monogamy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Have not seen The Girlfriend Experience but back in the day I did write a paper for school about Fatal Attraction condemning the portrayal of single, career women as psychotic and incomplete without a family to the point of obsession. :tongue:
 
A panicked penguin was found waddling along the streets of Dublin today after a gang of pranksters stole her from the city zoo.
Ten-year-old Kelli was said to be none the worse for her kidnap ordeal after three men climbed perimeter fences and snatched her from her mate Mick.

Disgusted keepers at Dublin Zoo revealed the delicate bird, and her other half, could have died from the trauma.


'They don't deal well with being handled. She was panting a little,' Mr O'Brien said. 'Her mate was also panting and would have been more stressed because he had been left alone. They bond together very strongly.

Read more: Keepers furious after pranksters poach penguin from Dublin Zoo | Mail Online


Keepers furious after pranksters poach penguin from Dublin Zoo | Mail Online
 
This is not an attitude. What I just stated is fact.

It's not a fact. You can't say that you'll never be in that predicament because there are still years of your life ahead, and as far as we all know you're not a psychic. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if you keep the attitude that no woman will ever find you attractive, or that men and women are inescapably driven to cheat on each other. Negativity is probably the biggest turn off out there. Way more than looks.

Look, it sucks that you've never had a relationship. I get that. But it's your viewpoint on relationships, not your looks or other people's inescapable nature, that is the single biggest obstacle to you ever finding a relationship. And that sucks even more.
 
here's Dan Savage's take:

So What You're Saying Is That No One Should Be Monogamous?
posted by DAN SAVAGE on WED, JUL 7, 2010 at 2:51 PM

No, that's not what I'm saying—and it's not what the authors of Sex At Dawn are arguing either.

The point of Sex At Dawn—and my point in drawing your attention to it (column, podcast)—isn't that monogamy is unnatural and therefore no one should attempt it and that people have license to break the monogamous commitments they made to their partners. And for the record: I'm happy to acknowledge that there are lots of good reasons to be monogamous or very nearly monogamous.

What the authors of Sex At Dawn believe—what they prove—is that we are a naturally non-monogamous species, despite what we've been told for millennia by preachers and for centuries by scientists, and that is why so many people have such a hard time being and remaining monogamous. I'm not saying that everyone everywhere has to be non-monogamous; the authors of Sex At Dawn don't make that argument either. (Lots of monogamists, however, run around insisting that everyone everywhere should be monogamous—and the monogamists get a pass because, hey, they mean so well and wouldn't it be nice if everyone were?)

The point is that people—particularly those who value monogamy—need to understand why being monogamous is so much harder than they've been lead to believe it will be. In some cases this understanding may help people find the courage to seek out non-monogamous relationships and/or arrangements and/or allowances that make them—gasp!—happier and make their relationships more stable, not less, as a routine infidelity won't doom their marriage/domesticpartnership/commitment/slavecontract/whatever. But understanding that monogamy is a struggle for most people, and being able to be honest with our partners about it, may actually help some people remain monogamous.

Buy and read the book.

UPDATE: This letter arrived in the "Savage Love" mailbox as I was writing this post:

I just wanted to thank you for drawing so much attention to the Sex At Dawn book. I am going to get it as soon as possible so I can better understand myself. I have always felt a certain amount of shame because I've never had a monogamous relationship. Having been married 14 years (and having married at 19, which I know is a no-no in your book), I've had plenty of temptation and only given in a few times. Those events felt like they were saving my sanity, they never had anything to do with me loving my husband any less, or making up for his insufficiencies.

Even if I had waited to get married I still would've had these side relationships. It wasn't until I started listening to your advice that I realized that maybe I wasn't the problem. Now there's this book and it gives me hope that our culture might one day be more open about this subject and perhaps more people will come to see the inability to be monogamous as less of a character flaw and more of a fact of life.

For all these years I didn't even know that's what it was, or what was wrong with me, all I knew was that I felt like shit because I couldn't do it. Thanks for cluing me into evolution, reptile brains, etc. This is all very pertinent now, as I am at a serious crossroads and I need all the help I can get.—M

I'm not giving M here a pass on the cheating. I think people should be honest with their partners, etc. What I'd like to see—and what I think a book like Sex At Dawn brings us closer to—is more realism and more honesty. People should have open, honest conversations with prospective partners about their needs, their expectations, what they're capable of, and what happens if they fall short, before they make what may be, for them, an unrealistic promise that they are not just likely to break, but hard-wired to break.

