear model,
being an extremely new invention needs societal pressure to maintain it.
So, Wayne, I really think it is about control. Perhaps not so much control for
"her" sake, but it's all about industrial power. And if you can put a bumper
around your nuclear warheads as the Victorian romantics did, or folks like Rush
Limbaugh has attempted to do, or as some on here have well illustrated, you
have a better chance of maintaining that industrial edge in an increasingly
culturally-diverse world.
Maybe your grandfather ate nothing but beef and potatoes, but now you can
buy sushi all over the world, the best being now produced in Mexico City. So
where cultural influences bleed over, if one particularly tenuous one is really
good at creating empire, you need its crusaders to maintain it.
Nobody will lose an empire because everyone eats Sushi. But Fox News will go
out of business, the world bank might close, and Wall Street just might have a
lot of trouble, if a statistically significant number of people adopted something
other than a monogamous nuclear model for families.
People like me have not helped, because we have just gone along with the
statistically normal, without even a thought that there might have been another
way. People like me would never save empire. Others who are more heavily
invested in boundaries and control will do this. It is finally how I realized why
the Right has such an obsession with sex and how people sexually interact. It's
not the sex; it's the world domination and conquest. No more and no less.
Without their moral crusaders, they just might lose that edge.
Again, to the polyamorous, I still say the jury is still out. I'm not sure how well a
system designed for preindustrial models will truly work here, especially while
the empire-insecure are pretty desperate to maintain their edge. In the U.S. at
least, being polyamorous can get your kids taken away under som pretext that
they will be damaged, notwistanding the untold number of kids living all over
the world in non-nuclear model systems. Again, it's all about the weapons and
the conquest though. No matter what crib bumpers are put on it.
The TL, DR? I am as useless to empire as the moderate Christians are to
fundamentalism. I might be monogamous by default, but apply no pressure and
engage no dogmas to that effect. Empire needs both pressure and dogmas to
maintain this new system which, it can well be argued, is the most successful
for maintaining empires.
it wouldn't be hard for me to watch my husband go if he were unfaithful.
think of it from my point of view.
my husband will have engaged in sex with an unknown quantity, carrying home god only knows what diseases for me to then catch. He may have hid the truth from me for ages, allowing me not to know this, thus not get myself tested for them.
When you sleep with someone, you sleep with all their ex partners and partners as well.
So when he slept with you, he slept with all your partners and X partners as well?
Each time he loves you, he is loving your past?
Sorry, that's extreme.
When I am having sex with a person I never think about her past lovers at all. I'd even enjoy it if she share her history in general as to what works and what she's learned.
When she showers or takes a bath, she is clean. If she's careful, she is not tainted by default.
I understand risk as far as sex goes, but I also know just because you are having sex, or have had sex with others, you are not dirty, nor diseased.
But, what I was asking was if he came to you and told you he wanted to leave for whatever his reasons were, with no sex involved, or as far as you knew, would it be understandable. Not the unforgiveable sin?
You had said it be hard, do you mean for you.
You couldn't assume it would be for him, so I asked?
Could a person that is extreme as you accept that he fell in love with another, but because he can't have both, he chose her, or even him?
I personal don't believe monogamous society makes it any stronger then not. My reasons for this is because you have lots of single people, cheaters, and polyamorous in industrial societies, and there not much different then others. We just pretend to be.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say the people in power are more sexually promiscuous.
Look at all the powerful people that get caught in sexually bad spots because the lie about it or try to hide what they really are?
They are found in bath houses, prostitution rings, or houses. Where is the good correct and best marage situation?
They did all the right things, married the right girl, but they need to have sex outside of all the right?
I'd be willing to bet more powerful people are involved in being human then we know, because there better at hiding it then others.
If your minister that stands before you every Sunday, and has read all the right stuff, preached the right things, and believes in the right way can't keep his union together, what does this say?
To me he's weak, because he must lie. He'd be strong in my book to face facts. I'd respect him more for it.
As women become more powerful we'll find more of them in this sort of situation too.
We put more worth on a persons sexuality then the persons strengths in other areas.
Oh and Perestroika
, I am not jumping on you and saying you are wrong for your views. You aren't the first person that has told me this.
My thing is the people that believe this must think their partners clean because they love and enjoy them.
This view is just to intense for me to believe in. It's like saying when I get with Jane, she's not pure because she's with me. If she should sleep with John, who's perfectly healthy, she's now tainted and nothing she was matters above the sex.
She's not kind. She's no longer a good mother. She's no longer a good money manager.
She's not smart, loving, kind to humanity anymore.
She's black now.
I hate everything she was and is, because she chose to give herself to another.
For me, that just won't work. If Jane still loved me, or wanted to be in my life, I'd love her just the same.
I'd respect her more for coming to me and telling me about her desires, changes.
I could trust her much, because I know she'd not have secrets, or have no need to keep secrets from me.
Weird I know. Jane to me will still be Jane.
Forgot. So Perestroika
, thank you for your view. It shows the other side of this and why.
It shows how others feel about it.
Yes, Perestroika expresses the conservative arguments far more tactfully than the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Gary Bower.
