Monogamy Isn't Realistic? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-06-2005, 09:34 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:49 AM
did someone mention Kate Hudson and not her ass?
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 09:57 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
However, there are also some relationships and marriages that are explicitly open. As long as Kate Hudson and her husband have mutually agreed upon rules and are okay with it, I frankly don't care what they do with their lives.

Melon
I'm not sure it is matter of choice in this relationship, or at least Ms. Hudson didn't bother to explain it that way.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 10:14 AM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:49 AM
different strokes for different folks.

to many, it's the survival of the union that is of paramount importance. and if the survival of the union might be contingent upon lack of fidelity (which is not something i'd choose, but i also have never walked in Ms. Hudson's shoes), then i think they should do whatever they want.

i suppose i'd have almost a greater problem if someone wants to toss their marriage out the window over a single case of infidelity (not what Ms. Hudson was alluding to, necessarily). can't we forgive our partners? can't we understand that humans are weak and fallible?

for the life of me, i don't understand why the Clinton's don't get more credit from the social Right for sticking together and working on their marriage. call it a sham if you want (and you might be right), but at the very least, aren't they trying to provide a model for couples to stick together?

(do you feel loved?)

a good female friend of mine said that, for her, infidelity was a punishable offence, but not a deal breaker.

that sounds about right to me.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-08-2005, 12:15 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:49 AM
^ I agree with Irvine.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 07:01 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:49 AM
It is interesting reading this conversation from where I am sitting...in a country where polygamous marriage is not only acceptable but legal and practiced widely. The excuse I hear from people when we talk about it varies from the old standby "men have an itch they need to scratch" to "there are more women here than men, so men are obliged to marry several so that everyone gets a spouse" (total bullshit, but they believe it). What it all comes down to in the end though is sexual liberty for the man and sexual slavery for the woman. Women are not permitted to marry multiple men, it is a one-way street. Men say that their women understand and are even pro-polygamy but from what I see, it is more an acceptance of an entrenched system that one feels powerless to change. When your husband is allowed to find himself a second, third and fourth wife, he is not obliged to even be faithful. Ie. if he is sleeping around or dating, he can just say that he is courting a woman to be his other wife.

For the record, my observation has been that women here sleep around too. There seems to be a complete breakdown in the idea of fidelity because sex actually is equated with power (via money). If a woman has an affair, it will be with a man who has money that he can give her for her luxury purchases (nice clothes, cellphone, motorbike, etc.)

This may have nothing to bear on the subject, but it is just my observations from a place where monogamy is not the model. For myself, I think that only when men and women have equal power (educationally, socially, monetarily) can the idea of a truly "open" relationship be plausible.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 07:43 AM   #21
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 09:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dandy

if she thinks monogamy 'isn't realistic', then why did they get married?
That's what I was wondering.
__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 10:30 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:49 AM
^ probably because they want to spend their lives together regardless of whether they are 100% monogamous or not and would like all the legal benefits of marriage. This works for some couples.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 10:36 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:49 AM
The value of marriage fell apart decades ago. It use to be a public sign of a private life-long committment.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 10:46 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:49 PM
People say that monogamy isn't 'natural'. Well maybe not but that does not mean it is not a good idea. There are a lot of things that we do that aren't 'natural'. Yes, monogamy is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it should be just thrown out the window.

Should we take this argument to its logical conclusion, go back and live in forests as our ancestors did? Let's forget about living in concrete structures and live in mud huts instead because after all, it's more 'natural'. I don't think many would want to do that!
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 10:58 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:49 AM
I think the point is that one, or even a handful, of one night stands during the course of a lifelong loving marriage does not necessarily in and of itself lessen the strength of some marriages if these terms are an understanding within the marriage.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 11:09 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
For myself, I think that only when men and women have equal power (educationally, socially, monetarily) can the idea of a truly "open" relationship be plausible.
I agree with you. And even when that equality exists, men and women tend to sleep around for different reasons. Men tend to do it just for the sex (even if the sex at home is good) while women tend to do it because their emotional needs aren't being met at home. So even while I do believe that these kinds of open marriages really do work for some hetero couples and my view is basically whatever people want to do within their marriage is fine with me and none of my business, I think open relationships work much better in gay couples where the motivation behind the infidelity is usually (not always) the same. Since most women (in this country anyway) tend not to sleep around outside the marriage just for the pure enjoyment of the sexual act, they are more likely to feel a bit like a doormat when they allow their man to sleep around while not having a need to do that themselves. So I guess I have mixed feelings on the subject (and I'm not sure if I'm even making sense).
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 11:10 AM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The value of marriage fell apart decades ago. It use to be a public sign of a private life-long committment.

i disagree.

i think marriage has evolved from an economically necessary arrangement (especially for women) into a union based on love, trust, and commitment. it's simply harder for people to stay together when they do not need each other economically. likewise, the empowerment of women (socially and economically) has enabled women to leave abusive marriages.

simply because the divorce rate is higher now (and slowly declining) than decades ago does not translate into stronger, healthier, more fulfilling marriages or better people. it's very easy to lapse into this kind of correlatory thinking, but the reality is that marriage is more of an ideal now than ever, and ideals do not always mesh with reality.

but when they do, how wonderful it is.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-09-2005, 11:12 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
People say that monogamy isn't 'natural'. Well maybe not but that does not mean it is not a good idea. There are a lot of things that we do that aren't 'natural'. Yes, monogamy is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it should be just thrown out the window.


agreed. i don't think that monogamy is necessary, but i think it's an ideal. i think people should strive for monogamy, even (and perhaps especially) if it means struggle.

but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-09-2005, 12:22 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.
I would, because I would never be able to trust that person again.

Forgive? Yes, I might be able to forgive. In fact, I need to forgive - it is a command.

I forgive people for not paying back money they owe me, but I don't trust them enough to ever loan them money again.

People aren't animals; people aren't slaves to their libido.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-09-2005, 12:40 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

but i also don't think i'd toss out years of love and commitment out the window over a single indiscretion.
I'm usually more of an absolute person, but this is where I agree to a certain extent and will say for me it depends on the entire situation. As a golden rule, I would not toss out the relationship as long as doing so would require more effort on my part to convince myself I no longer loved that person than the amount of effort it would take to mend the relationship if I stayed in it. I hope that makes sense. It would also depend on the "indiscretion". If my bf or future husband or whatever went out LOOKING for a sexual partner or had spent some time flirting and maybe even developing a relationship with another woman, I doubt I could ever trust him again. Would I still love him? Yes, but part of love is trust and honesty. Now, if it were something like he went out w/ friends, got trashed, and woke up in some chicks room not even remembering what happened or how he got there and he came straight home and told me so we could deal with it, then I'd be more inclined to forgive and work it out from there.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
 

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 08:49 AM.


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