So What You're Saying Is That No One Should Be Monogamous? | Slog | The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper



and as rational as all that sounds, monogamy still feels like a fairly fundamental tenet of a serious adult relationship, and infractions, while possibly forgivable, would still entail -- no matter how rationalized -- fairly seismic repercussions. and even if that impulse is 100% socialized, it's still there.

still, the goal is stability, no? if a relationship can tolerate the minor indiscretion without imploding, aren't we all better off? wouldn't we rather a semi-monogamous pairing than a series of divorces? aren't we all better off realizing that we're not the be-all, end-all for another person and that if we were to dare suggestion otherwise, our asses would get kicked to the curb (how dare you even think that you want to have sex with someone other than me!me!me!)? isn't all this screaming and jealousy really a sign of insecurity? or is that all too French?

seems like we're built to be with multiple partners, but doing so would make us miserable.
 
a book like Sex At Dawn brings us closer to—is more realism and more honesty. People should have open, honest conversations with prospective partners about their needs, their expectations, what they're capable of, and what happens if they fall short,

Well that sounds good when laying the foundations of a relationship except that needs and expectations are dynamic and can change (or be discovered) over time. Which is likely one of the reasons swingers don't fare any better on divorce rates.

Which brings to mind another movie, Eyes Wide Shut. The realism and honesty (and intimacy) of her sharing the sexual fantasies of her imagination (not actions) causes him a massive crisis of confidence.

Are some things better left unsaid? Can you handle the truth?


still, the goal is stability, no?.

Is it? I still think it's uncondional love. Which takes a fair amount of getting over ourselves and our jealous impulses.
 
Is it? I still think it's uncondional love. Which takes a fair amount of getting over ourselves and our jealous impulses.



i don't think it's unconditional love. spouses/partners can do things to make us lose our love. relationships are work because the love is conditional.

the only unconditional love relationship i can think of would be parent/child. no matter what happens, you've always got your parents, and your parents always have a child. you can have an ex-husband/ex-wife.
 
spouses/partners can do things to make us lose our love. relationships are work because the love is conditional.

Is it true love if I love you as long as you do what I expect?

Wouldn't it be a lot less work if you were free to do and be who you need to be (authentically) without fear of loss?
 
what's weird is that i'm watching "Fatal Attraction" right now.

sure, it's a very 1980s Glenn-Close-is-AIDS metaphor, but it's also about how women simply can't be trusted to keep a goddamn secret and not freak out about every little thing. :tsk:

I like the part when she cooked the rabbit.

What's the AIDS tie in? Is this part of the "Gay Agenda" I keep hearing about? First Top Gun and now Fatal Attraction!
 
Is it true love if I love you as long as you do what I expect?

Wouldn't it be a lot less work if you were free to do and be who you need to be (authentically) without fear of loss?


i guess i don't see that as a romantic love relationship, more a familial one. my partner is not free to do and be what he needs to do and be ... well, he is, but his behavior could indeed jeopardize our relationship. he might prefer to, say, go on a sex tour of Thailand, but i wouldn't be waiting for him when he returned. i'd be with someone else. relationships have rules, and they're usually mutually created and negotiated, but they do exist. it is not a free for all.



I like the part when she cooked the rabbit.

What's the AIDS tie in? Is this part of the "Gay Agenda" I keep hearing about? First Top Gun and now Fatal Attraction!



she is AIDS. in a metaphorical kind of way. casual sex is over. that shit comes home with you.
 
my partner is not free to do and be what he needs to do and be ... well, he is, but his behavior could indeed jeopardize our relationship. he might prefer to, say, go on a sex tour of Thailand, but i wouldn't be waiting for him when he returned. i'd be with someone else. relationships have rules, and they're usually mutually created and negotiated, but they do exist. it is not a free for all.

I know it's hard to conceptualize, but I'm not advocating a free for all.

What if he went on a sex tour to Thailand and you amused yourself however you wanted during that time based on mutual negotiation.

What will have changed in the bond between you when you're back together?
 
So is the connection we feel with someone when we have sex with them just a social construct then? We're "supposed" to feel an emotional connection so we do?

I would argue no. I think that's why so often the "no-strings" attached sex can develop strings and why swingers still find themselves dealing with same emotional stuff, even though they are supposed to be in open relationship.