It comes back to the faux notion of "virginity" or "soiled".
Again, poly people, I seriously don't know how your kind will make it en masse under empire like we have now. Perhaps "en masse" is not the end goal of the poly types; they can live in small groups in amongst the rest of us empire-creators and survive.
I suppose if the polys were truly serious about it, they might do like the commune in San Francisco did for awhile, or move to less industrialized nations.
I would say they don't think about that sort of thing.
They live a lifestyle, not a cause, if that makes sense?
They understand that for whatever reasons, they have capacity to love more then one person, and enjoy it.
Instead of trying to fix this feeling, calling it a sin, and getting help for it, they embrace it.
If there was no infidelity involved, I would be perfectly ok. I would accept it and move on, try to be civil to my now ex, for our daughter. That wouldn't be hard. it wouldn't even be hard for me to see him with other people, if he hadn't been with them while he was with me.
It would absolutely be impossible for me to cope with him being with someone he had cheated on me with. I would do everything in my power to exclude that person from parenting our daughter, for example.
Okay. Thanks for that. I understand your stance on it.
The polys I've run into in real life tend to be quite well-adjusted, and dare I say, well-educated types. I have not done so for several reasons the main being I'm in a long-term committed relationship.
I have asked my former question because I care for the people I know, and have read enough history to understand that polyamorous ways of life have been subjugated not by so-called patriarchies but by the manifest destiny inherent in empire building, even if that conquest is cloaked in ideologies espoused by people like perestroika.
People who live a way of life do tend to wish for it to propagate.
I look at the polys the same way I look at people who are living off the grid. Just like we have empire employing ideologues to lobby for the dominant traditionalist vie3w, the off-the-grid people are now facing a similar problem from the giant power conglomerates in government. Go off the grid, and you may be taxed for not being plugged into the power grid. Or, more recent lobbying, making it technically illegal to be off the grid. It's how the insecure among the dominant are used to maintain the systems we have.
Watching both the off-the-grid people and the poly people at the same time out here, I'm seeing the exact same power systems at play, usually cloaked under neotenous ideologies.
I guess the idea of love or control is really a matter of perspective. If you see love as control, is it really love? On the other side, would that mean that you, somehow, in your own personal view, perceive control as love, and therefore, feel that you have to be controled to be loved? Just some thoughts on the matter.
Right.
Perhaps some situations that are meant to be for love, are misunderstood or mis interpreted, but that is when communication is the most important and very necessary. A lack of communication can cause serious problems at times.
I am going off what I see here. can't see the original post. can't go back to page
number 1.
I was in a somewhat controlling relationship. Is there a chance that the person
controlling has no intent to control, just enforcing his own views? There's two
types of control to, the emotional and then the rational. I was in a relationship
where the latter was present. You know the biblical type of misuse that's been
described during slavery? It's in a way like that. He had a strong believe,
probably still has, no doubt about that, actually, that women should be under
men and directed and held accountable. If women have any ideas or desires,
they are to run it past their husbands. Everything in public was to be controlled
and approved by the males. He said he didn't mind me speaking up, and such
things. Think biblical husband wife relationship. I dated a traditionalist, don't
ask. I think I was fascinated by his technicalities, he could be very good if he
doesn't wonder off to the land of preaching, where he doesn't belong. His
brother is better at it, but their ideology they have is a bit interesting. This
preaching also involved following all his same beliefs. Yes, miserable I know.
I fell in to it not because I wanted to be controlled but his technicalities he was
good at was fascinating. he helped me out a great deal, informed me, and even
helped me set up the mini studio here. He didn't reel me in like a fly. I asked
him actually. Then the real control began. I was so fascinated by him I guess I
didn't really mind playing the game, because he gave me enough license to be
me in a way. Keep in mind I was new to religion at this point, or to take it as
seriously as I did. It was love for us. So I ask is control and love that separate?
is it that much of a thing about control and manipulation verses love? I think
you can't be stuck in it but you should always be thinking in a relationship. I
wasn't stuck there long. Some men can't love unless they're ultimately in
control. My former friend/ex-boyfriend for a really short time couldn't love
someone unless they believed it his way. Yes, he was a control freak. He was as
technical about people as his audio and weather stuff. Maybe this will provide an
idea of a new perspective. I don't think he'd get abusive, but much of that is a
control mechanism as well.
As to Poly and other alternative lifestyles. It's just not natural. You can't have a
baby that is from and is everyone's. You only have sex with one person at a
time. The rest of the groups DNA has nothing to do with the child. It's almost
too much like licensed cheating! It just doesn't seem quite to work right.
Actually it is more natural then we want to admit.
Sex isn't about ownership, it is about pleasure with humans.
Once we dropped having babies, it opened up the field.
If we stop looking at babies as a trap and look at them as joy and the means to keeping the human race going, we'd be better.
Some cultures believe in taking care of babies as a community thing, not a couple thing. If you put things in that prospective, babies are just part of pleasure, so sex with more then one partner would be natural.
The animal kingdom does it. Females often have several different partners in a life time.
