monogamy - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2010, 08:54 AM   #61
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:50 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:21 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
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.
That sounds interesting
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 04:57 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
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.

Quote:
'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
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 11:39 PM   #64
War Child
 
joerags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: What time is it in the world?
Posts: 742
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
And they never will until you get rid of this attitude.


This is not an attitude. What I just stated is fact.
__________________
joerags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 11:46 PM   #65
War Child
 
joerags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: What time is it in the world?
Posts: 742
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
And they never will until you get rid of this attitude.


This is not an attitude. What I just stated is fact.
__________________
joerags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 12:15 AM   #66
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerags View Post
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.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 12:58 AM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:50 PM
here's Dan Savage's take:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 11:36 AM   #68
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Quote:
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 12:17 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 02:11 PM   #70
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 02:18 PM   #71
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
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!
__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 02:31 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by UberBeaver View Post
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 02:33 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerags View Post
This is not an attitude. What I just stated is fact.
Well, what practical steps have you taken to find a girlfriend?
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 02:50 PM   #74
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 03:45 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:50 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com