Can you really guarantee that you'll be able to keep the physical and emotional seperate, or are they likely to bleed into one another.

Just finished watching the film "Never Forever" (actually looked it up based on a mention in the Zoo Station when we were talking about "Up in the Air." Vera Familigia (sp?) was both films), and it seems to reinforce this notion that when you start a sexual relationship with someone, even with the idea that it's strictly for utilitarian purposes, you can't guarantee that you won't find yourself emotionally involved.
 
I know it's hard to conceptualize, but I'm not advocating a free for all.

What if he went on a sex tour to Thailand and you amused yourself however you wanted during that time based on mutual negotiation.

What will have changed in the bond between you when you're back together?



if we agree, that's one thing.

if one says, "i'm doing this anyway," then that's something else.

i know you're not saying a free for all, but one can do wild and crazy things yet still follow the rules, and i think following the rules (to the best of one's ability) is part of a relationship between two mutually consenting adults.
 
Completely agree.

I think the OP article is intended to give a wider perspective on openness about negotiating the rules since most of us take monogamy for granted and likely make many assumptions about our partner's needs.

It also indirectly suggests that those who successfully navigate alternatives perhaps should not be viewed as "less than".
 
So is the connection we feel with someone when we have sex with them just a social construct then? We're "supposed" to feel an emotional connection so we do?

I would argue no. I think that's why so often the "no-strings" attached sex can develop strings and why swingers still find themselves dealing with same emotional stuff, even though they are supposed to be in open relationship.

Can you really guarantee that you'll be able to keep the physical and emotional seperate, or are they likely to bleed into one another.

Just finished watching the film "Never Forever" (actually looked it up based on a mention in the Zoo Station when we were talking about "Up in the Air." Vera Familigia (sp?) was both films), and it seems to reinforce this notion that when you start a sexual relationship with someone, even with the idea that it's strictly for utilitarian purposes, you can't guarantee that you won't find yourself emotionally involved.

I think some people can and some people can't. There's the old cliche about women not being able to have no-strings attached sex without developing emotional attachments, and while there may be some truth in the stereotype, it's a huge over-generalisation as there are plenty of women that can have no-strings attached sex without becoming emotionally involved and there are plenty of men that become emotionally involved without having planned on doing on.

There's a saying in Ireland now among college age kids and kids in their twenties - "fuck buddies" - I think you can guess the meaning. And my reaction on reading about this, is firstly, great, let them get on with it, I hope they have fun, and secondly, I wish I was fifteen years younger.
 
I think some people can and some people can't. There's the old cliche about women not being able to have no-strings attached sex without developing emotional attachments, and while there may be some truth in the stereotype, it's a huge over-generalisation as there are plenty of women that can have no-strings attached sex without becoming emotionally involved and there are plenty of men that become emotionally involved without having planned on doing on.

There's a saying in Ireland now among college age kids and kids in their twenties - "fuck buddies" - I think you can guess the meaning. And my reaction on reading about this, is firstly, great, let them get on with it, I hope they have fun, and secondly, I wish I was fifteen years younger.

Fair enough. Let me step out on a limb and modify what you've said: I'm gonna say "A few people can and most people can't."

Also, I'd should be clear that I in know way meant to suggest support for old-hat stereotypes. This is a human thing, not a woman thing.

I mean I get the appeal, I really do. The idea of "fuck buddies" and all that. But I can't help feeling that it's really a lot of wishful thinking for all but a few.
 
There's a saying in Ireland now among college age kids and kids in their twenties - "fuck buddies" - I think you can guess the meaning. And my reaction on reading about this, is firstly, great, let them get on with it, I hope they have fun, and secondly, I wish I was fifteen years younger.

I've got news for you - this is not only exclusive to Ireland. I'm 32 and can remember this term being around when I was in high school.
 
I've got news for you - this is not only exclusive to Ireland. I'm 32 and can remember this term being around when I was in high school.

Perhaps the term "crossed the pond" in recent years - I'm a few years older than you but not many, and I don't remember hearing this term in high school or even college, for that matter. :lol:
 
Fair enough. Let me step out on a limb and modify what you've said: I'm gonna say "A few people can and most people can't."

Also, I'd should be clear that I in know way meant to suggest support for old-hat stereotypes. This is a human thing, not a woman thing.