But we are abuv animals. Just playing devils advocate.
Right, and that is the problem. We can think about all we want and plan to get it too.
How many girlfriends did you have before you married?
Are we really above animals though? I mean, we need to eat, need shelter, seek companionship and must procreate. We are more intelligent, yes, but since when do intelligence and morality or right and wrong go directly together?
Sorry, but the poly thing is ridiculous. By which I mean that if you're objecting to it on a fundamentally-right-or-wrong sense, you've got entirely the wrong angle. Some people value the experiences they get with multiple partners. Some just can't do it. It's down to individual choice, as well as disclosure and safety.
I am not poly. I don't want multiple lovers. I have at least one friend, whoever, who is polyamorous and is into that sort of thing. I neither agree nor disagree with it, because I have no right to agree nor disagree with it. Nor do the rest of you. If you think you do, ask yourself if you have the right to disagree with the process of nuclear fusion or the colour yellow. No? Thought not. Polyamory is a concept. If you don't like nuclear fusion, then don't become a nuclear physicist. If you don't like the colour yellow, don't wear or purchase yellow clothing or other items if you can help it. And if you're not comfortable with polyamory, no one is forcing you to take up the lifestyle. Done and done.
Yes we are. Animals don’t have schemas for Love or meaningful relationships. Comparing
polygamy to animal mating behavior doesn’t make sense either because there is a
meaning to polygamous relationships. I wouldn’t doubt maybe there are some animals
who might seek lifelong mates, but how can we be certain it’s something more than
mating?
Something I have observed about people who are in polyamorous relationships is they
look down on those of us who choose not to treat our relationships as open. I hope there
are exceptions to this rule, because it just further influences my opinion. And I do have a
right to agree or disagree. Fence sitting isn’t always productive.
Thanks for the post.
It is an interesting aspect of relationships.
A few things here:
1. We simply don't know how much or how little comparison can be made between how we view relationships and how animals do. But I've seen animals grieve, and have known, for instance, of birds who will die if their mate dies. What is that, if not some sort of love?
Polyamory is a concept. Eating broccoli is also a concept, of sorts. You can disagree with eating broccoli on a personal level, but to disagree with it on a fundamental level that is greater than yourself requires some sort of proof if you're going to be taken seriously. As yet, there is no such proof. Far greater minds than yours and mine have struggled and failed to come up with convincing proof, the same way they've failed to demonstrate, for instance, that being gay is problematic. But I tell you what. Come back with proof that polyamory is wrong, that comparisons to animals actually make any sense whatsoever, and I'll listen. Until then...no, disagreement is beyond you, at least insofar as judging others is concerned. You do it at your own risk.
BTW? That aforementioned friend of mine who's poly? She has absolutely zero problem with people who aren't. I'm not. We get along just fine, thanks. So while we're tossing anecdotal evidence around, there's mine. You say that all poly people look down on those who don't share their viewpoints. I'm here to tell you that that's not true. I know of at least two people right off the top of my head who are completely open about the whole thing. They've decided that polyamory is right for them even if it may not be right for others, and they, at least, are totally okay with this. That being said, I'm sorry you've come up against polyamorous individuals who take a high-handed approach, because that's definitely not a good thing.
The only way I can even remotely defend it - and this only goes partway, I admit - is to say that there is an insane amount of possessiveness and even jealousy inherent in a good deal of monogamous relationships. This doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean that one might want to analyze why all that baggage is there. Do we really need monogamous relationships? Do we really need to get hung up on possession and the like? After all, possession and ownership are kind of hand in hand, and there's some scary territory down that road if you aren't careful.
Remember: I'm monogamous by nature, and I am not saying that poly people who give us a hard time are in the right. They aren't, and they ought to leave us alone if they expect us to do likewise. Common decency, and all that. I'm just trying to get you to think of different angles, that's all. My own experience tells me that well-adjusted polyamorous people, who are open and honest about what they are and what they do, seem to have fewer jealousy hangups than the rest of us. They have specific sets of needs, and if they're a bit fortunate, they get those needs fulfilled without anyone getting hurt or confused or mislead.
I'm not going to get into the legal angle of having multiple wives, or the parental angle of siblings with multiple fathers/mothers. There is definitely some shaky ground in that direction. I am talking merely of the practice of having multiple romantic or sexual partners. It is not for me, but that is the only judgment I can possess. A personal one.
This subject has brought to light much and interesting views.
Perhaps there is far too much jealousy/control in monogamy relationships.
This has lead to some strong results, even death in some cases.
Was it love that caused a man to murder his wife/girlfriend because she wished to move on and have another relationship?
Is it good for one person to control another to the point that person must do as they wish, or be disdained?
Is it healthy, seen as admirable for a person to grieve over a spouse for the rest of their lives who has passed on and not open themselves up to a new relationship?
Could it be possible to have an open handed approach to keeping your lover close and secure instead of a closed handed one?
Monogamy polyamorous, is a personal choice. It seems that neither set sits around making judgements unless they are judged.
Just some questions.
Thanks again for all the post.
Oh I'm not against multiple partners at all. If that's your thing, go for it.