I mean I get the appeal, I really do. The idea of "fuck buddies" and all that. But I can't help feeling that it's really a lot of wishful thinking for all but a few.

Ok. I'd probably be of the opinion that most people can, and only a few can't - but really, neither of us can prove our point one way or the other, it's largely subjective/anecdotal either way.

To be blunt, it's just shagging, basically. No big deal, apart from being the most intensely enjoyable way to spend a few minutes/hours/nights/days that nature/God has given us. Granted, it used to be a bigger deal for the woman, but for quite a few years now, we've had contraceptives, and, in the case of Ireland, for example, we have less of the Roman Catholic guilt complex in the building - so, problem solved. (Ok, granted, I'm oversimplifying. But still).

Given that this is - in my opinion at least - largely a subjective debate anyway, and without going into the TMI territory, anecdotally, of my circle of friends and acquantainces, mostly in their mid 30's, mostly at the "settling-down" and "married-or-close-to-it" stage, I think the majority have had their moments and have had their no-strings attached one night stands and managed not to develop attachments based purely on, well, fucking.
 
Given everything from pre-marital sex to divorce rates etc etc, seems the same can be said for fulfillment in life-long monogamy.

Perhaps. But I think we're talking about different types of wishful thinking. . .er. . .on second thought maybe not.

Then again, maybe so. At least for me, my choice for life-long monagamy isn't only about how I feel. It's mainly about a choice to be committed, with the understanding that I may not always "feel like" being committed, but I will be any way. Granted, not everyone approaches monagamy this way, but to go into it with the idea that "I'll always feel like I do right this moment as I look into your eyes" is yeah, wishful thinking.

On the other hand, the idea that I'm going to be fuck buddies with you but I promise I won't let myself become emotionally attached or start wanting to place any relationship demands to you IS wishful thinking, because you have no way of being able to predict, let alone control, how you will feel down the road.
 
I think the majority have had their moments and have had their no-strings attached one night stands and managed not to develop attachments based purely on, well, fucking.


I'm not suggesting that it's impossible to have sex with someone without feeling like OMG, I'm totally attached to you now. Obviously people have one night stands, casual sex etc. The age-old profession of prostitution is based on it.

I'm just questioning whether most of us really are capable of living in open relationships over the long haul without finding ourselves out in the emotional weeds. Is monagamy really an unnatural social construct that if we just let it go we could thrive without, or is the argument just a lot of fancy dressing to allow me to follow the impulse of the moment?
 
Well, what practical steps have you taken to find a girlfriend?

There is no need for me to take practical steps in finding a girlfriend. I am an ugly loser. This is not an attitude. This is not an opinion. This is a FACT. I am kryptonite when it comes to women. I am ugly. I am a loser. There is not one thing attractive about me. And please do not say "it's your attitude that is unattractive." I can be the nicest, sweetest, most kind person with a great personality and sense of humor, and women still won't find me remotely attractive, because I have a big nose, a skinny face, and balding. I am utterly gross. Plus, I don't make much money, which explains the loser part of me.
 
There is no need for me to take practical steps in finding a girlfriend. I am an ugly loser. This is not an attitude. This is not an opinion. This is a FACT. I am kryptonite when it comes to women. I am ugly. I am a loser. There is not one thing attractive about me. And please do not say "it's your attitude that is unattractive." I can be the nicest, sweetest, most kind person with a great personality and sense of humor, and women still won't find me remotely attractive, because I have a big nose, a skinny face, and balding. I am utterly gross. Plus, I don't make much money, which explains the loser part of me.

Good Lord, Joe. If you don't see the glaring attitude problem in that post then you've got FAR bigger problems than your looks.

Read that as if it were someone other than yourself and ask yourself this: would I want to date someone with such a poor opinion of herself?

I was going to write a much larger response, but it's not even worth it. You've been on this forum for 6 years, and for 6 years it's always been the same. The only thing hopeless about your chances for a relationship is your attitude.
 
There is not one thing attractive about me.

I can be the nicest, sweetest, most kind person with a great personality and sense of humor, and women still won't find me remotely attractive, because I have a big nose, a skinny face, and balding.

Until you sincerely believe that being nice, sweet, kind with a great personality and sense of humour makes you worthy of love over and above how you look and how much money you make, you'll continue the kryptonite effect.

Believe it or not, some women are into big-nosed, skinny-faced, bald guys, but not ones that are pathetically neurotic about it. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom